Gene Roddenberry, the "Prime Directive," and First World vs Third World Leftism

You know, I've been trying to understand the bizarre ideological inconsistencies of the past week as our blue state liberals advocate Voltaire out of one side of their mouths and Russell Means out of the other. This spectacle of us "rednecks" being pummeled by a "tag team" of Charles Darwin and Sitting Bull has been bothering me for a very long time (for years, even). It's just that the whole issue has been omnipresent over the past seven days as the coasts fume at us for both rejecting Darwin and unforgivably altering the beliefs of "indigenous" religions (all that is lacking is a pulpit in some backwater rural Black Pentecostal Church being used to attack chr*stianity). So pardon me as I continue to ruminate on the keyboard so that my frustrations may be shared with others.

It is indeed puzzling to the point of maddening to be called "neanderthals" (as an insult yet!) by evolutionists, animal-worshippers, and fans of "indigenousness." Were not the "neanderthals" closer to Our Forebears The Beasts than modern man, with his genocidal destruction of Eskimo mythology? The whole "cave man"/"neanderthal" insult is simply loaded with irony (considering that no Australian aborigine or native of New Guinea will ever be so designated). Yet liberals are ultimately Hegelian idealists, whether they ascribe historical evolution to a "world soul" or the class struggle, and Hegelianism teaches that human history is teleological, flowing in one direction from the alpha point of the past to the omega point at "the end of history," and the term "neanderthal" suggests that one is violating this flow by refusing to "keep up with the times." Do these people not realize they are contradicting themselves when they insist that "indigenous pipples" must never be defiled with Western rationalism or forced to "keep up with the times?" Evidently they do not. Unfortunately, many conservatives simply accept the double standard and wear the liberal invective as a badge of honor. Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person to see the incongruities in the alliance between Voltaire and the "noble savage." But that alliance seems to be at the very heart of the "rednecks should be vegetarian rocket scientists while 'natives' should be shamanistic hunter-gatherers" theme.

I have found what I believe to be a pop culture analogy to the liberal schizophrenia that declares one person's "low intelligence" to be another person's "legitimate cultural expression." And I have found it in, of all places, Gene Roddenberry's definitive secular humanist vision of the galactic future, "Star Trek." Allow me to explain:

As you will recall, Star Fleet's prime directive was never to interfere in the internal development of other planets. This was of course routinely ignored in any episode whose plot would have been stymied by it, but I think the general idea of a "prime directive" directed toward "others" is operating in the liberal mind. The Federation was made up of many races and cultures, and I doubt very seriously that they showed this extreme latitude toward each other, as it would have made "federation" impossible. They could quite legitimately conduct coups or discipline unruly planets or cultures of their own. But when it came to "the other," they were determined not to judge. So the "prime directive" translated as "we hold our own to a standard; we refuse to judge 'the other.'"

By now the reader can easily see where I'm going with this. The liberal elites seem to regard whites (or perhaps more correctly, Anglo-Saxons) as visitors from another world come to study this one and its quaint peoples. Therefore, we require the strictest standards of our own (we cannot afford to subscribe to "fantasies"), but we do not wish to leave so much as a cultural "fingerprint" on anyone else. Liberals become furious when "rednecks" forego this "obvious" mission and insist on the perks of "indigenousness" for themselves (eg, their own "motherlands" and supernatural beliefs). Poor rural Anglos who continue to subscribe to their ancestral "mythologies" and taboos are savages--but woe betide anyone who applies this term to "the other!"

This theory explains the double standard with regard to South African apartheid. Cultural relativism had no bearing here. South Africa was not "the other" but "us," and "we" were interfering with and depriving the "natives" of freedom. At the time of the anti-apartheid crusade it was Communism that was being given a free pass, but I think the example becomes even more stark if we choose to compare liberal anti-apartheidism to a contemporary and decidedly non-Communist exampe, ie, the enslavement of Blacks by Arabs in the Sudan. Unlike South Africa, "we" are not doing anything. Because "we" have not interfered, Sudan becomes the beneficiary of the "prime directive" ("this is their culture") in a way the rulers of old South Africa did not.

Let's summarize my theory so far: "we" are here to study "them." "We" must confront and acknowledge reality and rationality in order to perform our studies successfully. However, "they" cannot be polluted by our rationalism. "We" may exact any number of approprite punishments of those members of "us" who want to participate in the life of this planet, but "we" do not make any value judgements whatsoever about "the other."

This actually goes beyond mere politics. Has anyone else ever noticed that vegetarians and anti-hunters do not object to hunting, trapping, skinning, or meat-eating by "indigenous pipples?" In fact, they are assumed to have the same right to hunt and kill animals for food that wolves and other predators are (perhaps liberals believe deep down inside that "indigenous pipples" are still "animals?"). Not only must the "invader" not kill the animals of this planet for food, but he must not interfere in predation by the native species (spiders, wolves, South American Indians, Southern Blacks). It is truly astounding that this condescension (camouflaged as it is by inward-directed ridicule and outward-directed solidarity) is not noticed by more people. At any rate, I would gladly bear that condescension rather than the compulsory "observer" status that has been assigned me by my "betters."

Anybody know what planet we "observers" are from? I'd like to return there now, please!

I would like to point out another dichotomy caused by the "prime directive" mentality. All our liberal dissidents are threatening to move to Canada or Europe. Considering the celebration of the heritage of "la raza" by the Left, why do none of them plan on going to Mexico instead? My theory is that the "us/the other" worldview splits Leftism into two varieties, what we may perhaps call "First World Leftism" (the kind we are supposed to suffer under) and "Third World Leftism" (which is going to "liberate" everyone else). American Leftists can go to Canada because its "indigenous" population has already been decimated (too bad, but oh well, there's nothing we can do about it now) whereas Mexico is still the Sacred Mother Soil of La Raza Unida, its "autochthonous" children who emerged from her bosom and alone have the right to live there. While Canada will become a secular yet somehow multicultural paradise, Mexico will be restored to its former and rightful greatness under the Aztec Emperors, before the Foreign Devil violated its virgin soil and imposed his vile religion on the rightful occupants, effacing the unparalleled wisdom with which their "gxds" had graced them. Canadian Leftism will be that of Voltaire; Mexico's will be that of his "ally," the "noble savage."

This example illustrates the vast differences between the "first world" and "third world" Leftism. First World Leftism is rational, secular, and scientific (though refusing to judge the "cultures" of "the others" in its midst). It is pacifist and anti-nuclear, guilt riddled over its past "crimes," perhaps vegetarian, and ultimately committed to blend into an abstract "family of man."

Third World Leftism (though considered the "fraternal comrade" of First World Leftism), is quite a different matter. It is devoid of any sense of guilt but rather furiously, mystically nationalistic. It has no intention of ever ceding its national sovereignty to foreign devils or international bodies. While the First World Leftists (FWLs) are destroying their military establishments the TWLs are engaged in a military buildup of monumental proportions. While FWLs are dismantling their nuclear reactors and erecting solar panels the TWLs are exercising their Right As A Sovereign Nation by building nuclear reactors. FWL nations contract into themselves, TWL ones engage in blatant military adventurism. FWLs critique their religious heritage in the light of "reason; TWLs celebrate their "glorious heritage" and how the "foreign devil" was unable to quench The Ageless Wisdom Of Our Forefathers with his vulgar, upstart religion. The FWLs instill disdain for their national heritage even while teaching docile submission to a totalitarian government, while TWLs are ready to pour out every drop of blood for the Sacred Socialist Motherland Which Has Been Our Home For Untold Thousands of Years.

Perhaps the easiest way to concretize these differences between First and Third World Leftisms is to imagine a May Day celebration under each one. In the First World Socialist State there would be long-haired, drug-addled, guilt-soaked hippies flashing the "peace" sign or throwing rocks. But under the Third World Leftist regime May Day is quite a spectacle. Millions upon millions of short haired, clean shaven, well-armed young men and women in military uniform (from ages five to fifty) march in lockstep across the Plaza Of The Revolution to the sound of martial music, carrying the National and Party Flags and, above all, pictures of the Great Leader, the Personification Of The National Essence, The Husband Of Every Wife And Father Of Every Child; and the whole gigantic party ends with a rousing, fist-shaking, arm-waving speech by the Leader as he assures his people that they have never ever done anything wrong in their history ever. Then he invites his First World Leftist hippie guest to join him in condemning the evils of fascism.

Anyway, this represents some of my thinking in trying to come to terms with liberal/leftist hypocrisy in regard to these matters. I wish that my fellow conservatives would stop gladly accepting the "ignorant neanderthal" label and actually force liberals to confront their hateful hypocrisy. This is not likely to happen, but it would be interesting to learn how liberals justify their inconsistencies in their own minds (assuming they've even thought that far).

Enough of the "I'm an ignorant redneck and I'm proud" reactions. Let us write liberal publications and ask liberals with whom we come in contact if they have indeed adopted a "prime directive" that justifies their corrosive scientism toward our beliefs and their awed respect of everyone else's.

There is a simpler paradigm than that which you offered: greed for the power to control while they advance their agenda: to use government to control the means of production, by any means, whether democratic (by virtue of mass media and control of education), by fiat (the courts), or by a police state (once they get control). First and Third world leftists differ not at all in that regard.

First world leftists simply find using government to control the market a convenient way to assure a predictable return on investment. It keeps those nasty competitors in check. First world leftists, while disavowing violence by any means, somehow manage to starve their populations by by "incompetent central planning," foment wars in the third world, or foist environmental policies (such as banning DDT), all resulting in millions of deaths. Don't think for a minute that it's by accident. It's been done repeatedly since the starvation of the kulaks by Lenin.

I continue to see 180 degrees of difference between the two, if not in the size of government they advocate, then in other aspects of their philosophy.

No First World Leftist regime, however doctrinaire, can bring itself to have a large military establishment or to endorse or encourage patriotism. Third World Leftists have no such hatred for their country/culture and no pacifism. However naked the power of the First World Leftist regime, it is never going to tell its citizens to feel proud but rather seeks to fill them with guilt.

I simply do not classify ideological movements by the amount of government they advocate. There are Leftists who are anarchists (even as they admire Castro) and authoritarians on the Right. In fact, both Left and Right are a spectrum running from total to no government, yet each is bound by something else. Left anarchists love Left totalitarians and hate Right anarchists, and Right anarchists (to whom John Ashcroft was a "jack-booted thug") sing the praises of Pinochet, Franco, Salazar, and Papadopoulos while bitterly opposing Left anarchists. Clearly the "size of government" theory of the political spectrum simply is not adequate.

Again, recall the "Indo-fascism" thread. While militant Inca nationalists and self-hating American and Canadian Leftists may share a belief in a large redistributive government, do you really think the Incan nationalists are flagellating themselves about the "crimes" of their ancestors or clamoring for the disarming of their people, or even calling for the abandonment of the ancestral religion in favor of Marxian atheism?

BTW, I've been following links from the Yockey article I referenced earlier and this stuff just keeps getting weirder and weirder. This notion of organic nationality or race being the be-all and end-all of the universe (aside from being a form of materialist/scientific, specifically biochemical and genetic, determinism) is simply so similar to the Leftist cult of "indigenousness" and the idea of "the West" as alien violater of sacred soil that it isn't even funny! Sheesh!

Somewhere on the Net I read about a bizarre little group whose motto was "Mao and Hitler united in struggle." As time passes, this may become more and more of a reality . . . and perhaps even explicitly so.

Look Carry_Okie . . . forget for just a moment the size of government advocated by American self-haters and Inca "fascists." What is the ideological justification for this common goal? It is diametrically opposite in First and Third World Leftist ideology.

Are American Leftists inflaming the American people with a sense of fanatical nationalism? Are they appealing to traditional notions of American ethno-cultural identity by appealing to an alien enemy (a "foreign devil") who must be crushed? Are they advocating a huge military establishment or even that Americans arm themselves and fight their oppressors?

Leftism of the Third World type is a form of self-assertion. First World Leftism is a form of self-hatred. If the ideology of the two is actually identical (over and above "big government" and "wealth redistribution"), then why doesn't the American Left use the same militant nationalism and patriotism as its ideological justification in America that it does in the Andes? Even certain lilly-white, historically chr*stian European groups (the Celts and Basques) embrace a Third World style, militant, nationalist, ultra-patriotic Leftism. It's obviously much easier to come to power this way, flattering your constituency instead of continually slapping them around and telling them how evil they are. Why doesn't the Left do that here? Shoot, even Canadian Leftism has a dose of patriotic nationalism in it.

I believe that America, like the Jews, is hated as an "unnatural," "inorganic," or "rootless" nation. The whole Guevara/Yockey ideological spectrum is based on the claims of indigenousness and mystical connection to the soil. Maybe the "international American" is the stranger and the alien among a planet of "natives," as the Jews are treated as being?

PS: I do admit it is interesting to contemplate how early on Russian nationalism began to play an important role in Communism. The original Bolsheviks could hardly celebrate a country and culture they were trying to remake, yet Russian national interests became the absolute backbone of Communist ideology, and Russian Communists even came to defend pre-Communist Czarist imperialism in order to stake a Russian claim on its former imperial territories.

No First World Leftist regime, however doctrinaire, can bring itself to have a large military establishment or to endorse or encourage patriotism.

As long as they have the United States to pay for it.

Third World Leftists have no such hatred for their country/culture and no pacifism.

But constantly espouse "peace" with the same verbiage as first world leftists.

However naked the power of the First World Leftist regime, it is never going to tell its citizens to feel proud but rather seeks to fill them with guilt.

For not being third world lefitsts. Elitisits of all stripes love downtrodden masses beneath them. No inconsistency there at all given the paradigm I offered.

I simply do not classify ideological movements by the amount of government they advocate.

Given that there is but one movement that espouses limited goverment, what else is there? All socialist movements graduate toward the total state.

There are Leftists who are anarchists (even as they admire Castro) and authoritarians on the Right.

They SAY that they are anarchists, and fancy themselves in total control. There is no such thing as anarchy in practice.

In fact, both Left and Right are a spectrum running from total to no government, yet each is bound by something else.

Nice analogy, but not a fact, unless you consider "Right" to be fascism, which is (in fact) socialism too. The way that the left got away with dubbing fascism a creature of the right wing is one of the great propaganda coups in history.

Left anarchists love Left totalitarians and hate Right anarchists, and Right anarchists (to whom John Ashcroft was a "jack-booted thug") sing the praises of Pinochet, Franco, Salazar, and Papadopoulos while bitterly opposing Left anarchists.

You believe these people?

While militant Inca nationalists and self-hating American and Canadian Leftists may share a belief in a large redistributive government, do you really think the Incan nationalists are flagellating themselves about the "crimes" of their ancestors or clamoring for the disarming of their people, or even calling for the abandonment of the ancestral religion in favor of Marxian atheism?

Of course not. They believe in peace, and will cut the throats of anyone who disagrees with them.

This notion of organic nationality or race being the be-all and end-all of the universe (aside from being a form of materialist/scientific, specifically biochemical and genetic, determinism) is simply so similar to the Leftist cult of "indigenousness" and the idea of "the West" as alien violater of sacred soil that it isn't even funny! Sheesh!

It's just a way of justifying getting rid of (and disarming) their opponents. They really don't give a crap about their heritage. Hell, most of them don't have a clue what it is. Deep ecologists are just as ignorant. It doesn't preclude them from trading in myths that justify their actions.

Think subjective reality. "What I believe is what's good for me."

As time passes, this may become more and more of a reality . . . and perhaps even explicitly so.

Were they ever any different?

What is the ideological justification for this common goal? It is diametrically opposite in First and Third World Leftist ideology.

Who cares what the story is? Leftists don't. They'll say ANYTHING to get what they want, even subvocally. They'll believe whatever is convenient, including if it logically conflicts with other situational beliefs, to get what they want: more for them, which starts with power over you.

Socialism is founded upon a mental disorder. Don't expect it to be logical.

Are American Leftists inflaming the American people with a sense of fanatical nationalism?

In a sense, yes. They are inflamed with fanatical globalism.

Are they appealing to traditional notions of American ethno-cultural identity by appealing to an alien enemy (a "foreign devil") who must be crushed?

The "foreigner" is the Judeo-Christian conservative, who must be crushed.

Are they advocating a huge military establishment or even that Americans arm themselves and fight their oppressors?

As long as it belongs to the UN, yes.

You just don't seem to get it.

Leftism of the Third World type is a form of self-assertion.

So is every other form of self-righteous breast-beating.

If the ideology of the two is actually identical (over and above "big government" and "wealth redistribution"), then why doesn't the American Left use the same militant nationalism and patriotism as its ideological justification in America that it does in the Andes?

See above, just replace militant nationalism with militant globalism and it's exactly the same.

It's obviously much easier to come to power this way, flattering your constituency instead of continually slapping them around and telling them how evil they are. Why doesn't the Left do that here?

Because they have "higher" goals, total control of the entire planet.

I believe that America, like the Jews, is hated as an "unnatural," "inorganic," or "rootless" nation.

America is hated because it is in the way of their ambitions, notably the abolition of private property, upon which I wrote the book.

Listen, I used to be a Bircher and they sold me on the "Communism and Fascism are the same thing" idea based on a spectrum running from zero to total government, but it is simply inadequate. For one thing, the Birchers themselves gave birth over the years to several personalities who went from being "small government individualists" to avowed national socialists. For another, as I said before, both Right and Left comprise a full spectrum of zero - to -total government advocates, yet the two spectra remain bitterly opposed even as authoritarians and anarchists on each side are bound by some perceived common interest.

Let us first take the term "totalitarian state." To us today this signifies a Communist country in which all means of production and distribution are owned by the government (the alleged representative of "the people"). However, the term "totalitarian state" was coined by Mussolini, and his ideology never called for government ownership of the means of production and distribution. Yet Communists, who have always advocated this, have never called themselves "totalitarian."

It seems to me that Mussolini and those he influenced dis not by the term "the state" mean precisely "the government." To be honest, I'm not quite sure what they meant (as fascism is in this since very alien to the entire American political spectrum). He seems to have been referring to some sort of idealized collective identity or will rather than simply to the government. He insisted that "it is not the nation that creates the state, but the state that creates the nation," and he was not referring to the government, since he said that even when a people does not have a government it can still be said to have a "state" if it shows itself to have some sort of national will to exist. The "state" which Mussoline called for (and which he termed "ethical" as well as "totalitarian") seems to be in some sense intangible.

Let us next look at the terms "socialism" and "socialist." The "socialism" of the left refers to collective ownership (either directly or via the government). This is the definition of the term accepted by the American Right. However, the European Right sees this form of "socialism" not as "collectivistic" but rather as atomistic and individualistic, since "organic" ties of family, clan, tribe, nation, and race are denied in favor of an abstract individualism and univesalism, and people are reduced to abstract individuals with no connection to any but the government which owns everything and on which they depend. The "socialism" of Hitler's "national socialism" did not refer to the leftist conception of government ownership at all, but precisely to "organic" connections among the national body that the Left supposedly denied (at least before it discovered the "indigenous pipples").

Of course I have read The Blue Book of The John Birch Society, and in that book Robert Welch (the Society's founder) actually invoked Oswald Spengler to bolter his own individualistic and anti-government American conservatism. He said that Spengler had claimed that "collectivism" is the cancer that eventually kills all civilizations once they get beyond a certain age. Yet Francis Parker Yockey was a Spenglerian, and he was the furthest thing from being an individualist. In fact, from reading some of Yockey's writings on the Internet, it seems to me that he was claiming the exact opposite of Welch: that healthy society's have strong collective identities and that the degenerative disease to which they eventually succumb isn't "collectivism" at all but radical individualism--an ailment for which Yockey recommended the "ethical socialist ethos." Thus it seems that both American libertarian/individualist Rightists and European authoritarian/statist Rightists are indeed allies against a common enemy, but that which one ally perceives as "collectivism" is perceived by the other as its diametrical opposite!

At any rate, I am delving here into philosophical and ideological justifications for power and not power itself, which always has certain characteristics regardless of by whom or for what end it is wielded. So if you cannot separate yourself from the "big government is big government" way of thinking for a while, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

On a few other matters, I still continue to wonder how Marx ever got linked to regression to a stone-age civilization. Rosseau I could understand, but Marx . . . !

As for your work on the environment, I applaude you. My own sister is a conservative environmentalist, and she and her neighbors have actually found the EPA as an ally against having their property seized from them by developers. As someone who believes in G-d I naturally believe that everything He created was created for a purpose. I find it absolutely incomprehensible why Theists so easily dismiss the importance of things created by G-d while atheists insist quite illogically that everything is "holy" and must never feel man's desecrating touch. Moreover, I'm a rural person and I much prefer undeveloped countryside to an urban landscape. Therefore I shake my head at the "if it's green, pave it!" school of conservatism.

Again, thank you for your input and for the good work you are doing.

Listen, I used to be a Bircher and they sold me on the "Communism and Fascism are the same thing" idea based on a spectrum running from zero to total government, but it is simply inadequate.

Then try a famous socialist. Here is a little quote written in 1933 from Homage to Catalonia, by George Orwell:

In reality, it was the Communists above all others who prevented revolution in Spain. Later, when the Right Wing forces were in full control, the Communists showed themselves willing to go a great deal further than the Liberals in hunting down revolutionary leaders.
[Snip]
Between the Communists and those who claim to stand to the Left of them there is a real difference. The Communists hold that Fascism can be beaten by alliance with sections of the capitalist class (the Popular Front); their opponents hold that this maneuver simply gives Fascism new breeding-grounds. The question has got to be settled; to make the wrong decision may be to land ourselves in for centuries of semi-slavery.

For another, as I said before, both Right and Left comprise a full spectrum of zero - to -total government advocates, yet the two spectra remain bitterly opposed even as authoritarians and anarchists on each side are bound by some perceived common interest.

When are you going to learn to distinguish an ephemeral mirage (anarchy) that inevitably leads to tyranny from its more honest advocates? The anarchists are but useful idiots, in fact are PAID to be such by globalist corporatist fascists (Ted Turner, the Pew family, and Theresa Hines fund the Tides Foundation which in turn funds the Ruckus Society, for example). Anarchy, particularly among its typically debauched advocates, is an impossibility for all but a Godly society. Seeing as you are a Zionist, I refer you to I Samuel, Chaper 8.

There is no point analyzing a word representing an ideology with Talmudic precision when its underlying premise is so flawed as to render it hypothetical.

To us today this signifies a Communist country in which all means of production and distribution are owned by the government (the alleged representative of "the people").

Is this the royal "us"? It sure as heck doesn't include me. You are forgetting the misbegotten ilk of Mugabe, Saddam, the Iranian Islamofascists, etc. Totalitarianism on this planet is the norm, not just the communist flavor.

However, the term "totalitarian state" was coined by Mussolini, and his ideology never called for government ownership of the means of production and distribution.

There is no distinction between ownership and control. None.

Yet Communists, who have always advocated this, have never called themselves "totalitarian."

Of course not. It's hard enough to make a sale without going there. When communists advocate the abolition of private property, its advocates never think that means their house unless they think themselves well enough connected that they'll effectively steal one from somebody else.

It seems to me that Mussolini and those he influenced dis not by the term "the state" mean precisely "the government."

Really? What else could it mean?

He seems to have been referring to some sort of idealized collective identity or will rather than simply to the government.

Then how is that distinct from communism?

He insisted that "it is not the nation that creates the state, but the state that creates the nation,"

Then he clearly meant government control.

and he was not referring to the government, since he said that even when a people does not have a government it can still be said to have a "state" if it shows itself to have some sort of national will to exist.

Oh come on. How would the state enforce or express itself otherwise? You still confuse the pitch with reality. What makes you think these creeps actually believe the pabulum they spout? A talented liar, such as Clinton or Schwarzenegger, finds a way to spin an idea in his head so that he can momentarily believe it is true, even if he knows it's not. Back to Orwell:

"But [making a show of ] stupidity is not enough. On the contrary, orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one's own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body. ...Society rests ultimately on the belief that [leadership] is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. But since in reality [leadership] is not omnipotent and the Party is not infallible, there is a need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts."

"The key word here is blackwhite. ...Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction to the plain facts. Applied to a Party [agent, vassal, or unwitting gamesman], it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary...." -- George Orwell 1984.

I wouldn't go that far. Ownership or control are equivalent.

However, the European Right sees this form of "socialism" not as "collectivistic" but rather as atomistic and individualistic, since "organic" ties of family, clan, tribe, nation, and race are denied in favor of an abstract individualism and univesalism, and people are reduced to abstract individuals with no connection to any but the government which owns everything and on which they depend.

How could collective ownership be regarded as individualistic? "Organic ties" of family tribe or nation are collectivist by nature.

The real distinction is one of rights. American Lockean philosophy regards rights as individual, whether that individual is a person, State, or other corporate entity. Note that each of the latter set carries a legal identity; i.e., is an individual, whereas the European cadres exist only by assertion of an interest group, incapable of resolution by any other means than politics. Such inevitably gravitates to government control and therefore correctly meets the American definition of socialism, situational "stakeholders" being the neo-European interest as defined by the American left and is covetous by nature.

The "socialism" of Hitler's "national socialism" did not refer to the leftist conception of government ownership at all, but precisely to "organic" connections among the national body that the Left supposedly denied (at least before it discovered the "indigenous pipples").

Again, there is no distinction between ownership and control. The exercise of collective claims is inevitably destructive to individuals. You should read the first chapter of that book to see the mechanics in practice.

Thus it seems that both American libertarian/individualist Rightists and European authoritarian/statist Rightists are indeed allies against a common enemy, but that which one ally perceives as "collectivism" is perceived by the other as its diametrical opposite!

I don't think you can take Welch's citation of Spengler and the fact that Yockey was a Spenglerian and then, because they disagreed on a fundamental point, legitiamtely extend that to all Europeans versus American conservatives. There is so much situational overlap in individual opinions as to render such a comparison of negligible applicability.

So if you cannot separate yourself from the "big government is big government" way of thinking for a while, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Again, you seem to give too much credence to what people say are the justifications for what they do as opposed to the practical effects of what they do. In that respect, we do disagree.

On a few other matters, I still continue to wonder how Marx ever got linked to regression to a stone-age civilization. Rosseau I could understand, but Marx . . . !

The link is communal tribalism with pagan overtones (which were nascent even in the enlightment). Have you read Peter Gay's monumental works on that topic?

As someone who believes in G-d I naturally believe that everything He created was created for a purpose. I find it absolutely incomprehensible why Theists so easily dismiss the importance of things created by G-d while atheists insist quite illogically that everything is "holy" and must never feel man's desecrating touch. Moreover, I'm a rural person and I much prefer undeveloped countryside to an urban landscape. Therefore I shake my head at the "if it's green, pave it!" school of conservatism.

Genesis 2:15 points out that God's entire purpose for us in His creation was to tend His gift. See tagline.

Freegards, CO

I thank you for your detailed response to my points.

I think the problem is that you and I are seeing the same thing from two different angles. You see the naked power that hides behind all ideologies (as do I, when arguing with someone who doesn't see it). However, ever since leaving the Birch Society in disgust I have been trying to understand the ideological/philosophical connections between the American and European Rights and the reason for the antagonism between the statist European Right and the Left. There are simply so many people who started out Birchers who became national socialists and so many national socialist or racialist web sites today that claim to be the "old right" (as opposed to the "phony" individualistic conservative one, I suppose). The plotters in the shadows may very well be aphilosophical power hungry maniacs who simply use the true believers, but there have always been true believers who provided the ideological cover for the aphilsophical maniacs. Since the orders created by these two philosophies are so similar, what is the point of antagonism between them? What is the point of attraction between libertarian and statist Rightists? Between anarchist and totalitarian Leftists? Perhaps you consider these questions of mine purely academic because of the plotters in the shadows, but they are very real to me, and I will continue to try to sort them out.

One final word: if you ever examine any national socialist propaganda or web sites you will notice that there is very little about what sort of government they intend to create. National socialism seems to be primarily about race, with theories of government relatively unimportant. All national socialist sites I have seen give mountains mountains of racial/biological rhetoric but almost nothing about what kind of government they intend to create should they ever (G-d forbid!) come to power. In fact, national socialism is closer to Communism than it is to true Fascism in regarding the state as a means to an end (whereas Mussolini's Fascism declared the state to be "an end in itself"). Alfred Rosenberg (yimach shemo vezikhro!) once wrote that "it is not the totality of the state, but the totality of the national socialist movement." And indeed, just as their are anarchist as well as statist Communists, there are anarchist as well as statist national socialists--as you will see if you ever visit the anarcho-Nazi "Liberty Forum," where people use the swastika as an avatar and insist that "Hitler was a man of peace" even as they dream of the abolition of the state.

It's a crazy world.

However, ever since leaving the Birch Society in disgust I have been trying to understand the ideological/philosophical connections between the American and European Rights and the reason for the antagonism between the statist European Right and the Left.

There's nothing wrong with that, but one shouldn't necessarily take an ideologue at his or her word. Consider environmentalists who can rationalize a holocaust like the San Bernardino Fire.

When a person engages in internal dishonesty, as anyone bent upon the exercise of power for personal gain must do, you have to face the fact that their actions will NEVER match the necessary consequences of their deeds. Thus to try to untangle their web of internal justifications as couched by their public pronouncements simply because they appear to be deeply felt, is, in my judgement, a waste of time.

On the other hand, to understand their internal speech to the point that you can turn it and get their attention, and then show them the consequences of their beliefs, sometimes earns, if not conversion, at least respect. It may be the best you can do until they've had time to mull over the way you've cut their moral and intellectual underpinnings.

All of that goes for Statists of any stripe who would use limitless power to coerce the world to fit their twisted imagination with all accountability for failure to be owned by their operationally identical opposition. The plotters in the shadows may very well be aphilosophical power hungry maniacs who simply use the true believers, but there have always been true believers who provided the ideological cover for the aphilsophical maniacs.

No matter what vicious true believers may say, when it comes to what they do they are aphilosophical maniacs.

Since the orders created by these two philosophies are so similar, what is the point of antagonism between them?

You see, what people hate the most is competitors just like themselves, those who would share their means. That is the unifying similarity between the extremes you seek. To learn where such people really live, note their favorite insult.

Perhaps you consider these questions of mine purely academic because of the plotters in the shadows, but they are very real to me, and I will continue to try to sort them out.

No, while I can easily understand your interest in delving into such as a Zionist, I just don't consider dealing with them a valuable use of time seeing as I understand what makes them tick fairly well. In the mean time, a new way of seeing how markets can resolve competing claims over the use of goods with abstract value has been revealed to me. I am accountable to G*d for learning how to make it happen, so that's what I do.

Didja ever read that first chapter? You should. It's worth the study because it is an analogue battle in a different medium than that to which you are used, therefore capable of revealing principles in which you might otherwise have too much investment in the subject matter to recognize.

One final word: if you ever examine any national socialist propaganda or web sites you will notice that there is very little about what sort of government they intend to create.

The same is true of conservative/libertarians who fancy less regulation. I run into it all the time.

And indeed, just as their are anarchist as well as statist Communists, there are anarchist as well as statist national socialists--as you will see if you ever visit the anarcho-Nazi "Liberty Forum," where people use the swastika as an avatar and insist that "Hitler was a man of peace" even as they dream of the abolition of the state.

Been there many times.

Thx for the respectful exchange. They're rare these days. A blessed Sabbath to you.

“First World Leftism is rational, secular, and scientific (though refusing to judge the “cultures” of “the others” in its midst). It is pacifist and anti-nuclear, guilt riddled over its past “crimes,” perhaps vegetarian, and ultimately committed to blend into an abstract “family of man.”“

A lot of what you write is addressed by Allan Bloom in his book “The Closing of The American Mind.” The average student in university takes a relativist point of view to all cultures (can’t be ethnocentric) whereas outside of the west most cultures are prejudiced towards their own customs and culture. In many ways we in the west feel superior to “the other” but out of respect for all foreign culture, that is demanded by secular multiculturalism, we can’t or shouldn’t show our pride. By having a relativist point of view on the equality of all culture we are in fact depriving ourselves of the benefits of a real education.

I enjoyed the exchange between you and CO and agree with him that the left wants power. They know that they are irrational, e.g., if all cultures are equal and deserving of respect why condemn capitalism or favor socialism? There is a lot of irrationalism with the left and I believe this is due to the failure of socialism to undermine capitalism. Irrationalism and emotionalism are the their latest tactics and you’ll see it with postmodernism: deconstruction of western hegemony, queer theory, radical feminism, post colonial studies, etc. Cultural Marxism has taken over from Economic Marxism with its Utopian dream of the proletariat rising up — actually the middle class is wealthy and there is no need to rise up as Marx saw for the redistribution of wealth. Therefore, the emphasis shifted to culture and repression of the working class. Freud, Nietzsche & Rousseau have been co-opted for the task. Repression involves the minorities in their class struggle against capitalism and the outcome will be totalitarianism or the rational state. The tactic of appealing to minorities and their grievances is similar to the National Socialism’s emotional appeal to the volk. There is still a contradiction of having both a folk and a rational, worldwide, homogeneous state but, hey, they’ll do and say anything to gain power. Ultimately, they’re sophists with a huge hatred for Capitalism.

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.