Albert Einstein once said:
"There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."
Lithuanian-born American International anarchist Emma Goldman who was involved in left-wing activities from about 1890 to 1917 also said:
"The ultimate end of all revolutionary social change is to establish the sanctity of human life, the dignity of man, the right of every human being to liberty and well-being."
A few days ago I met with a very committed Swedish environmentalist with strong left-wing leanings. We hit it off immediately when I learned that he was a libertarian and comitted to family togetherness. He is a supporter of my website. Indeed, he was planning to buy a large farm and to become self-sufficient. I met his adult daughters and son too, all family people, who had this strong desire to move in with their father on the farm so that they could all be together in order to maintain extended family cohesiveness. For him, as for myself, kinship was the main thing.
How could I, who am slightly right of centre, find so much in common with a man of the left? The answer: because we were both libertarians and both family-minded. Indeed, he had been an active member of the Swedish Miljö (Environmental/Green) Party, which has formed alliances with the Social Democrats in the past, but had since distanced himself because it has become totalitarian in its attitides like the Liberal Folkpartiet.
As I show elsewhere on my politics website, the main issue in politics for me is not so much about the differences between 'left' and 'right' but the clash between libertarianism and totalitarianism. It means in practice that I can get along with people across most of the political spectrum in Swedish politics provided they are committed to the principles of democracy and liberty.
Take the quotation above of left-wing anarchist Emma Goldman, who championed the sanctity of life and liberty (albeit with strong statist leanings), with Karl Marx who invoked a dictum of Goethe's devil in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoléon:
"Everything that exists deserves to perish."
What is it in the psychological make-up of Karl Marx that inspired so many of his devotees in the 20th century to become heartless mass-murderers? What is it that leads supposedly rational people who profess a desire to see, and be an instrument in, the improvement of human society, deify and worship monstrous tyrants like Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung as though they were benign father-figures? What is it about these psychopaths that makes them so attractive to so many?
Jamie Glazov believes that the psychopath's
"...totalitarian journey begins with an acute sense of alienation from his own society - an alienation to which he is, himself, completety blind. In denial about the character flaws that prevent him from bonding with his own people, the believer (Marxist) has convinced himself that there is something profoundly wrong with his society - and that it can be fixed without any negative trade-offs. He fantisizes about building a perfect society where he will, finally, fit in. As Eric Hoffer noted in his classic, The True Believer, 'people with a sense of fulfillment think it is a good world and would like to conserve it as it is, while the frustrated favor radical change'" (1).
Inevitably, if your home is a liberal democracy, the alienated Marxist is forced to reject the values of democracy and personal freedom as a means of validating his own emptiness:
"Tortured by his personal alienation, which is accompanied by feelings of self-loathing, the believer craves a fairy-tale world where no individuality exists, and where human estrangement is thus impossible. The believer fantasizes about his own individuality and self will be submerged within the collective whole" (2).
Speaking about mass movements in general, Eric Hoffer notes that such a collective mentality
"appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation. People who see their lives as irremediably spoiled cannot find a worthwhile purpose in self-advancement. They look on self-interest as something tainted and evil; something unclean and unlucky...Their innermost craving is for a new life - a rebirth - or, failing this, a chance to acquire new elements of pride, confidence, a sense of purpose and worth by an identification with a holy cause. An active mass movement offers them opportunities for both" (3).
The record of history shows again and again that such mass movements (Hitler likening his own to a "Holy Order") lead not to any earthly paradise but to shere hell. Why do these mass movements do this? Because they are in fundamental denial about the human condition which is basically selfish and the opposite of being altruistic. Communism in the former Soviet Union long sought to shape and mold the 'Communist Man' but by its own admission failed to do so because of this very flaw in human nature. Whether by fascist or marxist will, through legislation, political indoctrination and social control (and oppression), you cannot shape the perfect human form, and every time you do, you end up with oppression and genocide. In the name of creating this 'New Man', over 100 million souls were offered up in sacrifice by this Marxist Death Cult in the last century without the formation of a single 'new man'. All they did was attract psychopaths who delighted in the suffering of others, much as Swedish Social Services do today in their child racketeering operation. In more ways than one, this Marxist Death Cult is the exact diametric opposite of Christianity on which it was modelled but with dictators like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il-sung, and Mugabe as the new gods.
Marxism is not at all concerned with the sanctity of life. Indeed, Marxists kills off what humanity they may once have possessed. There are few human connections even between fellow travelers. This absence of humane feelings for other people is philosophised away. The love of people is abstracted into the imaginary love for humanity as though individual humans were no more than the replacable cells of an imaginary, far away supra-human. But since humanity is then impersonalised it becomes easier to treat individual humans in the same way:
"The believer loves people from a distance, though he hates individuals up close and in particular. The human beings he imagines he loves, meanwhile, become part of his fantasy community" (4).
We can perhaps begin to understand better how Karl Marx himself became estranged from his otherwise seemingly normal and caring father who wanted the best for his son. Once convinced that he was a victim - in the Marxist's case, of 'captialism' and therefore of an abstract, distant society or community of 'capitalists' (read: everyone who is not a Marxist) - a self-reinforcing cycle gets under way. Marxism may therefore be seen as the political equivalent of a kind of Münchausen Syndrome, "a psychiatric factitious disorder wherein those affected feign disease, illness, or psychological trauma to draw attention or sympathy to themselves" (5). In the Marxist's case, the feelings of victimisation and alienation he feels about himself and the disconnectedness from other people that he feels because of his psychopathic dysfunctionality is projected on an imaginary community of 'captitalists' who are as distressed and as miserable as himself. With the same loathing he has for himself because of his disconnectedness, he has no scruples in oppressing, abusing or killing off individual capitalists for the sake of 'protecting' the distant 'community of humans oppressed by capitalism'. This is his way of diverting attention away from himself as well as giving him a rationalision for the brutal behaviour that results from this disconnectedness "for the sake of suffering humanity" which is but an image of himself. Marxism then becomes a kind of opiate for this 'victim' of self-ammassed complexes.
"The more victimized the believer envisions himself to be, the closer he feels to the supposed victims of captalism; the more the victims of capitalism suffer, the greater the indignation the believer can feel through his empathy for them. The more victims there are to identify with, the larger the community the believer belongs to. It becomes clear why the existence (real or imagined) of the impoverished and alienated classes under capitalism is so vital for the believer. His entire identity is wrapped up in his vision of their victimisation" (6).
This is not, of course, to give carte blanche to every kind of capitalism, which is not what this essay is about (7), namely, the psychology of the Marxist mindset and the rationalisations for violence and oppression that they invent for self-justification. Indeed, Glazov goes on to convincingly claim that the symptoms that we see in Marxist behaviour are clear evidence that Marxism is a religion but with man as god:
"Guilt is instrumental in the rotation of this circle. Usually coming from and/or occupying a position of privilege, the believer is guilt-ridden about his material comfort and high social status. Ashamed that he is not a genuine victim, he creates the myth that he is. By making himself a member, in his imagination, of the poor, the oppressed, and the downtrodden, he feels a sense of atonement. He is paying his karmic debt by being a believer.
"In this way the believer keeps his delusions secure. Yet because those delusions are founded on the shakiest of ground, the leftist must be extremely rigid in denying basic, common-sense realities (e.g. communism is evil... that needs to be fought). If a leftist were to admit these things, his belief system would collapse entirely.
"The desperatioon with which the believer clings to his belief system becomes understandable. It fuels the rage and fury that is already at the root of his psychological makeup. At this point, another dynamic element enters the circle: the rage that manifests itself in the need to hold onto the belief system meshes with the rage that gave life to the belief system in the first place"
This simple model consisting of well understood psychological elements makes the understanding of any irrational belief system, whether secular or religious, easy to grasp. It explains the indifference to suffering that many secularists and religionists have toward the people in the systems they support and have created. The enemy then ceases to be human any longer and worthy only of annihilation, the reverse ethic of Christianity which demands that its adherents love their enemies and those who persecute them:
"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you" (10).
Within the authentic (11) Christian system, which is the foundation of Western civilisation, enemies are viewed not as people to be destroyed but as people to be won over. Libertarianism likewise is willing to accept and protect people of different belief systems, whether secular or religious, who are willing to live together in peace and mutual respect, but must protect against those of a psychopathic disposition who wish to force others into one particular view or lifestyle against their will. This means that there is certainly a place for libertarian (non-violent) communism (anarchism) in a truly free society but not totalitarianism, whether it be from 'left' or 'right'.
Those who reject the libertarian model possess what Glazov calls a "negative idetification dynamic". Such a person
"has failed to identify positively with his own environment and so seeks to subjugate his individuality to a powerful, authoritarian entity, through which he vicariously experiences a feeling of power and purpose" (12)
Sadly, the Death Cult is not today limited to Marxism but now extends to religious fanatics willing to blow themselves and others up for their causes. The psychological dynamic is nevertheless much the same for both, a symptom of the pervasive alienation that results when people become disconnected from love and fail to see life as a miracle worth defending at all costs.
Life is precious to the libertarian but not to the communist for you are either with him our you're a dead man:
"We'll ask the man, where do you stand on the question of the revolution? Are you for it or against it? If he's against it, we'll stand him up against a wall" (Lenin).
Not only that, but they'll actually enjoy murdering you:
"Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls into my hands! My nostrils dilate while savouring the acrid odour of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl" (Che Guevara, Motorcycle Diaries).
The guns of most Marxists have been temporarily shelved because of the failure of the gun to prevail in Europe. For now they're pretending to be liberals and democrats in the West, or excelling at being capitalists in the East, but their fingers yet itch for the trigger. The psychopathic behaviour remains, the barely concealed hatred of everything and anyone who don't have their political disease still festers and drives them to the point of insanity, their ambitions no different from the dictators of the last century. America and the European Union are already getting a taste of their malice, their willingness to destroy everything in order to build their own failed system once again. Driven by forces they barely understand, they would drive us all like lemmings to oblivion to satisfy their blood lust.
I have listened for hours to modern 'liberal' Marxists like Slovenian intellectual Slavoj ˇi˛ek who claims to be anti-totalitarian and deconstructionist (following his bad Titoist Yugoslav experience) but in moments when his guard is down and he lets his emotions get the better of himself, I pick up the same old strains of the death cult. It's there, in all of them, barely beneath the surface or deeply buried so that they can pass off the illusion that they're now good, peaceful democrats. With their banners and megaphones on the streets they spew the same old hate, the same death-wishes on all their enemies...which is everyone but themselves.
Communism is not dead, it has simply renamed itself, reorganised itself, and replanted itself amongst decent Social Democrats and Liberals. Where it retains an independent identity, it's following is always in a small minority for it is incapable of winning the hearts of ordinary people save those it dupes. In the forefront of political correctness it spews more hate than anyone else, redefining hate as anything that is against itself and teaching democrats its own warped language.
The world needs to wake up to what 'Third Wave' and other Marxists are really up to and do to that Communism needs to be denounced with the same vehemence as Nazism after 1945. Until it is stripped naked in the mass media, the Death Cult will continue to spread under its many disguises, warping peoples minds and shutting down their hearts. This must become a Libertarian Age or else we will descend into another great period of darkness, resurrecting up the butchering hoardes of Stalin and Mao once again. And if the mainstream media won't do it, then you, the oridinary person, must, using alternative media so that everyone knows the truth and no one is any longer in doubt.
Endnotes
(1) Jamie Glazov, United in Hate: The Left's Romance With Tyranny and Terror (WND Books, Los Angeles, CA: 2009), p.6
(2) Jamie Glazov, op.cit., p.7
(3) Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (Harper & Row, NY: 1951), pp.12-13
(4) Jamie Glazov, op.cit., p.10
(5) Wikipedia, Münchausen syndrome
(6) Jamie Glazov, op.cit., p.10
(7) I myself am strongly opposed to corporate and monopoly capitalism
(8) Jamie Glazov, op.cit., pp.10-11
(9) See Dennis Prager, Why Doesn't Communism Have as Bad a Name as Nazism? Something You Always Wanted to Know But Were Afraid to Ask
(10) Jesus Christ, Luke 6:27-28, New King James Version of the Bible
(11) Which is not to say that all who call themselves 'Christian' live up to this standard as they should or that they are justified in not doing so
(12) Jamie Glazov, op.cit., pp.11-12
