Leftists Are Cowards


Let’s face it: the ones they always, always, always kowtow to are the playground bullies.

Here are just a few of the “darlings” the Left has embraced in recent history:

  • Vladimir Lenin — mass murderer.
  • Josif Stalin — death toll: 30-60 million.
  • Adolf Hitler — death toll: 54 million.
  • Mao tse Tung — death toll: 60-80 million.
  • Ho Chi Minh — mass murderer.
  • Pol Pot — death toll: fully one third of his own countrymen.
  • Castro — mass murderer.
  • Hugo Chavez — authoritarian tyrant.
  • Nicolas Maduro — authoritarian tyrant.
  • Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — authoritarian tyrant.
  • Erich Honecker, Josip Broz Tito, Wladyslaw Gomulka, Gamel Abdel Nasser, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Hafez Assad, Yasser Arafat, Hamas’ leaders, etc., etc., etc… all either authoritarian tyrants or mass murderers.

These are all people who made or make no bones about their ability and, most importantly, their willingness to use violence to get their way. This “willingness” is supported by long history in which leftists have proven they’re willing to use violence to get their way.

You remember when you were a kid: the temptation to be a toadie for the schoolyard bully is quite strong. I felt it when I was very young. I avoided it by growing quite a lot bigger than the schoolyard bully. But, when I was very young, I was sorely tempted.

The Left is chock full of people who haven’t grown up beyond the elementary school playground. So the Left is full of people who’ll toadie up to the schoolyard bullies of the world; to the ones who have shown a propensity for violence.

It’s funny, leftists might not even know it. Stalin’s, Mao’s, Castro’s, Pol Pot’s, Ho Chi Minh’s depredations are well known, but they’re still heroes of the Left. These are people who couch their atrocities in a fog of pretty-sounding, amorphous, ill-defined, poorly understood words like “social justice,” and “people’s republics,” and “equality,” and “class struggle,” and more.

There is, however, no real, substantive meaning in these words. Or, more to the point, the words mean whatever the zealot who uses them as his justification for seizing power wants them to mean.

The end result of the efforts of such people has never been anything new. Never anything revolutionary. Never anything intellectually substantive, or… important. They all simply describe the way things have always been. With a tiny élite at the top, ruling over a seething, largely “equal” underclass at the bottom.

Such an extremely leveled out society — such a Socialist society — is the same system that’s prevailed everywhere in the world for… millennia. Going all the way back to the Egyptian pharaohs, and further. Going back to the caves. Far from being anything “progressive,” Socialism is nothing more than the very same power structure that’s been in place around the world forever. And the American Left loves them.

Why? Well, it’s the very same reason that the Left embraced Islam, and islamists, even when they murdered thousands on September 11th, 2001. 

But, if you speak ill of muslims, or of Islam, you run the risk of being shot, stabbed, burned alive, crucified (yes, crucified), buried alive, publicly beheaded or something else. By muslims, or islamists.

Leftists always, always, always gravitate toward the ones who will kill you. It’s the very same thing as the secondary henchkids of the elementary school playground bully. The ones who gravitate to the power that radiates from the bully. However, you and I always understand the real nature of these toadies: they’re cowards. The Molotovs, Yezhovs and Berias to Stalin; the Goebbels and Himmlers to Hitler, the Zhou en Lai’s to Mao, the Eric Holders and Sydney Blumenthals to Obama

They fear the very same bully in whose shadow they scuttle around like roaches. They figure that if they become the bully’s sycophants, part of his orbit, they protect themselves from the bully’s threat of violence.

Power is the lure for the Left; the power that radiates from the tyrants and mass murderers who’ve filled the Left’s pantheon of heroes in this and the last century.

The lust for power is the one thing that drives the Left, and the tyrants always appear to have power, because they’re not afraid to use violence. It’s why there’s an Antifa today.

Years ago, when the Bolshevik Communists seized power in the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin made a complicated, pragmatic, coherent, ruthless defense of using violence to achieve their ends. However, while the Bolsheviks were struggling to seize power in Russia, a prominent part of their message was the abolition of the death penalty in Russia. So, after they seized power, someone suggested to Vladimir Lenin, the new dictator of the new Soviet Union, that they now fulfill their promise to abolish the death penalty. Lenin responded with the Russian equivalent of Hell no! He explained that the new régime needed the legal ability to kill opponents in order to keep the power they’d just obtained. Lenin then went on to demonstrate that he wasn’t kidding.

Lenin remains a hero of today’s American Left.

— xPraetorius

11 thoughts on “Leftists Are Cowards

  1. You expect responses to this (whomever you are today)? I’ve been following this place for nearly a year and few, if ever anyone, reply. I dunno.. is there a message in that?

    1. Yep. There’s a message in it.

      However, your statement is inaccurate, because it’s incomplete. There are very few who respond… here, in this space. 🙂

      I hope you read what I/we wrote to you recently. The “message” you wonder about is in that response.

      And, thank you for your scrutiny and courteous challenges. Just out of curiosity, have we persuaded you, even a little bit, about anything?

      Just curious.

      Best,

      — x

      1. I would not doubt that algorithms of technocratic control divert potential readers away from the well-reasoned wisdom one finds here, just like they do on YouTube.

        1. That is absolutely correct, Desdi! And the pernicious algorithms serve our purposes quite well. In fact, we want them to continue exactly as they do, at least as it pertains to us. We’d love it if the hostile algorithms didn’t exist, but as long as they do, they make it so that our little Samizdat blog has exactly the attention that we want it to have.

          What’s kind of funny is that the algorithms’ very effectiveness make it quite easy for me to confess that we use them to our purposes exactly as they are.

          We do engage in completely sotto voce publicity, via targeted, direct communications to various individuals. Literally, we call people we think will enjoy, profit from, or be able to use our content. This tends to be guerrilla university professors and other academics, media people, political candidates at all levels of the government, and more.

          If you read our stuff, you’ll see that we lard what we write heavily with the theoretical, the philosophical, the abstract, the rhetorical… we presume that our readers know a good deal of what’s historically behind calling, say, Molotov, or Kaganovich, or Malenkov, or Yezhov, or Beria “toadies” for Stalin. We write in the realm of ideas.

          A prominent goal of our writing is to give people who might be looking for them, different and, we hope, effective ways to express themselves about their conclusions and ideas. (It’s one of the reasons for our “Pithy Passages From Our Pages” series. )

          So, we use the algorithms, and we appreciate them — again, at least as it pertains to us.

          Best,

          — x

    1. I/we moderate only. We don’t censor. We have a policy for our correspondence that largely repels all except a few hardy souls.

      If you had followed our back-and-forth with “Brothwolf,” a now defunct WordPress blogger, you’d have seen a number of examples of this.

      We didn’t allow ad hominem attacks, personal attacks, insults, bad language. Furthermore, and most importantly, we didn’t, and don’t, allow filibustering, and that’s the rule that keeps all but the hardiest commenters away.

      We’re firm and polite, but we pull no punches, and we almost never lose on-line debates, because we never debate unless we know a lot about the topic under scrutiny. It’s really the only way anyone should ever debate.

      We fear nothing, and we censor no one’s ideas. We do censor language. Our rule is simple: you should write so that my 12-year old son could read what you write. He’s 19 now, but the concept still applies.

      We have a constrained but steady stable of followers, and our output is widely circulated in academic and government circles, in samizdat form. This is just a platform, with limited primary exposure, which is exactly how we like it, and we’re happy to admit it.

      Finally, we have had a lot of commenters, and many who have disagreed with us. We’ve engaged in debate with all of them, and we, modestly speaking, thumped all of them. People don’t like to be thumped, so most have left, and haven’t come back. We’re okay with that.

      Next, many of our group go to other blogs and engage in vigorous debate as well.

      Did that give you the info you were looking for?

      Best,

      — x

      1. You wrote…
        “Finally, we have had a lot of commenters, and many who have disagreed with us. We’ve engaged in debate with all of them, and we, modestly speaking, thumped all of them. People don’t like to be thumped, so most have left, and haven’t come back. We’re okay with that.”

        Is that the goal.. to “thump” a victory given dissenting opinion is akin to defeating the “other”.. which I assume are the Liberals you hate? I suppose when a dissenter departs your realm here that’s a victory for you?

        I’m just struck by the complete animosity you harbor toward fellow Americans.

        1. Lol! If the interaction is a debate, then yes, we try to “thump” debate opponents. You do too, I presume. Any debater does. There’s no point in engaging in debate if you intend to lose it, or to win by a little.

          We tend to discuss/debate issues that we here consider deeply important, and we choose to debate only such issues.

          When dealing with a Socialist, it’s important to thump the idea, because it’s deeply pernicious, and the holder of the idea should know that he’s been thumped — really that the idea’s been thumped — so that he questions the idea.

          Socialism is a fatal disease, like cancer, and it needs to be rooted out, root and branch, from the minds of the poor saps holding that ideology.

          I harbor no animosity toward any of my fellow Americans. At the same time, I refuse to be dishonest to or about them. If someone holds idiotic, or primitive, or Neanderthal ideas, or all three — like Socialism — then he should know it. Not to tell him that truth does him no favors. More to the point, concealing an important truth from him is the equivalent of deceiving him… it’s an act of hostility. Nor does it do America any favors.

          By the way, I have many Socialist and hard leftist friends. They all know my thoughts on the subject of their ideologies, and they’re still my friends. I know their thoughts on my ideology, and I don’t have any ill will for them. But, we do debate, and I do thump them.

          I even have an avowed fascist as a friend, though Communism, Fascism and Socialism are really all the same thing, just at slightly different stages of metastasis.

          I harbor no animosity whatsoever toward the deluded, and I even frequently find them to be delightful interlocutors and debate opponents. When I do debate them… I thump them. Most frequently, they recognize that they’ve been thumped, and tell me they’re going away to bone up on their facts or their history, and then they’ll come back at me again.

          At that point, generally, I have them, because when they do actually research their notions, then they almost always convert to something more akin to what I believe. There are many ordinary Americans who hold really stupid ideas, who are simply awaiting the arrival of superior notions to replace the stupid ones. That’s “growth,” and “maturing,” and “growing up.”

          The people for whom I have no tolerance are the thoroughly corrupt ones. These are the leftists at the top of the the American Lefitst hierarchy — the Sanders-Clintons-Pelosis-Schumers, etc. These are people who know they’re wrong, but don’t care, because their corruption and dishonesty have got them to their current positions of great power. These are people who engage in highly destructive behavior toward tens of millions of my fellow Americans. These are people who have always spoken to the American people as if those people are complete idiots. They’re pompous, arrogant, self-obsessed, power-obsessed, vile, little people, and they deserve nothing but contempt. They’re not my fellow Americans… they’re anti-Americans who live in the same country as I do. Not to say all that would be dishonest.

          Doug, I know too darned much to be beating around the bush with idiots like that, so I don’t. The policy prescriptions they advance are deeply harmful, even fatal to more than 300 million people. Why on earth would I be polite to these dirtbags? Serious question.

          The cities are killing fields for young black Americans — my brothers and sisters — and Democrat policies are to blame. One hundred percent to blame… yet all the Democrats do is demand more of the same… as more and more and more young black Americans — particularly young black American men die gruesome, bloody deaths.

          Remember: the Democrat Party has owned American cities, lock, stock and barrel, for more than three generations. And they’ve become abattoirs… especially for black Americans. Especially for young black American men.

          Another serious question: Hasn’t this country done enough violence and depravity to black Americans? Why should I treat with anything but contempt the people who know full well that their policies are killing my fellow Americans, and who demand only that we do more of the same?

          You told me that you’re “struck by the animosity I harbor toward fellow Americans.” Isn’t it real animosity to kill my fellow Americans? I harbor animosity toward only those people who kill my fellow Americans. I think that’s fair enough.

          Otherwise, I harbor no animosity whatsoever toward those who disagree with me. And, in fact, many debates with such people have changed parts of my views as well. But, I will not be dishonest with them.

          Best,

          — x

  2. Actually I had made a longer reply before the one I made about moderation. Since that reply hadn’t posted I assumed you were moderating hence my next reply. I am guessing the one reply got lost in the ambiguity of WordPress. Sadly.. it’s lost forever… although it wasn’t earthshaking by any stretch.
    I really have to go back and compose replies in MSWord first.. then copy it over in the event technology fails.

    1. I’m sorry to hear about the lost reply! You are correct, the reply never got here, and I’d certainly never moderate out one of yours. You’ve never been anything but a gentleman, and it’s appreciated, and respected.

      I use NotePad++ for a lot of my replies. It allows you to write in HTML, and that allows me to italicize and bold pretty freely.

      Also, when I use a tool like that I save often! 🙂

      Best,

      — x

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s