Left Summons Demons Of Ideological Terror

Christian Dandy Throws A Punch The Rest Of The Jacob Blake Story

Left Summons Demons Of Ideological Terror

Look at this:

Silly me, I wasted an hour or so writing a post about a Christian radio host who delivered an uneventful, glancing punch to the helmet of an antifa cyclist, when oh my God, a Chicago union representing 28,000 public schoolteachers has endorsed the concept of guillotining the rich!

You know how I’ve been saying for years that these left-wingers have no idea at all what demons they are summoning up? I am screaming that into a bullhorn now. My God, think of it! We’re not talking about campus Maoist weirdoes associating themselves with public executions of the wealthy. We’re talking about public schoolteachers.

NPR published a lengthy interview with a woman who has written a book titled In Defense of Looting. I don’t want to blame NPR, exactly, for paying attention to this argument, but I do simply want to point out that here is a mainstream media outlet injecting into the mainstream a radical argument that should not be entertained. The left is talking itself into embracing and ratifying violence, anarchy, and theft.

And liberals wonder why so many people are buying guns and ammo. They wonder why some conservatives think that that Kyle Rittenhouse kid is a hero.

A reader e-mailed today to point me to a 2018 debate about political correctness. Speaking for the left was Michael Eric Dyson and Michelle Goldberg; for the right, Stephen Fry and Jordan Peterson. The reader suggested taking a look at the part in which Peterson asks the left-wing panelists how we are to know when the left goes too far. I’ve cued the two-hour video to that moment. Take a look:

Goldberg says censorship and violence. “I’m against violence, and I’m against censorship” — that’s it. No elaboration. Then she says that “there’s a lot of left-wing annoyance,” and that’s bad, but there’s nothing we can do about it, and anyway, a reasonable person cannot possibly believe that the radical left is more of a threat than the radical right. Dyson, who is black, behaves with shocking arrogance, accusing Jordan Peterson of being drunk on his own white privilege for even asking the question. “You’re a mean, mad, white man, and the viciousness is evident,” says Dyson.

Peterson responds by saying that “violence” is not enough. Everybody is against violence, but much of the the violence of the 20th century came out of certain left-wing ideas. These have to be accounted for.

It appears that neither Goldberg nor (especially) Dyson can conceive of the left going too far. This is how you get guillotines erected in front of the home of a rich man, and a Chicago teachers’ union tweeting its total “support for wherever this is headed.”

The Terror is where the first guillotines led France. The Red Terror, which took vastly more lives, was the same principle at work in the Soviet Union. The ideas that led to both Terrors — well, they’re right there in Dyson’s racist harangue, in which he refuses to answer Peterson’s perfectly legitimate and necessary question because it is posed by a white male.

I write about this stuff in Live Not By Lies. Check this passage, in which the late Sir Roger Scruton talks about how leftist ideologues cancel people:

“It’s just like ‘homophobia’ or ‘Islamophobia,’ these new thoughtcrimes,” Scruton continued. “What on earth do they mean? And then everyone can join in the throwing of electronic stones at the scapegoat and never be held to account for it, because you don’t have to prove the accusation.”

The reach of contemporary thoughtcrime expands constantly—homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia, biphobia, fat-phobia, racism, ableism, and on and on—making it difficult to know when one is treading on safe ground or about to step on a land mine. Yet Scruton is right: All of these thoughtcrimes derive from “doctrines”— his word — that are familiar to all of us. These doctrines inform the ideological thrust behind the soft totalitarianism of our own time as surely as Marxist doctrines of economic class struggle did the hard totalitarianism of the Soviet era.

One imagines an entry-level worker at a Fortune 500 firm, or an untenured university lecturer, suffering through the hundredth workshop on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and doing their very best not to be suspected of dissent. In fact, I don’t have to imagine it at all. As a journalist who writes about these issues, I often hear stories from people—always white-collar professionals like academics, doctors, lawyers, engineers—who live closeted lives as religious or social conservatives.

They know that to dissent from the progressive regime in the workplace, or even to be suspected of dissent, would likely mean burning their careers at the stake.

For example, an American academic who has studied Russian communism told me about being present at the meeting in which his humanities department decided to require from job applicants a formal statement of loyalty to the ideology of diversity—even though this has nothing to do with teaching ability or scholarship.

The professor characterized this as a McCarthyite way of eliminating dissenters from the employment pool, and putting those already on staff on notice that they will be monitored for deviation from the social-justice party line.

That is a soft form of totalitarianism. Here is the same logic laid down hard: in 1918, Lenin unleashed the Red Terror, a campaign of annihilation against those who resisted Bolshevik power. Martin Latsis, head of the secret police in Ukraine, instructed his agents as follows:

Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror.

Note well that an individual’s words and deeds had nothing to do with determining one’s guilt or innocence. One was presumed guilty based entirely on one’s class and social status. A revolution that began as an attempt to right historical injustices quickly became an exterminationist exercise of raw power. Communists justified the imprisonment, ruin, and even the execution of people who stood in the way of Progress as necessary to achieve historical justice over alleged exploiters of privilege.

Live Not By Lies will be published one month from today. Please pre-order it — you’re going to want to read it to understand the meaning of this moment, and start building the resistance within yourself, your family, and your community.

Michael Eric Dyson is the kind of person who would make a first-rate commissar, sending people into exile or worse for being an enemy of the people — his kind of people, that is. And Michelle Goldberg would sit there justifying it by saying that the right is so much worse. This is what we’re dealing with today. The guillotine was an instrument of mass terror. If some right-wing loons had displayed a hangman’s noose on the streets of Washington DC, it would be front page news everywhere. These leftists parade a similar instrument of ideological terror, and not only do our media not much care, but a Chicago teachers’ union endorses it.

They do not see what’s happening, our leftists and liberals. They don’t believe the left can go too far. No enemies to the left. To object to it is to admit your guilt.

Eric Zorn, a liberal columnist at the Chicago Tribune, objected to the Chicago teachers’ union tweet, and the Black Lives Matter mob harassing peaceful diners in DC, not because it’s bad, necessarily, but because it stands to help Trump. Excerpt:

Yes, like the display of a mock guillotine, it was a peaceful protest in that nothing was thrown, broken or set on fire. But it was ugly, portentous and helped to sell the narrative the GOP was peddling all week about the looming threat of “left-wing anarchy and mayhem,” as President Donald Trump put it during his convention speech Thursday night.