Keith Burgess-Jackson writes:
The best evidence of the greatness of this country is that people are clamoring to get into it. Almost nobody—including self-loathing progressives—wants to leave it.
It is also the best evidence of the failure of Communism and those socio-political schemes that are ever on the slouch toward Communism. They needed walls to keep people in, we need walls to keep them out. Hence the rank absurdity of the comparsion of a wall on our southern border to the Berlin Wall. Now the leftists who make this comparison cannot be so obtuse as not to see its rank absurdity. But they make it anyway because they will say or do anything to win. They are out for power any way they can get it.
By the way, this lust for power by any means explains the fascination of leftists with Nietzsche, a fascination which would otherwise be difficult to explain given the German's social and political views. Nietzsche's fundamental ontological thesis is that the world is the will to power. Die Welt is der Wille zur Macht und nichts anders! And because reality at its base and core is blind will to power without rhyme or reason, whose only goal is its own expansion, there is no place for truth. Truth gets reduced, and in consequence of the reduction eliminated, in favor of ever-shifting perspectives of ever-changing power centers. Perspectivism, accordingly, is Nietzsche's central epistemological doctrine. It is of course incoherent and easily refuted. But why should that matter to someone who does not care about truth in the first place? Truth is a conservative notion since it points us to the way things ARE. But progressives take their marching orders from Karl Marx: "The philosophers have variously interpreted the wotrld; but the point is to change it." (11th Thesis on Feuerbach.) Die Philosophen haben die Welt verschieden interpretiert; aber es kommt darauf an, sie zu veraendern.
What in these two central Nietzschean doctrines is there for a leftist not to love? He finds sanction in them both for his pursuit of power unchecked by any moral standard ("The end justifies the means") and for his propaganda and deceitfulness. If there is no truth there is no limit to what he can say and do in pursuit of his ends.
This also explains the leftist's belief in the indefinite malleability of man and society. If there is no way things are, no rerum natura, then there is no limit on what is possible. And if there is no moral world order, then there is no check on what it is morally permissible to do. And so the leftist, foolish idealist that he is, embarks upon schemes the upshot of which are of the sort documented in the Black Book of Communism. But if you break 100 million eggs and still have no omelet, then you need to go back and check your premises. Or, to paraphrase Aristotle, a little error in the beginning leads to a big bloody one in the end.
Recent Comments