In all human relations there are only two ways to win compliance – by reason or by force. Reason is “the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways.” Force is “violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person...” George Washington observed, “Government is not reason...it is force.” The awareness of these qualities can illuminate the intent behind different styles of advocacy.
The great human struggle since the birth of the American Ideal is between the advocates of reasoned persuasion and thugs who prefer brute force. The Constitutional Convention severely restricted the limits of government power to make it the benign protector of individual rights. The character of those whose first recourse is to use government to compel or forbid behavior is barbarism. The fact that they attempt to conceal it in the guise of legality does not hide their motives or obscure their nature. Those who understand the consequences of these two approaches resist force with reason – those who don’t, attempt to silence reason with force. On the side of reason are the Individualists. On the side of force are the Collectivists.
The Collectivist paradigm; unchecked in Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany, and Pol Pot’s Kampuchea represents its inevitable manifestation. Collectivism in America (rebranded as Democracy, Liberalism, Progressivism, and Populism; in the sheep’s clothing of “fairness” and “compassion”) seems comparatively benign so far. But that is only due to its incomplete dominance of government and the threat of armed public opposition. Should Collectivism come to dominate the state, control enough of the private sector and disarm the public, the endgame will inevitably be the same as it has been elsewhere.
One of the most insidious deceptions perpetrated by American Collectivists is that we can magically retain our national health while imbibing their poison masked with kinder-gentler rhetoric. Like a person at an all-you-can-eat buffet, we may be restrained at first. But with the availability of unlimited feeding, we are more likely to yield to temptation; go back for seconds or thirds; and end up with indigestion. So it is with “free” government services, subsidies, bailouts, safety-nets, regulations and laws to protect us from the consequences of our own errors – they induce a craving for indulgence that lures us back to the cannibalistic smorgasbord time and again until we are bloated and miserable.
As the Collectivist parasite infects its healthy host it must first establish the pretense of popular support – the all-you-can-eat buffet of “free” government goodies. First they entice the poor and ignorant; obtaining the power to redistribute wealth. At first, only the smallest amount is stolen from the very wealthiest, but over time the threshold of “wealth” is lowered and the numbers of the “needy” rises until all wealth is “equalized” with everyone being equally poor except for the state’s favored elite who enjoy the opulence of stolen riches.
One could argue that Collectivists employ reason in winning “popular support,” but that would be wrong. For the propagation of Collectivist ideology relies, not on reason, but on subterfuge: “deception by artifice or stratagem in order to conceal...” Since this deception is used to secure legal power that incurs public cost and compels involuntary action, it can rightly be called fraud: “intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.”
Barbarism is the irreducible, unmitigated, irredeemable character of Collectivism. Whether proffered as a helping hand or an iron fist, its true nature always shows itself in the end. The rising oligarchy first acquires consent through fraud. With warm smiles, noble rhetoric and feigned concern for the little guy, they slowly but surely insinuate the tentacles of the state into every facet of the society. Later, when resistance is sufficiently weakened by planned economic disaster, disarmament and political chaos, compliance will be obtained by the physical brutality of which their current strategy of intellectual violence is an instructive precursor.
To resist the rule of barbarism, we must defeat it while it is weak. To defeat it we must recognize it in its disguised form. Those who believe that the Gulags of Siberia, the gas chambers of Auschwitz or the Kampuchean killing fields cannot return need only be reminded that all of those atrocities arose out of democratic or popular subversion by Collectivists. The assurance that they are likely, and the vigilance to identify their nascent forms and prevent them early are the only sane choices for those who wish to live free.
Tomorrow’s barbarians and the brutality that is their code, are being incubated in America today through the spread of the Collectivist dogmas of democracy, wealth redistribution, cultural and racial diversity; secular humanism, and subjective relativism. These barbarians must now employ deception and lies to persuade us because reason is beyond their talents and invalidates their creed.
But we may know them by their promotion of governmental solutions to every crisis and their defamation of those who merely advocate liberty and equal justice. They are in both parties; in every university, media, religion and neighborhood. Many of them do not fully understand the ultimate consequences of their advocacy – but this neither exempts them from responsibility nor spares them from blame.
They are a cancer eating at the heart of America and must be treated with the same life-saving techniques employed by oncologists – they must be excised without hesitation, timidity or remorse; for that is exactly what their breed will do with you once they have the power.
Great article! I agree with it wholeheartedly.
ReplyDeleteWhat childish nonsense!
ReplyDeleteAs an adherent since the early 60’s of the philosophy of limited government espoused by William F. Buckley’s in his book “Up from Liberalism,” I admire Buckley as well for having taken up arms against fascism in WWII, and am appalled by the author’s cheap use of fascists slogans (“excising” the “cancer” -- political opponent or his views -- “without hesitation, timidity or remorse.” ) The Buckley generation of Americans’ resistance to totalitarianism paved the way for guys like me to readily accept conscription into the infantry to fight in Vietnam.
The latter provided a tough lesson in how worthy general principles (e.g. opposition to communism) can be recklessly implemented using the national defence argument, a very collectivist notion that seemingly meets the approval of the author who rails against “disarmament.”
The author thus implicitly acknowledges that not every collectivist solution to society’s problems leads to the kind of apocalyptic excesses he shrilly warns about. The US is a society, as George Will has pointed out, not just an economy. And while one can reasonably argue, as Will and Buckley have, about where the limits should be drawn between the rights of the individual and the survival of society, it is absurd to suggest that any demands made by the society upon the individual inevitably result in a Stalin/Hitler/Mao/Pol Pot type world.
I currently live in a city designated last year as being number one in the world in terms of quality of life (Vienna, Austria). For decades, it is consistently ranked in the top 5. Like other cities of Western Europe, it is not without its problems, but they do not result from modest redistributive efforts to insure that the poorest and/or unluckiest have a roof over their heads and enough to eat. (On the contrary, it has been the laxity of government regulation in the area of mass immigration from clan-based 3rd world societies that is behind much of the social tensions that do exist in European cities today.) Just as in the US since the inauguration of the progressive income tax system, and as in any insurance policy, those with more to lose pay more of a premium. It is pure demagoguery, and ignorance of the broader world, to assert that such a reasonable principle involving modest societal constraints on the individual can only lead to results such as Auschwitz, the Gulag etc. A reasonable discussion would center less on the basic principle and more on the degree of government involvement, which I also find excessive and heavy handed, just like this article.
It seems that the annonymous critic above agrees with me, yet despite the name-dropping self-validation of his/her libertarian leanings, is confused about the nature of Collectivism and its child fascism.
ReplyDeleteThis person labels my call to excise Collectivist ideology from our midst a "cheap use of fascist slogans."
I will admit I am unaware of this particular turn of phrase being employed by Fascists, but it is possible.
If I read him/her correctly, the argument against my premise is that a little poison in one's food is beyond reproach until the symptoms of toxicity become obvious enough that changing one's diet is no longer a practical solution.
I am happy for him/her, that life in Vienna is so grand; and that he/she has arrived at a point of self-deception suitable to justify the subjugation of the innocent/productive as long as it serves the ephemeral notion of "public good."
His/her arguments are as tired and threadbare as are those of all apologists for Collectivism. But as an extra insult, this person (like many wolves in sheep's clothing) seeks to numb us to barbarism by the withering death of socialist gradualism, and hide his/her true motives by quoting (and misrepresenting) popular advocates and rallying points of libertarians.
His/her "graying of morality" identifies his/her ultimate alignment with Collectivism (demoralization is a common tactic of subversion). The fact that it is shrouded in some amiguous individualistic rhetoric does not hide its true nature, but rather makes him/her a more dangerous enemy.
I thank this contributor for demonstrating both the rational premise and the urgency and severity of my solution for Collectivist subversives.
Have a nice day Commrade.