Special Report
IN PROGRESS |
"Whoa! This is amazing! Thank you!"
- Virginia "good piece!" - Virginia |
The Delusionati: How to Bring Down the Left’s Entire House of Cards
- A Perfect World and the End of Human Suffering. Really?
by a former Leftist and Liberato.US
Part 1 - The Dream
Part 2 - Moral Ju-Jitsu
Part 3 - Ends, Means, and Monsters
Part 1
The Dream
Despite several decades of policy failures and setbacks, the Left proceeds undeterred, always returning to its policy ambitions like a Phoenix rising from the ashes. It presses on, pursuing its agenda in ever-more aggressive fashion. In attributing this behavior to misguided good intentions, the Right misunderstands the Left’s true motivations and behavioral patterns. The Right will never defeat the Left until the Right fully comprehends what makes the Left tick and takes direct aim at the Left’s psychological make-up.
The utopian ideals of socialism have existed for thousands of years. But with the rise of the Enlightenment, socialist impulses which had been around since antiquity took a new course. Where once Utopia was based in religion and rooted in the hereafter, paradise now took on secular trappings emanating from its new location on planet Earth. The period witnessed unparalleled growth in knowledge of the physical world and the ability to harness it in ways that marveled all of humanity. And with the seemingly limitless reach of the human mind, many idealist elites now wondered, as the physical world was tamed, could not this same attention be turned to the realm of human affairs with the same success? Thus, modern forms of socialism began to be forged.
The elite Left has been educated to believe there is a body of “secret” knowledge that is revealed exclusively to them because they are the only ones enlightened and smart enough to understand it. The general public is unable to perceive and appreciate the Hidden Truths of the World because the public is unevolved, short-sighted, and selfish. Novitiates on the Left see their initiation into the Special Rites of Secret Knowledge as evidence of their own moral superiority. The notion that delving into the Sacred Mysteries of Mankind is beyond the ken of the average individual feeds their intellectual vanity and snobbery. These rarefied, morally superior beings flatter themselves with the conceit that they have become, in Thomas Sowell’s words, “The Anointed”. All bow down.
What is this “secret” knowledge? Simply, that the Dream of bringing about Paradise on Earth for the first time in all of recorded History in now within reach. The problem of alleviating all the pain and suffering Man has endured since the beginning of Time, which has eluded philosophers for thousands of years, has finally been solved. Armed with this clairvoyant knowledge, the Dreamkeepers on the Left, like Moses, believe themselves uniquely qualified - and morally obligated - to lead Humanity into this earthly Promised Land. The sheer magnitude of what’s at stake morally elevates all who share and propagate the socialist vision. This sense of elitist moral superiority over the primitive masses forms the core of the Left’s self-identity.
To the morally evolved Left, people who resist such an enlightened, self-evident vision are only revealing their moral backwardness. How can any moral human being be opposed to a vision that offers for the first time in all Humanity the permanent eradication of all human suffering - the goal of all true caring people for thousands of years? Only sick, twisted human beings could object. Concomitantly, if oppression and exploitation are as bad as socialist true believers say they are, how could any moral being not want to smash all regressive forces, By Any Means Necessary? It is the Left Man’s Burden to squelch all opposition and ram a perfect world down everyone’s throat, one failed policy at a time. As apparatchiks in the disastrous Obama administration proclaimed early on, ‘we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.’
- A Perfect World and the End of Human Suffering. Really?
by a former Leftist and Liberato.US
Part 1 - The Dream
Part 2 - Moral Ju-Jitsu
Part 3 - Ends, Means, and Monsters
Part 1
The Dream
Despite several decades of policy failures and setbacks, the Left proceeds undeterred, always returning to its policy ambitions like a Phoenix rising from the ashes. It presses on, pursuing its agenda in ever-more aggressive fashion. In attributing this behavior to misguided good intentions, the Right misunderstands the Left’s true motivations and behavioral patterns. The Right will never defeat the Left until the Right fully comprehends what makes the Left tick and takes direct aim at the Left’s psychological make-up.
The utopian ideals of socialism have existed for thousands of years. But with the rise of the Enlightenment, socialist impulses which had been around since antiquity took a new course. Where once Utopia was based in religion and rooted in the hereafter, paradise now took on secular trappings emanating from its new location on planet Earth. The period witnessed unparalleled growth in knowledge of the physical world and the ability to harness it in ways that marveled all of humanity. And with the seemingly limitless reach of the human mind, many idealist elites now wondered, as the physical world was tamed, could not this same attention be turned to the realm of human affairs with the same success? Thus, modern forms of socialism began to be forged.
The elite Left has been educated to believe there is a body of “secret” knowledge that is revealed exclusively to them because they are the only ones enlightened and smart enough to understand it. The general public is unable to perceive and appreciate the Hidden Truths of the World because the public is unevolved, short-sighted, and selfish. Novitiates on the Left see their initiation into the Special Rites of Secret Knowledge as evidence of their own moral superiority. The notion that delving into the Sacred Mysteries of Mankind is beyond the ken of the average individual feeds their intellectual vanity and snobbery. These rarefied, morally superior beings flatter themselves with the conceit that they have become, in Thomas Sowell’s words, “The Anointed”. All bow down.
What is this “secret” knowledge? Simply, that the Dream of bringing about Paradise on Earth for the first time in all of recorded History in now within reach. The problem of alleviating all the pain and suffering Man has endured since the beginning of Time, which has eluded philosophers for thousands of years, has finally been solved. Armed with this clairvoyant knowledge, the Dreamkeepers on the Left, like Moses, believe themselves uniquely qualified - and morally obligated - to lead Humanity into this earthly Promised Land. The sheer magnitude of what’s at stake morally elevates all who share and propagate the socialist vision. This sense of elitist moral superiority over the primitive masses forms the core of the Left’s self-identity.
To the morally evolved Left, people who resist such an enlightened, self-evident vision are only revealing their moral backwardness. How can any moral human being be opposed to a vision that offers for the first time in all Humanity the permanent eradication of all human suffering - the goal of all true caring people for thousands of years? Only sick, twisted human beings could object. Concomitantly, if oppression and exploitation are as bad as socialist true believers say they are, how could any moral being not want to smash all regressive forces, By Any Means Necessary? It is the Left Man’s Burden to squelch all opposition and ram a perfect world down everyone’s throat, one failed policy at a time. As apparatchiks in the disastrous Obama administration proclaimed early on, ‘we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.’
The duty to usher in so tremendous a New Age of Enlightenment makes it immoral not to sacrifice all to bring it about. The beauty and moral perfection of the socialist vision-thing justifies deceit and violence against an unredeemed, unevolved opposition. Not to worry - the Left undertakes such unsavory measures with the purest of motives.
As long as Leftists hold on to this view of themselves and their program, they will never abandon the fight. If Heaven on Earth doesn’t exist, all their work and hopes are a failure and a sham. For if their Dream is a lie, they are a lie. And, consequently, they would no longer be morally superior to the rest of us unenlightened boobs they so despise. Their core identity would be completely shattered. This is why there can be no retreat for the Left from the glorious all-encompassing Dream of socialism for all humankind.
To defeat the Left, one must destroy the Dream. Critiquing failed policies and saying socialism has never worked anywhere just bounces off. Not destroying the Dream itself only encourages socialists to try harder, to ‘do it right’ the next time. The Right continually makes the mistake of thinking it has completely vanquished the Left on occasions the Left loses. The Right always declares victory prematurely. The latest incarnation of this phenomenon: ‘Trump got elected; everything’s OK now.’ This is foolishness. Electoral losses and the demise of Leftist policies are just temporary setbacks to the Left. Until the Right understands the megalomaniacal psychology of elite socialists and their grandiose motivations, there can be no true defeat of the Left.
Recurring Dream
Marxism has been criticized for merely recycling the gnostic fantasy that has been around since the time of the ancient Greeks, which posits that:
- the world and humanity can be fundamentally transformed and perfected through the intervention of a chosen group of people (an elite), a man-god, or men-Gods, Übermensch, who are the chosen ones that possess a kind of special knowledge (like magic or science) about how to perfect human existence.
But as Leszek Kolakowski wrote:
- Marxism has been the greatest fantasy of our century. It was a dream offering the prospect of a society of perfect unity, in which all human aspirations would be fulfilled and all values reconciled…. The influence Marxism achieved, far from being the result of its scientific character, is almost entirely due to its prophetic, fantastic and irrational elements.
The socialist Delusionati suffer from moral inversion, thinking they can attain noble ends with despicable means. They are vulnerable to moral ju-jitsu, which will be taken up in the next installment in this series.
Part 2
Moral Ju-Jitsu
Socialism is founded upon an emotional appeal to a warped sense of moral justice. Therefore, rational arguments against socialism’s flawed logic will never defeat it. In rational argument, the socialist will always claim to have the facts and will deny the credibility of any source cited to refute those facts. Moreover, the socialist will defend the glory of the Dream despite all the evidence. Such a debate will prove fruitless.
There is a way around this that will devastate the Left’s position every time. To succeed, arguments against the Left must target its supposed moral superiority. Focus on underlying theory and engage the moral and theoretical underpinnings of the socialist’s position. Go after the moral philosophical architecture of the argument. Then, like in judo, turn their claims of moral and intellectual superiority back against them. The socialist is vulnerable to moral ju-jitsu. Don’t hesitate to characterize their ideas and policies for what they really are: “regressive”, “snobbish”, “selfish”, “primitive”, “harmful”, and “backward”.
Here are some avenues of attack:
1. Attack the Supposed Morality of the Position
The socialist claims to want to help the poor because the socialist ‘cares about people.’ But how is it moral to continue policies that have failed for half a century to stem poverty and violence in places like Baltimore and Detroit? How is it moral to make people dependent on government? How is it moral to de-equip people and make them less able to steward their own lives? Isn’t it immoral to turn people into “perpetual children”, to use de Tocqueville’s phrase? How is it moral to rob Peter to pay Paul? How does giving away other people’s money make you virtuous? How does it make you philanthropic or altruistic? How is it moral to attempt to buy votes with social spending? (Bismarck was quite explicit about this last point.) In short, attack the moral legitimacy of the position and show how the position is, in fact, immoral.
Example
Reducing inequality - How is taking money and rights from a “privileged” group to give to a “disadvantaged” group going to help either? Let’s use the example of two students in the same class. Student A gets a 90 out of 100 while Student B gets 60 out of 100. How do we “help” Student B? Is it by taking points from Student A to give to Student B? How is that morally justified? What right do you have to take the points from Student A if the points were earned honestly and not taken from B? There’s a name for taking what is not yours from someone without their permission – it’s called stealing. Isn’t it greedy to take what doesn’t belong to you? And what about Student B, would getting 15 points from A make B a better student? Obviously not. So, if we follow the socialist plan, how is the world a better place? Student A, now with fewer points, is worse off. Student B, the focus of the socialist’s compassion, is also worse off because B is now incentivized to remain weak and incompetent, believing a magical solution courtesy of government will appear every time a rescue is needed from the vicissitudes of life. Also, we now have created a kleptocratic system in which politicians can steal arbitrarily and redistribute benefits according to their perverted subjective sense of justice, enriching themselves in the process. Bad students need teachers who will redistribute points, no matter how bad the teachers might be at teaching. Such teachers are assured of gainful employment in a redistributionist system. So demand of the socialist: How can you maintain with a straight face that such a system is at all just or morally defensible, much less morally superior?
2. Stop It, You’re HURTING Me!
Socialists believe that their initiatives are aimed at bettering humanity and succeed in doing so. So point out how their policies do just the opposite and actually HURT people. Throw a spotlight on the innocent victims of their policies. It’s best to leave this on the theoretical level, as in the first example below. Second best is to allude to facts that are so big and broad they can scarcely be denied, as in the invocation of living conditions in Baltimore and Detroit in the first line of attack above. Other examples of using broad facts include:
- How was it moral to destroy the black family with Great Society welfare programs? And what are going to do to fix it? (Put your opponents on the defensive.)
- How can you justify policies that reduce Venezuelans to eating zoo animals just to stay alive?
- How is it moral to take the socialist road when you know free enterprise is far more productive and leads to more prosperity for more people?
As for narrower sets of facts, stories of Progressive harm abound (e.g., Obama administration policies regarding racial discrimination in student discipline led to the Parkland shooting). But proceeding on this level makes you vulnerable to disputes about facts and sources, as mentioned above.
Example
Illegal Immigration - Point out all the crime and suffering that has occurred as a result of permitting rampant illegal immigration – from shootings and murders to the drunk driver who killed the nun in Virginia. Then, ask Progressives why they feel the lives and welfare of Americans are worth less than those of illegal aliens. Is the country really better off with open border policies? How so?
3. Re-Frame Issues
If you play by your opponent’s rules, you will always lose. One of the core sources of socialist moral pride is their alignment with the “victim”. So, re-frame socialist policy as one that oppresses morally-worthy victims. So, if a socialist calls for big taxes and regulations to address an issue, ask them why they want to stifle entrepreneurs from offering innovative solutions:
a. “Why do you want to keep using antiquated, rigid, top-down solutions when we can use more progressive solutions based on competition and entrepreneurship?” (Notice how this takes back the language. The Left does not own the word ‘progressive’ and the Right does not have to cede it to them.)
b. “Why do you want to deprive society of better, cheaper solutions that will improve people’s lives?”
c. Defining Words - The Right places itself at a huge disadvantage when it allows the Left to define words and ideas. By the Left’s dominance in language, they are able to set the moral parameters of the debate. And when you are always on the defensive, you lose.
Example
“We” – People thoughtlessly throw around the word ‘we’, as in ‘we need a law’ or ‘we need to do X’. But one of the most crucial differences between the Right and the Left is the concept of “we”. Arguably the greatest philosophical breakthrough the classical liberal Right made was to draw a distinction between People (society) and Government. The socialist retains the less-evolved understanding equating the two. So, for example, when a socialist argues that “we as a society must do X as it is crucial to society’s welfare,” respond by saying, “Yes, society should get involved, but why do you want people to give up their power and surrender it to greedy politicians and selfish bureaucrats? Involve society – yes, government – no.”
Example
“Rights” – Another word is “rights” which the socialist defines very differently than classical liberals do. To a classical liberal, a right is freedom from government dominion in some particular respect, as in the Bill of Rights (‘negative liberty’ – what the government can’t do to you). To the socialist or Progressive, a right means a government-provided benefit, e.g., housing, healthcare, redistribution, paid vacations, etc., as in FDR’s Second Bill of Rights (so-called ‘positive liberty’). So, for example, the Progressive will claim healthcare is a “right”: the State must furnish such services regardless of ability to pay. Such a definition opens a Pandora’s Box of politically-motivated wealth transfers, abuse of individual rights, vote-buying, and the stifling of healthcare innovation. This understanding is at odds with the classical liberal definition which aims to limit the interference of government: a “right” is so essential to the welfare of the individual that the State is restricted from obstructing it, through taxes or regulation. This goes for both the individual obtaining the service and the producer supplying it. Want to make the socialist’s head explode? Agree that healthcare is a “right”. Of course! That’s why government must be restricted from interfering with the way people choose the insurance plans and healthcare providers that suit them best, and also from obstructing suppliers from providing insurance coverage and medical services. Thus, a “right” is not a green light to big government, but rather a severe restriction upon it. Ask a Progressive if they believe that human beings have a “right” to protect their own lives from an aggressor. If they say “Yes”, then ask if they will support a government program to supply guns to all Americans. After all, it’s a right, just like they said. Wait for the funny look on their face.
4. Expose Hypocrisy
Don’t hesitate to expose how Progressives do not live according to their own stated ideals. ‘Think Left, Live Right’ is the order of the day.
Example
School Choice - Ask the Progressive whether they send their child to a private school. If so, why don’t they support the same opportunities for middle-class and poor parents? And to politicians who do not favor school choice, ask what they are afraid of. If the schools they control are as wonderful as they claim, few would choose to send their children to non-government schools.
Example
Immigration - Progressives strongly favor immigration from dysfunctional countries, but these immigrants are often placed in less well-off regions of America. Ask Progressives who live in nice areas why they don’t favor locating these immigrants in their own neighborhoods, their gated communities, or even their own homes?
5. Employ Ridicule.
This is one of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and it can be turned back on the Left. They are notoriously thin-skinned. Make fun of them. Tell them they are chasing unicorns and rainbows. Call them Pollyanna Progressives – always moralizing and sermonizing. There they go again, they just can’t help themselves. The sanctimonious, smug Left is a target-rich environment for ridicule.
Moral Ju-Jitsu
Socialism is founded upon an emotional appeal to a warped sense of moral justice. Therefore, rational arguments against socialism’s flawed logic will never defeat it. In rational argument, the socialist will always claim to have the facts and will deny the credibility of any source cited to refute those facts. Moreover, the socialist will defend the glory of the Dream despite all the evidence. Such a debate will prove fruitless.
There is a way around this that will devastate the Left’s position every time. To succeed, arguments against the Left must target its supposed moral superiority. Focus on underlying theory and engage the moral and theoretical underpinnings of the socialist’s position. Go after the moral philosophical architecture of the argument. Then, like in judo, turn their claims of moral and intellectual superiority back against them. The socialist is vulnerable to moral ju-jitsu. Don’t hesitate to characterize their ideas and policies for what they really are: “regressive”, “snobbish”, “selfish”, “primitive”, “harmful”, and “backward”.
Here are some avenues of attack:
1. Attack the Supposed Morality of the Position
The socialist claims to want to help the poor because the socialist ‘cares about people.’ But how is it moral to continue policies that have failed for half a century to stem poverty and violence in places like Baltimore and Detroit? How is it moral to make people dependent on government? How is it moral to de-equip people and make them less able to steward their own lives? Isn’t it immoral to turn people into “perpetual children”, to use de Tocqueville’s phrase? How is it moral to rob Peter to pay Paul? How does giving away other people’s money make you virtuous? How does it make you philanthropic or altruistic? How is it moral to attempt to buy votes with social spending? (Bismarck was quite explicit about this last point.) In short, attack the moral legitimacy of the position and show how the position is, in fact, immoral.
Example
Reducing inequality - How is taking money and rights from a “privileged” group to give to a “disadvantaged” group going to help either? Let’s use the example of two students in the same class. Student A gets a 90 out of 100 while Student B gets 60 out of 100. How do we “help” Student B? Is it by taking points from Student A to give to Student B? How is that morally justified? What right do you have to take the points from Student A if the points were earned honestly and not taken from B? There’s a name for taking what is not yours from someone without their permission – it’s called stealing. Isn’t it greedy to take what doesn’t belong to you? And what about Student B, would getting 15 points from A make B a better student? Obviously not. So, if we follow the socialist plan, how is the world a better place? Student A, now with fewer points, is worse off. Student B, the focus of the socialist’s compassion, is also worse off because B is now incentivized to remain weak and incompetent, believing a magical solution courtesy of government will appear every time a rescue is needed from the vicissitudes of life. Also, we now have created a kleptocratic system in which politicians can steal arbitrarily and redistribute benefits according to their perverted subjective sense of justice, enriching themselves in the process. Bad students need teachers who will redistribute points, no matter how bad the teachers might be at teaching. Such teachers are assured of gainful employment in a redistributionist system. So demand of the socialist: How can you maintain with a straight face that such a system is at all just or morally defensible, much less morally superior?
2. Stop It, You’re HURTING Me!
Socialists believe that their initiatives are aimed at bettering humanity and succeed in doing so. So point out how their policies do just the opposite and actually HURT people. Throw a spotlight on the innocent victims of their policies. It’s best to leave this on the theoretical level, as in the first example below. Second best is to allude to facts that are so big and broad they can scarcely be denied, as in the invocation of living conditions in Baltimore and Detroit in the first line of attack above. Other examples of using broad facts include:
- How was it moral to destroy the black family with Great Society welfare programs? And what are going to do to fix it? (Put your opponents on the defensive.)
- How can you justify policies that reduce Venezuelans to eating zoo animals just to stay alive?
- How is it moral to take the socialist road when you know free enterprise is far more productive and leads to more prosperity for more people?
As for narrower sets of facts, stories of Progressive harm abound (e.g., Obama administration policies regarding racial discrimination in student discipline led to the Parkland shooting). But proceeding on this level makes you vulnerable to disputes about facts and sources, as mentioned above.
Example
Illegal Immigration - Point out all the crime and suffering that has occurred as a result of permitting rampant illegal immigration – from shootings and murders to the drunk driver who killed the nun in Virginia. Then, ask Progressives why they feel the lives and welfare of Americans are worth less than those of illegal aliens. Is the country really better off with open border policies? How so?
3. Re-Frame Issues
If you play by your opponent’s rules, you will always lose. One of the core sources of socialist moral pride is their alignment with the “victim”. So, re-frame socialist policy as one that oppresses morally-worthy victims. So, if a socialist calls for big taxes and regulations to address an issue, ask them why they want to stifle entrepreneurs from offering innovative solutions:
a. “Why do you want to keep using antiquated, rigid, top-down solutions when we can use more progressive solutions based on competition and entrepreneurship?” (Notice how this takes back the language. The Left does not own the word ‘progressive’ and the Right does not have to cede it to them.)
b. “Why do you want to deprive society of better, cheaper solutions that will improve people’s lives?”
c. Defining Words - The Right places itself at a huge disadvantage when it allows the Left to define words and ideas. By the Left’s dominance in language, they are able to set the moral parameters of the debate. And when you are always on the defensive, you lose.
Example
“We” – People thoughtlessly throw around the word ‘we’, as in ‘we need a law’ or ‘we need to do X’. But one of the most crucial differences between the Right and the Left is the concept of “we”. Arguably the greatest philosophical breakthrough the classical liberal Right made was to draw a distinction between People (society) and Government. The socialist retains the less-evolved understanding equating the two. So, for example, when a socialist argues that “we as a society must do X as it is crucial to society’s welfare,” respond by saying, “Yes, society should get involved, but why do you want people to give up their power and surrender it to greedy politicians and selfish bureaucrats? Involve society – yes, government – no.”
Example
“Rights” – Another word is “rights” which the socialist defines very differently than classical liberals do. To a classical liberal, a right is freedom from government dominion in some particular respect, as in the Bill of Rights (‘negative liberty’ – what the government can’t do to you). To the socialist or Progressive, a right means a government-provided benefit, e.g., housing, healthcare, redistribution, paid vacations, etc., as in FDR’s Second Bill of Rights (so-called ‘positive liberty’). So, for example, the Progressive will claim healthcare is a “right”: the State must furnish such services regardless of ability to pay. Such a definition opens a Pandora’s Box of politically-motivated wealth transfers, abuse of individual rights, vote-buying, and the stifling of healthcare innovation. This understanding is at odds with the classical liberal definition which aims to limit the interference of government: a “right” is so essential to the welfare of the individual that the State is restricted from obstructing it, through taxes or regulation. This goes for both the individual obtaining the service and the producer supplying it. Want to make the socialist’s head explode? Agree that healthcare is a “right”. Of course! That’s why government must be restricted from interfering with the way people choose the insurance plans and healthcare providers that suit them best, and also from obstructing suppliers from providing insurance coverage and medical services. Thus, a “right” is not a green light to big government, but rather a severe restriction upon it. Ask a Progressive if they believe that human beings have a “right” to protect their own lives from an aggressor. If they say “Yes”, then ask if they will support a government program to supply guns to all Americans. After all, it’s a right, just like they said. Wait for the funny look on their face.
4. Expose Hypocrisy
Don’t hesitate to expose how Progressives do not live according to their own stated ideals. ‘Think Left, Live Right’ is the order of the day.
Example
School Choice - Ask the Progressive whether they send their child to a private school. If so, why don’t they support the same opportunities for middle-class and poor parents? And to politicians who do not favor school choice, ask what they are afraid of. If the schools they control are as wonderful as they claim, few would choose to send their children to non-government schools.
Example
Immigration - Progressives strongly favor immigration from dysfunctional countries, but these immigrants are often placed in less well-off regions of America. Ask Progressives who live in nice areas why they don’t favor locating these immigrants in their own neighborhoods, their gated communities, or even their own homes?
5. Employ Ridicule.
This is one of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and it can be turned back on the Left. They are notoriously thin-skinned. Make fun of them. Tell them they are chasing unicorns and rainbows. Call them Pollyanna Progressives – always moralizing and sermonizing. There they go again, they just can’t help themselves. The sanctimonious, smug Left is a target-rich environment for ridicule.
Example
Let’s use minimum wage laws as a final example to put it all together. If the argument is made along empirical lines, the socialist will simply scoff at any evidence. But if you point out the multiple moral principles that minimum wage laws violate, the socialist is no longer in a comfortable position and is now on the moral defensive:
Attack on Moral Grounds - What moral right do you have to tell private business owners how much they much they have to pay their employees? Not respecting private property rights is regressive. Moreover, why should government get in the price-fixing racket? That’s corrupt!
Show How the Policy Hurts People – Numerous studies show that increasing the minimum wage kills jobs. But instead of wandering into this factual thicket and getting into disputes about the credibility of the studies, proceed on the theoretical level and appeal to common sense: Are you saying that raising labor prices will increase demand for labor? That’s crazy. The opposite is true. Raise wages and demand for labor will go down. Demand for robots will go up. Why do you want to increase unemployment? Why do you want to cut the bottom rungs off the economic ladder, so that students and others just starting out have fewer economic opportunities?
Minimum wage laws don’t just hurt workers. Employers are less free when government is dictating the price of labor. Moreover, such laws impose compliance costs. The increased cost of regulatory compliance makes it more difficult to earn a living. Mom & Pop establishments without the deep pockets of the major corporations and national chains are hurt the most. Why do you favor the corporate giants over small business?
Then there are the consumers who are just barely able to afford dining out on occasion. Doesn’t it stand to reason that a higher minimum wage will increase the cost of eating in restaurants? Why do you want to deny these people the pleasure of dining out?
Re-Frame the Issue –The minimum wage is not about putting more money in the hands of low-skilled workers. It’s about making people weak so government can more easily dominate them. It’s not compassionate to pay people more than they are really worth. If the law will hand them an unearned bonus, they have no incentive to better themselves. That’s not compassionate; that’s keeping them from reaching their full potential. The same goes for higher-wage workers. When available funds are redirected toward the low end, good workers will have fewer opportunities to earn wages truly commensurate with their performance. Thus, the minimum wage drags everyone down into mediocrity. The government gets stronger by comparison. You’re not in favor of mediocrity and phony compassion, are you? You want everyone to reach their full potential, don’t you?
Expose Hypocrisy – Unions often seek exemptions from minimum wage laws so their own members can be paid less.
Employ Ridicule – You’re in favor of raising the minimum wage? I bet you own stock in a robot company. If a $15 an hour minimum wage is good, why stop there? Why not $150, or $1,500 for that matter? The burger flipper lobby got to you, huh? Burger Flippers of the World, Unite! Why are you so right-wing – why aren’t you out working for a Universal Basic Income, instead? Minimum wage, hah! That’s small potatoes. You’re losing your socialist cred.
Let’s use minimum wage laws as a final example to put it all together. If the argument is made along empirical lines, the socialist will simply scoff at any evidence. But if you point out the multiple moral principles that minimum wage laws violate, the socialist is no longer in a comfortable position and is now on the moral defensive:
Attack on Moral Grounds - What moral right do you have to tell private business owners how much they much they have to pay their employees? Not respecting private property rights is regressive. Moreover, why should government get in the price-fixing racket? That’s corrupt!
Show How the Policy Hurts People – Numerous studies show that increasing the minimum wage kills jobs. But instead of wandering into this factual thicket and getting into disputes about the credibility of the studies, proceed on the theoretical level and appeal to common sense: Are you saying that raising labor prices will increase demand for labor? That’s crazy. The opposite is true. Raise wages and demand for labor will go down. Demand for robots will go up. Why do you want to increase unemployment? Why do you want to cut the bottom rungs off the economic ladder, so that students and others just starting out have fewer economic opportunities?
Minimum wage laws don’t just hurt workers. Employers are less free when government is dictating the price of labor. Moreover, such laws impose compliance costs. The increased cost of regulatory compliance makes it more difficult to earn a living. Mom & Pop establishments without the deep pockets of the major corporations and national chains are hurt the most. Why do you favor the corporate giants over small business?
Then there are the consumers who are just barely able to afford dining out on occasion. Doesn’t it stand to reason that a higher minimum wage will increase the cost of eating in restaurants? Why do you want to deny these people the pleasure of dining out?
Re-Frame the Issue –The minimum wage is not about putting more money in the hands of low-skilled workers. It’s about making people weak so government can more easily dominate them. It’s not compassionate to pay people more than they are really worth. If the law will hand them an unearned bonus, they have no incentive to better themselves. That’s not compassionate; that’s keeping them from reaching their full potential. The same goes for higher-wage workers. When available funds are redirected toward the low end, good workers will have fewer opportunities to earn wages truly commensurate with their performance. Thus, the minimum wage drags everyone down into mediocrity. The government gets stronger by comparison. You’re not in favor of mediocrity and phony compassion, are you? You want everyone to reach their full potential, don’t you?
Expose Hypocrisy – Unions often seek exemptions from minimum wage laws so their own members can be paid less.
Employ Ridicule – You’re in favor of raising the minimum wage? I bet you own stock in a robot company. If a $15 an hour minimum wage is good, why stop there? Why not $150, or $1,500 for that matter? The burger flipper lobby got to you, huh? Burger Flippers of the World, Unite! Why are you so right-wing – why aren’t you out working for a Universal Basic Income, instead? Minimum wage, hah! That’s small potatoes. You’re losing your socialist cred.
Part 3 -
Ends, Means, and Monsters
As discussed in Part 1, the Socialist labors under the delusion that one can bring about heaven on earth by implementing the Left’s sacred program of collectivism. If the goal is within reach and the entire meaning of human existence depends upon it, wouldn’t it be immoral not to use every possible means to achieve it? The possession of a quasi-divine revelation and near-providential mandate to cure humankind of all its social ills requires the noble Socialist to lie, cheat, steal, and murder so a perfect world can be born.
But a funny thing happens on the way to Utopia. You never get there. As George Orwell observed, you can’t reach noble ends with despicable means. The very process of using evil means will corrupt the people using them, making their ends unattainable, no matter how hard they try.
The Incongruity of Ends and Means – Lenin wasn’t reticent about what it would take to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat:
Lenin’s disciples took these exhortations seriously. After spending six years in Moscow, writer and ultimately repentant fellow traveler Eugene Lyons (Assignment in Utopia [1937]) wrote:
Soviet shill and New York Times reporter Walter Duranty famously said in justifying Stalin’s deliberately engineered famine of the Holodomor, “to put it brutally – you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” And thus we arrive at Antifa, cracking heads in the streets in Berkeley today.
Utopia and Terror – Dreams of Utopia have been inseparable from terror throughout the history of the Left, starting with the Jacobins in the French Revolution. Their instrument of choice was the ‘French contraption’ (guillotine) and, pretty soon, 17,000 had literally lost their heads for the sake of Utopian dreams. Unlike petty authoritarians, Utopian tyrants want to remake society by first destroying it. But, as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot showed, Utopians can’t get to where they want to go without first terrorizing the people and killing millions of them.
Violence is my ideology, coercion is my sword, the way to Utopia is through terror. Some Dream.
Less bloody examples include lying to make your point. Former CBS newsman Bernard Goldberg wrote entire books about left-wing advocacy groups making up phony statistics regarding the homeless, heterosexual AIDS, etc. and passing them to a complicit left-wing media for dissemination to a gullible public. Likewise, the global warming crowd is notorious for lying to convince others to grant them the moral authority and political power to remake society along socialist lines. The truth or falsity of climate change is not important; fundamentally transforming society is. As former Senator and Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Tim Wirth said:
Sure. Only a Leftist far down the rabbit hole of groupthink could make such an idiotic statement. For the Left, winning is not just the IMPORTANT thing; it’s the ONLY thing, and it warps the character of the people who implement the Leftist program. Whether it’s deceit, violence, or murder, the ends justify the means, no matter how scurrilous.
But George Orwell pointed out the problem with employing scurrilous means to reach supposedly noble ends. No matter how hard you chase it with reprehensible means, the Dream always recedes into the distance. Orwell wrote, “You can achieve nothing unless you are willing to use force and cunning, but in using them you pervert your original aims.” (Collected Essays, Vol. 3, As I Please, “Arthur Koestler”, at p. 237).
Orwell further observed: “It is not merely that ‘power corrupts’: so also do the ways of attaining power. Therefore, all efforts to regenerate society by violent means lead to the cellars of the OGPU [Soviet secret police]....” (id., p. 240)
After the odious means work their corruption, the means take on a life of their own and consume the entire exercise. Orwell: “A tyrant is all the more admired if he happens to be a blood-stained crook as well, and ‘the end justifies the means’ often becomes, in effect, ‘the means justify themselves provided they are dirty enough.’” (id., “Raffles and Miss Blandish”, at p. 222).
Like other Utopian totalitarians before them, today’s Progressives have no qualms about getting to Utopia through terror (coercive means). But they will fail because of the corrupting effects of power. Power will corrupt everything they do and Utopia will never arrive. So, Progressives, you might as well give up now; every effort you make to coerce people and bend them to your will is futile and ultimately self-defeating.
Ends, Means, and Monsters
As discussed in Part 1, the Socialist labors under the delusion that one can bring about heaven on earth by implementing the Left’s sacred program of collectivism. If the goal is within reach and the entire meaning of human existence depends upon it, wouldn’t it be immoral not to use every possible means to achieve it? The possession of a quasi-divine revelation and near-providential mandate to cure humankind of all its social ills requires the noble Socialist to lie, cheat, steal, and murder so a perfect world can be born.
But a funny thing happens on the way to Utopia. You never get there. As George Orwell observed, you can’t reach noble ends with despicable means. The very process of using evil means will corrupt the people using them, making their ends unattainable, no matter how hard they try.
The Incongruity of Ends and Means – Lenin wasn’t reticent about what it would take to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat:
- “We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth…”
- “Morality is entirely subordinated to the class struggle of the proletariat….”
- “There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience….”
- "If for the sake of Communism it is necessary for us to destroy 9/10ths of the people, we must not hesitate."
Lenin’s disciples took these exhortations seriously. After spending six years in Moscow, writer and ultimately repentant fellow traveler Eugene Lyons (Assignment in Utopia [1937]) wrote:
- I was ready to liquidate classes, purge millions, sacrifice freedoms and elementary decencies, arm self-appointed dictators with a flaming sword – all for the cause. It was a species of revenge rationalized as social engineering. Then I saw these things in full swing and discovered that the revenge was being wreaked on the very masses that were to be saved by that cause. (quoted in Not Without Honor by Richard Gid Powers at p. 147)
Soviet shill and New York Times reporter Walter Duranty famously said in justifying Stalin’s deliberately engineered famine of the Holodomor, “to put it brutally – you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” And thus we arrive at Antifa, cracking heads in the streets in Berkeley today.
Utopia and Terror – Dreams of Utopia have been inseparable from terror throughout the history of the Left, starting with the Jacobins in the French Revolution. Their instrument of choice was the ‘French contraption’ (guillotine) and, pretty soon, 17,000 had literally lost their heads for the sake of Utopian dreams. Unlike petty authoritarians, Utopian tyrants want to remake society by first destroying it. But, as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot showed, Utopians can’t get to where they want to go without first terrorizing the people and killing millions of them.
Violence is my ideology, coercion is my sword, the way to Utopia is through terror. Some Dream.
Less bloody examples include lying to make your point. Former CBS newsman Bernard Goldberg wrote entire books about left-wing advocacy groups making up phony statistics regarding the homeless, heterosexual AIDS, etc. and passing them to a complicit left-wing media for dissemination to a gullible public. Likewise, the global warming crowd is notorious for lying to convince others to grant them the moral authority and political power to remake society along socialist lines. The truth or falsity of climate change is not important; fundamentally transforming society is. As former Senator and Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Tim Wirth said:
- We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.
Sure. Only a Leftist far down the rabbit hole of groupthink could make such an idiotic statement. For the Left, winning is not just the IMPORTANT thing; it’s the ONLY thing, and it warps the character of the people who implement the Leftist program. Whether it’s deceit, violence, or murder, the ends justify the means, no matter how scurrilous.
But George Orwell pointed out the problem with employing scurrilous means to reach supposedly noble ends. No matter how hard you chase it with reprehensible means, the Dream always recedes into the distance. Orwell wrote, “You can achieve nothing unless you are willing to use force and cunning, but in using them you pervert your original aims.” (Collected Essays, Vol. 3, As I Please, “Arthur Koestler”, at p. 237).
Orwell further observed: “It is not merely that ‘power corrupts’: so also do the ways of attaining power. Therefore, all efforts to regenerate society by violent means lead to the cellars of the OGPU [Soviet secret police]....” (id., p. 240)
After the odious means work their corruption, the means take on a life of their own and consume the entire exercise. Orwell: “A tyrant is all the more admired if he happens to be a blood-stained crook as well, and ‘the end justifies the means’ often becomes, in effect, ‘the means justify themselves provided they are dirty enough.’” (id., “Raffles and Miss Blandish”, at p. 222).
Like other Utopian totalitarians before them, today’s Progressives have no qualms about getting to Utopia through terror (coercive means). But they will fail because of the corrupting effects of power. Power will corrupt everything they do and Utopia will never arrive. So, Progressives, you might as well give up now; every effort you make to coerce people and bend them to your will is futile and ultimately self-defeating.
Leftism can only be implemented by horrible, rotten people. Moreover, it is 100% guaranteed to produce more horrible, rotten people. How do we know? We already have examples from history: the Red Guards running amok in Mao’s Cultural Revolution, the youngsters gunning down their parents in Pol Pot’s Killing Fields.
But the corruption permeates the entire society and manifests in a myriad of other ways, not just mass murder and violence. To a refugee who fled Czechoslovakia, communism’s greatest crime is how it warps the character of ordinary people. People in communist Czechoslovakia had to lie, cheat, and steal - and bribe - just to survive. These things were no longer considered wrong; they were considered essential, as captured in a Czech saying from the communist era: ‘He who does not steal from the State is robbing his own family.’
Violence begets violence. Corruption begets corruption. The Dream of a perfect world, with no social ills or pain and suffering, can never be.
Battlespace
The above suggests three lines of attack on the leftist program which, in various ways, make the means the issue:
Ends and Means - How is it possible to reach noble ends with despicable means? Where has that ever happened? You haven’t thought about this enough, have you. Along the same lines, ask them: Your socialist project can only be implemented by violating and suppressing basic human rights. The more you push, the more rights are going to be taken away. How can your ideas possibly lead to a better world? And the bigger government gets, the smaller the individual becomes, by definition. How can you possibly go along with reducing the individual human being to nothingness? Don’t your family and friends mean anything to you? Haven’t you ever loved anyone? Or have you saved all your love for the collective?
How Many People are You Willing to Kill? – It’s unavoidable. In regime after regime of the Left, wet work has been required to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and transform the entire society. The best 10 percent of the population – the most highly educated, the stubborn ones, potential dissidents, etc. - are routinely killed off (China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Russia, etc.). So ask your opponents point-blank: how many people are you personally willing to kill? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? More than Lenin? Are you willing to pull the trigger yourself? At some point, they have to realize they’ve become monsters. This line of questioning will shake their beliefs and break their will to repress.
If they fumble for an answer, you can pounce: You haven’t thought about this enough, have you. You haven’t thought about what you’re going to do with the people who won’t get with the program when the Left takes over.
If they say ‘I’m a democratic socialist; this can all be done with a human face,’ ask: Where has that ever happened? (And don’t deflect to the capitalist social democracies of Scandinavia.) How come Lenin abandoned ‘democratic centralism’ and imposed more autocratic rule? How ‘democratic’ do you think the Democratic Republic of North Korea is today? The German Democratic Republic (East Germany)? Democratic Kampuchea (Pol Pot’s Cambodia)? Why are you so ignorant of your own history, the bloody history of democratic socialism?
#WalkAway – The #WalkAway movement of 2018 started primarily because of the repressive means used to crush dissent on the Left. Many of the more than 181,000 people who have walked away from liberalism and the Democratic Party en masse since the first #WalkAway video in May 2018 have done so because their friends heaped scorn and derision on them for voicing different opinions and gave them a hard time just for asking questions. Many of the WalkAways got tired of being brow-beaten into toeing the Left’s ideological line. So ask your opponents what they think of the #WalkAway Campaign. We did this at a booth to a liberal who was coming after us hammer and tong about something else and it stopped him cold.
But the corruption permeates the entire society and manifests in a myriad of other ways, not just mass murder and violence. To a refugee who fled Czechoslovakia, communism’s greatest crime is how it warps the character of ordinary people. People in communist Czechoslovakia had to lie, cheat, and steal - and bribe - just to survive. These things were no longer considered wrong; they were considered essential, as captured in a Czech saying from the communist era: ‘He who does not steal from the State is robbing his own family.’
Violence begets violence. Corruption begets corruption. The Dream of a perfect world, with no social ills or pain and suffering, can never be.
Battlespace
The above suggests three lines of attack on the leftist program which, in various ways, make the means the issue:
Ends and Means - How is it possible to reach noble ends with despicable means? Where has that ever happened? You haven’t thought about this enough, have you. Along the same lines, ask them: Your socialist project can only be implemented by violating and suppressing basic human rights. The more you push, the more rights are going to be taken away. How can your ideas possibly lead to a better world? And the bigger government gets, the smaller the individual becomes, by definition. How can you possibly go along with reducing the individual human being to nothingness? Don’t your family and friends mean anything to you? Haven’t you ever loved anyone? Or have you saved all your love for the collective?
How Many People are You Willing to Kill? – It’s unavoidable. In regime after regime of the Left, wet work has been required to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and transform the entire society. The best 10 percent of the population – the most highly educated, the stubborn ones, potential dissidents, etc. - are routinely killed off (China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Russia, etc.). So ask your opponents point-blank: how many people are you personally willing to kill? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? More than Lenin? Are you willing to pull the trigger yourself? At some point, they have to realize they’ve become monsters. This line of questioning will shake their beliefs and break their will to repress.
If they fumble for an answer, you can pounce: You haven’t thought about this enough, have you. You haven’t thought about what you’re going to do with the people who won’t get with the program when the Left takes over.
If they say ‘I’m a democratic socialist; this can all be done with a human face,’ ask: Where has that ever happened? (And don’t deflect to the capitalist social democracies of Scandinavia.) How come Lenin abandoned ‘democratic centralism’ and imposed more autocratic rule? How ‘democratic’ do you think the Democratic Republic of North Korea is today? The German Democratic Republic (East Germany)? Democratic Kampuchea (Pol Pot’s Cambodia)? Why are you so ignorant of your own history, the bloody history of democratic socialism?
#WalkAway – The #WalkAway movement of 2018 started primarily because of the repressive means used to crush dissent on the Left. Many of the more than 181,000 people who have walked away from liberalism and the Democratic Party en masse since the first #WalkAway video in May 2018 have done so because their friends heaped scorn and derision on them for voicing different opinions and gave them a hard time just for asking questions. Many of the WalkAways got tired of being brow-beaten into toeing the Left’s ideological line. So ask your opponents what they think of the #WalkAway Campaign. We did this at a booth to a liberal who was coming after us hammer and tong about something else and it stopped him cold.