My mind constantly revolves around politics these days. I view this absorption as a fault, since yours truly would rather write fantasy fiction. So, look at this post as an attempt to get my thoughts about the evils of Progressivism out of my head so that I can turn my mind to knights, wizards, epic combat, and other things healthier than politics. Progressivism is aptly named because it progresses towards Socialism and then Communism or Fascism. All four fall as fruits from the evil tree of Marxism, a sophistry created by a misanthrope and hater of God who wished for you, me, and everyone else to have a warm reception in hell. (Don’t believe me? See Marx and Satan by Richard Wurmbrand or this article here.) The following piece will have little good to say about the Left, but, after the deluge of invective people on the right have received (e.g. racist, fascist, xenophobic, etc.), are any hard words from my side of the aisle too harsh as long as they are true?
First, the Left used to represent a strain of Liberalism, the kind which gave us the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and The Federalist Papers. Americans who call themselves conservative are Classical Liberals, though some Libertarians also accept the label. However, Classical Liberalism had an evil twin: shortly after American Federalists, basing their laws on a combination of Enlightenment philosophy and English common law, inaugurated the Great Experiment, French Liberals overthrew their king, established a democracy, and proceeded to slay any dissenters in their Reign of Terror.
The two strains of Liberalism claimed to love many of the same ideals; but, the French Revolutionaries erred in taking equality as their favorite ideal. The Founding Fathers also loved equality in the law and equal rights; however, they recognized that inequality existed between persons: unequal backgrounds, talents, and opportunities. Many people don’t realize that one needs to make a choice between freedom and equality. The former stands as the safer choice.
Justice should naturally temper both freedom and equality, but it is far easier to confuse justice with equality than freedom with justice. We may be as free as we want without causing deliberate harm to another person or neglecting duty, which is the limit imposed by justice. How does one describe the limit of equality? We ought not to treat unequal persons or things equally. We should not give the loser of a race a gold medal along with the winner, hire an uneducated person as a rocket scientist over someone with a PhD in aerospace engineering, or claim that vodka quenches one’s thirst better than water.
The modern Progressive, a proponent of equality, refuses to distinguish justice from equality. For him, equality is justice and justice is equality. Under the materialist paradigm devised by Marx, wealth is the primary value, and inequalities of wealth are inherently unjust. The problem with this worldview is that it is far easier to bring everyone to the level of serfs than to the level of millionaires. It is far easier to destroy wealth than to give everyone the education and opportunities to enjoy it. Even more so, it is far easier to debauch society than to make all saints.
Marx, the great proponent and apostle of equality, coupled his equality to his hatred of God and, by extension, religion–Christianity in particular. Of course, the French Revolutionaries, the ancestors of the Marxists, also hated religion and tried to blot out the Catholic Faith. Marx wrote in the same spirit and perhaps hated God for creating unequal persons and things. In St. Catherine of Siena’s Dialogues, God says that He created every person with unequal talents, faculties, and positions so that all would be forced to exercise charity toward one another, cf. 1 Cor. 12:21: “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you…'” This hatred of God naturally leads to the hatred of Man (the love of God and neighbor go hand in hand, cf. 1 John 4:20), since Man is made in the image and likeness of God. So far is this hatred of the divine image taken that they claim men and animals to be equal, an insane opinion recently manifested in the anger against two parents whose child needed to be saved from a gorilla by shooting the animal.
One of the chief differences between the Left and the Right is how intellectuals form the core of the Left while traditionalists form the core of the Right. This is not to say that the latter movement lacks intellectuals or that former contains no continuity of doctrine. It does indicate that people on the Right base themselves on accepted mores and beliefs, while the Left constantly wants to innovate without basing itself on received wisdom. Leftists hate the past and imagine a future Utopia similar to the society in Alduous Huxley’s A Brave New World. On the other hand, those on the Right side of the political spectrum see value in past societies and try to perpetuate the best ideas from them.
The single most important value passed on from past societies is the union of man and wife in lifelong and monogamous communion for the sake of their mutual benefit and the good of their offspring. However, all the movements supported by the left undermine the family: Social Security (dividing the elderly, the guardians of tradition, from the youth), divorce, contraception, sterilization, abortion, homosexuality, consequence-free sex, homosexual unions, welfare (replaces the need for a breadwinner), and feminism. These all strike at the family, distort the norm, and discourage people from starting their own families. The end goal of these abominations is the dissolution of marriage and the family, which condition especially afflicts welfare recipients. One weeps for those children who are denied the support of a father and the vision of loving spouses! It is not impossible for someone to overcome this handicap and raise a happy household, but it is difficult! And, we have at last reached the stage when fewer people are having children–especially within wedlock.
The fact that fewer people are having children ought to alarm you: it brings the Left closer to its goal of the abolition of man. Still, don’t believe me? Consider Progressive animus towards the white race. The reason for this animus is less because of their race than envy of Western success in modern times. Indeed, envy sits at the heart of their striving for perfect equality. But their envy of Western success pales still before the supreme fact that Europeans and people of European descent are viewed as the primary heirs and proponents of Western heritage and Christianity. Even were all whites impoverished, they would still hate them for the last two reasons. Who do Progressives hate more than the poor white man, especially the Southerner, whom they perceive as cleaving to his guns, his Bible, and his flags–American and Confederate?
The poor are often the first to receive the harms inflicted by bad Progressive policy and the first to become disenchanted with the Left, which only loves the poor to the extent that the poor vote for them. One easily perceives this in Europe. The poor, expressing concerns over mass immigration and the violence and rape following in its wake, have been disowned by Europeans Leftists. What do these Leftists do as their people seek protection and redress? Tell them to change their manner of dress, to denounce them as fascists and populists (as if the latter were the same as the former), and to arrest them. To the mind of a Leftist intellectual, the people don’t know what’s good for them and need to listen to their betters.
In the curious arithmetic of political correctness, the rights of women, gays, and the poor are subservient to the privileges of Muslims. Why? Because Muslims are the greatest threat to the West. One must never forget that so-called liberals became a front for communist sympathizers following WWII. In the 20th century, Bolshevism most greatly threatened the life of the West, and the liberals of those days were the Soviets’ useful idiots. With the collapse of the Soviet empire, the Left sought a new power to aid in the destruction of the West, and they found it in radical Islam.
Let me add a note about fascism here: fascism is merely imperfect communism. Fascism’s imperfection in relation to communism lies in it elevating one race above the others and seeking to destroy all but one race instead of all mankind. But, let us suppose that a fascist group did eliminate all other races: what significance would their race have in a world of one race? NONE! The principle of envy is still active within fascism: without other races for the fascists to gloat over, they would eventually lose their pride and self-destruct–bringing about the final result of Marxism anyway. It is merely a longer road to the same evil end.
The above expresses my understanding of the ultimate goals of Marxism: destruction of religion, family, and mankind, and how I see it acting in the world today. However, most Leftists are not misanthropes and the great majority have not a clue where the sophistry they adhere to leads. Indeed, many are fine people and make good friends. Their very goodness consists in the fact that there is a God, He is ultimate goodness, and He made all people in His image and likeness. I wish that all Leftists would discover the evil effects of Marxism and its related ideologies, and so rid themselves of these evil opinions. True victory will only be achieved when all men recognize the glory of their tradition, the dignity of human beings, and the gratitude and worship they owe God for His gifts, especially the gift of salvation through the Passion and Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France.
von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Eric. Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse
von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Eric. Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of Our Time.
de Oliveira, Plinio Correa. Revolution and Counter-Revolution