Few citizens vote on the basis of deep analysis of issues or candidates. Few have deep ideological perceptions, much less commitments. Most vote according to their respective individual patterns of subjective personal identification. The success of the Left in the Twentieth Century may be largely explained by a ruthless application of this reality.
Thus every form of Socialism seeks to rally those, within whom they can instill a sense of grievance, into group identifications based upon such negative emotions as resentment, envy and greed. At the same time, there has been a studied Leftwing campaign to confuse understanding of positive human motivations for so long as there has been an organized Left. Thus, in many of their manifestations, they have been trying since well before World War II, to suggest that people who have strong identification with their own race, tribe, state, nation, community or faith, must be motivated by fear or hatred. In this, propagandists hasten to seize upon any vile act committed against a member of an identifiable minority by a rooted citizen of a Nation, being infested by Socialists, as proof that all who would defend their heritage--a cause ordinarily motivated by love--are really acting out of suppressed hatred or fear.
A number of news items earlier this month (May, 2002), illustrated both the general malaise of the West and, in a rather compelling fashion, exactly why Conservatives, in many lands, have been losing the battle to preserve our respective ways of life. While we have discussed the problem in earlier essays, it is clear that our foes are growing bolder; hence their urgency and ours is now greater.
Sunday, May 5th, saw the contrived but apparently crushing landslide victory of Centrist French President Jacques Chirac over Conservative Nationalist, Jean-Marie Le Pen. While the organized Left joined the politicians in the Center to celebrate a successful defense of "Democracy," the methods used against Le Pen were redolent of the methodology of the great totalitarian regimes of pre-World War II Europe. Le Pen was assailed with vile epithets, his posters were torn down, postal workers refused to deliver his literature, no one would debate him. The organized media refused to fairly report what he advocated or his response to the smears. Tax supported schools and colleges, taught that he was evil, and even recruited participants for huge marches in the streets, obviously intended to intimidate those who might otherwise support Le Pen. If his defeat was a triumph for "Democracy," Democracy in France must be defined precisely as the hideous system James Madison warned against in the Federalist Papers! If this truly was "Democracy," the great Democrats of the Twentieth Century were Lenin, Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler.
Le Pen, whose sin--if one dare call it "sin"--was that he loved his country and her people, and wanted to preserve their cultural heritage and traditional values by limiting incongruous immigration (in addition to favoring rights of inheritance, lower taxes, Western family values and law and order), was accused of precisely the type of demagoguery as that unleashed against him. On May 1st, Le Pen had addressed a peaceful and orderly gathering of about ten thousand in front of the beautiful Nineteenth Century Paris Opera. On that same day, over a million angrily shouting slogans of hate and insult, directed against Le Pen and his supporters, had marched through the French streets. Le Pen was subjected to the usual litany, reserved for anyone who opposes the idea of an undifferentiated humanity: "Racist," "bigot," "xenophobe," "neo-Nazi," "fascist," etc.. You would have thought that he had been involved in some very ugly activities, indeed. Yet there were virtually no specifics, other than his daring to want to preserve a sovereign France for the ethnic French! And, of course, he remained willing to debate those issues with the cowards, who knew no other argument but violence and insult.
Indeed, virtually the only relevant evidence that Le Pen or his followers were ever motivated by anything but love for France, with even a shadow of substance, was the frequently repeated story that three youths, who had attended a Le Pen rally five years before, had then attacked a young Moroccan, who had drowned as a result. No one suggested that Le Pen had urged such violence. It was considered proof enough, that it had happened. But in an era when rowdy British soccer fans had been known to kill dozens at a single game, just what if anything did this unfortunate but isolated killing, five years earlier, prove to anyone?
The great totalitarian movements of the Left killed a great many in the streets of major cities. They never made any effort to deny that they would resort to violence to crush opposition. The minions of the Communists and Nazis were under discipline. No one has even suggested that Le Pen has that type of power over his supporters. For the Left in France to make an issue of the fact that three people (3) left a Le Pen rally and killed one individual (1), five years ago, is to mock civilized man's concern for peaceful communities and orderly procedures. This absurd attribution of this old crime committed by three punks--whose only tie was that they attended a rally--to Le Pen, who had over 5,000,000 supporters in 2002, is an example of a confident (but intellectually dishonest) Left 'feeling its oats.' It is a French equivalent to the campaign for Hate Crime Legislation in America.
The push for "Hate Crime" Legislation in America is indeed an aspect in what, more and more, appears to be a transoceanic campaign to undermine social cohesion in the West. The adoption of such legislation, creates a subliminal perception to support the monstrous lie that patriotism, joy in family, race, creed, origin, or whatever else helps people resist the Socialist mindset; are all based upon evil motivation. But is it the patriotic Right who are the real haters? Do a few bad actors, committing ethnic or religious crimes, present the real face of hate and hate mongering in America or France? The answer is most certainly not! The attribution of "hate" to the defenders of tradition, is for the Left in this generation, the current version of the "Big Lie"; used rather clumsily by the Communists, but perfected by the Nazis in those chaotic days before the last great War.
In contrast, consider crimes motivated by class hatred or envy--the Left's perennial selling points. While their propagandists in the media and academia, as well as on the campaign trail, besmirch the motivations of Patriots and Conservative traditionalists, the hard Left go about the merry business of stirring up discontent, hatred and resentment among the least successful in our midst; teaching them to blame and hate those who achieve at a higher level, and to covet the fruits of such achievement. While almost no violent crime in America, or France, is committed by patriotic traditionalists, motivated by love for country, heritage, kith and kin, community and faith; a great deal is inspired by the true hatred, jealousy and resentment--as well as a spurious sense of entitlement--that Socialist egalitarians deliberately solicit and stir within those susceptible to their evil message. They escape attribution for the horrors that they have created in the streets, simply because most Conservatives are too cowed by the lies of Socialism, to effectively fight back.
Thus it is has become acceptable in America to focus on the few who commit violent acts because of racial or religious antagonism, but not on those who stir others to hate and target those who have achieved. The organized Left seeks to silence any challenge to their ongoing attack on racial, ethnic or religious identification or cohesion. Such challenges are equated with hatred. While their despicable pandering to jealousy and resentment, to coveting and envy, is merely to be treated as a new enlightenment. The Left has been playing different facets of this game since the French Revolution. Marx, Lenin, Hitler and Chairman Mao all refined it in different ways; but it is the same game. When are we going to wake up and understand it?!
May 5th, also brought news of a protest in Philadelphia over a decision by the U.S. Park Service to place the Liberty Bell on a site where George Washington had located his servants' quarters, when he had lived in that city during his term as First President. It seemed that a local group wanted to use the site to make a statement against slavery--and the Park Service was treating this as a serious proposal. Suddenly, 137 years after slavery ended in America, a group wanted to make an issue of the fact that George Washington had not only owned slaves, he had actually brought a few of them North, when he came to Philadelphia to establish our present Federal Government. What should one make of such protest in the year 2002--213 years after our justly beloved First President took the solemn oath of office?
It is precisely because no one is advocating slavery in modern America, that suddenly resurrecting the slavery debate that so rent America from 1820 until 1865, has so great an appeal to the Left. They know that almost no one is going to stand up and defend the system. Thus they are able to endlessly beat a dead horse--a cheap shot--while creating more of those subliminal messages that undermine traditional values. If they can diminish the Founding Fathers by focusing on what, they know, will seem least sympathetic to those recently emerging from school systems where history is scarcely taught, there is great gain for those who would destroy the Fathers' legacy. If they can further the antagonism between the races, which they have been nourishing in America since 1909, there is a tremendous advantage for those who play on others' sense of grievance. To the extent that by the same device, they can instill a sense of guilt in susceptible subjects in the American mainstream, those advantages are compounded.
The subject must be put into perspective; not only to effectively oppose such agitation, but to understand why it is critical that this approach to human history not go unchallenged. While called "Slavery" in America, systems of involuntary labor or servitude have been known under many names, throughout history; with general prevalence in both the ancient and medieval worlds, and continuing on a still considerable scale well past the death of Washington in 1799. The system of bondage, mentioned frequently in the Bible, without condemnation; the labor systems in the classic civilizations of Greece and Rome; the whole feudal structure in Europe from the fall of Rome until the modern age; all involved what we call "slavery"--the modern term deriving from the enslavement, at one time, of many of the Slavic peoples in Europe. While Brazil was the last major nation to abolish slavery (1888), it persists in some third world venues to this day.
Just as it is important to those, who would tear down the past, to break up patterns of group identification that can inspire people to preserve their heritage; so it is important to discredit those heroic figures that inspire people to honorable pursuits and higher endeavors. By suddenly focusing on a totally irrelevant issue--irrelevant to the issues of the present day--the propagandists hope to undermine the inspirational legacy not only of George Washington, but of most major role models in Western history, from the Patriarchs in the Bible, through such European icons as Charlemagne, Richard the Lion Hearted, Frederick Barbarossa, on forward. This is a war on symbols, part of a comprehensive but studied attack on the values, Conservatives hold sacred. If you sense a giant pincer like attack on your children's birthright, you are not being paranoid. You are merely beginning to see method in the madness of our enemies.
The next item came May 6th, when Pim Fortuyn, a 53 year old Maverick who had become a major force on the Dutch political scene, was shot dead as he left a broadcast studio in a small city near Amsterdam, by a Dutch Leftist. Fortuyn, himself a reformed Leftist, had become something of a classic Liberal; but had come to see the huge and growing immigrant population of the Netherlands as incongruous to the preservation of the extremely tolerant Dutch Society in which he believed. (He was actually an acknowledged Homosexual.) Raising a cry to do something about the social rot, which he saw all around his Rotterdam home, he organized his own political party, and captured the largest share of the Municipal vote. He died as he was leading this new party towards an expectedly strong showing in the coming Dutch National election, May 15th.
Although much of Fortuyn's motivation came from a desire to preserve the very liberal values that have evolved in modern Dutch society, he was subjected to the same hysterical labels of vilification as Le Pen. When you sift through the various issues, what emerges is that the mechanism that triggers such frenzy on the Left is for one to challenge permissive immigration policies. The one thing they cannot abide, is for a political group to openly recognize the fact that who settles in a country will determine the type of society that that country will have. It is this common sense differentiation, which apparently threatens the entire Socialist world view. And well it might. For in that realization lies the ultimate truth, that we are all different; that there is nothing wrong with people acting to preserve those characteristics, which make their particular group unique; that there is nothing wrong with people preferring their own way, rather than the Left's way.
The grotesque murder of one for simply challenging the true bigots of our time--the advocates of a forced egalitarianism that denies human reality, and stultifies the creativity that comes from the very diversity they would destroy--should prove an eye opener for the bemused spectators of the West's decline, all over the world. Will it make that much of a difference? Only time will tell. While most Conservatives will condemn Pim Fortuyn's personal living habits, he did not deserve to die in this manner. And it would be wrong not to seek to vindicate the good that was apparently still within him, by using the resulting lesson from his brief emergence on the previously pitiful Dutch political landscape, to the end that he may not have died in vain.
[Note: We are not suggesting that how the Dutch vote is any business of anyone not subject to the Dutch Monarchy. But debates in one country, naturally stir interest in the same issues among kindred peoples. And intellectual lessons in the pursuit of truth, know no borders.]
We have called this the Big Truth, but it could just as well have been labeled the "Simple Truth." It is of course what we have already written: The fundamental, liberating reality of human variation, human difference; and the fundamental justice for any people in wishing to preserve their own nature and their own line.
The hysteria on the Left, when Le Pen seemed on the verge of a breakthrough in French politics, or when Fortuyn created the basis for a real discussion of the underlying issues in the Netherlands, was very real--just as it was when Austria dared to elect a Government that wanted to preserve her land for her own people. While you may be certain that so seasoned a political veteran and pragmatist, as Jacques Chirac, saw only an opportunity that he exploited, the Socialists really were devastated. Understanding why, and applying the lesson with the same dedication that our foes have shown in pushing Western culture to the brink of self-destruction, is the key to reversing the tide that has been running against us for the past century.
The Left is motivated by its own set of compulsions. Socialism in all its forms is a war on nature; a war not motivated so much by the hubris that Conservatives sometimes attack, as by a deep fear of unknown and uncontrollable factors in the future--the very fear that they neurotically project to those who resist their multi-cultural pursuits. We can only urge all, who read this essay, to go on and click over below to other articles that pursue various aspects of this point--particularly the one on Myths and Mythmakers, which will better introduce some of the important gurus for today's pseudo-intellectual poseurs, who frenetically pursue the big lie that we are all the same. You are also strongly urged to read our novel--not out of ego, but because it deals, in a fictional but direct way, with some of the often overlooked practical situations, in which this ideological battle relates to normal people, and with how normal people can impact the outcome.
But the Left not only fears the return to a world, where more conflict may be expected as people struggle for their own unique interests; conflict they had proposed to avoid by submerging mankind into the equivalent of a giant, carefully controlled, planet-sized ant hill. They fear that the victory, which seemed virtually within their grasp, will now slip away; that a Century of pushing the rest of us towards their compulsion motivated utopia, may all come to naught; where, perhaps, some of them may even end up being treated as the traitors and cowards, they in fact are.
The proof that our foes are compulsion driven--speaking in general, but not denying that there are pragmatists, such as a Stalin and Hitler, who frequently exploit the more compulsive--is that their approach to human struggle (and human differences) is totally irrational. If one really could magically wish away all class, ethnic or biologically related differences in aptitudes and personality (and what an absolutely boring, stultified world, that would leave us), it would do nothing whatsoever towards abolishing what they love to describe as "Man's Inhumanity To Man." As noted above, British soccer fans have been known to get drunk and attack other Caucasian Europeans, not over any racial issue but over contending sport enthusiasm, with the result that far more were killed at a single game, than have ever even been punched by those associated with Le Pen and Fortuyn's parties combined, many times over. While the Nazis, who were profoundly on the Left, killed many people because of an ethnic, rather than religious identification, with Judaism; the Bolsheviks killed even more because of an economic class identification with freehold agriculture.
More people have probably been killed in religious conflicts than in ethnic conflicts; but often the common theme in these massacres was a Leftist envy of high achievement, and had little to do with surface perception, or the shouted slogans. Of course, the hard core Socialists seek to abolish religion and class, as well as race and nation. But even they do not suggest abolishing sport.
In Third World elections, these days, large numbers may get killed simply because they support the wrong ticket. Pim Fortuyn died, because he dared to say thing that made the compulsive Left hysterical. If you want to deal with human cruelty, and are not compulsion driven, you address human cruelty, not all of the things which rally human enthusiasm. Short of putting all mankind on mind numbing tranquilizers, nothing else addresses that subject. If you are concerned that people not kill each other over their differences, whether racial, ethnic, spiritual, occupational, sport-driven, political, or whatever, you do not preach an insane uniformity, but rather a genuine tolerance and kindness: Tolerance for the basic nature of each of us, and all of us; tolerance for the very different creatures we all are; and kindness, in simply treating others as we, in turn, would want to be treated.
The Left has built an elaborate and very pervasive sub-culture, based upon their compulsive pursuit of an undifferentiated humanity. They have succeeded, up until now, not because they have achieved some all powerful conspiratorial control; but because they have seized upon every opportunity--and recruited everyone who was susceptible to the apparent appeal of their egalitarian message. For a peripheral example, today English literature courses, at both the High School and College level, are far less likely to feature a study of the great English literary classics than more recent works, whose primary function is to increase social awareness of issues the Left thinks important, or to alter the thinking of the student, in general, in the direction in which we are all being pushed. They have no problem obtaining wide support for their academic agenda among the more affluent classes, because they have succeeded in confusing perceptions of the nature of man, and the bases of achievement. There is nothing wrong with seeking to raise the level of awareness. The wrong is in corrupting one particular subject to an ulterior purpose.
Consider another example. It has become current fashion for many of all political persuasions to declare that their only race is the "human race," as though that were a statement of high principal rather than simply one of a lack of personal concern over human differences. But what is the point? No one would suggest that you insult Clydesdales or Thoroughbreds by pointing out the great differences between the various breeds of horse. No one is offended by discussion of the finer niceties that distinguish sub-breeds of terrier. Why should a recognition that humans, also, may be more precisely defined into clearly recognizable sub-groups, offend any rational person? The answer is that it shouldn't, unless one is determined to force us all into a single mold; intent on vindicating a compulsion for uniformity, whether it be real or lie, as truly as those who orchestrated one of the great spectacles at Nuremberg. Remember the image: A million Germans, their diverse ancient ethnic idiosyncrasies all masked by being in uniform and lockstep; every movement directed by a single will, to a single purpose. Deny it how they will, that is the mindset of the Left.
Multi-culturalism is not very threatening, when the bright mainstream American, at a prestige College, sits down in a student lounge with a bright representative from another land or another culture, and they swap tales of the social nuances of their formative years. Nor is the analogous situation between two business executives. In the one case, the students then retire to their respective quarters; in the other, the two executives return home with the results of their mutually beneficial negotiation. Each has had an esoteric experience; they have learned something, they have given up nothing. When each is later told by the guru-inspired minions of the Left that the only basis for objecting to seemingly incongruous immigration is fear of foreigners ("nativism" and "xenophobia"), fear of the unknown; they remember only the innocent interview, the pleasant memory, and they are easily persuaded. It never occurs to either, that such immigration might change voting patterns in America beyond recognition or repair; might disrupt their own happy, spacious, suburban lifestyle. Their image is only of the cultured, highly intelligent representative of the exotic culture, who was very interesting but never threatening.
Both the college student and business executive may develop a lack of concern from such personal contact. Neither is likely to take the time to think very deeply on the more precise question, "What is likely to be the effect, when the not so well-educated nor so intelligent persons from an alien culture, settle among us in large enough numbers to change the essential characteristics of our own Society?" Each will find more pressing interests, more immediately demanding questions to be concerned with, at school or business. Each, thus, is likely to trust an imagined political "leadership" to protect what needs to be protected. It was ever so; and this non-involvement, even among the relatively intelligent, illustrates why it is imperative that Conservatives reflect upon the subject of how to rally their natural constituency.
We have dealt with immigration at some length in the article on same linked below. Immigration, per se, is not the subject here. Other essays, linked below, deal with how the Left creates hate--deliberately creates hate;--how our American foreign policy has been distorted and used to wreak havoc on innocent peoples in other lands; how to determine whom the bigots really are, the compulsion for uniformity, differences in aptitudes and personality, etc.. But those are not the immediate subject. The subject here is very simple.
The Big Truth is that we are all different. And there is nothing in the least wrong with celebrating those differences, or in identifying with our kith and kin, or the descendants of those with whom our ancestors' kith and kin may have shared the struggles and achievements of life. If one wants to fight hatred, by all means fight hatred. You do not do so by preaching hatred against those who want to live as their fathers lived. If you want to preach the Golden Rule, by all means preach the Golden Rule. You do not do so by hurling insult and vilification against those who want to choose their own associates, live among those with whom they feel a genuine congeniality, maintain a heritage that others vouchsafed to them.
You do no service to either cause by destroying a people's sense of identity, the continuity of their culture, their patriotism or desire to be left alone in peace.
If Conservatives continue to allow the Left to appeal to the basest of emotions: Greed, envy and resentment; while we allow the same forces to intimidate us from expressing the positive emotions that rally a people to defend their traditions, we will continue to lose the battle. The frantic insults hurled at Le Pen in France, the murder of a thinking Liberal in Holland, are symptoms of where the Left know they are vulnerable. Every opportunity should be seized to proclaim the truth; to stand up for the continuity of America [or France or the Netherlands, as the case may be]; to answer the insults of the demagogues with simple but unflinching reason and the love that is within each of us for heritage, homeland and the right to be unique.