It is no longer de rigueur (French for “trendy”) to laughingly dismiss leftists as a bunch of Reds, but the idea lingers with us because like most stereotypes, there is truth to it.
Our modern liberals may not be Communists, but they act like them.
Even if they have mixed capitalism, Christ and strong national defense into their egalitarian class warfare agenda, today’s liberals have the same obsessive ideological mania as communists.
Their doctrinaire dictum: be pure in the ways of our ideology, or you’re the problem with our society, and you must be destroyed.
Not content with tolerance, they demand a norming of all things formerly deviant. When the extremes are OK, all are accepted, so we the normal must adopt the extremes. For ideology!
Beneath these layers of ideographic hocus-pocus however, the leftist like the Communist before him has a very basic psychological demand. If everyone is equal, no one can tell me “no.”
The essence of all leftism is the same. Equality creates a lowest common denominator standard and makes it illegal for others to discriminate against the poor behavior of others. That makes all behavior accepted.
The neurotic, criminal, perverse or underconfident individual likes this. It’s a law that forces social acceptance of all individuals, thus naturally including them. The fear of the individual creates a snowball of fear, and soon people are afraid to not join.
The mob picks up momentum. Inevitably it creates such dysfunction that totalitarianism is called for, to protect the ideology. But the ideology itself replaces all systems of values, so soon the totalitarian impulse replaces all else.
We can see this same Communist-like mania in our modern liberals. Pornographic videos in schools. Speech codes that are bigoted double standards. Hatred, gnashing of teeth and resentful vengeance against all that is normaly, healthy or hopeful.
They get what they wanted. Their ideology neutralizes others by removing their ability to criticize the behavior or abilities of the leftist. This makes a paradise for parasites: competence and goodness are irrelevant, and society owes them a living!
A typical leftist likes this because it allows him to run whatever small scams and evasions he has going without a chance of getting caught. It allows him to be as narcissistic, pompous, self-important and overblown as possible without a chance of public criticism.
It is not the powerful characters who like this. It is the embittered and cornered. Every ghetto has its pimps, every blighted railroad town its corrupt sadistic sheriffs, every trailer park its thuggish loan sharks. These are the ones who feast from liberalism.
No matter what our leaders do, it is a pittance compared to the everyday graft, sabotage and incompetence of such people — average people, including all those whose minds have been replaced by lbieralism — and far less pervasive.
When a society it is healthy, it has regulated its people to keep out the insane. The healthy grow up innocent, brave, honest, curious and proud. Their pride is their identity, their honor, and their reason for wanting to excel.
Communism seeks to smash all those things. Curiously, so does modern liberalism, no matter how “neoconservative” it seems. Are these people Reds? It doesn’t matter; they act enough like them that we avoid them with the same wary paranoia that marked the end of the Soviet Union.
43 queries. 0.900 seconds
It is truly a problem when people consider society owes them a living.
Why does this happen?
Because they’ve succumbed their values and integrity to a regime and its rules. Gradually fading away.
But how is this communism different from conservatism? Both build on ideals and an enforcing government or leader. It is just the same??
If it is merely a difference of ideal, where one is right and another isn’t then we better investigate which is right and which is not.
IF people are all the same, that is more easy. If they are different, it turns more problematic. It they are different, it looks to me different ideals must be respected and that together they’d make a full circle. Honesty, Beauty, Liberty = Humanity. A true society, a great one. This appears so, to me. That people are different. All are similar, they want to realize their value, but their values are different.
How is a full circle possible, when it was not possible in the past. Conservatism can last only for a while, until some new Liberal or Marxistic thinker appears and seizes control. This is bound to go on indefinitely, unless a full circle is possible or humanity dies out.
I would assert something I was taught a long time ago–free people are difficult to lead.
Seems to me that Leftism tries to make whole groups of people easier to lead, as demonstrated by Marx where he wants to take away hierarchy, to give a small example.
Then, everyone just turns to a small number of officials to be told what to do and say.
Since BHO came onto the political scene in a big way, I know people who won’t let him be criticized. I’ve seen groups of young people marching, chanting and holding out their fists. I’ve seen the media failing to analyze him. They’re making themselves easy to lead. This gives me a terrible feeling inside. It could have been Hillary Clinton in an alternative reality, with large numbers of women adopting her speech style (thank heavens that did not happen omg omg.)
They’re two sides of a cycle. When a society is health, it’s conservative but doesn’t know it. When a society is sick, the people who resist that sickness are called conservatives.
Truth. And isn’t it funny how liberals will use the state and laws to pursue their agenda yet deride the Constitution as being outdated? The law of the land is to be ignored yet we are expected to abide by the rule of law. If the Constitution is meaningless then isn’t it logical to assume that current laws are as well?
Well stated!
My comment relates to the picture I see of the Soviet army marching all as one, looking all the same. It’s standard for the military to make everyone conform but outside of that, look at the people who’ve got the same disease.
People with liver disease all get that green-tinted, fatty skin. People with aids all waste away. Porn stars all end up with their lip injections and botox and hair dye and boob implants, looking alike. What does that say of those who get dread locks and wear tie-dye? Or those of us who get fat, and fatter, who can’t be bothered to take care of ourselves anymore? We lost our energy and we all look alike.
I’m not proclaiming this to be an absolute edict of truth, but just giving an observation that is probably valid.
Healthy people are all individual and unique. They have their own interests and their own ideas. I try to be healthy more now.
For me, that’s the distinction: does the person have forward interests, such that they’re working toward something, or are they focused on the surface, trying to re-arrange the dreadlocks and tie-dyes in some “unique” way? The former is a real person, the latter is a confused person.
Hehe :)
Leftists are colour-blind. Unable to see red. Or any other colour.
It’s phenomenal how many of them vomit out leftist-dogma and then claim not to be what they are.
Free-thinking, open-minded, egalitarian, nice, non-judgmental, un-bigoted, tolerant, friendly, caring, inclusive…
None of the above applies to leftists, although that is the way they describe themselves. Such terms better describe those people whose lives they relentlessly set out to wreck, because in their inverted view of things, only the opposite of what they see, is what they actually see.
If they see anything at all.
Inversion: the way of the leftist.
“Inversion: the way of the leftist.” I think we all get hoodwinked because we expect ideology to be problem-solving, cause-effect based. Instead it’s like excuses that drunk people make at parties.
I read some Venus materials a couple of years ago. It was leftist throughout, full of lies and “inclusive” “humanistic” demagogy.
Among other things, they proposed
* unification of the world in all aspects;
* entrusting all important decisions to computers;
* moving all population to cities;
* entrusting all production, and work in general, to machines so that people will only consume;
* letting every person develop in the direction they are inclined to.
Hello Skynet! =))))
Letting every person develop in the direction they are inclined to sounds so neat! What would happen is, there’d be a list of official choices of things that are closest to one’s inclinations, and here is the terminology, and here is what we want you to make out of it. In other words, more loss of autonomy.
I don’t trust the Utopian concept at all. We don’t need some “new system.” We need to return to what works.
Tell me what works, and I will book tickets to get there tomorrow.