Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘American left’

Betrayal of the American Left

Posted by M. C. on November 1, 2022

by Dan McKnight 

Lockheed Martin and Volodymyr Zelensky are getting a windfall payday, while the war is artificially extended, more Ukrainian civilians die, and the safety of the American people is endangered as we get closer to open warfare with Russia.

But where are the liberal protestors?

The Democratic Party has voted unanimously to become a co-belligerent in the Russo-Ukrainian War. In eight months, not a single dissenting vote has been cast.

Randolph Bourne

War is the Health of the State


marching towards the capital september 15, 2007

I’m sure most of you remember the liberal protests against George Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

They were big, they were loud, they were sometimes rude. And I can’t vouch for all of their hairstyle choices.

But they were right.

The invasion of Iraq was a criminal enterprise, an unconstitutional war built on lies that decimated a country, killed thousands of American soldiers and upwards of a million Iraqis.

Our nation is still involved in endless wars, not just in Iraq but also Syria, Yemen, and possibly a nuclear showdown with Russia.

Since Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in February, our government has funneled more than $65 billion dollars to the corrupt regime in Kiev and our domestic military-industrial complex.

Lockheed Martin and Volodymyr Zelensky are getting a windfall payday, while the war is artificially extended, more Ukrainian civilians die, and the safety of the American people is endangered as we get closer to open warfare with Russia.

But where are the liberal protestors?

The Democratic Party has voted unanimously to become a co-belligerent in the Russo-Ukrainian War. In eight months, not a single dissenting vote has been cast.

Even during the Iraq War, when the neocons were at the peak of their power in the Republican Party, there were a handful of conservative dissenters like Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee and the great Ron Paul of Texas.

But now, on Capitol Hill it’s been exclusively Republicans standing up against the War Party: Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, Matt Gaetz, etc.

Socialist Bernie Sanders has supported the war.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has stopped scrolling Instagram long enough to support the war.

Ro Khanna, who for years spoke sense on Russian-American relations, has supported the war.

Cori Bush, a signatory to our War Powers Pledge, has supported the war.

There are exceptions—media figures like Jimmy Dore, activist allies like Matthew Hoh, and our progressive Defend the Guard bill sponsors at the state level have all opposed this march to war in Eastern Europe.

But nationally, no Democrat has been willing to stand up to the War Party.

Until last week…when we saw the most embarrassing muzzling I’ve ever witnessed in American politics.

Last Monday, thirty members of the House Progressive Caucus issued a public letter requesting that the Biden administration—in addition to continuing funding of the war—pair that foreign aid for Ukraine with negotiations with Russia.

This milquetoast plea for diplomacy was met with universal hostility by the liberal mainstream media, the Democratic leadership, and the think tankers and Twitter personalities on foreign payrolls.

In less than 24 hours the letter was withdrawn.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Why the Corporate State Doesn’t Target the American Left | The Daily Bell

Posted by M. C. on January 24, 2022

Reconciliation with far-gone elements of the “Left” is a losing cause – time for the remaining independent, undomesticated elements of civilization to de-rig with our own “Great Reset” parallel society.

By Ben Bartee

When Biden’s executive branch sets its internal security apparatus sights on “domestic extremists” (intelligence jargon for any group or individual who deviates from the corporate state narrative), The Daily Bell was among the first independent media to sound the alarm.

However, we didn’t rigorously assess why the populist Right, and not the Left, poses an existential threat to the ruling class.

The “establishment” references the conglomeration of dominant interest groups that sits atop the political food chain.

In a past era (in the Western context, before the original Industrial Revolution), the establishment was a landed aristocracy in collusion with the Church and militaries that ruled nation-states.

In the 21st century iteration of feudalism, the ruling class is a consortium of multinational offshore corporate elite.

Theoretically, regardless of who occupies power, any social group outside of the establishment is a latent threat – hence the oppressive apparatuses of state throughout history from the Red Guards of the Mao era to the Stasi of East Germany.

In a rough 99% vs. 1% breakdown, if the vast majority or the “ruled” rose up against the tiny minority of “rulers,” their days perched atop the social hierarchy would be finished.

But, if the 99% can be chopped up into all manner of sub-groups – either along pre-existing cultural, racial, or political fault lines or artificial ones engineered by the state –  and then turned against one another, the status quo can be maintained.

The British perfected this method of rule – often called “divide and conquer” –in their management of colonial assets.

Politically, the population at large (outsiders of the establishment) in the United States is divided into two large groups: “Right” and “Left.”

Here is a brief breakdown of why, in the current social configuration, the Left serves as the enforcement arm of the state to suppress the grassroots Right, which is correctly viewed as the only faction that is a threat to the power structure.

#1: International vs. National Orientation

First, it’s imperative to understand that the United States, along with the rest of the West, is now under the effective control of a multinational corporate elite.

Piece by piece, sovereignty over decision-making is chipped away at the national level and handed over to international governing institutions like the UN, World Bank, World Economic Forum, WHO, et al.

We’ve explored this concept in greater detail in several pieces:

Cutting the legs out from insurgent nationalist movements, accordingly, is essential to moving the multinational corporate agenda ahead.

The Right is nationalist in its orientation, not internationalist. This is, as just one example, why the corporate media intently demonized the UK Brexit separation from the European Union as “racist” to taint the nationalist movement.

The inverse is true of the Left – especially as you move further to the fringes – which makes it a natural ally.

#2: The True Anti-Authoritarian, Anti-Establishment Left in America Is Dead

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How is an American Left Still Possible? Four Theses – Letters from Flyover Country

Posted by M. C. on November 28, 2020

Opposition to any given Leftist policy constitutes a threat to their dual cosmologies, that must always be kept in harmony:(a) the inner, mental egalitarian fiction that we are all equal despite overwhelming evidence of the senses and the conduct of Nature and (b) the outer, environmental fiction that Nature, far from being indifferent, is actually taking sides. Stranded dolphins, for instance, somehow become a symbolic demonstration of Earth’s revulsion with Donald Trump’s coiffure

by L. Q. Cincinnatus

“… the methods of thinking that are living activities in men are not objects of reflective consciousness.” — Charles S. Peirce (1892)

The history of the modern physical sciences in the twentieth century is strewn with instances of discipline-shattering “thought experiments.” Perhaps the most famous is Einstein’s 1919 prediction of a solar eclipse proving his theory that light is bent by gravity. It was so dazzling that it cemented his Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.

Such exercises reveal that the human mind can so fit itself to empirical reality that remote events may be understood with pinpoint, and even life-saving, accuracy. My favorite example of the pyrotechnic splendor of inductive inference was how NASA scientists predicted, to the very second, when a radio signal would reach the Apollo 8 command module upon emerging from the first orbit of the moon on the morning of December 24, 1968. No proof for this event existed; it had to be logically inferred from the laws of wave propagation.

So, my question is: can you call to mind even one remotely comparable mental experiment from the so-called social sciences? I would venture that most people can’t, and for the very good reason that inductive reasoning is simply the wrong logic tool to use in matters of human behavior. While this is not the place to explore the methodological differences between the physical and the social sciences, the idea that society and human behavior can be conceived as operating under the same laws as Brownian motion or Bernoullian distribution is—or should be—laughable on its face. More on this in a moment.

I would argue that Ludwig von Mises’ 1920 analysis of economic calculation is one of the great, unsung thought experiments in modern science, but because it was conducted as an exercise in deductive, as opposed to inductive, reasoning that it is either wholly ignored or, more likely, not understood.

Through a series of strict deductive inferences anchored in the primary “given” of socialism—the absence of private property—Mises demonstrated that a functioning price system would never emerge, and, as a result, no method of rationally calculating the relative scarcity or necessity for higher order goods of any kind could be used to sustain an economy. Mises stated flatly that a socialist economy was was not merely a contradiction in terms, but impossible (unmöglich).

His analysis was immediately seized upon by socialist theoreticians and planners and the history of its reception, both in the free world and in the countries behind the former Iron Curtain, makes for fascinating reading. In the final analysis, of course, Mises was proven right. Resoundingly so. Because  in 1920, before Lenin had even consolidated power, Mises had already foretold the fate of the Soviet Union. And it would take another seventy years and scores of millions of human corpses for him to finally be vindicated.

And not only was Mises right about the practical matters of socialist planning—about where shoe laces were needed most and how cotton could be sourced and delivered to mills where such laces were to be woven and produced—he was also right about epistemological matters. It is impossible for one mind to command the distributed knowledge of millions of decision-makers conducting and executing valuations in real time in markets that fluidly and without explicit command from a central authority, redirect capital, goods, and labor to match consumer demand. This “knowledge problem” became a centerpiece in the work of his protégé, Friedrich von Hayek, and was rolled out in exquisite detail when he stood to receive his 1974 Nobel Prize in Economic Science.

The central point is that: (1) for fully a century the logical proof of the impossibility of socialism has been known and accepted as the central, indeed fatal, flaw in the socialist project, and (2) that with the fall of the Soviet Union, to say nothing of the real-time, parallel path experiment provided by East and West Germany across four decades, the logical proof was borne out empirically, in social and behavioral form, and in real time.

Even socialist economist Robert Heilbronner had to fess up in 1989 declaring, “Mises was right.” So, with the awareness that one can deduce axiomatically the conditions that produce human poverty, misery, and state-sponsored genocide of its own populace (“democide”), how is it even remotely possible that there can be an active political movement, comprised of millions of people, who seek to reenact the most destructive political and economic experience in human history?

And even more to the point, since the statistical analyses put forth in The Black Book of Communism (1999), to say nothing of the revelations of the Venona decrypts, what kind of human being can countenance the notion of reviving any of the ingredients of this kind of inhumane catastrophe for the reenactment of globally-scaled human misery for life in the twenty-first century?

In Misesian terms, how is the Left even possible?

I would like to lay out four theses that might be used to explain the residual existence of this suicidal theology, this system of faith whose believers are unable to value their own existence—physically, economically, and morally. In all honesty, I think we are looking at a situation where, given differences in age, experience, and cultural milieu, two or more strands are continually being braided together at all times. So while it is important to see various elements in play, the chances are high that there is always some “reverb” between each of these components of this mass political madness at work.

Our political culture was shaped and matured in historical conditions that knew nothing of deliberate cognitive infiltration as a political strategy; therefore, our task is to restore the principles which allowed that political culture so elegantly and effortlessly yield an explosion in life expectancy, quality of life, and per capita wealth—McCloskey’s “great enrichment.” We take this enrichment for granted, as do the enemies of human well-being. So, let’s take a deep breath and consider an array of explanations.

First Thesis: Romantic Ignorance. This is the easiest layer to grasp because it is  seen everywhere. Romantic ignorance as a pretext for “social action” is the adolescent response to the absence of a theological argument against state charity. The Judeo-Christian tradition, broadly speaking, addresses the development of conscience and character by demonstrating how direct acts of compassion, unmediated by coercion or compulsion by others, benefits both receiver and giver.

In the traditional model, charity flows from one’s empathic recognition of distress or injustice, and one engages with the subject or victim without institutional mediation. The moral merit of this scenario is that effort is made to correct the preconditions of the pathology, not merely the conditions. And these preconditions center on the human heart and are communicated non-verbally. Moreover, charity becomes contingent on recognition of the sacrifice involved in providing the relief but also in the correction of behaviors and the evidence of a change of direction and a change of heart. The Right, regardless of the the reflexive contempt of the Left, posits charity on the basis of an inward change; the Left, shallowly and materialistically, believes that redistribution is enough. You give the victim enough “stuff,” and his life will improve; that’s the Left’s answer for every imbalance, inequality, and difference. Fix the optics. I believe it was James Burnham who provided the most excoriating expose of piebald, left wing materialism ever penned.

We recognize the shame of genuine victimhood—just as one does its subjection—by tracking the visual signals of that inward change though outward expressions: dilated pupils, facial responses of recognition, and eventually specific behaviors and the emergence of pride and self-respect. This “soul change” is predicated on the acknowledgement of the existence of the soul which is anathema for all post-religious charity work. The Left, in its thrall with self and sensation, disregards the soul altogether, or sees it where it isn’t. 

The “romantic” dimension comes in the artful self-delusion that one’s efforts can “change the world.” It is horribly selfish (all about the giver), ego-centric (as if single acts can change another’s heart), and hubristic (the simplistic materialism of giving someone a fish to make them less hungry never ultimately works). But there is an enduring enchantment, a romantic delusion that “doing something” is preferable to “doing nothing,” and demanding that others comply with the objective is all part of the experience of collective enthusiasm. The late Murray Rothbard explained how the “romantic ignorance” of Progressivism had cultural roots in the Yankee post-millennial pietism of the Puritans; his belief was that seventeenth-century theological injunctions for the salvation of the individual soul had slowly morphed into a primary ingredient in the Progressive contagion of compulsive and unreflective do-gooder activism that emerged in the course of the post-Darwinian Protestantism of the late nineteenth century.

Irving Babbitt (1865-1933), one of the great humanist scholars of the Right who beheld the sweep of modern culture as as grand coarsening of the spirit, declaimed in his Rousseau and Romanticism that the Romantic impulse led to an unconstrained personality—that the normal inhibitions of the Classic temperament were deactivated by the Romantic germ, and one’s sense of self flowed like an omelette spreading evenly and thinly into the heated pan. Babbitt believed that the Romantic’s “merely aesthetic” consideration of social hypotheticals—scenarios of pity and sin, for instance—was capable of delivering emotional rewards and thus could serve as an unconscious green-light for the conscious contemplation, and ultimately acting out, of self-destructive behavior for aesthetic enjoyment. In his world Romantic impulse was a form of slow-motion suicide undertaken as a racily pleasurable form of aesthetic delectation. Of course with it comes an implicit refusal to contemplate the end-state of a chain of inferences that begins with soul death, and continues with an insensate separation of self from society and indeed from pain. This was all part of the allure of transgression that in revolutionary France saw the emergence of a de Sade and its fulfillment in a Fourier. Babbitt’s romantic was Wolfe’s radical chic in powdered wigs and silk pumps.

Second Thesis: Seeded Deception. The second thesis is a darker, indeed anti-romantic counterpoint to the first. Here, socialism as charity is tacitly accepted to be a failure in reality, but it is simply too good a ruse to ignore as a business model for creating public procurement schemes and related activities to reallocate assets in such a manner as to create cash streams that benefit the “organizers.” Of course, there will be anecdotal case studies describing in great detail and replete with emotional imagery explaining how the charity has immeasurable “human impact.” This is the marketing equivalent of the Madison Avenue huckster who shows you what you want while selling you what he has.

One might say that this is the central operative feature of the modern American educational career: selling socialist ideology as both a science and an aspiration. It is, of course, the career path that individuals who choose a career in “government service” buy into, including many in the military and even seemingly mundane work of the GSA or some other semi-submerged bureaucracy. It was originally called “service” because an educated person with professional training, as an attorney or physician for instance, could certainly command higher pay in the private sector. That is clearly not the case for millions. Indeed, average government wages have, since the Obama years, surpassed private sector remuneration in aggregate. And with this, not only is there no conception of the parasitical nature of this unnatural and anti-economic asymmetry, there is a kind of hubristic pride attached to it—as if one “does well by doing good.” The layers of delusion and economic nonsense are so tightly fused that now everyone is compelled to buy into the deception, quite literally, with every taxed transaction of your financial existence. Is it still abuse if the victim is not conscious of the crimes being perpetrated? 

This kind of seeded deception requires seed (the ideas of Marx), a sower (the educational systems), and intent (the public’s naive trust in the educational system). It may be hard to believe because it all seems so fresh—especially given the cratering of traditional educational standards of the 1980s that were still able to produce an occasional Republican voter—but the deliberate skewing of the educational system for both financial gain and cultural advantage has been underway in this country since the 1840s. I know, I know. You will wonder why, if this is the case, how it is that we didn’t become Sovietized before the Russians! I will describe it in greater detail at another time, but the case has been made in elaborate, forensic detail by the late John Taylor Gatto (1935-2018); it is one important chapter in the long and deep cultural history of the impact of “left-ish” forces since the Reformation that has been part and parcel of the modern Right’s critique prior to the emergence of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “new” Right in the 1950s.

Ignorance of our own intellectual heritage is one of the intended byproducts of the seeded deception—with the advent of Reconstruction, “current events” evolved from being inert facts to being objects of deliberate propagandistic distortion in the classroom since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. The easiest case in point: every Boomer has been force-fed ideological gavage about the United Nations, probably, since grammar school. The fact that this organization’s objectives and personnel from our own country were dedicated to the victory of international communism is still actively denied by the professional Left. 

We will get as much deception as we tolerate.

Third Thesis: Affective Impairment. This is not a particularly new thought vector. Rossiter and Haidt have looked at the phenomenon of the psychological structure of the liberal Left from the point of view of personality development and the Big Five personality traits, respectively. To simplify, both see the “leftist mind,” if you will, as either not whole, not healthy, or both.

The most pristine example of the practical reality of a cognitive defect on the American Left is, paradoxically, completely understood by the political leadership of the American Left! The classic “Exhibit A” will always be Prof. Jonathan Gruber’s recorded statement that the entire pretext for the wording of Obamacare was, “the stupidity of the American voter.” More specifically, this is a tacit admission that those who were against the bill had correctly understood the fundamentally flawed, indeed criminal, deception involved. Gruber explains that the proponents of socialized “health care” could in fact rely on the intrinsic stupidity of Democrats. The implicit strategy was made explicit:  people who are routinely persuaded by intention alone and habitually ignore the labor of comparing factual and counterfactuals, to say nothing of performing a “gut check” on the potential significance of a bureaucratic shell game—these people could be relied on to miss the deliberate deception.

Indeed, the typical Democrat/Leftist is barely capable of reproducing the basic arguments in support of whatever cause is being marketed to them at any given time; just as certain is their inability to reproduce any rational argument against their cause. In lieu of argument and demonstrations, they rely on aesthetic heuristics—the conformity of an image with the tenets of their belief system. For instance, a taste for a certain stylistic alignment between one’s attire and one’s home furnishings is not a simple matter of “lifestyle preference.” Stylistic immersion and saturation in anti-human systems of form are a dead giveaway that the individual in question sees neither clothes nor dwelling as a fitted environment for the body, the family, and the community. Rather, these objects are seen as props on a stage, where one’s life becomes a platform for the communication of an ideological commitment that is intended to be read as “self expression.” More on the heuristic value of aesthetics below.

Opposition to any given Leftist policy constitutes a threat to their dual cosmologies, that must always be kept in harmony:(a) the inner, mental egalitarian fiction that we are all equal despite overwhelming evidence of the senses and the conduct of Nature and (b) the outer, environmental fiction that Nature, far from being indifferent, is actually taking sides. Stranded dolphins, for instance, somehow become a symbolic demonstration of Earth’s revulsion with Donald Trump’s coiffure. Instances of apophenia of this magnitude are no longer reserved for asylums for schizophrenics; this kind of thinking can be heard from Protestant pulpits, talk show hosts, and even nature programs. 

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Residents Band Together To March ‘Antifa Commie B******* Out of the Neighborhood’

Posted by M. C. on August 13, 2020

Those Fort Collins citizens better watch out! Unlike Antifa tactics, defending yourself will get you arrested. Like in the UK.

Fortunately for us, Fort Collins in the US.–Xd4ENUXFlQ47aGmy34GpmHWPI_ObcvYUN7o9QJPZKfxASgIjcX8M


More Info Recent Posts Contact

Jack Davis is a freelance writer who joined The Western Journal in July 2015 and chronicled the campaign that saw President Donald Trump elected. Since then, he has written extensively for The Western Journal on the Trump administration as well as foreign policy and military issues.

Fort Collins, Colorado, residents made their stand Saturday as black-clad demonstrators beat a retreat after dueling marches collided.

The pushback began with a flag-bedecked “Back the Blue” rally.

Supporters of the police waved “Thin Blue Line” flags and held signs reading, “Defend the Police,” according to The Rocky Mountain Collegian.

“We have to defend the police and the role that they play in society for keeping law and order and keeping citizens safe,” pro-police demonstrator Sonya Beeson told the outlet.

The pro-police group, however, was confronted by counterprotesters, some of whom wore the masks and black attire associated with antifa radicals.

TRENDING: Scientists Reveal Certain Masks May Be More Dangerous Than Wearing None At All

It’s not clear what started the fracas, but the supporters of the police ended it, as seen in a video of the confrontation posted on Twitter.

The video shows the pro-police residents of Fort Collins purposefully driving the counterprotesters away from the spot they had been holding.

WARNING: The following video contains vulgar language that some viewers may find offensive.

“We are currently marching the antifa commie b——s out of the neighborhood,” a speaker said in the video. “Because nobody wants antifa in the neighborhood. Nobody wants them here. So we’re marching them out.”

As the demonstrators retreated, one of the neighbors called out, “Bye-bye, commie scum. Bye-bye. Go home.”

During a scuffle, the voice called out a warning to the neighbors: “Commie girl with a knife. Commie girl with a knife.”

“You guys came to the wrong city, boys and girls,” the voice called out, later adding, “Aw, commies go home.”

RELATED: Benches Clear After MLB Player Charges Opposition’s Dugout

One voice on Twitter blamed antifa for starting problems.

“Antifa assaulted someone in a wheelchair. That’s what set off the beat down from residents. Police were on the scene to arrest the commies,” Ian Miles Cheong tweeted.

Some said the Fort Collins incident was a lesson for violent demonstrators across the country.

Three people were arrested, according to the Fort Collins police.

All three were charged with disorderly conduct. One individual faced an additional charge of possession of an illegal weapon. Another person was also charged with resisting arrest.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »