Killers Without Conscience

There will always be those who are easily seduced by the offer of wealth and unlimited power. But one of the lessons we can glean from an unflinching look at history and human nature is that power-lust inevitably trumps greed. The power to harm others – and to harm others without consequence - is irresistible to a profoundly evil subset of humanity. Real trouble begins when such people acquire power.

So here’s a bold assertion that many of you will dismiss out of hand: there are those in government - and those who seek control of your government - who simply want you dead. They would kill you if they could get away with it. Why? Because you are in their way. Failing that, they would settle for taking everything you have if they felt that they could do so without being held accountable. They would use the apparatus of the state to censor your speech, punish you for your politically incorrect thoughts, confiscate the fruits of your labor, seize your property, render you helpless and defenseless and in the end, dictate the very terms of your existence if they could do so with impunity. These are killers without conscience. We can come up with a long list of those whose outlook regard humankind as little more than chattel, but there are four individuals whose ideas connect the totalitarian dots in some interesting ways. They have a history and the ideas that animate them have a pedigree.

Karl Marx, father of modern communism, writing in the mid 1800s, described a world in which the central dynamic was purely economic. For Marx – and all those who followed him - human beings are things - merely the bricks and mortar from which a new utopia would be built. For Communists, human lives were – and still are – disposable. The values we live by - individual conscience and the rule of law - are obstacles to be overcome on the way to utopia and the New Socialist Man.

Sigmund Freud was the father of modern psychiatry, a cocaine addict and a suicide. To Freud we were little more than primitives ruled by our sexual impulses. Our civilized personae, Freud believed, is little more than a thin veneer, easily discarded. Freud’s ideas regarding human nature sowed the seeds of the family-destroying sexual revolution of the Sixties.

B.F. Skinner, an American psychologist, author, inventor and an advocate for "social reform" was born at the turn of the 20^th century. Skinner's theory of behavior essentially reduced human beings to mere stimulus-response mechanisms. Skinner was also an advocate of scientific social planning and the use of operant conditioning in the raising of children. In his work, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Skinner suggested that a "technology of behavior" could help to make what he characterized as a better society. To achieve that end, we would have to accept that independent moral choice is not the driving force of our actions. Ultimately, and in Skinner's view, we would be made to accept that idea - or any other idea the State deemed appropriate. Note that Skinner's ideas had and continue to have a profound effect on American education.

Freud, Marx and Skinner were atheists and all assumed that religion, the impulse that moved men and nations, the source of our notions of right and wrong - was a fantasy and always had been. And the common thread that runs through these men's ideas is the dehumanizing of humanity - the reduction of our hearts, minds and souls and all of our aspirations to something that can be either eradicated or molded to suit the states ambitions.

But it took another philosopher to highlight and to put into play one of the most destructive ideas to emerge in modern times.

Friedrich Nietzsche was also an atheist. But he saw God not as an invention, but as a casualty. He wrote in 1886: "The greatest event in recent times - that 'God is Dead,' that the belief in the Christian God is no longer tenable - is beginning to cast its first shadows upon Europe." The Christian God, he wrote, would no longer stand in the way of the development of the New Man who Nietzsche said would be ‘beyond good and evil’. Nietzsche knew that in Europe, the decline of religion as a guide to conscience and morality would leave a huge vacuum.

Nietzsche thought that the most likely candidate would be what he called the 'Will to Power,' which he felt offered a better and more persuasive explanation of human behavior than either Marx or Freud. In place of religious belief, there would be secular ideology. The very concept of good and evil would be discarded as the product of weak and inferior minds.

But above all, Nietzsche believed that the Will to Power would produce a new kind of messiah, uninhibited by religious sanctions, without moral restraint of any kind, and with an unappeasable appetite for controlling mankind.

Let's say that again: the Will to Power would produce a new kind of messiah, uninhibited by religious sanctions, without moral restraint of any kind, and with an unappeasable appetite for controlling mankind.

And how did that 'will to power' express itself in our times? Jean-Francois Revel, writing over a century after Nietzsche, said of the Europeans in particular,

"It was they, after all, who made the twentieth century the darkest in history; it was they who brought about the two unprecedented cataclysms of two World Wars; and it was they who invented and put into place the two most criminal regimes ever inflicted on the human race - the pinnacles of evil and imbecility achieved in a space of less than thirty years."

If we have learned anything at all from the sad and sorry history of the previous century, it is this: whenever and wherever a government assumes the power to violate your fundamental rights to life and liberty, those who wish to strip you of your rights and claim your life as the property of the state will sooner or later gain control of the apparatus of the state. And they will use it, as I have noted above, without restraint or moral considerations of any kind. Regardless of the scope of that authority, they will exercise it to its fullest extent. If that authority encompasses the power to kill hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people, sooner or later, these killers without conscience will make the fullest and most horrible use of it. The history of the 20^th century bears stark and irrefutable witness to this fact. The record is crystal clear in this regard: 'state actors' will use and abuse whatever power and authority they have, to whatever extent they can, and they will actively seek the means and the opportunity to do so.

Those who are driven by the will to power typically disguise their intentions under the guise of 'achieving the greatest good for the greatest number' or social / economic justice. They may claim that they are 'doing the business of the people' or that they are acting according to 'the will of the people'. 'It's for the children,' you know. When it has come to creating the 'New Socialist Man,' those who advance such arguments remain untroubled by the oceans of blood they would have to spill and the mountains of corpses they would have to pile up in order to realize their dreams. They are all animated by the unrestrained and unappeasable ‘will to power’.

To the extent that we endow the state with power, we invariably create the opportunity for those who wish to acquire and abuse power to do evil. You may recall that a politician once said that, "... a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have." The greatest tragedies in recent history have come about in this manner. In the last century alone, more than 260 million people - say it again: more than 260 million people - unarmed, non-combatant civilians - were murdered by those exercising the power of the state. They were starved, gassed, tortured, shot, impaled, burned alive, frozen to death, hacked apart with hoes, axes and machetes - a litany of brutality and atrocity beyond human imagination. Hundreds of millions more lived their lives enslaved, impoverished and in despair. No few of the survivors may have come to envy the dead.

Virtually without exception, these cruel and murderous regimes have been - and continue to be - collectivist totalitarian autocracies of one sort or another. The crimes and the horrors of collectivism in all its forms - socialism, communism, national socialism, fascism - have been demonstrated beyond dispute by their murderous trajectory through history and the ruin, slaughter, and untold human misery left in their wake. This is the undeniable and irrefutable truth of our times.

If you try to wrap your mind around the nature and the extent of the murderous results of these totalitarian regimes, you'll soon discover that concepts like genocide and mass murder pale before the reality of historical fact. Professor R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii coined the term democide in order to give us a framework to understand nature and the scope of the worst slaughters of the 20th century. Rummel offers these definitions:

As Professor Rummel has shown in Death by Government, democide has been committed in the name of many causes, beliefs and ideologies. Historically, the slaughter of entire populations has been a matter of national, racial, cultural, religious and political policy. But democide is seldom aimed at an individual. It is always the group that is the target. Democide is possible only where individuals have been defined in terms of a group identity. Where this is not the case, mass violence is virtually unknown.

We now live in a nation where policies and politics of the 'progressive', Gramscian Left have been formulated expressly to promulgate class and gender warfare, ignorance, passivity, racial division, poverty, envy, and hatred of the good for being good. It is the prerequisite for the acquisition and exercise of unlimited authority and power. It is, in fact, precisely the outcome desired by Gramscian Marxists who now comprise our cultural elite. They are the heirs of those who had had previously helped unravel the moral and philosophical fabric of traditional Christian Europe, creating the frightful void that communism, socialism, national socialism and fascism would fill. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, writing of the influence of the Left on American foreign policy, referred to the influx of 1914 -1918 émigrés whose ranks were swollen during World War II -

"And, as pointed out earlier, the majority of those belonged to the leftist camp and were soon intimately tied to the American Left. More often than not, these men had previously helped undermine the fabric of traditional Christian Europe, creating the frightful void that communism, socialism, and later National Socialism would fill. Deserted altars are inhabited by demons.”

History is very clear as to precisely what these civilizational underminers have in store for the rest of us. What demons inhabit our empty altars? What should worry us most is that the majority of our fellow citizens openly applaud this same course – whether they know it or not. The rest of us sanction it by our silence and inaction – and that is the silence of the damned.

Yet, for anyone who cares and dares to look closely, the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible: the evils and horrors that arise from the abuse of power far outweigh whatever good that power might achieve. Accordingly, any attempt at achieving positive cultural and societal change without risk to the right of the individual to his life, liberty and private property cannot proceed until the authoritarian power of the state has been de-fanged, muzzled, shackled and cast back into a constitutional prison.

Power seldom goes unabused. There are, have been, and will always be those willing to commit such monstrous crimes. If they refrain from doing so it is only because they lack the opportunity and are suitably constrained by the rule of law backed by men who will enforce it. When the opportunity arises, or when the power-lusters can create the opportunity, they never fail to step up and seize the moment. As Rummel has said, "Power kills; absolute power kills absolutely." In this nation and at the beginning of the 21st century, the face of evil is defined best by those who seek that adulterine power to control and destroy and by those who assist, applaud and enable them.

Perhaps you've seen the well-meaning, ignorant appeasers and applauders - individuals who operate upon the basis of whim and emotion and who don't care to consider the consequences of their actions and beliefs. You've seen their faces in the German newsreels of the '30s and '40s. You've seen them at the Democratic and Republican conventions of the last few decades. They've all signed up for the 'program', and in a particularly tenacious species of denial, they've mapped their own personal versions of intellectual bankruptcy and moral and ethical squalor onto the rhetoric and practice of tyranny. But don't pity them at all. We all know the fate of their German counterparts after the fall of the old Weimar Republic: how many were devoured by the same beast they whelped into the world with their ignorant approval and applause?

Be wary of the haters of mankind who've mapped their own insecurity, self-loathing and sense of inferiority onto the rest of the human race. They are merely another species of willing participant in the bonfires of human sacrifice. Their view of the world and those who inhabit it are colored in terms of spite and envy. These are the ones who've looked into the mirror that others' success and achievements present. Rather than take the challenge to raise their own state of being, they choose instead to shatter the mirror in a fit of pique and resentment simply because they don't like what they see in the reflection of their own souls. Rather than achieve, they seek to destroy. The urge to destroy what they cannot understand or rule becomes their raison d'etre and their governing passion. This type has always found ready employment in the service of their new masters - for a time. But the sacrificial bonfires burn for them as well.

Consider the cynical and knowing apologists for tyranny and atrocity, sitting behind easy grins, excusing the worst sort of depravity and corruption with a wink and a smirk, secure in their faith that they are the new nomenklatura and are thus exempt from the 'solutions' to messy problems represented by those of us who would resist the idea that our lives are not someone else's property.

Finally, we come to the power-lusters themselves - the so-called 'progressive' elites. These individuals are often driven by a profound self-hatred which they direct outwards and project onto humanity in general. Their own self-loathing drives their passion to rule and to subjugate and to destroy, thus opening the door to the commission and justification of the most unimaginable of atrocities and crimes against God, man, nature, justice and reason. Another species of power-luster seeks to impose their own overweening sense of moral rectitude upon a resisting and supposedly ignorant public. C. S. Lewis, writing in God in the Dock eloquently warned us about this last type:

This is how a long, dark age begins. An age of horror and human sacrifice. Never underestimate the sheer impatience and hubris of the radical utopian 'reformers' who seek nothing less than dominion over every sphere of human thought and endeavor. Remember, these monsters want to reshape Man in their image and according to their ideals no matter what the cost. There's no room in their scheme of things for those who would disagree. Those of us with even a modest knowledge of history and understanding of human nature know where that mindset took humanity in the last century. It's where we're headed now, and we are headed for Hell on earth.

The time is coming when we must either begin the "long march" back through the institutions to reclaim them and to restore the principles of freedom and human dignity to their rightful place, or we must separate from the killers without conscience and those who condone them. My own world-view is contradictory to, and irreconcilable with, that of the criminal totalitarians - the heirs and disciples of Machiavelli, Marx, Gramsci and Alinsky - who promote the politics of envy and victimization, and whose goal is the destruction of our culture and institutions.

There seems to be a sort of 'virtual secession' is underway even as we speak. It usually begins when, one by one, we arrive at the same ideas that I have summarized so far. It's the understanding and acceptance of the fact that we can't 'just all get along' as a certain Mr. R King once suggested. We're well past that. We're well past the point of reasoned debate, appeasement or compromise. Those who feel they have the right to dictate the terms of existence to everyone else are on a deadly collision course with those of us who understand that no such 'right' exists. The history of the 20^th century stands in mute witness to the brutal tragedy of appeasement and the folly of compromise with totalitarian monsters. We are in fact at war, realize it or not, like it or not. At the most fundamental level, that war is being waged not so much for control of our economic lives - although that is certainly part of it - but for the hearts and minds of our children. The battlefields are: popular culture, our public schools, our institutions of higher learning, our churches and even our homes. The casualties are your kids' intellectual and spiritual sovereignty - their inner life and their freedom.

A bold conjecture: that we will descend into a Balkanized nightmare of chaos and destruction as the entitled classes, egged on by the elites, try to cash those very bad checks that liberal socialists and their 'change agent' stooges have written for years and handed out in our schools, churches, culture and inner cities. Those checks - the wages of the sins of class hatred, gender warfare, phony self-esteem and racial division are going to bounce sky high when the goodies they've promised aren't forthcoming. It's the price many of us will pay for both cheering and applauding the transformation of this society into a mob of cannibals and looters, or for simply standing silently by in de facto approval while it happened under our very noses. Some of the fence-sitters, applauders and appeasers may actually understand this and regret their choices in their last few moments as they helplessly watch the mindless mobs their very bad ideas have enabled rape and slaughter their families by the light of their burning homes.

Open warfare in this country is inevitable because there is no reconciliation possible with those who claim that your life simply does not belong to you. You cannot make peace with those who demand not only your economic submission, but your intellectual and spiritual surrender as well. The price of surrender has been and always will be more than anyone of reason and good will can ever care to pay. As Sidney Hook once wrote:

I fully expect that our virtual secession will break out into the open in approximately the same time frame that those bouncing checks drawn on the banks of envy and phony self-esteem reach critical mass - any time from right now to another 8-10 years. There will be no turning back once this starts, and the cost in lives and property will be truly staggering. There is absolutely no guarantee that we will ever be able to recover from such a scenario. But then, and only then can we successfully engage in our own 'long march' back towards a society where human dignity and freedom aren't mere bagatelles to bartered away for a mess of liberal socialist pottage, but are fundamental values worth living, striving, fighting - and dying for.

There are many of us, and I include myself among them, who constitute an entirely different class of humanity than these killers without conscience and their enablers. We are neither interested in power nor its abuse. We are satisfied to live our lives in peace with ourselves and with others, and we derive great satisfaction in seeing others enjoy life as we do. We believe that our lives and our minds are sovereign, and that the fruits of our labors are not forfeit to the first thug who demands them at the point of a gun. We are never the initiators of violence. We judge others solely by their competence and by their character.

The final first-principles question is this: To whom does the world belong? Does it belong to those of us who wish to live free of coercion or to the killers without conscience? Does it belong to those who uphold man's life as the standard of their values, or those who uphold the standard of death?

Can those of us who are passionately committed to the ideals of life, liberty, and the sovereign state of the individual hope to persist in the face of such an inevitable tragedy? Our one hope is that this pack of snarling communist dogs will turn upon themselves and consume one another before they have time to get to the rest of us. Those of us with the wisdom to prepare and the courage to step forward and rebuild our uniquely American civilization after the fall of this republic are our best and only hope for a decent and humane civilization.

I conclude with a quote from G. Warren Nutter, the late, great University of Virginia economist and proponent of liberty:

"The greatness of a society does not come from its monuments but from the kind of people it produces. Justice, responsibility, and humanity - these are the qualities of greatness in a people. Only the humane can remain free, and only the free can remain humane..."

Yeah, I think I might have to publish on asbestos pages - I'm calling things by their proper names and exploring the rise to supremacy one of the darkest aspects of human nature. This will please no one who seeks power, and it'll genuinely piss off the roses, puppies and unicorn optomists who think everything's going to be just fine. It isn't. That's manifestly not what a dispassionate look at history and human nature teaches us.

A couple of authors have come close, but still choose to dance around the subject. Check out Chantal Delsol's landmark Unlearned Lessons of the Twentieth Century. It's a distinctly European point of view, but it holds true for all of that. She does however, overlook our unique but waning American sanse of exceptionalism, optomisnm and strangth of character. For example, take this excerpt from Unlearned Lessons where she deftly exposes the roots of the Left's irrationalism.

Vital resistance and resentment are the two main responses to the events of 1989. Vital resistance: the mind realizes its mistake - it admits, for example, that nationalization of the means of production does not produce a happy society, but rather laziness and constant shortages; it refuses, however, to let go of the idea because of its passionate attachment to it. Existence - adventures, friendships, successes - is nourished and permeated by this belief to such an extent that the belief becomes an identity; the individual cannot renounce it without committing a kind of symbolic suicide. No one can admit... that his existence reflects the echo of a failure.

In other words, no one wants to admit that the premises upon which one has constructed their entire raison d’etre is an empty, shrieking fraud. This goes a long way towards explaining the tortured mental gymnastics and pretzel logic employed by the liberal Left in this country. Strongly recommend this author.

Lee Harris - another brilliant writer concludes his Civilization and Its Enemies with this:

"...we must all struggle to overcome the collective tendency of civilized men and women to forgetfulness. For that, in truth, is the ultimate question facing us today. Can the West overcome the forgetfulness that is the nemesis of every successful civilization? If it can, then there is hope that mankind will be able to move forward to a higher stage of historical development. If it cannot, then the next stage of history will be one that we once hoped never to see again."

I know the answer to that question. The memory of how we got here, how we achieved our freedom and at what cost has been systematically purged from the general consciousness. Not necessarily from ours, but from that of many of our countrymen. Harris' concluding sentence is the price that we will all pay for that forgetfulness - particularly so, as so-called progressives' view of history reads like a cut and paste ransom note.

Have you read this?

The Goal of Socialism
Difficulties in understanding socialist ideology arise when we try to correlate its doctrinal prescriptions for the organization of society with the actual forms of these principles as they are realized in history. For example, the picture of a society "in which the free development of each will be the precondition of the free development of all" contains no contradiction. But when the "leading theoretician" asserts that the creation of this harmonious man is achieved by shooting, we are face to face with a paradox. The view of socialism to which we have come encounters the same kind of difficulties and must be tested by this means for inconsistency. It is not enough to say that all the basic principles of socialist ideology derive from the urge to suppress individuality. It is necessary also to understand what this tendency portends for mankind and how it arises. We shall begin with the former question.
At the end of the preceding chapter we sketched the "ideal" socialist society as it appears in the classical writings of socialism. Of the features enumerated, we shall consider only one: state upbringing of children from infancy so that they do not know their parents. It is natural to begin with this aspect of the socialist ideal, if only because it would be the first thing that an individual born into this society would face. This measure is suggested with striking consistency from Plato to Liadov, a leading Soviet theoretician of the 1920s. In the 1970s, the Japanese police arrested members of the "Red Army," a Trotskyite organization, which was responsible for a number of murders. Although this group numbered only a few dozen people, it had all the attributes of a real socialist party--theoreticians, a split on the question of whether revolution should occur in one country or in the entire world at once, terror against dissidents. The group established itself in a lonely mountain region. And the same trait surfaced here: they took newborn children away from their mothers, entrusted them to other women for upbringing and fed them on powdered milk, despite difficulties in obtaining it. Let us quote from a book by the modern ethologist Eibl-Eibesfeldt, which will help us evaluate the biological significance of this measure:

It is especially in the second half of the first year of life that a child establishes personal ties with its mother or a person substituting for her (a nurse, a matron). This contact is the precondition for the development of "primary trust" (E. H. Erikson), the basis for the attitude toward oneself and the world. The child learns to trust his partner, and this positive basic orientation is the foundation of a healthy personality. If these contacts are broken, "primary distrust" develops. A prolonged stay in the hospital during the child's second year may, for example, lead to such results. Though the child will try even there to establish close contact with a mother substitute, no nurse will be able to devote herself intensively enough to an infant for a close personal tie to be established. Nurses constantly change, and so the contacts that arise are constantly broken. The child, deceived in his expectations of contact, falls into a state of apathy after a brief outburst of protest. During the first month of his stay in the hospital he whines and clings to anyone available. During the second month he usually cries and loses weight. During the third month such children only weep quietly and finally become thoroughly apathetic. If after three to four months' separation they are taken home, they return to normal. But if they stay in the hospital longer, the trauma becomes irreversible.. ..In one orphanage where R. Spitz studied ninety-one children who had been separated from their mothers in the third month of their lives, thirty-four died before they reached the age of two. The level of development of the survivors was only 45 percent of normal and the children were almost like idiots. Many of them could neither walk nor stand nor speak at age four. (148: p.234)

This may be applied to the whole of a society built on the consistent implementation of socialist ideals. Not only people but even animals cannot exist if reduced to the level of the cogs of a mechanism. Even such a seemingly elementary act as eating is not reducible to the mere satiation of the organism. For an animal to eat, it is not enough that it be hungry and that food be available; the food must be enticing, "appetizing," as well. And in more complex actions involving several ,individuals, such as raising of young, the common defense of territory or hunting, animals establish relations that usually are ritualistic in nature and that elicit great excitement and undoubtedly provide deep satisfaction. For animals, these ties constitute "the meaning of life"; if they are broken, the animal becomes apathetic, does not take food, and becomes an easy victim for a predator. To a far greater extent, this applies to man. But for him, all the aspects of life that make it attractive and give it meaning are connected with manifestations of individuality. Therefore, a consistent implementation of the principles of socialism deprives human life of individuality and simultaneously deprives life of its meaning and attraction. As suggested by the example of the orphaned children, it would lead to the physical extinction of the group in which these principles are in force, and if they should triumph through the world--to the extinction of mankind. But the conclusion that we have reached has yet to be tested by history because the socialist ideals have nowhere achieved complete implementation. The primitive states of the ancient Orient and pre-Columbian America had a very weakly developed socialist ideology. In keeping with Shang Yang's principle ("When the people are weak the state is strong; when the state is weak the people are strong"), particularly strong, conservative and long-lived state structures were created. In these states, however, the principle of the "weak people" was understood only in the sense of external, physical limitations--choice of work, place of residence, severe limitations on private property, the large number of official duties. These duties did not touch the life within the family or cut deeply into man's soul. They were not ideologically inspired, and it was apparently the same patriarchal quality that preserved these states from dying out but, on the other hand, left them defenseless in the face of new spiritual forces called forth by the abrupt shifts of the first millennium B.C.
The socialist states of the twentieth century are also far from being a model of the complete realization of socialist ideals. But one must note that when survival is at stake, it was achieved in these states precisely by giving up some fundamental socialist principle. This occurred with the introduction of the New Economic Policy in Soviet Russia and with the halt ordered by Stalin in the persecution of religion during World War II.
However, it is possible to point out a number of similar situations which may serve, though indirectly, to support our point of view.
It happens not infrequently that a nation or a social group dies out not because of economic reasons or due to destruction by enemies but because the spiritual conditions of its existence are destroyed.
[...]
the dying and, ultimately, the complete extinction of mankind is not a chance external consequence of the embodiment of the socialist ideal but that this impulse is a fundamental and organic part of socialist ideology. To a greater or lesser degree it is consciously perceived as such by its partisans and even serves them as inspiration.
[...]
Conclusion
This paradoxical phenomenon may be understood only if we allow that the idea of the death of humanity can be attractive to man and that the impulse to self-destruction (even if it is only one of many tendencies) plays a role in human history. And there is in fact much evidence to support this hypothesis, particularly among phenomena that play an essential role in the spiritual life of mankind. Quite independently of socialism, each of these leads to the same conclusion.
[...]
We have arrived at this view of socialism in attempting to account for the contradictions evident in the phenomenon at first glance. And now, looking back, we feel confident that our approach indeed accounts for many of socialism's peculiarities. Understanding socialism as one of the manifestations of the allure of death explains its hostility toward individuality, its desire to destroy those forces which support and strengthen human personality: religion, culture, family, individual property. It is consistent with the tendency to reduce man to the level of a cog in the state mechanism, as well as with the attempt to prove that man exists only as a manifestation of nonindividual features, such as production or class interest. The view of man as an instrument of other forces, in turn, makes it possible to understand the astonishing psychology of the leaders of the socialist movements: on the one hand, the readiness and even the striving to erase one's own personality, to submit it completely to the aims of the movement (so obvious in the statements of Piatakov and Trotsky cited earlier) and, on the other hand, the complete collapse of will, the renunciation of one's convictions in case of defeat (Müntzer and Johann of Leyden, Bakunin in his "Confession," the behavior of Zinoviev, Bukharin and others at the trials, etc.). In fact, if the instrument is no longer needed, all meaning for its existence is lost, and in man's soul the source of courage and spiritual strength runs dry. (Bakunin, for example, both before and after his imprisonment is quite a different person from the utterly broken and self-abasing author of the "Confession." And Bukharin, in his emotional "Testament," says that he has no differences with Stalin and that he has had none for a long time. He thereby dismisses his entire activity and even deprives himself of the right to protest against his own execution, since that would involve a disagreement.) This point of view is consistent with the calls to universal destruction, with the attractiveness of destructive forces like wars and crises, with the allure of death and the idea of Nothingness.
[...]
Returning to our specific theme, we see that the striving for self-destruction expressed in socialism not only is not analogous or "equivalent" to other forces acting in history, but is fundamentally distinct from them in character. For example, in contrast to a religious or a national ideology, which openly proclaims its goals, the "death instinct" that is embodied in socialism appears in the guise of religion, reason, social justice, national endeavors or science, and never shows its true face. Apparently its action is the stronger the more directly it is perceived by the subconscious part of the psyche, but only on condition that consciousness remains unaware.
[...]
...if we suppose that the significance of socialism for mankind consists in the acquisition of specific experience, then much has been acquired on this path in the last hundred years. There is, first of all, the profound experience of Russia, the significance of which we are only now beginning to understand. The question therefore arises: will this experience be sufficient? Is it sufficient for the entire world and especially for the West? Indeed, is it sufficient for Russia? Shall we be able to comprehend its meaning? Or is mankind destined to pass through this experience on an immeasurably larger scale? There is no doubt that if the ideals of Utopia are realized universally, mankind, even in the barracks of the universal City of the Sun, shall find the strength to regain its freedom and to preserve God's image and likeness--human individuality--once it has glanced into the yawning abyss. But will even that experience be sufficient? For it seems just as certain that the freedom of will granted to man and to mankind is absolute, that it includes the freedom to make the ultimate choice--between life and death.

(The Socialist Phenomenon)

Sorry for the long quote. The book itself is much longer though and the bulk of it is an encyclopaedic research into protosocialist societies of the past. And that feature makes it so chilling for us in America, where we naively think that by rearranging the slogans we can avoid the fate, and in fact, the goal, of every other socialist society.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.