Tag Archives: Left



I have been hearing for weeks now guns this, guns that. Those nasty guns! And who needs more than 10
bullets to hit a deer? Then “the left” starts with the automatic weapons. Who needs an automatic weapon?
Why do we need guns?

Well, let’s apply some common sense here. Let’s stop the hysteria and get to real facts.
First, the loss of any life including those precious young kids is unacceptable. My heart goes out to those families. BUT STOP BLAMING THE GUNS!
I have yet to hear any stories where a gun, sitting in a drawer or on a table, went off and killed someone as they walked by.    Never!    However, I have heard MANY stories about how someone with a mental disorder used the gun of a law-abiding citizen and killed someone. I have also heard of car-jacked vehicles killing someone. And I have also heard of people being beat with a tire iron or baseball bat.

You say, “Joe, you’re being ridiculous. You can kill and maim so many more with a gun. Really?!
So, when the 77 year-old drove his car through the Third Street Promenade killing 12 and hurting
many others, did we pull licenses from all 77 year-olds?

Why haven’t we raised the driving age or banned ALL teenagers from having phones with text capabilities.
It’s the number one killer of teens.

When gun bans were put in place during the Clinton administration violent gun crimes didn’t stop or drop at all!
Over the last 30 years guns sales are up over 40%. Crime, however, is down overall. HELLO! Numbers count. You have to take the emotion out of it.
In Los Angeles County alone 4 million guns have been sold over the last 10 years. Crime? It’s dropped.
Why aren’t gun related deaths and violence up exponentially with all these additional guns?

Because guns are NOT The problem!

In Florida, Texas, and other places where gun permits are easier to obtain crime drops. Take out the emotion look at the numbers.   HELLO! Criminals don’t follow the law. That’s why they are called criminals and why they do time.

California dealers sold 600,000 guns in 2011, only 350,000 in 2002, according to records of sales tallied by the California attorney general’s office.
The number of hospitalizations in California due to gun injuries DROPPED roughly 28 percent, from about 4,000 in 2002 to 2,900 in 2011, according to records newly collected by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development.  Gun-related deaths in California fell 13 percent over the same period, from 3,200 to about 2,800, according to the California Department of Public Health.  According to Mark Kleiman, a UCLA public policy professor who has written on guns and crime, the most likely group to be killed or hurt by guns are young men.
Imagine a whole community of old women who all owned guns for protection. How many violent gun incidents do you think we would have? How many silver-on-silver-haired violence incidents would we have?
I personally believe there would be NONE!
There are over 211 million guns owned in the United States. There are almost 350 million people living in the United States. If we use the logic and numbers thrown out by “the left”, we should have a major incident with multiple deaths nearly every 13 minutes!
Many crimes are committed using stolen guns. 40% of the guns used in crimes are stolen or purchased on the street illegally according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
So for those of you who think that banning any kind of gun, hand gun or assault rifle is going to help. Just check out what’s happening in Chicago and Washington DC. Crime is up.
The numbers don’t lie. Tougher gun laws equal more violence and deadly crime. Reasonable gun laws that allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves equal less crime.
The gun issue is just another distraction from the real problem… our Legislators!!!

Joe Messina
National syndicated host of
The Real Side Radio Show

Ayn Rand’s Answer to the Left’s Bullying


Smug, self-righteous leftists bully anyone who dare disagree with their doctrinaire suppositions. This is a cynical but effective ploy that is socially castrating millions of sane, but otherwise intimidated potential critics. Rational, logical, and clear-thinking Americans are silencing themselves for fear of being ostracized by the true believers of various marxian faiths.

The leftist Thought Police wield the weapon of political correctness to silence any and all criticism of the left’s campaign to hijack the U.S. government to accomplish its authoritarian ends. The best way to counter-act such shameless political correctness is contained in an excerpt of Ayn Rand’s non-fiction work “The Virtue of Selfishness“:

In our political life, the Argument from Intimidation is the almost exclusive method of discussion. Predominantly, today’s political debates consist of smears and apologies, or intimidation and appeasement. The first is usually (though not exclusively) practiced by the “liberals,” the second by the “conservatives.” The champions, in this respect, are the “liberal” Republicans who practice both; the first toward their “conservative” fellow Republicans – the second, toward the Democrats.

All smears are Arguments from Intimidation: they consist of derogatory assertions without any evidence or proof, offered as a substitute for evidence or proof, aimed at the moral cowardice or unthinking credulity of the hearers.

The Argument from Intimidation is not new; it has been used in all ages and cultures, but seldom on so wide a scale as today. It is used more crudely in politics than in other fields of activity, but it is not confined to politics. It permeates our entire culture. It is a symptom of cultural bankruptcy.

How does one resist that Argument? There is only one weapon against it: moral certainty.

When one enters any intellectual battle, big or small, public or private, one cannot seek, desire or expect the enemy’s sanction. Truth or falsehood must be one’s sole concern and sole criterion of judgment – not anyone’s approval or disapproval; and, above all, not the approval of those whose standards are the opposite’s of one’s own.

Let me emphasize that the Argument from Intimidation does not consist of introducing moral judgment into intellectual issues, but of substituting moral judgment for intellectual argument. Moral evaluations are implicit in most intellectual issues; it is not merely permissible, but mandatory to pass moral judgment when and where appropriate; to suppress such judgment is an act of moral cowardice. But a moral judgment must always follow, not precede (or supersede), the reasons on which it is based.

When one give reasons for one’s verdict, one assumes responsibility for it and lays oneself open to objective judgment: if one’s reasons are wrong or false, one suffers the consequences. But to condemn without giving reasons is an act of irresponsibility, a kind of moral “hit-and-run” driving, which is the essence of the Argument from Intimidation.

Observe that the men who use that Argument are the ones who dread a reasoned moral attack more than any other kind of battle – and when they encounter a morally confident adversary, they are loudest in protesting that “moralizing” should be kept out of intellectual discussions. But to discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality is to sanction it.

The Argument from Intimidation illustrates why it is important to be certain of one’s premises and one’s moral ground. It illustrates the kind of intellectual pitfall that awaits those who venture forth without a full, clear, consistent set of convictions, wholly integrated all the way down to fundamentals – those who recklessly leap into battle, armed with nothing but a few random notions floating in a fog of the unknown, the unidentified, the undefined, the unproved, and supported by nothing but their feelings, hopes and fears. The Argument from Intimidation is their Nemesis.

In moral and intellectual issues, it is not enough to be right; one has to know that one is right.

The most illustrious example of the proper answer to the Argument from Intimidation was given in American history by the man who, rejecting the enemy’s moral standards and with full certainty of his own rectitude, said:

“If this be treason, make the most of it.”

(Ayn Rand, July, 1964)

The American Left — Progressing Towards Tyranny


“All that exists deserves to perish.” — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, cited by Karl Marx in his 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852)

Progressives fancy themselves as harbingers of a new world order, and the scions of a utopia never before seen. Yet despite their best intentions, they are the destroyers of civilization and the oblivious instruments of totalitarians. These amoral souls are but the playthings of collectivists, and the handmaidens of incipient tyranny.

The American Founding represents the anti-thesis of the government preferred by those with the kind of craven powerlust that progressives exhibit time and time again. Far from being a new and enlightened being, the progressive archetype was anticipated and deliberately frustrated by those who founded this country.

Before Karl Marx set out to develop a systematic method of destroying the world as he knew it, the world that had enslaved him to labor and the care of his neglected children, he concluded that the whole world was “upside down.” How could he, as a mere philosopher, develop the means to bring the world to a grinding halt — only to be remade by philosopher-kings, such as himself?

Marx settled upon his ideological scapegoat for all the poverty and misery of the world — “capitalism.” This form of economy based on property ownership and currency as an exchange for goods and labor was posited as the barrier between human cooperation, since Marx believed it caused people to mutually objectify and feel alienated towards one another.

Like French revolutionary badboy Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Marx believed that civilization in its present form was corrupt at its very essence. Human beings needed to be emancipated from industrial society (a sentiment former Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi would later echo):

In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.

This in some ways the reflection of an intellectual’s dread, similar to that Adam Smith himself experienced, of the implications of political economy based on increasing specialization. Such a form of economy may be conducive to improved efficiency, but its effect is to narrow the human mind’s perspicacity. This is a legitimate complaint, and one anticipated not just be Marxists, but by the likes of the aristocratic Montesquieu, who was concerned about the influence of pecuniary interests on the nobility of the monarchic spirit.

While Enlightenment philosophers preached the advancement of humanity on the foundation of universal education and the elimination of superstition, later neomarxist philosophers like Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer believed The Enlightenment to be mythos that masked the inherent ugliness of the capitalist system. The material benefit of capitalism was in some ways tacitly acknowledged by this rhetorical shift, even as Marxists took up a cultural form of warfare to justify economic redistribution.

In all fairness, in some ways The Enlightenment did smack of pseudo-religion; in other words, it was an empty replacement for the Christianity that was becoming increasingly questioned among intellectuals (e.g. Spinoza). But the Enlightenment project was crucial for improving the lot of humanity, because it had dismantled the Divine Right of Kings argument for arbitrary rule, a task best exemplified by the work of Locke.

Thus, it is a great irony, though not one wholly unanticipated if one grasps that the state’s defeat would never be permanent, that the self-styled “progressives” of American politics would return Western Civilization precisely back to the arbitrary absolute rule of the state. If might analogize, progressivism takes America back to the status quo ante-bellum, if we take The Constitution to be a kind of treaty, not just between the U.S. and Britain, but between the people and the state.

It is through this lens of history and philosophy that a relatively informed and knowledgeable “conservative,” meaning in this case someone in favor of increasing and expanding the insights and gains of classical liberalism, perceives many bittersweet and tragic ironies.

If one holds that real progress is best exemplified by the development of the scientific method and the fruit it self-evidently bore, the security and productivity that sprung from the mutual societal recognition of private property, the diminishing of superstition’s hold on the human mind, and intolerance for the cultish exaltation of one human being over another, then what has come to pass for “progressive” in the American culture is at best a farce, and at worst, a dangerous and perverse re-institutionalization of a bureaucratic and stultifying form of absolutist rule.

Among the many ironies commensurate with progressivism, one finds that socialism destroys society. The highest degrees of alienation and anomie in the world can be found in post-communist nations, where one can simply not trust his neighbors to refrain from snitching on him for a “thought-crime,” or to  withhold from seizing the fruits of his labor, particularly if he makes an effort to excel.

Consequentially, progressivism is anti-progress. In a classic maneuver of ideological inversion, progressives oppose the kind of scientific progress that has come from intellectual freedom. Repeated risk, failure, and breakthrough by the best and brightest, as incentivized by a market (and rarely achieved through government funding), recombined with scientific inquiry driven by healthy skepticism, as opposed to morally and politically influenced group-think, has achieved the greatest progress for mankind in the modern era.

It is with such a “progressive” spirit, which seems in this mind’s eye to be a stodgy and decayed relic of the mid-nineteenth century, especially by comparison to the heady yearning for freedom as embodied by the late eighteenth century, that we must understand that the intellectual elite of America fancy that individual rights are obsolete, and the state granting of privileges and financial rewards based on arbitrary group affiliation and so forth is in any way “enlightened.” We therefore stumble upon another irony — the dismissal of the individual in the so-called interest of “equality.”

Individual rights aren’t archaic — they have been used as the underlying bases for “equal rights” for well over two centuries in this country. Property is an extension of the equal right to self-determination; lawful firearms possession is a part of the equal right to self-defense; and the freedom of speech and conscience recognizes the equal value and worth of each individual. Voting and suffrage are just aspects of political freedom for people to choose their own leaders — provided those leaders don’t violate others’ rights.

Voting takes place as a process to solve the practical matters of where roads are paved, how the military is funded, and so forth. “Democracy” does not determine moral right or wrong, as difficult a concept for modern liberals to grasp that it is. Our rights as sovereign individuals in the universe, created with free choice and only our own lives to live and die, is not up for vote.

The economy should thus reflect that reality that each individual should be equally respected under the law; regardless of incidental characteristics such as skin color or gender. A woman is equal to a man, a white is equal to a black, and so forth. The history of the nation has been the progress towards the equal application of individual rights for all, regardless of progressives’ intentions, and nearly wholly related to the nation’s proceeding from Founding principles as enshrined in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution.

Burdening citizens unequally, decreeing that certain Americans should pay a disproportionate share for the limited expenses of the state — this has nothing to do with equality. People do not have an “equal right” to remuneration for non-services provided or non-value rendered — this is state-sponsored fraud to justify its enhanced power via economic dictatorship.

Since the Democrat Party feigns that it has bestowed rights to certain social groups (in actuality, the Republican Party emancipated the slaves, voted for the Civil Rights Act more so than Democrats), people believe that the “government” has “freed” them. In fact, the government(s) had enslaved them to begin with!

Note that eleven of thirteen colonies supported Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration condemning slavery; the Constitution banned slave trade in 20 years, and penalized southern states with three/fifths clause. The Founders and Framers were enlightened men — true visionaries; unlike the short-sighted, vacuous characters of today’s political parties, who squabble and bicker over how much more power and money they can control, rather than leading the country as statesmen with a mind to the historical failures and fortunes of nations and the will to forge a path that increases and enhances freedom.

If the Founders were but petty men of property attempting to secure their own hegemony over a society, then why did they allow for the right to bear arms, through which a people could rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government? Why did they allow for freedom of speech, through which a people could communicate their disdain of a corrupt government? Why did they institute federalism as a way of dispersing federal power and providing for checks and balances? Why did they promote property rights, by which people could accumulate their own fortunes based on their own labor, frugality, and ambition, and trade freely in a voluntary economy?

Progressivism, at its most naked and stripped-down core, corrupts the nation and progressively puts more power into the hands of the central government and its increasingly wanton and craven politicians. If this is the agenda of today’s intellectuals, then what more can be said for them to savor the human misery and suffering their ideas predictably cause?

It is the project of conservatism to disperse political power, essentially equalizing it among the citizenry, and to disperse economic power by putting most decision-making in the hands of consumers and individual laborers. It is an additional note that when a banking cartel masquerading as a legitimate arm of government arbitrarily controls the value of money and interest, one does not live under a remotely free economy.

The promotion of a government that owns our labor, owns our property, and can dictate every significant aspect of our lives is nothing less than a reintroduction of slavery for all Americans. Even the great author on democracy Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this dreadful aspect of socialism.

One should never attempt to cede control over one’s life to others — not only is this unwise and dangerous, as it rests on the blind faith in the goodness of others, but no one can run a human being’s life as well as he or she can, provided there are the right economic and moral incentives in the society to do so. Any conceit on the part of self-imagined intellectual elites is not only vain, but fatal to the vibrancy and vitality of any free people.

It was recently admitted that the world is becoming more equal and better as a whole, precisely because of the spread of global capitalism; but America has nonetheless become worse off due to the reverse tendency — pursuing the failed central planning schemes that these developing nations are fleeing from. The burgeoning Americas of the world, we invite you to take up the mantle of liberty and freedom, for the good and well-being of mankind, and to show this fallen nation that the true progressivism of the world is progressing towards freedom and respect for each and every individual.

The Fallacies of Fairness

We hear it repeatedly from the left: so-and-so’s not paying his “fair share.” Or “that’s not fair!” Or the rich need to pay their fair share. Or fair trade, not free trade. And for good reason: the notion of fairness is so vague, it bears repeating in whatever context the left deems appropriate.

But what is fair? The left thinks it’s really unfair that people who don’t work, or do work that isn’t valued much in the labor market, aren’t given their fair share of the profits that rich folks receive by providing more demanded products in the marketplace.

Half the country doesn’t pay income taxes. Is that fairness? The government is billing each household over $200 in a single day, more than the median income salary, without their permission. Is that really “fair”? Imagine you opened your credit card bill and each day an unauthorized charged for $212 appears. That would make anyone peeved.

The top 10% of income earners pay 70% of the taxes. How is that not enough? While Democrats on news outlets like CNN insist that the only way to get the debt-to-GDP level down to 40% by 2035 is through tax increases, even if the so-called Bush tax-cuts expire and rates on the rich go up, we’ll generate $83 billion a year or a whole eight days of “revenue” annually. Whoopee.

How about we slash spending and live within our means? Government, through the inflation that comes from buying its own debt, jacks up gas prices, utility prices, and food prices, hitting the poor hardest. It thus creates the need for poorer people to turn to the government for food stamps. This Keynesian-created vicious cycle is somehow fair?

Government inflates education tuition rates with its student loan programs and then bails the indebted students out by subsidizing their loans’ interest rates. Meanwhile, the job market is thoroughly saturated with graduates with  low-demand liberal arts and humanities degrees that colleges offer and to the extent that more than half of new grads can’t find a relevant job. This doesn’t strike me as “fair.”

Perhaps it’s heartless to think this way, but it seems impossible that someone is entitled to things he has done little or nothing to contribute to making. Just because someone is born on earth, he is neither owned by society, nor does he own society. Mutual slavery is not the natural condition of man.

But capitalism is taken to mean exploitation. Property is theft, as the radical slogan goes. So who should control it? “People,” says the leftist. And who should control the people? “No one.”  So how should the equal distribution of property be governed? “Democracy.” Then people vote for politicians who will make it equal? “Yeah.” And politicians will always make things equal because… ‘blank out’ (to borrow a phrase of Ayn Rand’s).

Or alternatively: “We all just come together and share stuff.” But no one has any clue how a business or any organization can function that way. Maybe that’s the point – disorganization is freedom, ahem.

Let’s get to the heart of the matter. Wealthy people’s money did not come at other’s expense without government arm-twisting. If someone thinks work is inherently exploitation and willingly paying for a product is being gouged, then it’s hard not to feel embarrassed for him.

So, Bill Gates exploits people, because Windows Vista sucked and was overpriced? Touché. But people cannot profit in a marketplace unless they provide something that is valued by the people willingly buying it. And they cannot charge whatever price they want for their crap, unless they have some brand-capital to burn. Like Microsoft did. It had to revamp and offer a new OS upgrade incentive on Windows 8 or spook people that didn’t want to get burned again.

No one gets screwed over when he voluntarily plops down $200 for some computer software. Like Bill Whittle put it, “nobody trades down.” People either prefer parting with their cash or going without a new Operating System.

The flip side of all the progressives’ complaining about being exploited by rich people is that a lot of those nasty bastards mass produce or mass market things that improve people’s standard of living. Apple makes IPads that do things that boggle the mind for the price of a low-wage earner’s salary for a few weeks of stocking shelves. Is that really unfair? Or someone working at McDonald’s can earn enough in an hour to feed himself for a day. That is definitely not considered “unfair” in non-capitalist systems around the world.

There is a lot of hand-wringing about supposedly evil Wal-mart, which saves people on tight budgets a bunch of money (or else they wouldn’t shop there). Its employees make about as much in three days as it costs to buy a medium-sized flat screen TV. And for what? Certainly nothing comparable to the marvels of engineering it took to build and ship the televisions to the store.

That’s not a knock on Wal-mart workers; they have necessary and tough jobs. But let’s not pretend it’s unfair that they aren’t paid the same as people who got themselves into debt and invested the necessary time and effort to graduate from college —  at least with meaningful degrees (and let’s be honest, most colleges don’t exactly have rigorous standards).

But young people expect government to clear all obstacles in their path to success. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. No one can be great unless he overcomes adversity. Looking to government to remove all hardship from life is a fatal illusion. This misperception has aided government’s growth to dangerous proportions.

All politicians can really do is pass the buck to other people or to generations down the line. Not owning up to this basic TANSTAAFL economic reality is harmful to people’s integrity and also to the young folks who will pay the price for it.

Young people are now saddled with $200,000 in national debt for all the gifts government is giving out (yes, I did go there). Where is the money going to come from? A lot of people don’t know and don’t care.

What about rich people? They have so much and poor people have so little. If only there were so many truly poor people in this country! There are a lot of folks below the poverty line who are rich by world standards, and it isn’t because of perpetual-poverty creating entitlement programs. Many own cars and televisions and cell-phones… not exactly the picture of sub-Saharan Africa.

But let’s dispel the myth anyway that soaking the rich is going to pay for all of our stuff: the government could seize all the incomes and savings of the so-called 1% and run the country for about a year.

We’re turning into a nation of beggars, and Americans who are getting something for nothing should stop burdening society. There is nothing fair about subsidizing the takers and penalizing the makers.

It’s Never Enough: Why the American Left Won’t Stop Until It Has Ruined Everything

Such as it is that most leftists do not realize that the freedoms they have so vocally and stridently advocated for so long — the social freedom to say and do whatever you want, and the economic freedom to avoid meaningful employment — are about to be obliterated. The useful idiots will be astounded to find themselves in a full-fledged police state and bound in a state of serfdom to the demands of the central government.

“Comply or starve. Submit or face elimination,” will be the government’s refrain. The masochistic, subhuman degenerates will be all too glad to grovel to their Democrat Party masters.

When all is said and done, what will the leftists have rebelled against? A nation where forty hours (1/4 of the week) of the worst employment provides a standard of living higher than that of 95% of the world’s population? Where twenty minutes spent mindlessly slinging burgers and fries at McDonald’s can buy you enough calories to last the day? Where one of the ubiquitous public policy crises is not starvation, but obesity?

This is a country where we are being economically oppressed?

This is an economic system that needs to be “fundamentally transformed”? This is a country we are supposed to be so damned mad about?

And why? Because there is inequality? Of course, there is inequality, you fools! If I sit here and blog instead of sacking coal in a mine, then do I deserve to be paid as much as a coal miner? No! If I lay on my couch eating bon-bons and watching Judge Judy should I make as much money as the grease monkey who just expertly fixed a broken-down Volvo? Again, no!

So why in tarnation is everyone up in arms about Mitt Romney’s “gifts” comment? Why do people lose their collectivist minds when Romney talks about the 47% of takers, whom he accurately predicted would never vote for him? His comments hit a little too close to home, that’s why, they touched a nerve of truth, and they outraged those who feel entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor. Good!

But Mitt Romney was wrong when he said that too many Americans were taking “gifts” from President Obama and that’s why he lost the election. When someone gives a gift, generally, he has to make it or pay for it. The president did neither; he just looted the private sector and redistributed Obama money to his voter-clients, who excused his theft with a shoulder shrug and the amoral rejoinder “well, that’s democracy.”

So what about America’s imperialist foreign policy, you say?

  • Like when the U.S. entered World War I to defeat the initiators of the war in Europe?
  • Or when GIs were plunged into WWII by Japan, whom we roundly defeated and rebuilt even stronger than before?
  • Or when we helped defeat the Nazis and saved much of Europe from Nazi and Soviet domination?
  • Or how about fighting for South Korea, which is a virtual paradise compared to its communist neighbor to the North?
  • Or maybe Vietnam, which saw tens of thousands of people killed or made refugees when the North Vietnamese finally conquered the South?
  • How about the Cold War, which saw the vilified Ronald Reagan proven correct about the moral and economic rot of the USSR once and for all?
  • Or what about Saddam Hussein, a genocidal madman who personally oversaw rape and torture rooms, and who used wmds on his own people?
  • And what of the Taliban, whose sick medieval atrocities defy polite description?

American foreign policy may be misguided at times, but it is far from imperialistic. The U.S. doesn’t enslave nations it fights for or against, it liberates peoples and does its best to protect and improve their lives. That doesn’t make the U.S., or any nation, perfect.

Of course, opposing the evils of communism and fascism, as well as the economic misery of socialism, makes Americans belligerent warmongers out to conquer the world, correct? Good little Leninists take note that the warmongers in each case cited above were not liberal democratic nations. And for further counterfactuals to the left’s insipid imperialism narrative, just ask the Canadians and Mexicans how unashamedly expansionist we are.

The left’s hunger for a perfect world can never be sated. That is why the shining beacon of liberty that has been the United States is derided as culturally imperialist or hegemonic —  because freedom frustrates utopian totalitarians. There always has to be more demands. There’s never enough to quell their envy and dissatisfaction with life.

But there won’t be anarchy and chaos if capitalism is crushed, says the unblinking leftist; you see, for some magical reason a spontaneous new order will arise and we will all be “new” human beings and we will all love each other equally and there will be peace forever and ever. Amen.

There will be peace – the peace that comes from the desolation of all that gets in the way of the left’s diabolical machine. The peace that comes from the absence of resistance to socialism. The peace that comes from assimilation to the Borg. And following that peace will come stagnation, societal and economic decay, alienation, apathy, and a ruling class entrenched above the whole tragic, despicable mess of it all.

But this is the left’s paradise, removed from the sappy, sanguine figments of their overactive imaginations. This is the brave new world of Barack Obama and his ilk. This is the eerie “transformation” of America that the Democrats were talking about.

The signs of collapsing societies throughout history were everywhere for everyone to see. Yet paradoxically, people were always baffled when their misery and destruction came upon them like a thief in the night.

The lazy, the ignorant, and the ideologically corrupt, naively believing empty slogans like “Land, Bread, and Peace,” wake up one day to find themselves deprived of all property, starving, or in a constant state of war — with other nations, against their own government, amongst each other, or even versus nature itself.

Soak up the misery, lefties. But never say we didn’t warn you.

Think Football Would Be Left Alone by the Radical Left? Not For Long.

The American Spectator recently pointed out that football has become “the new smoking.” If only the scourge of leftism were that toxic.

No, it’s much, much worse than that. Football represents a complete affront to the entire project of radicalism, which decades ago spread to our universities, schools, entertainment, and legal professions.

The last remaining conservative bastions — the military and professional sports — are presently under assault by leftists who cannot stand to leave these exemplars of patriotism and capitalist competition alone. So football fans better keep their heads on a swivel.

There is practically nothing more conceivably antithetical to the left’s worldview than American football. This makes it a sitting target, kind of like Barack Obama coming across the middle on James Harrison. [How would Obama talk his way out of the reality that he would get smoked?] The left is therefore working to co-opt the NFL and put it in the service of its political agenda.

Wild accusations? Unfounded speculation? Let’s look at what is happening under Roger Goodell, who is not only wussifying the league, but has moved the NFL seasons’s opening date this year to accommodate the Democrat convention speech of America’s royal majesty Barack Obama. As if a Republican would ever get such a courtesy.

The Obama administration earlier partnered with the National Football League with a “United We Serve” campaign that cross-promoted fitness and “service.” One might object that the NFL has partnered with “charitable” organizations in the past. The league has maintained a long and mutually beneficial relationship with The United Way. But United We Serve is no charitable organization, it is a political ploy designed to get Americans used to the well-established lefwing dream of everyone working for free. Sounds like slavery – with a smile.

For those who believe this is no more than right-wing pontification, observe the language on the White House “blog” describing United We Serve: “It’s going to take all of us working together to build a new foundation for America and it will happen one community at a time.” Yeah, kind of like Obama’s former community organizing outfit ACORN — why would the NFL want a piece of that action?

There is always the possibility that the NFL is simply clueless and sees nothing wrong with inviting a politically divisive figure to serve as representative of the league. Then again, the political correctness police banned Rush Limbaugh from partial ownership of the St. Louis Rams. And remember how Hank Williams Jr. was banned from Monday Night Football for his anti-Obama rant? Are you ready for some fascism?

Then we have numerous subtle assaults on the game, such as the attempt to protect football players from the real effects of concussions, as if NFL players have no choice how they use their bodies for a living (i.e. violently, while making millions of dollars). Again, there is the subtle message that contracts are coercive instruments of owners and not voluntary agreements between individually responsible adults.

But let’s get down to brass tacks. The political left is targeting the NFL and watering down its cultural significance with the leftist ethic of altruism, because the NFL represents a defiance of the socialist narrative virtually en toto. Is it really necessary to make 300 pound football players wear pink wristbands and ribbons for a month to show solidarity with breast cancer victims? Just cut a check for a million dollars and be done with it. Besides, it’s not like prostate cancer isn’t afflicting hundreds of thousands of men.

Sorry, I’ve been a football fanatic my whole life, and I know bullshit when I see it. My first words in life (no joking) were “football you bet.” I know the game. I know the political left. And I know when the latter is mucking up the former, just like it does everything else.

Professional football is an inherently conservative institution. Teaching both individual greatness and teamwork, football brings out the best in men through competition. Heck, most NFL franchise owners are conservative and donate Republican, which is no fait accompli in this crony capitalist climate. But is very ironic and disappointing that Republicans will be holding their convention in a 62% government-funded arena while chanting the slogan “We Built This.” Yet as any political observer nowadays can figure out, conservative and Republican are not even close to being the same thing. But on to the bigger picture.

Does anyone think that leftists fail to grasp how important professional football is to American culture? The NFL has all the traits that effete modern liberals despise. There is capitalism, manliness, and competition – making the league a perennial institution of solid American values so provocative that neomarxist shock-troops cannot help but try to co-opt it.

Best of all, in football results matter. This makes a football game a test of two teams: There is a superior team and an inferior team on any given Sunday. This black or white, up or down way of evaluating superiority clashes mightily with the left’s morally relativist worldview.

The National Football League is also a powerful indictment of the Marxian myth that there are two classes in a capitalist society, the haves and the have-nots, and that the former class unremittingly and perpetually exploits the latter. Professional football players come from all socioeconomic backgrounds (in fact usually lower and middle class ones) and they work their butts off to make the most of their talent; there is no free ride, and no excuses here.

The NFL, without any affirmative action policy and simply through the standard of open competition, confirms an argument that conservatives have been making for years: That a true market is colorblind. In the NFL, the rule is simple: Either you are a great football player or you are a fan.

Football players sell themselves and their unique set of skills to the NFL – and if successful, they become millionaires. The ultimate reason they become millionaires? Because the middle class has the time, the technological means, and the money to financially support the game.

The NFL constitutes a running threat to the leftist narrative. The leftwing march through all the institutions of the culture in order to subvert the economy continues, and professional sports is merely the last of American bastions to resist the left’s creeping program.

Here’s a hail Mary, keep the ubiquitous President Obama and his socialist program out of my Sundays. If you think Tea Party activists are bad, you haven’t seen thirty thousand rabid Kansas City Chiefs tailgaters.

The Art of Subversion

Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting. – Sun Tzu

Grand strategy is a term familiar to generals and statesmen; it conjures up visions of smoke-filled rooms and military officers crouched over world maps moving armies like chess pieces. Yet there is another kind of grand strategy — one familiar to politicians and philosophers: It is the grand strategy of political subversion.

Political subversion is typically when you demoralize, destabilize, economically and societally shatter a nation in order to put the pieces back together in a configuration more amenable to the subverter. Contrary to popular conception, it is not a formless art conducted in the shadows. In free societies, it can easily be carried out in the open.

It has been the goal of authoritarian countries like Russia and China during the entire post-World War II era to facilitate (not necessarily orchestrate) the ideological subversion of the United States.

Why? Because both countries acknowledge freedom and capitalism to be superior to dictatorship and command economy; but neither want to relinquish authoritarian control over their peoples. Both states have used world bodies, and particularly the United Nations, as a means to erode the sovereignty of America in the world and Americans’ influence over their own government. All the while, they have undermined the economic and military strengths that make America so formidable.

The “communists” (who call themselves anything but communists) have sought to achieve this end through  aiding and abetting self-destructive political ideology. The subverters of America, as it was founded, can be referred to as the political left.

What are the goals of the political left? To capture the Democrat party; to neuter, destroy or co-opt the Republican party; to turn the United States into a single party socialist democracy; and to implement a “global transformation” from a capitalist order to an internationalist-fascist “new world order” where America can be sucked dry like marrow from a bone.

Why do I say “fascist”? Because fascism feigns to acknowledge “property,” but it commands how it is utilized (as in the name of the “greater good”). Some believe communism and capitalism to be anathema to one another. This is an illusion. Communist countries throughout history have always used capitalist devices such as currency, banking, and trade to run their economies. The crucial difference between communist countries and free market capitalist countries is who controls the economy.

A country can be capitalist, in other words, it can use capital for economic transactions; yet the state can control the labor, the wages, and the goods and services available to the “worker.” A free market capitalist country must have the characteristics of private property and other individual rights, such as free speech and personal freedom. It lets the citizens who comprise the economy run the economy, negotiating amongst themselves for the trade of goods, services, and labor.

In essence, all nominally communist and socialist countries are fascist; and to anticipate an objection, there are no truly “internationalist” regimes — only regimes that are more or less nationalistic in their preferred forms of propaganda. Russia and China have indirectly formed ideological alliances with leftists in the United States, who unknowingly (and rarely, knowingly) cooperate with their designs. Both countries are nationalistic, but in the past have spouted cosmopolitan rhetoric. American leftists bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Why do leftists in the United States knowingly and unknowingly cooperate with the plans of these “communist” countries? Because leftists believe that the collapse of “capitalism” is inevitable. To bring about the left’s imagined socialist utopia (or dystopia as some of us would have it), the strongest capitalist country, the United States, must be destroyed.

The United States is too powerful a country (ironically due to the same capitalist system that the leftists condemn) to directly attack. Indeed, this is not only pointless but counterproductive. As Sun Tzu noted, “In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is the inferior way.”

Deception is therefore a key for the leftists. There is no lie a leftist won’t tell, no moral bridge he will not cross, in order to accomplish his goal of the complete destruction of the old, whether the old be Western “civilization” itself.

Indeed, after the Frankfurt School arrived and set up shop at Columbia University after World War II, it helped to devise critical theory, historical revisionism, and post-modernism to inculcate in the students that all aspects of the culture were negotiable and truth was purely a subjective matter.

The floodgates were thrown open for the type of unabashed lying we see today in our culture. The left has enacted the Gramscian grand strategy of capturing the institutions of popular culture and promoting democracy (while relegating the Constitution to nothing more than a dusty museum piece).

The Frankfurt School scattered like a prism the cultural marxist program into dozens of fracturing agendas: Gay rights, women’s rights, civil rights, animal rights, world peace, environmentalism, the list goes on and on.

It is key to recognize that the United States has been declining as a world power for decades; and this is despite its potentially high levels of skilled labor, population growth, natural resources, technological prowess, industrial capacity, real economic growth, and military expenditures.

Instead, America has been weakened due to a campaign carried out by the political left to demoralize Americans culturally while creating as much economic inefficiency and chaos as possible.

The left has targeted America’s work force by:

  1. raising corporate taxes to the highest in the world, forcing companies overseas;
  2. draining the treasury for public education, and then producing minds ill-suited for superior performance in a high-tech, industrialized economy;
  3. effectively importing tens of millions of underskilled illegal aliens, who undercut wages and deplete (morally repugnant) social welfare programs;
  4. fostering an entitlement mentality that deteriorates productivity, especially for manual laborers;
  5. promoting unions, which generally create more inefficient and more costly laborers by design; and
  6. incentivizing joblessness and laziness through mandatory unemployment insurance and public welfare programs, which are routinely abused and create a drain on the economy.

The left has sought to curb population growth in the United States by:

  1. promoting the practice of abortion, through groups like “Planned Parenthood” (a leftist organization that veils its agenda though its deceptive label);
  2. promoting gay, lesbian, and transgender causes; including gay marriage and adoption of children and
  3. overpopulation alarmism (recently tied into the “global warming” agenda through the suggestion of incentivizing the practice of forgoing children through non-child credits, similar to carbon credits).

Relatedly, the left has sought to destroy healthy families by:

  1. providing incentives for divorce
  2. promoting the idea that women should work rather than raise children, leaving children in the hands of state-run child care centers
  3. making it easy for children to be removed from families for numerous reasons, even if unfounded
  4. the sexualization of youth, which is linked to early rebelliousness
  5. the promotion of lawlessness and drug use and
  6. the subsidization and even encouragement of single mothers, no matter how many children she has out of wedlock.

The left has targeted America’s use of its natural resources by:

  1. enacting laws to prevent drilling for oil and natural gas by American companies (not Chinese ones, apparently);
  2. the creation of strict environmental regulations, to the point that no oil refinery has been built in the United States since the 1970s
  3. the fear-mongering over nuclear power, even though countries like France receive much of their power from uranium
  4. global warming and climate change hysteria, which impacts all fossil fuels, from coal (one of America’s most abundant resources, and one that Obama specifically targeted) to shale to oil and natural gas and
  5. the creation of giant wildlife reserves where many of the best natural resources are located.

The left has greatly reduced America’s potential technological prowess by:

  1. providing extremely substandard mathematical and scientific education to American students; and
  2. compromising secrets to countries like China (supercomputer technology, for example, which was compromised directly by President Clinton).

Industrial capacity in America has been greatly reduced by the left due to:

  1. numerous environmental regulations;
  2. punitive lawsuits, replacing the legal concept of caveat emptor with a nanny state mentality;
  3. economic zoning and restrictions; and
  4. the promotion of tedious and expensive trade unions, all making American companies less competitive abroad.

The U.S.’ economic growth has been impressive, but not nearly as impressive once you factor in that:

  1. seventy percent of the American economy is consumption
  2. consumption is mainly debt-driven, the average household having about $100,000 in personal debt
  3. the Fed’s inflation of the money supply makes the economic numbers bigger (on the stock market for example), but the numbers may not reflect actual added productivity, or additional goods or services provided (in fact, money supply is so huge a factor once can almost chart one to one charts of money supply and stock market gains side by side); and
  4. the national debt, much-financed by China and Japan, is in the order of trillions, and financial obligations of the U.S. government, all told, on the order of several tens of trillions of dollars.
  5. Obamacare will effectively crush one-sixth of the U.S. economy, load Americans with immense amounts of debt.

Military expenditures since 1970 have been robust in terms of actual dollars, but not nearly as much so in terms of percent of GDP (the early Cold War era was nearly twice as high). Nevertheless, the U.S. military is well-funded. But it is also overstretched. The U.S. has military bases across the globe, and is currently engaged in tedious wars and skirmishes.

The drain on the military is real. How is the political left involved? Nearly every Democrat voted to authorize the war in Afghanistan, and the great majority voted for Bush to carry out war in Iraq. Of course, the Democrats now feign that the now-ended Iraq War was all Bush’s idea and fault. In Afghanistan, leftists can have their cake and eat it too: They can stretch the military thin and erode its morale; all the while pretending that they are the “party of peace.”

The manner in which the political left demonized Bush and lets Obama completely off the hook for pursuing the same military policies or worse is a testament to the effectiveness of the left’s brainwashing program. Another sign is the fascistic reaction to the pro-marriage statements of Chick-Fil-A president Dan Cathy, which is a reflection of the left’s cultural marxist plan to undermine Christianity and capitalism; or in Gramscian terms, the cultural superstructure and the economic base.

One litmus test to gauge how much the U.S. has been weakened due to the policies of the Democrats is to assess the United States’ raw war-making capability. This is a rough statistic America’s ideological enemies abroad would be interested in. The Correlates of War data-set, second edition, carries such data up to 2001. The statistic that we would be interested in to assess how much the U.S. has been damaged by Democrat policies is the Composite Index of National Capability (CINC).

Upon investigation, the U.S.’ CINC declined from .3838 in 1945 to a startling .149 in 2001. The CINC is derived from a number of statistics, including: Energy consumption, iron and steel production, military expenditure, military personnel, total population, and urban population. It is an imperfect statistic, yet one that buttresses the overall point: The U.S. has been subverted from within.

The Art of Subversion

The greatest form of subversion is ideological, because once you implant the seeds of such corruption in a nation, it becomes a conspiracy with no identifiable acting conspirators. It acts of its own accord; it takes on a life of its own.

The key for the agent of subversion is to demoralize a people, to get them to choose “self-sacrifice” as a virtue, and altruism as the highest ideal – once this is accomplished, you are well on the way to causing the nation’s collapse. The plausible deniability is nearly infinite because the damage becomes self-imposed.

Thus the trouble with Joseph McCarthy is that he saw communist corruption everywhere, and conflated willful treason with philosophical corruption. The communists had indeed infiltrated the U.S. government, but through legal means; several red professors from Russia and Germany intoxicated British and American professors and students with their socialist criticisms of Western civilization in the early twentieth century; and the education system, the news media, and the court system simply came to sympathize with socialist causes (though perhaps not always in the name of socialism).

It is an undeniable fact that the Democrat Party adopted much of the socialist program under the false flags of liberalism and progressivism. The Marxist recommendations for destruction of “capitalist” countries of ushering in a central bank, a graduated income tax, the destruction of private property, and the promotion of democracy were incrementally taken up by Democrats over the course of decades.

Our society, which is tolerant and embraces freedom of conscience, thus became the fertile soil for growing an enemy that one can only fight with words and ideas. If your opponents are liars, are intellectually dishonest, and systematically deceptive you have a slight problem under our Constitutional system. But if you have a majority faction that rises to power with access to unconstitutional machinery like a central bank, with no design to adhere to the Constitution, and with the strategy of impoverishing the country through destroying its purchasing power and fostering welfare paid for with imaginary money, then you have a serious problem. The country will be pulled ahead to collapse by people who think collapse was “inevitable” to begin with.

Those who are the greatest threat to America are mostly dead and gone; pragmatists like William James and John Dewey; socialists like Norman Thomas and Earl Browder; transcendentalists like Immanuel Kant; ultra-statists like George Hegel; philosophical corrupters like Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Fromm, and Chomsky; revolutionaries like Marx, Gramsci, and Alinsky.

To claim that such men are destroying the country in a myopic culture with conditioned attention deficit disorder is often akin to feinting at ghosts. As John Maynard Keynes wrote, “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” Most men are not apt to believe that ruin is impending until the foundation is buckling, the support beams are cracking, and the roof is splintering above their heads.

In many ways the modern leftist sucks the oxygen out of such claims that the nation is indeed on the verge of economic and moral collapse by fabricating fake crises out of whole cloth and justifying them in their minds as Platonic noble lies, Goebbelesque big lies, or Sorelian/Nietzschean myths.

When Khruschev banged his shoe on a podium and garbled out, “We will bury you!” in Russian (“Мы вас похороним!” or My vas pokhoronim!), note that he did not say he would destroy us. Khruschev was more accurately saying that he would “shovel dirt over our graves.”

Once you corrupt the nation’s moral system at the foundational level of ideological assumptions, then you have successfully defeated your enemy, as Sun Tzu lauded, without going to war. Those who care about saving freedom in this country better know the left and know themselves in order to seize on the shifting information terrain and exploit it to maximum effect.

How the Left Sees Us

Sick of being treated like sheeple instead of people? Well, start thinking like an individual human being instead of a member of the herd.

Each individual is his own person with a universe of thoughts, emotions, biology, and experience unto himself. Each person is a miracle who will not be replicated in the history of the universe.

Joy, love, sadness, and even anger, all are legitimate emotions that each person possesses. Each person has a psyche, which is the Greek term for both a mind and a soul.

When I look into the eyes of a child, I see a unique person blessed with a special set of gifts. A little boy or girl adventuring out into the world, someone who is irreplaceable and precious. I want him to do the most with his life that he can, well-provided with opportunities to learn and grow, with the maximum amount of personal challenge and the necessary support to develop into an intelligent and self-reliant adult.

But leftists see a child as yet another dependent, someone to be molded and created in their own image, someone to be brought up to be yet another member of a group: the “community,” the “tribe,” even “the nation.” All children equal, none individual, none struggling to be excellent and therefore none superior or inferior. Faceless, nameless people to be managed from a centralized government far away.

The more centralized and bureaucratized the government, the more abstract the individual becomes. He becomes an instrument of the elites to perpetuate their own power and advance their political causes. His will, his self-interest, becomes pitted in a zero-sum game with the ruling class, with ever-creeping coercion stealing away ever more of the individual’s right to self-rule.

Collectivism and individualism are the most fundamental dueling ideologies of our age. Whether it be nationalism, socialism, or any other form of collectivism on one side, and a Constitutional government sanctifying the individual’s right to life, liberty, and property on the other, the dilemma is the same: Who decides the course of the individual’s life?

Democracy, the great political watchword of the West, is a form of majority rule that suppresses the minority, especially whom Ayn Rand called the greatest “minority” – the individual.

When combined with increasing social engineering, through state-run education, “non-profit” agencies, and influence over media, “democracy” becomes transformed over time not into an expression of the collective will, which is bad enough; but a slavish extension of the rulers’ will over individuals.

As collectivist government seeks to impose its will on a people, it insists that all individuals are rigidly members of “groups,” and attempts to isolate and alienate those who do not conform. The individual who expresses himself and endeavors to live his life in pursuit of truth and excellence, regardless of group esteem, eventually becomes ostracized; if not socially, then legally. Those who challenge the group or the government are termed “radicals” or “extremists” for wanting to live their own lives without interference.

Autonomy is something the group cannot tolerate. The individual belongs to the group and its enforcement arm – the state.

The country’s turn to collectivism has profound consequences, as we see with the socialized healthcare bill ridiculously upheld by the Supreme Court. The individual becomes a mere tool of “society” to advance the goals set by the leaders.

Over time, an individual’s behavior can “justifiably” be micromanaged in any way the ruling class sees fit; whether or not he smokes, what he eats, what car he drives, and how much soda he is allowed to imbibe. For the individual in a collectivist society, there is no limit to manipulation by the government.

Ultimately, whether or not politicians violate our individual rights depends on the culture, and how we the people hold elected officials accountable. Politicians who fear the citizens’ wrath are far less liable to provoke it.

The Left’s Insignificance

Individualists often struggle to understand what drives someone on the left to cede personal power over his own life to the state.  The counter-intuitive answer is that he feels impotent to change his own life and insignificant in the big scheme of things. He believe that by becoming something larger than himself, he becomes more significant and an agent of momentous change.

The man of the left is a creature of his own feelings of insignificance and impotence. The death of God in the 19th century, as Nietzsche adjudged, deprived many of a special relationship with an imagined, omnipotent advocate who was intimately invested in the fate of the believer. For the practicing Christian, one is at the center of the universe when psychically basking in God’s presence; selflessness is a way of becoming one with all, and therefore, a part of something all-important.

When atheism became normalized among the Western intelligentsia, an irreconcilable rift between the elites and the masses was breached. No longer were public intellectuals driven by a shared mission of serving God by serving the people, high culture became the enemy of mass culture, and animus was fostered in an increasingly cloistered cadre of elites, whose collectively valued ideas found less currency in what was perceived as the vulgar mass market.

Capitalism came to be perceived as a barrier to social change, instead of an economically dynamic mechanism for productive activities. Intellectuals turned to the state to incrementally seize control of educational institutions, simultaneously infiltrating schools and colleges, embedding curricula hostile to capitalism and Christianity, eroding American exceptionalism and the ethos of freedom. The collective drive to socially engineer a brave new world and to save humanity from itself gave a hermetical zeal to the intellectual caste, who bonded ever closer together and secularly translated religious values while erecting the man-god State.

Through Marxian dialectics, a syncretist form of Christian socialism took hold in America’s Progressive Era, producing perhaps its finest exemplar in the mind of Reinhold Niebuhr, who was called by current president Barack Obama “one of his favorite philosophers.” The grinding process of reality intermixed with unreality was a destructive means to break down the engine of Industrial Capitalism. The illuminati would recreate man in their preferred image; this necessarily entailed corroding those values that made people resistant to reformation: individualism, religious dogmatism, self-interested pursuit of wealth and upward mobility.

Those who fell under the spell of the ruling elites’ nouveau bible Das Kapital became convinced that to avoid becoming ground into fodder by industrial forces, becoming but an insignificant cog in the state machine, then banding together with fellow travelers and forming one collective blok would be necessary. Little would they conceive that instead of presenting the proverbial monkey wrench in the works, they would be morally liquified into oil, and used to lubricate the state machinery.

In their existential plight to avoid becoming insignificant, leftists bonded together to comprise a modern revivalist mission animated by an insignificant morality, an anarchist nihilism that ironically only empowers the state. It is principle and more specifically, right principle, that has allowed man to resist tyrannical totalitarianism.  Principle is not in and of itself extreme; it is a matter of the principle’s character that determines whether or not it is extreme.

Individualism and freedom are themselves moderating principles, teaching men tolerance of other men’s ideas. Moderation does not result from a moral free-for-all where the mob rules, and whatever the mob wants, the mob gets. It’s no coincidence that this confusion of democracy and civility is having disastrous consequences; at home with our now-defunct Occupy movement protesters, and throughout the Middle East. The left’s feeling of insignificance is leading to more collectivism, and more calls for state empowerment by erroneously relating it to democratic empowerment.

The left’s preoccupation with income inequality is unintentionally leading to power inequality; as the statists gain more power to redistribute wealth, the individual is losing power to run his own life. Self-reliance means one has the power to change his own life if he doesn’t like something about it, and that healthy instinct drives many Americans.  But the left doesn’t feel empowered enough to take responsibility of his own life because there is always a “system” to blame for his condition; namely, the capitalist system.

This is the ultimate dodge, and a tragedy in and of itself; for when someone becomes slavishly beholden to socialism, or radical environmentalism, or any other collectivist mass movement, he metaphysically, and sometimes physically, loses his life. And what was the significance of that life that he lived?

War! — The New Media & Old Media Battle for America

The late Andrew Breitbart declared “War!” on the establishment media and patriotic citizens mustered behind that raucous cry. The descent of mainstream media following years of misreporting, demonization of over half of the citizenry, and exculpation of an entire political party from wrongdoing, led to broken trust and the opening of people’s minds to new sources of information. The slow suicide of left-wing journalism provided fertile preconditions for an upsurge in civic participation.

The rise of the Internet provided the platform for New Media’s genesis, leading to an outpouring of creative and passionate content, both cultural and political. In many ways, the clash between New Media and Old Media was inevitable.

Much like the spontaneously arising Tea Party movement, New Media developed into a loose network of fellow-minded individuals and associations, whose common characteristic is they yearn to break free of cultural conformity and leftwing political correctness. It is not comprised merely of well-known alternative media outlets, but hundreds of thousands of bloggers and citizen journalists, who have self-organized in a version of the Swiss canton defense.

Instead of rifles, today’s New Media soldier carries a laptop or an iPhone.

This war we are engaged in is not bloody, but is a series of battles for the hearts and minds of the American people. The casualties are the broken dreams, lives unfulfilled, and talents unrealized of individuals due to the coercion of the state, whose wielders are primarily interested in political domination, wealth expropriation, and social control. The left’s main weapon in this war is deception.

The way the left-wing media ran cover for the president, while failing to fully vet him, has been a major spur for New Media to pick up the torch and hold the power elite accountable. As Breitbart stated at CPAC, “This year Obama will be vetted.”

Dispelling the Media’s Fog of War

Diversion and entertainment are indispensable weapons in the left’s campaign to keep people from understanding what is going on to their country. The sum effect of the media’s diversionary tactics is to create a “fog of war,” where many Americans are no longer able to see what is important or what is in their self-interests. This situation is eerily similar to the result of successful military and intelligence campaigns. As the Pentagon’s Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms puts it, “deception” is:

Those measures designed to to mislead the enemy by manipulation, distortion, or falsification of evidence to induce him to react in a manner prejudicial to his interests.

Deception has a long-standing place in politics and in warfare. Indeed, Clausewitz argued for the inseverability of the two concepts in his dictum, “warfare is the continuation of politics by other means.” Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese military adviser, summarized that “All warfare is based on deception.” A few poignant historical allusions draw a parallel between the left’s assault on the nation’s institutions and militarized warfare.

The Biblical story of Gideon and his battle with the Midianites provides a powerful lesson for conservatives, albeit in reverse application. When Gideon found himself outnumbered by the Midianites outside their encampment, he ordered a dispatch of men to blow horns and smash jars to create the illusion that his army outnumbered them. The Midianites fled, and the victory was his.

Leftists are outnumbered, according to nearly every poll of political self-identification, but have to maintain the impression that they are in the majority through media repetition and ideological conformity.

Political correctness is the doctrine that keeps the left toeing the line. It is a kind of state-enforced group think meant to lead Americans into self-censorship and to keep them from speaking up when their actual rights, such as property rights, are being violated. The statists thus try to create a cultural milieu where reverence for constitutionally limited government is akin to hate speech.

It only follows, therefore, that tea party activists are referred to as “terrorists” and “insurgents” for merely seeking to preserve freedom in the country. That is because to statists, tea party activists are the enemies within. But these citizens are holding the breach against totalitarianism, the form of government the modern left assuredly wants.

Another military analogy, well-known to all computer users, is that of the Trojan horse. The mainstream media packaged Obama as a moderate, knowing full well he was a radical community organizer, and once the most left-wing voting member of the U.S. Senate — more so than even the self-described socialist Bernie Sanders. After the American people wheeled the offering into the White House, a gang of Chicago street thugs filed out and proceeded to take the taxpayers to the tune of trillions.

Despite this obvious debacle, millions of Americans refuse to change their initial impression of Obama that he is anything but a nice guy. This is actually a psychological phenomenon utilized in disinformation campaigns called Magruder’s principle. This holds that it is generally easier to get a target to maintain his belief system than to alter it. But the media have over-relied on this psychological weakness, and are starting to make mistakes.

The disparity between those who like the president personally, for example, and those who approve of his policies suggests that many of his professed supporters will simply stay at home on election day. This is due to cognitive dissonance, which immobilizes political action.

The sense of post-decision dissonance, or “buyer’s remorse,” will lead to less excitement and grassroots activity to re-elect the big-talking president, who has failed to deliver on his lofty promises of hope and change. To keep voters from fully realizing this indisputable reality, the media are lobbing countless distractions at the public.

The Politics of Distraction

Much of our political culture is designed to lead to irrelevant mental fixations. A farcical play is trotted out before the public, composed of diversionary tactics that entertain the attention of the undereducated and misinformed. These distractions act like five alarm fire bells going off while looters ransack the joint.

Identity politics are thus meant to pre-occupy us while statists plunder the economy. Notice how much attention the Trayvon Martin shooting received, although the state-run media definitely jumped to conclusions about the racial makeup of the shooter Zimmerman (calling him a “white Hispanic,” whatever that is).

While the FBI is trying to fabricate a “hate crime” for Zimmerman for maybe thinking a politically incorrect thought about Martin, there is a strong case to be made that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. Bruises on Martin’s knuckles and gashes on Zimmerman’s head suggest that the latter was assaulted before he pulled his gun, which he had a right to carry.

But never mind, the media seem to say, let’s convict the man based on his skin color and whatever he may have been thinking at the time. Let’s fabricate evidence and gin up race-based animosity that may even lead to a man being injured or even killed. What transpired during the investigation was an egregious display of journalistic malpractice punctuated by an extremely dangerous legal disposition.

The examples of identity politics being used to divide Americans, and reunite them on the left’s terms, are boundless. As a recent Newsweek article put it, written by the statist sycophant Andrew Sullivan, Obama is the “first gay president.” A subsequent Atlantic article pointed out that Obama has also been called the first female, black, Asian, and Jewish president. While Obama’s stance that he is favor of gay marriage has been lauded across the globe as “brave,” it does not change a thing policywise and is actually nearly identical with the despised Dick Cheney’s.

But that brings us to the point: What difference does it make if two gay men have their marriage recognized by the state, if the federal government is taking over the economy to the tune of trillions? All of these issues are idle fixations in comparison to the looming economic disaster. The upcoming debt ceiling debate again reminds us that our debt levels are out-of-control, and will actually engulf the entire economy around 2027 if they go unchecked. That is less than a generation away. We must engage the left with everything we’ve got to avert this imminent disaster.

The Battle for Hearts and Minds

There are signs springing forth suggesting that this battle can be won. It is a plain fact that most Americans no longer trust the Old Media. After selling us a bill of goods during the 2008 campaign, many people are either turning elsewhere for their news or doing their own research. At the very least, they are tuning Old Media out. Evidence for this is the left’s failed “War on Women” meme, which was quickly reversed into a “War on Moms” after Democrat operative Hilary Rosen gaffed during an attack on Ann Romney. Mitt Romney subsequently went from a sizable deficit to a recent lead among women voters.

Other attempts at luring Americans into preoccupation about trivial matters have failed as well. In violation of the fifth maxim of the U.S. Army’s manual on “Battlefield Deception,” the left has created too much noise, thereby frustrating its disinformation and distraction campaign. Everything is a war on this, or a war on that: on women, on dogs, on everything except war itself.

Americans are already experiencing battle fatigue from the long election campaign, and the left-wing base is proving difficult to rouse. Young people are concerned that only half of graduates look to find meaningful employment under Obama. The Occupy Movement’s campfires have fizzled out to a whining hiss. And the Democrats are in a Catch-22 of having to use over-the-top language to mobilize its foot soldiers, while risking the ire of moderates who prefer a more civil and cooperative tone.

The cynical employment of martial language by the left is no accident — radicals approach their political struggle within our country as a long-term war. That is why leftists don’t sympathize with our military, though they do with our enemies. Radicals, dictators, and Islamists share a mutual hatred and enmity towards the United States as it was founded. And towards anyone who defends the country on those terms to boot.

The organized left has spent too much time engaging in a Gramscian “long march” though the institutions of the country — the schools, the universities, the media, the courts — to simply let an “insurgency” like the tea party rise up and oppose them in the culture. The left has devised sophisticated psychological techniques to manipulate the “superstructure” in order to loot the economic “base.” Anyone who attempts to break this linkage will thus risk the wrath of the parasitical left and will likely be viciously attacked.

America is in a war of sorts; and elections are a way of settling political disputes short of actual war. Historically, elections were devised as  a way of ascertaining head counts of people who could be brought to bear in a war, should conflict openly break out into political violence. We need to be aware of this continuity of politics and warfare, and preserve our democratic republic as a way of preventing escalating social conflict. This ultimately entails a safeguarding of individual rights.

Victory in our struggle will come when each individual is free to speak his mind, explore his potentialities, and fulfill his utmost potential, so long as he does not impede the ability of his fellow citizens to do likewise. As the Paul Reveres of this generation, we must be prepared to ring our own alarm bells: one if by land, two if by sea, and three if by teleprompter.

Kyle Becker blogs at RogueGovernment, and can be followed on Twitter as @RogueOperator1. He writes freelance for several publications, including American Thinker, Misfit Politics, and OwntheNarrative, and is a regular commentator on the late night talk shows at OTNN.

Meet the Left’s Founding Fathers

Patriotic Americans are raised with a respect for our Founding Fathers: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington being among the most famous. But there is a sizable segment of our population who have little respect for these intellectual and political titans; instead they admire a roster of radicals, revolutionaries, and reprobates.

Rather than regurgitate a stale description of these great thinkers’ ideas, which is available all over the Internet, we shall take an irreverent look at what makes these figures significant in the minds of leftists. A quick look at the “Dirty Thirty” will hopefully be on some counts informative and illuminating.

1. Plato

Proto-communist philosopher of ancient Greece. Non-coincidentally lived just prior to the fall of Athens. His Republic doesn’t so much resemble the self-titled system of government than a communist oligarchy ruled by philosopher-kings. Stratified by role, Plato’s ideal society is enforced by Guardians, a KGB-like police force that cracks down on the sheeple at the behest of the philosopher kings. Plato’s pre-Kantian notion of Forms would fuse with Christianity to dominate the aptly named Dark Ages. His advocacy of banishing private property was aptly rebuffed by Aristotle.

2. Sir Thomas More

Sir Thomas More is revered for being a “saintly” figure in both Catholic and left-wing lore. His seminal novel Utopia, a Greek word meaning “Nowhere,” has stimulated countless flights into otherworldly fancy, and numerous quixotic and sometimes bloody attempts to superimpose fantasy on reality. In More’s novel, a world traveler regales the protaganist about a wonderful world where there is no private property, and everyone’s needs are provided for through compulsory labor. His book would inspire an entire genre of works categorized only as “utopian.”

3. Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Rousseau was a brilliant polemicist known to many as the “Father of the French Revolution.” His theorizing about the social contract is ample fodder for political science courses. Slightly less well-known is his counter to Hobbes’ description of a brutish state of nature in his savage noblesse, whose supposedly gentle nature implied civilization was a corrupter of man, rather than a life-edifying social arrangement, thus making him influential with the environmental left. His ideas can still be felt today in artificial constructs of society versus nature, particularly in regards to the industrial revolution. A bit of a sexual pervert, he enjoyed sado-masochism, like fellow leftist the Marquis de Sade.

4. Robespierre

The bloody French revolutionary known as Robespierre is perhaps the emblematic figure of The Enlightenment gone awry. His steely insistence on classically liberal concepts animated his deep desire to destroy the Ancien Regime and all it stood for. Unfortunately, the unethical means he advocated to accomplish his goals did not match his occasionally moral ends. His name would become synonymous with la Terreur; if Rousseau was the Father of the Revolution, Robespierre is the Father of Terrorism.

5. Immanuel Kant

Ayn Rand considered Immanuel Kant to be the arch-enemy of reason, mind, truth, and happiness. Through such works as the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant divorced reality from man’s ability to perceive it, and posed that reason was prostrate to directly know anything. Instead, he argued that men were imprisoned by their senses and doomed to grope in the dark for as long as they existed. His influence is widespread and ephemeral; Kant’s dark impress can be felt in the Zeitgeist since his day, expressed in extreme skepticism and pessimism. His works have done much to demoralize and infantalize man.

6. G.W.F. Hegel

One of the pre-eminent left-wing thinkers of modern times, he is known as an Uber-statist and the mentor of Karl Marx. One of the most significant contributions to the radical cause is his conceptualization of historical inevitability. He is widely acknowledged as among the first philosophers to imbue teleology into his thinking, and influence one sees in Marx’s pronouncement of the eventual triumph of socialism. Writing with an esoteric and borderline incomprehensible style, he is the archetype of the indecipherable intellectual. Rightfully called the Father of Totalitarianism.

7. Arthur Schopenhauer

A Gremlinesque figure whose scrawlings are extremely pessimistic and grim. His main argument is that all phenomena and universal life-force can be reduced to the Will. The universe wills itself to exist, like human beings will themselves to survive. His borderline nihilistic synopsis of the quintessence of life and existence presages Heidegger, and his emphasis on Will marks a transition point to Nietzsche’s Will to Power, so popular later with the National Socialists. His thoughts and works can be grouped with Kant’s and Hegel’s as reflective of German Idealism, staples of early (European) Continental Philosophy.

8. Ludwig Feuerbach

An often overlooked philosopher on the right, his views on religion are among the purest expressions of secular humanism one can find. Feuerbach was an atheist who believed that God is a projection of human beings’ self-alienated desires. God’s eternal nature is man’s wish for immortality; His Holiness is man’s wish to become sinless and pure; Heaven is a manifestation of man’s desire for a perfect world; and the Trinity is symbolic of desiring to become part of something while retaining identity. Feuerbach’s influence can also be seen in existentialist, atheist, and psychoanalytical circles.

9. Karl Marx

Probably the best known and most influential leftist of them all. Marx’s inversion of Hegelian dialectics in a materialist mode sought to destroy what he saw were class relations of exploitation and oppression. A perpetual gold-digger and deadbeat dad reliant upon the funding of his associate Friedrich Engels, his life is an outstanding example of how the left thinks the world should work. Marx believed foremost that “all that exists deserves to perish,” and he constructed his theory around that imperative. His adaptation of Ricardo’s debunked Labor Theory of Value, utilization of the discredit Iron Law of Wages, and contradictory argument that one’s philosophy is materially determined by class relations, are useful anti-capitalist myths the left have invoked for generations.

10. Friedrich Nietzsche

A morose, brooding figure whose thinking defies right and left classification, and indeed, many deny that he was a philosopher, as if such a guild exists. Nietzsche is best known as a nihilist, or someone who did not believe there were such actual things as good and evil, but he grappled with this insight his entire literary career. An ardent attacker of religion, he deemed Christianity to be an internalized “slave morality,” and claimed that what are considered to be sins among the masses are merely the virtues of the rulers. In his view, the Will to Power underlay the rhetoric of the masters, and moralizing is merely an instrumental abuse of language for personal gain (whether altruistic in form or not). Went mad in his later years.

11. Mikhail Bakunin

Looking like the slightly more disheveled twin of Karl Marx, Bakunin was an anarchist flamethrower from the early 19th century. With Sergei Nechaev he co-wrote the influential left-wing guidebook The Catechism of a Revolutionist, a nineteenth century “Rules for Radicals,” if you will.. He was probably the more theoretically minded of the destructive duo, whose advocacy of revolutionary violence laid the groundwork for anarchist and socialist circles throughout the century and beyond. His presence can still be felt among such modern self-styled anarchists as the Black Blok, the more strident arm of left-wing movements like Occupy.

12. Sigmund Freud

The Father of Psychoanalysis, as he became known, is one of the key figures of modern psychology. His musings on human sexuality, as unprovable as they are, have been influential in imbuing psychosexual motives to a wide range of human behavior. One of his more charming heuristics is that men are possessed to kill their fathers in order to debauch their mothers. His formulation of the subconscious has become an omnipresent understanding of Western discourse, and is often invoked as a literal catch-all explanation of human motivation. A chief theoretician adapted and integrated by the New Left.

13. V.I. Lenin

Born Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, he became radicalized and intensely interested in Marxist theory after his brother was executed for plotting to kill the Tsar. Lenin would adapt Marxism from a theory proclaiming the inevitable triumph of the proletariat to a call to action for a cadre of intellectuals to usher in socialism’s realization. His putsch of Russia in October 1917 and surrender to Germany in WW I would hasten in a ravaging Civil War. Economic dislocation due to War Communism led to trauma among the peasantry, who were finally allowed petty marketing under his New Economic Plan. He died after a sudden stroke in 1924, paving the way for the even more ruthless Stalin.

14. Leon Trotsky

A superb orator and intellectual, Lev Davidovich Bronshtein, as he was born, was initially a leader of the so-called Menshevik faction of world communists. Early on, he supported the argument that Russia should be propelled through the historical stages outlined by Marx in order to reach the socialist end-goal. Later, he became famous as an advocate of “perpetual revolution” in order to forestall any reversion of the socialist revolution into authoritarian statism. For this innovation, Trotsky became a hated rival of Joseph Stalin, whose contributions to leftism are not so much intellectual as they are practically brutal in implementation. Trotsky would be hunted down while in exile and killed by a Stalin-hired assassin in Mexico.

15. Antonio Gramsci

Continuing the tradition of frizzy-haired radicals, the great strategician of the cultural Marxists was the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, whose contributions to the left’s grand strategy of cultural destruction cannot be overemphasized. Gramsci’s argument was the capitalism’s contradictions were held together by cultural hegemony, or domination, which should be undermined and used to further the effort to simultaneously transform the economic base. Gramsci’s demand for a “long march” through the West’s institutions is the master key that unlocks one’s understanding of the modern left.

16. Gyorgy Lukacs

Hungary’s Minister of Culture under the short-lived Bela Kun government of 1919, Lukacs was a primary advocate of sexualizing youth in order to destroy Christian culture. Lukacs’s argument was that the use of the education system to teach the young sexual perversion would “liberate” them from Christianity, and cause them to rebel against their parents. This would make them more irresponsible and thus more receptive to state authority and communism. He was thrown out of power by outraged Christians in one of the few effective uprisings against a communist regime. His influence can be seen with such figures as Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings, known to have prurient interests in youth sexuality.

17. Theodore Adorno

One of the least mentioned and most important voices on the New Left, he was a critical early influence in the Frankfurt School, a circle of intellectuals exiled from Hitler’s Germany. Established at Columbia’s Institute for Social Research, Adorno would work on the influence of mass media in obstructing or furthering the socialist cause. A specialist on music theory and the medium of radio, he argued that repetition itself ‘demystified’ the romantic and individualistic nature of Western art, an insight that helps explain the primary role of repetition in modern culture. He is perhaps best known popularly for his specious theory of the inherent “authoritarian personality” of all conservatives.

18. Max Horkheimer

Adorno’s mentor (and rumored by some on the left to be his gay lover), Max Horkheimer was a founding member of the Frankfurt School. He was a collaborator with Adorno on the Dialectic of Enlightenment, which explicitly sought to reverse the Enlightenment’s historical gains. Their theorizing would produce the seminal texts of Critical Theory, which is an idea based on unremitting criticism of Western philosophy without the need for justifying a viable alternative. Critical Theory would evolve to become a guide for tactics as well, breaking up the left into complementary “social justice” movements aimed tacitly at destroying Western culture. These architects of “political correctness” should be well-known to every American conservative.

19. Herbert Marcuse

Marcuse co-founded the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research with Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer. He has also been credited with developing Critical Theory, a type of Neomarxism influenced by Hegelian Idealism, psychoanalysis and existentialism. His primary motive was to build an aesthetic critique of capitalist culture, since Marx’s economic critiques were widely acknowledged to have failed. Best known popularly for his book Eros and Civilization, and the slogan “Make Love not War.” His work would help revitalize Freud and Hegel on the Marxian left.

20. Erich Fromm

Known as an expert on Freud, the Critical Theorist Erich Fromm was somewhat of a quack whose speculation on human psychology ran afoul of Herbert Marcuse, who condemned him as a revolutionary who had fallen into de facto support for the status quo. In typical left-wing fashion, as credibility comes from out-radicalizing one’s critics, Fromm rebuffed Marcuse as a dogmatist. Perhaps Fromm’s most interesting and twisted work is Escape from Freedom, in which he argued mankind was tormented by the Enlightenment’s version of freedom, and is thereby alienated from his community.

21. John Maynard Keynes

One of the most influential economists in world history, John Maynard Keynes developed a leading reputation during and after the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. His strongest imprint would be felt at the post-World War II Bretton Woods Conference, however, and his thinking has dominated the academic and political world ever since. Argued by many pragmatists and other statists to be a capitalist “reformer,” his policies of unending state market intervention, such as boosting aggregate demand in an economic downturn, would justify constant government meddling, unmeddling, and scapegoating of capitalism for the state’s inevitable economic failures.

22. John Dewey

Recognized by some as the Father of American Education, Dewey’s radicalism is difficult to expose in a compressed space. His pragmatism would situate morality temporally, thus removing the concept of universal ethical application. An ardent believer in pure democracy, or what many would identify as social democracy, his ideas when applied through such institutions as education and journalism break down the Western moral and political order. A Deweyan world would thus be one where all would be up for vote and morality would be contextually bound by historical circumstances, in many ways the antithesis of American Constitutional government.

23. Martin Heidegger

Heidegger is best known perhaps as the philosopher who both sympathized with, and who was adapted by, the Nazis. His primary contribution would be to existentialism in his argument that the essence of life is existence, and that the notion of there being a meaning to life is absurd. His anti-humanistic philosophy would break down man into a creature no better than animals, one ridiculously inflated in self-importance. Heidegger’s impact can be seen in modern form in the leftist movement of radical environmentalism, a program non-coincidentally bearing many resemblances to fascism.

24. Saul Alinsky

Born to Russian immigrants, Saul Alinsky would become a master political tactician. His texts, Reveille for Radicals and the better-known Rules for Radicals, would be seized upon as bibles for left-wing operators ranging from the average street thug or shakedown artist to political heavyweights like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. His Machiavellian emphasis on unabashed power-seeking combined with an ends-justify-the-means mentality would become vital to forming the remorselessly destructive and unscrupulous left. Many of his tactics can be seen throughout the media today, such as the persistent use of ridicule by the left to delegitimize conservative opposition.

25. Noam Chomsky

Chomsky is as notorious for his public criticism of “neo-conservative” policies as he is for his contributions to linguistics. His unapologetic support for anarchism or “libertarian socialism” has made him a prominent intellectual leader on the contemporary left. In Manufacturing Consent, he points out three media biases: the profit motive, advertising, and reporting news favorable to the government since it is a main source of news. He then goes on to argue that “flak,” or how special interest groups mobilize against criticism, “anti-communism” and in the post-Cold War setting “The War on Terror,” silence news outfits. Political Correctness is an infinitely more potent journalistic bias than either of his two above-named forms of bias.

26. Michel Foucault

Foucault’s deconstruction of literature and history in terms of power relationships provides a critical link in the transition from early Critical Theory to “post-structural” techniques of advancing the leftist cause. The French philosopher’s main contribution, and thereby his central means of indoctrinating students into the leftist cause, is his argument that power relationships are absolutely inescapable. In other words, all works of art and literature reflect the preferred power relationship bias of their creators, spawning modes of “feminist” or “black” critiques. His work attracted the criticism of fellow left-wing intellectuals Jean-Paul Sartre and Richard Rorty, who are important in their own right, but who will only be mentioned in passing here.

27. Jacques Derrida

Derrida is alternatively a post-modernist or a post-structuralist, depending on which leftist you ask. His method of exegesis is a standard benchmark of literary departments around the world, and has famously been captured in his phrase “there is nothing outside the text.” Derrida explains that his process is one of constant contextualization and re-contextualization of the text. As he describes himself as a historian, one sees the influence of the Continental Philosophy concept of historicism in his work, meaning, the limiting of truth to historical circumstance. Such a program attempts to deprive The Enlightenment of its universalistic claims of truth, and to “get beyond” its modernizing locus.

28. Jurgen Habermas

Considered to one of the most influential Neomarxists alive, Habermas is known for his theories of intersubjective discourse, communicative rationality, and the operations of the public sphere. The innovation of Habermas’ theorizing is to transform rationality from its understanding as a tool for man to understand the universe to one fulfilling the communicative goal for man to be mutually understood. His drawing on hermeneutics, pragmatism, and social psychology thus renders communication and reason as impotent means to understanding the world, instead emphasizing their essentially social role. In some ways, a living contributor to the Frankfurt School.

29. Slavoj Žižek

A favorite among contemporary anarchists, his views are a hodge-podge defying academic or philosophical description. His views are variegated, but center around the Critical Theory agenda of intense criticism of capitalism and Western society. A featured speaker at the Occupy Wall Street protest, he has become somewhat of a darling among young radicals. The cogency of his vision and his academic rigor, however, is questionable. Nonetheless, he has provided ample fodder for endless college bull sessions, and his simultaneous advocacy of “politicizing the economy” and anarchism is a poignant exemplar of the modern left’s refusal to believe in contradictions.

30. Barack Obama?

Perhaps the most complete personification of radical ideologies and agendas, Barack Obama is both a cunning Alinskyite street operator and a media-styled intellectual aloof from philosophical categorization. The leftist influences on his thoughts and actions, however, are clear. As he himself bragged, “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully, the more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.” But in his person, he defrays the argument that he is a Marxist radical: through his clothes, effete mannerisms, soothing pre-meditated lectures, to the fact he himself is the result of a racially mixed relationship. Barack Obama is Critical Theory. And he has been specifically reared to “fundamentally transform” America from a free nation based on liberty to a Marxian superstate. We must fully understand him and refuse to let him.

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

The Left’s Childlike Mentality: America as the Daycare State

Modern-day liberals have a child-like mentality.  As if living by the book All I Ever Really Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, liberals believe in the virtues of sharing and never fighting – values codified as Marxism and pacifism, respectively. But the leftists’ “revolutionary” pre-pubescent point of view goes well beyond cutesy naïveté: it will be the source of economic and military ruin if their temper tantrum is allowed to continue.

Time for the liberals to go to time out.

What kindergartners don’t get, in similar fashion as the liberal view of the economy, is that those Smurf figurines didn’t just get there themselves.  They were made in China, apparently by our mommy state who gives us neat toys and what libs think is a hefty allowance. Liberals can’t quite fathom that one day the country needs to give the money back. Bless their hearts, they haven’t quite learned the value of money yet.

If only we could make leftists mow lawns to pay back part of the national debt, they might show a little restraint with the federal credit card.

Liberals do not recognize that human dignity in an adult requires autonomy and personal responsibility. These concepts are alien to the liberal, who views society as an agent for molding and manipulating individuals, like a state-licensed teacher does with children in a kindergarten. Adulthood is therefore a contrived and unnecessary social construction; individuality is a characteristic of a bully or an alienated loner who just needs a hug.

The left constantly approaches the economy like it’s a gigantic daycare. When people need something, “all we need to do is share.” If someone has something another person doesn’t, the solution is to have the “teacher” force him to share. This is how liberals approach the economy. But what is lost in this daycare mentality approach is that individuals need to put effort into creating, producing, and selling goods and services. They do not just exist, like a birthday cake that should be cut up and handed to the rugrats on a plastic plate. And liberals don’t notice that after a few semesters, the teacher is really packing on the pounds.

So where did this juvenile mentality come from? When people are coddled by their depression-surviving parents and sheltered by a post-FDR government the way the baby boomers have been, it’s no surprise that they think the entire country should be run like a daycare. The scary thing is that these kids who never grew out of the Age of Aquarius have almost complete control of our government, and creativity and imagination are their only bounds! Our economy is unsurprisingly becoming one giant circle time, where millions of service workers finger paint in exchange for monopoly money while lawyers and bureaucrats draw elaborate crayon pictures under the color of law and post them on the nation’s refrigerator at the federal register.

It’s almost like these intellectuals have never asked themselves the question: Under socialism, who fixes the toilets? Why, it’s that creepy janitor guy.  You mean if we actually do away with capitalism and have full equality the community might want me to use that…toilet snake? The only kind of snakes I like are on animal planet! Ewww!

The left’s fairy-land reading of economics is even more dangerous when applied to the world arena, where it is combined with the notion of pacifism (exempting Democrat teachers, of course). Liberals conflate the beliefs of their own social circle with those of foreign leaders and rulers, attributing them “good intentions” because they display the same paternalistic impulses they see in themselves.  As unruly as they are emotionally, they have no problem with “strong men” daddy figures.  Lacking “boundaries,” they respond well to discipline.

Their warped view of economy is also shifted over to world affairs, where the source of all social ills is relative deprivation.  If everything is made “fair” and everyone gets the same action figure or Barbie doll, then there will be nothing to fight about.  Obviously, liberals don’t take ideas very seriously, since they blow off Islam as the belief of “misunderstood” Muslim kids. If we just welcome them, maybe include them in some kickball games (no score-keeping, of course), they might just learn to like us.

By extension,”hate crimes” legislation is a way of making sure everyone plays nice and no one says anything to hurt anyone’s feelings.  Equal opportunity is the idea that there should be no “favoritism.”

P.J. O’Rourke once wrote: “Imagine if all of life were determined by majority rule. Every meal would be a pizza.” And if the left had its druthers, everyone would get only one slice.

When a Constitutional Republic devolves into democracy, every election becomes a popularity contest, and public policy is devoid of the concept of scarcity. That is why liberals loathe Ronald Reagan and conservatives deem him untenable to mimic in the current political climate: He was like the parent who said “no” to the child-like voters who demanded more and more goodies. And even Reagan had to cave and dole out a few jelly beans to the left at times.

Although we can look to Obama to solve our problems, much like a child looks to a parent to get us out of a jam, we must look to ourselves. As a nation if we can clean up our room and show a little personal responsibility, that is a great first step towards returning a stable economy. If we can get back that shining entrepreneurial spirit by at least allowing kids to run their own lemonade stands, that would go a heck of a long way towards renewing our prosperity.

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

Mainstream Media Speculation About Sgt. Bales & the Afghan Massacre Shows Tragedy of Left’s Agenda

The Afghan massacre allegedly carried out by Staff Sergeant Robert Bales, in which 16 Afghani were killed in a pre-dawn raid, has prompted wild media speculation regarding what drove the man to kill so many innocent civilians. But within minutes of the left-wing media pouncing on the story, the news came to light that the soldier likely carried out the revenge mission alone.

This should have provided a learning moment for the knee-jerk media. MSNBC even had the temerity to run a television crawl that NATO forces had carried out the atrocity; if at all possible, further discrediting the fully discredited outlet. The armchair sociological theorizing by the mainstream media nonetheless continues over what actually caused the massacre.

Staff Sgt. Bales is currently being held at Fort Leavenworth awaiting potential charges that entail the death penalty. The proposed defense that the man is ‘deranged’ and probably suffers from PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) has elicited an outraged media backlash. Outlets have cited Sgt. Bales’ minor brain injury and severe foot injury as probably pushing him over the edge. The Atlantic published a considerable piece expanding on Sgt. Bales’ experiences in both wars and his three tours of duty. The LA Times, for its part, chalked up the man’s despair to ‘financial difficulties,’ derivative of the left’s favored argument that poverty is the root of all evil. But the New York Daily News showed the height of gall by stating “America shares in the collective responsibility for this incident.”

What is most concerning about this tragic event is that the media would so hastily jump to condemn the entire armed forces and even the nation for the acts of one soldier, using the most sophistic twists to argue for more ‘mental health screening’ for our presumably deranged soldiers and a hasty pullout from Afghanistan. Adding to the misunderstanding about how Sgt. Bales’ actions either reflect or do not reflect on the military and its mission, news story tie-ins regarding the Koran burnings in Afghanistan (compelled by insurgents’ use of the Koran to smuggle messages) and the desecration of a Taliban fighter’s body were thrown into the mix.

Whatever one feels about the current state of the mission in Afghanistan (and this writer for one would like our troops to leave sooner rather than later), it would be ignominious to withdraw under such apparently dishonorable conditions. Yet that has hardly seemed a concern for the “anti-war” left, who have distorted the Vietnam War legacy since the 1960s. The irresponsible and ideologically driven manner in which the left-wing media have covered the Sgt. Bales story speaks volumes about what really animates their agenda.

Throwing into question the media’s presumably noble anti-war aims is the notable shift in coverage from that provided under Bush to under Obama. Under President Bush, the media seemed to revel in providing daily running body counts, ostensibly displaying their concern for individual human life. Support for euthanasia and partial birth abortion make this a questionable façade. Add in continuing defense of green initiatives like the DDT ban, which has killed tens of millions, along with ethanol subsidies, which have driven up the cost of grain in impoverished countries, and an excessive concern for individual human life is very much a questionable credit of the left.

After Obama was inaugurated, unsurprisingly, the running body counts completely disappeared. No real connections between the wars and Obama are being routinely made by the mainstream media. Usually the wars are reported on as if they are occurring in a vacuum, and the Commander-in-Chief is but an innocent bystander. When the troops in Iraq were withdrawn last December, there were no parades for our gutsy soldiers, or editorials in the New York Times calling for such. That would show more than lip service’s worth of respect for our men in uniform.

What should really fall under scrutiny, then, as the facts of the Bales’ case come out, is the way certain media outlets undercut military morale in an underhanded way. It is one thing to condemn a soldier and lament an atrocity. That is understandable and worthy of public discussion. But what is not excusable is the slippery way the left tries to insinuate the actions of one soldier are in any way reflective of the entire armed services, the aims of the wars, or even the country itself.

But this is the problem with collectivism. The sins of one are the blame of the many. The day-to-day anecdotal injustices inherent in life are a justification for the left to take totalitarian control (which history shows does not remedy the unfortunate anomalies of life as much as it systematizes injustice and oppression). If one can adapt a bit of Rawlsian logic, according to the left, even bad luck itself should be outlawed. Misfortune cannot be remedied by folly, any more than the incidental tragedies of war can be resolved by outlawing war itself.

The left refuses to believe in human agency, free will, or individual responsibility. By extension, it has no tolerance for accident and misfortune in human life. As long as this point of view drives the left’s political agenda, the random tragedies committed by the Sgt. Bales of the world will be superseded and compounded by totalizing states, which have decreasing appreciation for individual life or human action.