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.



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,, 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, 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 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 Many Types of Parinciters

Newthinkers see oppressors everywhere. This fact has driven many of the salient trends of progressive society — the redistribution of wealth, the removal of male-dominated institutions, the toppling of European-American culture, a diminishing Christian influence, and so on. In the future it will lead to many new trends, such as the treatment of meat-eating as a disorder like smoking is treated now (because humans are seen to be oppressing animals), and a significant upsurge in Godless theologies such as the new age movement and Neopaganism (because God is perceived to be oppressing humanity).

A new character archetype, defined earlier, has emerged as an integral part of newthink by adapting itself to these social dynamics. Parinciters define the antagonism between pseudoppressors and pseudoppressed, incite conflict between them, and then feast on the carnage they’ve created.

parincitement n : the process of defining, inciting and feeding off a conflict between a pseudoppressor and a pseudoppressed group – parincite vb

Parinciters are common in progressive society. Because they seek fame as a means of increasing their ability to stoke and profit from conflict, these newthink demagogues tend to be public figures, either on a local or a national scale. Progressive society dangles powerful incentives to parincite: fame, political power, champion status and progressive virtue.

Wealth parinciters pit the wealthy against the poor, stoke that conflict, and gain power by doing so. Karl Marx was the first great wealth parinciter. The history of the 20th and 21st centuries is heavily populated with his imitators – Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tse-Tung, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and others – and depopulated of their victims.

English: WASHINGTON, BOOKER T. Digitally retou...

English: WASHINGTON, BOOKER T. Digitally retouched. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Ethnic (they use the term “racial” because it’s more divisive and inflammatory) parinciters have infected the once-healing wound caused by slavery and civil inequality. Without using that term, Booker T. Washington, the prominent African-American educator, author and political leader of the post-slavery period, wrote about ethnic parinciters back in 1911:

There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs – partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs . . . I am afraid that there is a certain class of race problem solvers who don’t want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out, they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.*

Environmental parinciters define an exploitative relationship between humanity and nature, create fearful and fantastic scenarios about eventual disaster, and gain fame and money from their efforts.

Gender parinciters tar their political opponents with a fictional war on women.

Religious parinciters describe an oppressive Christianity or Judaism and use that phantom to incite conflict with their pseudoppressed religious group.

Global parinciters pit the United States against the rest of the world and ceaselessly attack America. Powerful global political movements are based on global parincitement, sometimes blended with religious parincitement (Islamism) or wealth parincitement (communism).

Because parinciters are public figures, you can probably put names to each of these (and other) types of parinciters. Try it, it’s fun!

* Booker T. Washington, My Larger Education, (Doubleday, Page & Co., 1911), pp. 118-120.


Real oppression has existed throughout human history. In the ancient world, slavery was commonplace. In those times, ethnicity was no protection: millions of whites were enslaved by other whites.*  Later, in America and elsewhere, ethnicity became a dividing line. Africans were brutally oppressed during slavery times; after the Civil War, segregation became another form of oppression for African-Americans. True oppression of various kinds are at work in the world today.

But the ubiquitous oppression that omnimarxists perceive is pseudoppression.

pseudoppression n : a supposed social process which is depicted as an unjust exercise of power

pseudoppressor n : a member of a group falsely perceived by progressives to be oppressive

pseudoppressed n : a member of a group falsely perceived by progressives to be oppressed

What is the psychological impetus for believing in a fantasy oppression between exploiter groups and victim groups? It depends on your group membership. Pseudoppressors can do progressively-virtuous works and expiate their guilt over their social success. For instance, wealthy progressives perceive themselves as oppressors, so they attack capitalism and support wealth redistribution (usually of other people’s wealth) as a way to gain progressive virtue. A second impetus for pseudoppressors to accept the validity of omnimarxism: opposing pseudoppression can be an easy path to power. The progressive culture rewards those with public progressive virtue and the “courage” to attack pseudoppressor groups.

On the other side of the equation, the pseudoppressed also for several reasons buy into the omnimarxist viewpoint. First, they can give up responsibility for their own lives. For example, progressive non-Americans, perceiving themselves as oppressed, can claim that the deck is stacked against them and blame their failings on Americans. Second, simply put, the pseudoppressed can feed in the trough rather than toil in the field. Third, omnimarxism allows the pseudo-victim to guilt the pseudo-aggressor and therefore control the relationship in a passive-aggressive manner.

Again, true oppression has and does exist. But in modern America, most of what is purported to be oppression is a delusion or a scam.

* Milton Meltzer, Slavery: A World History, (Da Capo Press, 1993), p. iv.


The perception that society is composed of groups that either dominate or are dominated, and that the dominant group ruthlessly oppresses and exploits the weaker group, is the essence of what I call omnimarxism.

omnimarxism n : a largely subconscious and emotion-driven progressive social philosophy, which is an outgrowth of the Marxist dialectical explanation of society and history, in which the Marxist oppressor/oppressed dynamic is applied to virtually every major division in society

A portrait of Karl Marx.

A portrait of Karl Marx. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Omnimarxism is Marxism applied to everything. According to the omnimarxist perception, society teems with opposing groups. Society is a battlefield, a group struggle for domination. This struggle always has winning and losing groups. The dominant group is the oppressor, exploiter and aggressor; the subordinate group is the oppressed, exploited and victim. Oppression is the push; exploitation is the pull. The dominant group pushes the subordinate group down and pulls out anything worthwhile they can from them. So, according to this perception, we have rich oppressing poor, men oppressing women, European-Americans oppressing non-European-Americans, heterosexuals oppressing homosexuals, America oppressing the rest of the world, and so on.

This leads to the omnimarxist theory of history, based on a single theme: oppressor groups wielding power over victim groups. It’s related to the Marxist dialectical explanation of modern history as the struggle between the owners of the means of production and the working class. But omnimarxism is Marxism to the nth power. It is applied to all realms of social relations, not just economics. With omnimarxism, the oppressor/oppressed dynamic is ubiquitous: virtually every prominent social group is perceived as either oppressor or oppressed. Further, omnimarxism is largely a subconscious and emotion-driven social philosophy. Many progressives perceive society from an omnimarxist perspective but don’t consciously know it.