Year: 2015

Virtuous Violence

To progressives, violence by the oppressed against their oppressors is virtuous.

The unconscious logic supporting this belief goes like this:

• Society is a Battlefield
• Social interaction is war between groups.
• Warring groups either dominate or are dominated.
• The dominant group ruthlessly oppresses and exploits the weaker group.
• The oppressed tend to be virtuous.
• The actions of the oppressed are generally virtuous.
• Traditional tenets of behavior don’t apply to the oppressed.
• Violence by the oppressed against the oppressors is virtuous.

WorldviewTree_p115

 

virtuous violence n : violent behavior which a particular worldview sanctions and honors

Progressives see violence by the various pseudoppressed groups as a righteous rebellion against oppression and exploitation. Violence by the poor exudes progressive virtue because they are felt to be fighting their wealthy exploiters. In some neighborhoods, police are perceived as tools of the rich or of European-Americans, and become targets. Violent behavior by women, whether Thelma and Louise fantasy style or in real life, tends to be seen in devoutly progressive circles as a legitimate tool of liberation, or an understandable reaction to years of abuse by a man or men in general. Similarly, violence by non-European-Americans tends to be seen by newthinkers as righteous rebellion by ethnic groups oppressed by European-Americans. For instance, progressives depicted the Rodney King disorders as an “uprising” caused by a difficult social and economic climate* Violence by non-Christians tends to be progressively virtuous because it is believed that they have faced historical oppression by Christian culture. And violence by non-Americans tends to be progressively-virtuous because of America’s perceived exploitation of foreigners. Fascist dictator Fidel Castro, who is documented to have murdered 14,000 people by firing squad, and that just a fraction of his complete murder toll on his own people, was lionized by newthinkers such as Norman Mailer, who called him “the greatest hero of the century!”**

To be fair, the traditional American worldview has its own virtuous forms of violence: the homeowner defending his family against an intruder, the policeman arresting a criminal, the soldier fighting for freedom. But the progressive worldview’s virtuous violence takes a different form: that of the pseudoppressed battling their pseudoppressors.

The traditional American worldview has its own virtuous forms of violence: the homeowner defending his family against an intruder, the policeman arresting a criminal, the soldier fighting for freedom. But the progressive worldview’s virtuous violence takes a different form: that of the pseudoppressed battling their pseudoppressors.

The more extreme Progressive Crusaders may use progressively-virtuous violence in their battle against their perceived oppressors. To devout progressives, even jihadists are righteous (although perhaps overzealous) warriors whose violence against their Christian oppressors is justified. As President Bill Clinton pointed out 58 days after the 9/11 attacks, “In the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the Temple mound.”***

These violent Progressive Crusaders are very diverse, ranging from Al-Qaeda, Black Panthers, urban gangs and radical environmentalist groups to the Weather Underground, Castro’s fascist rebels, Nazis, Russian communists, and others. On the face of it, they all seem very different, and some such as Al-Qaeda are influenced by more than one worldview. But omnimarxism creates strange bedfellows. These groups have much in common: their certainty in their own virtue, their struggle against their perceived oppressors, and their violent tactics. The ubiquitous oppressor/oppressed dynamic of omnimarxism is clear in a statement by al Qaeda’s former number two, Ayman al-Zawahri, “I want blacks in America to know that when we wage jihad in Allah’s path, we aren’t waging jihad to lift oppression from the Muslims only. We are waging jihad to lift oppression from all mankind.”†

The perceived legitimacy of newthink’s brand of virtuous violence feeds thug culture. For instance, the African-American prison population is being converted from non-religiosity or Christianity to Islam on a large scale based on a narrative of oppression and a sanctioning and honoring of past crimes as virtuous violence. The fastest growing religion in American prisons is Islam, with about 200,000 followers, mostly African-American men.†† Malcolm X talked about how Muslim prison recruiters worked on black inmates: “When one was ripe – and I could tell – then away from the rest, I’d drop it on him, what Mr. [Elijah] Muhammad taught: ‘The white man is the devil.’ ”††† Thus the burden of guilt and self-responsibility is lifted: crimes against “the devil” are not crimes at all.

Why has virtuous violence flourished under the progressive worldview? Omnimarxists tend to believe everyone is either oppressor or oppressed. The pseudoppressed see themselves as oppressed, which leads to a feeling of righteous anger, and often to violence. After violent acts, even thugs may need rationalizations to soothe their consciences. Newthink provides them.

 

* Lou Cannon, Official Negligence: How Rodney King and the riots changed Los Angeles and the LAPD, (Westview Press, 1999), p. 348.

** Humberto Fontova, “Historians Have Absolved Fidel Castro”, NewsMax, August 15, 2006, http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/8/14/172147.shtml, accessed July 8, 2011.

*** Dick Morris, Off With Their Heads, (HarperCollins, 2004), p. 134.

† “Obama Blows His OBL Moment,” Investor’s Business Daily, March 8, 2007, p. 13.

†† “The New Face of Terror”, Investor’s Business Daily, June 28, 2006, www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20& artnum=4&issue=20060.627&rss=1.

††† Malcom X, as told to Alex Haley, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, (Ballantine Books, 1992), pp. 199-200.

The Progressive Worldview: Opening Pandora’s Box

As the progressive worldview takes over, traditional conventions — perceived as tools of the oppressors — start to break down.

For instance, the traditional value of honesty deteriorates among the pseudoppressed. If one is being exploited, it’s fair, even virtuous, to cheat to counterbalance that exploitation. Robert D. Putnam in Bowling Alone talks about social capital and defines it as “social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.”* What group of people has less social capital and a lower sense of social reciprocity and trustworthiness than the pseudoppressed, who believe that society is a battleground and that their group is being oppressed and exploited? As Putnam argues, those who trust others also tend to be more trustworthy and better all-around citizens; those who distrust others are “civically disengaged” and less constrained regarding honesty.**

Newthinkers justify stealing by the pseudoppressed poor as a reaction to poverty caused by oppression. Because they are taking from what the newthinkers see as an oppressive system, it is morally justified and maybe even an act of liberation. The poor in progressive society tend to have a lack of respect for private property because they believe it was unfairly earned by their wealthy exploiters. Their motivating thought is, “I have the right to steal because I’m a victim of the rich.” For instance, the non-traditional shopping which occurred during the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles was not confined to one ethnicity. It was the poor of many ethnicities taking an opportunity to get their piece of the pie. As Lou Cannon relates in his book Official Negligence, “Thousands of needy people could see that looters were unopposed by the police, and they rushed to join in the pillaging . . . The looting had nothing to do with Rodney King. A useful Los Angeles Times study of 694 court files found that King’s name was invoked only once during any of these incidents – ironically during the robbery of an African-American grocer by a white and a Latino.”***

Progressives see most bad behavior as misunderstood struggling. Criminal law, which evolved from traditional notions of right and wrong, has increasingly become a hollowed-out shell as more and more people view it as a tool of oppression rather than a necessary and just feature of a civilized society. So, as newthinkers take over, the traditional emphasis on crime-fighting and incarceration decreases. This leads to higher levels of crime; in the four last decades of the 20th century, starting in 1960, violent crime in the U.S. increased 226 percent.† Furthermore, progressive areas tend to have higher crime rates: the murder rate for counties carried by Obama was 6.56 per 100,000 inhabitants, while the rate for counties carried by McCain was 46% lower at 3.60 per 100,000.††

Criminal law, which evolved from traditional notions of right and wrong, has increasingly become a hollowed-out shell as more and more people view it as a tool of oppression rather than a necessary and just feature of a civilized society.

Progressives tend to ignore misbehavior by the pseudoppressed. When it can’t be ignored, they excuse it. When it can’t be excused, they minimize it. For instance, violence by pseudoppressed African-Americans is commonly perceived by newthinkers to be a justified reaction to oppression by European-Americans. During the Rodney King riots, television commentators watched as an African-American man they referred to as a “gentleman” stopped Reginald Denny’s cement truck at an intersection, pulled him out, slammed him in the skull with a brick and pranced around in celebration. Such raw barbarism couldn’t be ignored or excused, so it was reflexively minimized.

The pseudoppressed justify thuggery against their pseudoppressors. Their motivating thought is, “It is righteous for me to seek revenge against my exploiters.” The National Socialist German Workers’ Party of the 1930’s participation in kristallnacht and other pogroms against their perceived Jewish exploiters created a historical prototype of pseudoppressed thuggery which should be noted. The German thugs, incited by Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda, thought they were economically and racially exploited by the Jews. The pogroms were essentially pseudoppressed thuggery in an advanced stage, exacerbated by the vicious racial theories of the National Socialists and a vulnerability caused by the small percentage of Jews in Germany’s population. Through it all, the thugs believed they had virtue on their side.

 


The breakdown of traditional social conventions against sloth, dishonesty, theft, violence and murder has unexpected consequences. Like vices that escape from Pandora’s box, they are not easily shut away again. They become habits.

…sloth, dishonesty, theft, violence and murder… like vices that escape from Pandora’s box, they are not easily shut away again.

The victims of these vices, because they are close by, are more often fellow pseudoppressed than the hated pseudoppressors. Thus you have black-on-black violence, the poor stealing from the poor, and an underclass with an entitled attitude that will not work hard to improve its situation.

* Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), p. 19.

** Ibid., p. 137.

*** Lou Cannon, Official Negligence: How Rodney King and the riots changed Los Angeles and the LAPD, (Westview Press, 1999), p. 338.

† Mona Charen, Do-Gooders, (New York: Sentinel, 2004), p. 7.

†† DAngelo Gore and Brooks Jackson, FactCheck.org, “Unreported Stats,” posted January 5, 2009, http://www.factcheck.org/2009/01/unreported-stats/, accessed July 8, 2011.

The Omnimarxists’ Struggle – In their Own Words

Devout progressives want to dominate, destroy and replace what they view as the unvirtuous and exploitative social systems of the oppressors. Thus they are always fighting an existential battle, permanently at war against the various pseudoppressors. They call it the struggle:

• Lenin and Trotsky continuously referred to it: “But the struggle [my italics] is not at an end . . . Should the Soviets retain supremacy, the struggle will break out anew between the Revolution and all Imperialism . . . ”*

• In their 1968 pamphlet, Beverly Jones and Judith Brown condemned male chauvinism, “giving the struggle [my italics] between the sexes priority over the struggle between the classes . . . The Women’s Liberation movement was born.**

• Che Guevara, speaking to his little daughter, said, “You too will have to fight. I may not be here anymore, but the struggle [my italics] will inflame the Continent.”***

• As one of Stalin’s more sympathetic biographers said, “Remember that the struggle [my italics] against religion is a struggle for socialism.”†

Omnimarxism has expanded the struggle. The battlefield is no longer just bourgeoisie vs. proletariat. It is also, for instance, America vs. the rest of the world; America is the Great Satan to enlightened progressives. Devout newthinkers even believe that there is a struggle between humanity and the environment, and that a human-dominated ecosystem is unvirtuous. No matter who the pseudoppressor — the rich, America, men, European-Americans, heterosexuals, humanity, or God the oppressor — omnimarxists are driven to fight them all.

* Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky, The Proletarian Revolution in Russia, (The Communist Press, 1918), p. 327.

** Ginette Castro, American Feminism: A Contemporary History, (NYU Press, 1990), p. 21.

*** Jon Lee Anderson, Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, (Grove Press, 2009), p. 196.

† Emilian Yaroslavsky, Pravda editor and Chief of the Union of the Militant Godless, “Godless Jubilee”, Time Magazine, Feb. 17, 1936.

The Struggle

Progressives believe that the oppressed are in a righteous and historic battle against their oppressors: the struggle. The struggle’s fighting rules don’t conform to the dictates of traditional morality except by necessity to avoid the penalties of law. Under newthink, traditional tenets of behavior don’t apply to those perceived to be oppressed.

The unconscious logic supporting this tenet goes like this:

• Society is a Battlefield
• Social interaction is war between groups.
• Warring groups either dominate or are dominated.
• The dominant group ruthlessly oppresses and exploits the weaker group.
• The oppressed tend to be virtuous.
• The actions of the oppressed are generally virtuous.
• Traditional tenets of behavior don’t apply to the oppressed

The unconscious logic branching out of this tenet is:

• Violence by the oppressed against the oppressors is virtuous.
• Stealing by the oppressed from the oppressors is virtuous.
• The oppressed can abdicate any responsibility in maintaining traditional cultural standards because they are tools of the oppressors.

 

 the struggle n : a long-term fight for liberation by progressives against perceived oppressors which is unrestrained by traditional morality

 struggling vt : fighting by progressives against perceived oppressors which is unrestrained by traditional morality

Saul Alinsky
Saul Alinsky (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Dishonesty, theft, violence, even mass murder such as the 9/11 attacks – these may all be considered necessary tactics, even progressively-virtuous tactics, in the context of the oppressed struggling against their oppressors. Though progressives view themselves as compassionate to all, they are ruthless to their enemies. The Enlightened are fiercely opposed to those who purposely reject their moral code of political correctness. The newthinking pseudoppressed can be remorseless against their pseudoppressors. Saul Alinsky, the father of leftist “community organizing” and author of Rules for Radicals, stated that “in war the end justifies almost any means.”* He went on to say, “In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”**

The struggle is waged not just against the wealthy.  Devout progressives unconsciously perceive society as a battlefield.  Their unconscious omnimarxism compels progressives to struggle against every type of oppressor they see through the filter of their worldview. The rich, European-Americans, heterosexuals, men, America, Christians, God — all of these, as ruthless oppressors, must be endlessly fought.

* Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, (Vintage Books, 1989), p.29.

** Ibid., pp.129-130.

 

Progressivism’s Flower-Strewn Path

Progressives believe that the virtuous intentions of the oppressed will necessarily lead to a utopian future.

The unconscious logic supporting this belief goes like this:
• Society is a Battlefield
• Social interaction is war between groups.
• Warring groups either dominate or are dominated.
• The dominant group ruthlessly oppresses and exploits the weaker group.
• The oppressed tend to be virtuous.
• The intentions of the oppressed are generally virtuous.
• The virtuous intentions of the oppressed will necessarily lead to positive results.
The unconscious logic branching out of this belief is:
• As long as the oppressed keep acting together, the future will be virtuous.

 

Newthinkers tend to believe that their virtuous actions will necessarily reap virtuous results. The idea is obviously naive, but in a worldview where external evil isn’t thought to exist and where all true believers are thought to be selfless and virtuous, it’s a logical attitude.

This progressive naivete leads to hubris. Because all problems are thought to originate from pseudoppressors, newthinkers see a flower-strewn path into the future once they are defeated. They don’t foresee the difficulties that will inevitably arise from the actions of the self-interested and evil. Progressive naivete and hubris combine to form utopianism. Newthinkers believe that as long as the oppressed keep acting together, the future will be virtuous. Vague progressive utopias inspire and motivate the progressive movement.