Good morning, Gentle Reader. I’ve given much of the past day or so to thinking about this Victor Davis Hanson essay. It’s a good piece – what else would we expect from Hanson – but I think it’s missing one component to give it a full picture of our enemies: both the visible figures in the Usurper Regime and the shadowed ones who pull their strings.
Hanson leans upon ideology as the explanation for the disastrous (for the United States and its legitimate citizens) policies the Usurpers have deployed. That is: he posits that the damage they’re inflicting upon America and its people is in line with their strongly-held convictions about “the way things ought to be.” But once again: people, their desires, their beliefs, and their aversions exist in a distribution. Not everyone who publicly espouses an ideology regards it as primary, an end to be sought for its own sake. Some people promote an ideology because they believe it to be an excellent tool for acquiring what they value most: power over others.
Indeed, I would venture to estimate that around 50% of the Leftists who promote a Marxist vision do so specifically because they think it will get them power. Remember this famous anecdote from the 1848 socialist upheaval in France?
A famous anecdote from the 1848 socialist upheaval in Paris has a coal-carrier accosting a gentlewoman, saying, “Yes, Madame, everything’s going to be equal now. I’ll go in silks and you’ll carry coal.” Though it cannot be verified owing to time and the lack of attribution, as an illustration of the sort of “equality” left-leaning types truly cherish, this one is unparalleled.
So while ideology is an important player in the dramas of the day, it’s not necessarily the Left’s end-in-itself as we might assume. Orwell was aware of this:
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were- cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”
There is no arguing with a man who has decided that what he wants above all other things is power over you. You cannot reason with him. You cannot reform him. You cannot keep him from pursuing what he wants. Indeed, there is only one long-lasting countermeasure: you must kill him. As most of us in the Right are moderately reluctant to kill others, including the deepest-dyed of black-hearted villains, he has an edge over us that’s most difficult to overcome.
I would surmise that a great part of the interest being expressed in partitioning the nation into separate “red” and “blue” sovereignties arises from the unexpressed awareness that we cannot triumph over the Left without “going for the guns.” If you know that the price of victory is mass executions, but are unwilling to kill, what remains but flight? Yet even flight would provide only a temporary respite, for they who want power want it over everyone and everything. They would pursue us. Ultimately, we would have to fight them to the death.
I purely hate having to say such a thing. I’m more confrontation-averse than anyone else I know. But I can’t avert my mind from the facts and logic that have brought me here.
And with that, I must close. Some will read the above and take it as a license to kill. Some will actively go out to do so. They will look at situations such as the one reported here and feel a moral imperative to strike before the enemy does so. For our enemy recognizes no absolute standard of right and wrong. He believes himself to be the supreme moral arbiter of our time. The only thing restraining him from killing us is the fear that he might not get away with it. He’s certainly discussed it with his fellows often enough.
Still, I had to set my reasoning down in plain type. Perhaps someone wiser can find a flaw in it. I’d be grateful.
Time to pray.