Today is January 20th, 2017. As of four hours ago, President-elect Donald J. Trump has been formally invested with the powers of the office of the President of the United States. In response, portions of D.C. are currently playing host to broken windows and garbage fires. Women are “marching on Washington” all over the country, and obviously the Internet has become its own special brand of garbage fire—a brilliant, self-righteous and self-celebratory conflagration of total ignorance.
So, why is the left so violent, and apparently, at least today, so anti-democratic?
Well, one thing to remember is that pretty much everyone is violent. If your entire population is composed majoritively of C-average students (which is a theme on this blog) then other people disagreeing with their positions will usually invoke rage, hatred, and frustration instead of empathy, curiosity, and research.
I know that as I was making the transition from a hard-left ideology as I exited Brock University in St. Catharines, I had to read several books, and not just on political theory—you have to read economic texts, military history texts, history texts; essentially all sorts of things which actually give you a contextual idea of how each ideology functions without any particular direct linkage to your own life. Such linkages are the definition of anecdotal evidence, after all. If all you have to understand a particular concept is how it applies to yourself and the people you know (keeping in mind that like attracts like) then you are blindingly ignorant both across generational timelines and continental scopes.
Keep in mind that if you detect some accusation or some negativity, I just told you that the way to leave ignorance behind is wilfully. You have to want to do it, and then actually do it, and so the only reason to remain ignorant is either wanting to, or not understanding that there are other ways to be. The only way to feel like you’ve been slighted upon reading this paragraph is if you have an understanding of what I’m talking about, and have decided, in the past, to forego the option.
So without the ability or interest to engage in reasoned discourse, you tend to wind up with a lot of people resorting to emotive means by which to express themselves, and this also can range from extremes. Crying or singing or whatever it is Hollywood is doing against breaking windows and burning things, which I assume a less conspicuous class is currently executing in Washington D.C. at the moment.
This, of course, will manifest as violence. So it’s extremely improper to characterise the left as “violent” as a matter of course. In fact, the left is an ideology which exists almost specifically to minimize violence—an extremely admirable position. Peace and love and mutual available aid and equality across socioeconomic levels have always been basic cornerstones of the leftist ideology, and it’s very difficult to argue with them in a vacuum. Happily, life does not exist in a vacuum, and so arguments do exist.
Why does the left seem anti-democratic today?
Well, it has a lot to do with what now-President Trump’s goals are for his country. Donald J. Trump is a very conservative politician. If you want some context about what that means, well, the most basic facet of the divide between liberal and conservative on a broadening world stage is the difference in opinion between right and left between keeping one’s nation as a primary concern on the right hand, and the fortunes of the entire planet as a primary concern on the left hand.
The Americans are particularly infected with liberalism, as they have twice mobilized themselves into full-out world wars in order to “propagate democracy,” even as they also, surely by accident, made themselves supreme on the global stage by aiding in the destruction of large amounts of both European populations and European industrial infrastructure.
They then went on, with what has been branded “Wilsonian” diplomacy, to push their principles against the national interests of sovereign, conservative nations. For about seventy years, they had an opposite superpower (the Soviet Union) engaged in something similar, but with a separate and opposing set of principles.
(At this point you should remember that actually, at this point, the United States is pushing right-wing principles forward: free markets, democracy, and self-determination. They did so in the possibly-valid belief that democracies don’t fight one another based on the wills of their population, having absorbed the lesson of the First World War that populations that do not want to undergo a war tend not to do very well.)
However, as the war impacted the economy, and as inflation began to take hold and as taxation began to rise, currency began to devalue and price and wage controls similar to those employed in leftist Nazi Germany became necessary and the United States began a slow slide toward socialism.
Vladimir Lenin once famously said, of course, that “the end goal of socialism is communism.”
So, as to today’s disturbances in Washington, it mostly arises as a group of people who have never had any other national philosophy. If you don’t do the research, the election of a conservative politician for the first time since Reagan (who had a solid cause which his nation could coalesce behind—the Cold War) is extremely troubling.
Many people will bring up George W. Bush, and I will remind you that merely wearing a nametag that has “Republican” on it doesn’t actually make you right-wing. George W. Bush was part of an attempt at a political dynasty in the United States, and was also part of a group known as neo-conservatives, who follow the Wolfowitz Doctrine, a document which essentially weaponises Wilsonian democracy as a way to minimise the risk of both nuclear proliferation and nuclear war—to date, it has, with the Iran nuclear deal signed, failed at the first task, and will now likely fail at the second.
The point? Neo-conservatives push the military-industrial complex, which requires power centralisation and wealth redistribution. It is an inherently left-wing doctrine, and larger production populations which engendered the signing of several free-trade agreements in order to mobilise huge populations to produce goods needed for the war and also to drop complementary costs on common market items which could then be imported from other countries which did not have the same wage and price controls as the United States domestic populations had had inflicted upon it.
Therefore, other countries produced needed items at (let’s say, as an example?) a tenth the cost of acquiring them. Which limited demand for employment in the United States, but therefore also gradually began to reduce GDP, which has led to the current discontent—prices rise as the American dollar devalues because of a stagnant domestic market and no one has a real job and therefore cannot afford for prices to rise.
The socialist argument is that our population must be re-educated. Money must be spent to repurpose American (and Canadian) workers from factory- or manufacturing-related jobs to higher end, more technologically aligned positions.
The problem you have with that argument is that there is no longer any money to do so. Currency has devalued. The Americans are under what might be, at the most averaged-out guess I’ve heard, a two-hundred trillion dollar debt, where its GDP can’t even pay a fraction of the interest.
Every single Western population is under a similar burden, proportionally.
The upholding of this status-quo which is slowly killing everyone involved is what the left continues to vote for, over and over and over. They do this because they support integration with the world, and because they genuinely support peace, love, and mutual development.
The factual dissonance with their understanding of the world through this framework is once again the misunderstanding of the nature of resources.
Resources are finite. There is not enough to go around and help everyone. There will never be enough to go around and help everyone, until some breakthrough moment in the future which creates so much wealth against expense that all debts can be paid, in the case of automation—or, some agricultural science will develop which multiplies food production by orders of magnitude. But such breakthroughs require trillions of dollars in research which no country can afford to spend until they stop gifting it through wealth redistribution, welfare, social security, foreign aid, and incessant, hopeless foreign wars based on Wilsonianism’s democratic proliferation doctrines.
Someone has to make that breakthrough, and even now, the United States has the most impetus, but that would require self-investment, capitalism, and conservatism to become… dare I say it? Great again.
The first pill costs three hundred trillion dollars to make. All the subsequent ones are mere fractions of fractions of the cost.
The left is violent and anti-democratic today, and it’s not because Trump has orange hair, or that he’s a Nazi, or that he’s fascist, or that he’s anything except the sign of an impending trend in American democracy.
The trend of an entire people standing at the edge of the welfare cliff being dragged over by others, looking downward, thinking better of it… and slowly beginning to back away and let go of others, even as those others begin to fall, no longer supported.
The left will be back, in time. Absolutely. They do have a great array of very good ideas, but right now, they have expended so much of the available capital and created so much debt that no goal is currently actionable. Only someday when the economic fortunes of the West have been recovered, and when the possibility of World War 3 and another American Civil War built from racial tensions and the vanishing of the middle class have been abated can the left once again regain the reins of power and steer us out of the typical, comfortable and well-to-do stagnation that is the mark of a right-run civilisation.