100 Million Corpses

Sometimes, it all comes together.



As a Physicist, I am attracted to unifying principles; concepts that join together under a single, elegant explanation seemingly varied and previously unconnected facts.



I came across 2 assertions recently at this blog, specifically this article on the motivations and psychology of Leftists, and this one arguing that National Socialists (Hitler's Nazis) were in fact a Leftist movement.



And the startling conclusion of the first article is that Leftist leaders and intellectuals (as opposed to the merely idealistic followers who may have many varied motivations) satisfy the diagnostic criteria of sub-clinical psychopaths -- moral imbeciles, in denial of reality, impervious to facts and logic, pathologically dishonest, motivated by raw emotion, interested only in power and ego self-gratification for being seen to "do Good".



You scoff at such an outrageous notion.



I would too.



Except there's that little matter of over 100 million corpses over the last century, innocents sacrificed on the altar of Social Progress by the various modern Leftist movements: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Shining Path, etc.



They demand an explanation. Who killed them? Martians? Strange people with horns? Some unfortunate accident?



No, it was by ordinary people, led by Leftist totalitarian psychopaths, justifying their behavior in pursuit of some Utopian Vision.



It is said the road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions. It is also paved with 100 million souls.



I believe Nazi munitions minister and architect Albert Speer said something to the effect, by way of explanation, that "we were only trying to make things better."



And how to explain the weird lack of outrage over the crimes of Stalin by Marxist academics today? I submit they use Nazis as the scapegoat for all the Leftist sins, and then pretend Hitler was somehow a Rightist to disassociate themselves from it. Martin Amis investigates in this recent book the widespread admiration for Stalin that still exists today among intellectuals, many of whom admit his purges would have been "worth it" if he could indeed have ushered in the Marxist Utopia!



Imagine that, 20 million starved to death "worth it" for the mere satisfaction of seeing a raving anti-Semite's economic theories validated! Is that not immoral Vanity? Is that not Evil?



Or how about the fact that through their own dogma of postmodernism and nihilistic deconstructionism, by their own admission they have no standards for telling right from wrong? Is not that the mark of a sociopathic personality?



Before I get ahead of myself, a bit of definition: I will use Left/Right as purely political designations, signifying views on the relationship of the State to the People, and reserving Liberal/Conservative for views on social mores, which would roughly be synonomous with a Progressive/Traditional in outlook.



It is important to note that Left/Liberal and Right/Conservative are NOT equivalent terms. Today, however, the Left has appropriated many Liberal causes, and many Liberals are all too willing to accept the Leftist's effective fascistic methods out of expediency. And Leftists have recently taken control of the Democrat Party; but it was not always thus!



And I certainly don't want to imply there's anything intrinsically wrong with "Liberal" views; it's how they're applied that matters. For example, many old-school liberals who have rejected Leftist methods are now branded by them pejoratively as "neo-conservatives", as Leftists wish to retain control over the Liberal label.



The key Leftist political characteristic is they are Totalitarian Utopians, with the State and the collective surpassing the individual in importance. As we move Right, the ideal government becomes weaker, with power devolved down to lower, more local, levels. Further Right leads to pure democracy, mob rule, and ultimately anarchy.



To be fair, the far Right also seems in my view to have a characteristic psychological profile, namely the Paranoid. And they can be dangerous too, as the Unabomber and McVeigh/Nichols were. But by their very more individualistic nature, extreme Rightists never unify into mass social movements and so never produce the kind of mass-produced Death that Leftists require and revel in.



And so we see, we can have "Liberal Rightists", who in an extreme form are libertarians. Extreme "Conservative Rightists" would correspond perhaps to survivalists and isolationist religious cults like the Branch Davidians.



Liberal Leftists are obviously Socialists and Communists. Conservative Leftists would be Islamists! We've come full circle. The West has in fact been fighting Leftism non-stop: first Nazis in WWII, then Communists in WWIII, and now Islamists in WWIV!



All 3 adversaries are Totalitarian Utopians, attempting to radically re-order society to satisfy their fantasies -- and willing to kill us all to do so. Their only important differences are Nazis divided people by race, Commies by class, and Islamists by religion.



The Left/Right divide is more powerful than Liberal/Conservative; witness the strange bedfellows of various Western Liberal groups aligning with (or at least apologizing for) the Islamists, such as "Gays for Palestine", who would be stoned to death by them! But only after the REAL enemy -- the Big and Little Satans -- were destroyed!



With all that out of the way, I can get to the nugget that really sparked in me the rightness of this unification, and it was the observation that Leftists are totally dishonest and emotion-driven. And it all clicked.



I recalled, for example, when I was first getting interested in political questions in college, and I was emotionally jumping to the side of banning guns because of some outrage in the news. I imagined I could easily demolish the arguments of the redneck gun-nuts about their so-called "right" to a gun.



But when I went to the primary sources, I found everything the anti-gun crowd was saying was a complete lie! Every statistic was deliberately misused; every court case was misconstrued; every quote was shockingly out of context. And everything the pro-gun side claimed was TRUE.



But what was important to the antis was to be seen as being "anti violence", and the "bigger truth" was more important than the actual truth, even if the implementation of their cause caused MORE crime and MORE innocent deaths, as law-abiding citizens could no longer defend themselves -- we see this right now in Australia and Britain! But the Cause is not the real goal, it's merely a vehicle for power and fame.



And the environmental groups lie (see book by former Greenpeace member). And the animal "rights" organizations are deeply anti-human, immoral, and advocating lunacy. And on and on.



They're all just led by Leftist psychopaths.



Luckily, our system of checks and balances prevents Leftists from directly gaining power. And so they must circumvent the system through the anointing of a new aristocracy of "activist" judges, who legislate their agenda by decree without accountability. But that's a matter for another post -- and another huge reason why Bush MUST win the next election, so more activist judges don't turn our narrowly divided Supreme Court into our new unelected Overlords!



The 100 million dead cannot be ignored.



This is a War.



Gird for battle.