Many historians have been mystified. How, they ask, could the most civilized country on the planet fall into bloodthirsty tyranny so hard, so fast?
The country is, of course, Germany, and historians have been wondering how the nation and culture that produced Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, could fall for… Hitler.
It all happened so fast! It was all so sudden! Well… it was and it wasn’t, and that’s the point. In Germany “it” had all been building for a long time… and no one stopped it.
The saying goes: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Rings true.
As Hitler was rising in power in Germany, there were good men warning about it. The most famous of whom was, of course, Winston Churchill. But there were also good men in Germany warning about it all. It’s just that there weren’t enough. And/or, no one gave the alarmists the time of day. And/or many actively shut them up. And/or many said things like, we must tolerate all viewpoints, even those we find disagreeable.
To that little tidbit, we say: Yes. And no. There are viewpoints beyond the pale. An important measure of a society’s health is its ability to know what those intolerable viewpoints are.
You can shake your head all you want, but I’ll prove my point: Is it worth it, for example, to give polite attention to the viewpoint that, say, black people are inferior because of the color of their skin? It’s a viewpoint. Does it deserve careful consideration? Does it deserve respect? Does it deserve a place on a debate platform somewhere? Should we hold debates over it, or is it okay to consider that it’s false, and that we don’t really need to waste our time re-opening debate on it?
The answer is fairly simple: we don’t need to re-consider it. There are lots of viewpoints like that: Nazism, Socialism, Communism, Thuggeeism, Islam… really, these are all just different names for the same thing: slavery. There’s no need to open a sincere debate on whether slavery’s good or bad.
There are points of view that are not worth respect. There are points of view about which it’s okay to keep a tightly closed mind.
And in 1930’s Germany, Naziism was one of those viewpoints. A viewpoint that should have met only with derision, with scorn, with instant rejection. But it wasn’t. And when some gave Naziism a respectful hearing, that meant that others, who maybe weren’t paying as close attention, also gave it respectful attention, and that swelled the ranks of… those who believed.
At that point, it became a whole lot more difficult to stop the rising tide of barbarity in what was once considered by many the most civilized country on the planet.
Now, we see the same thing happening in America. Naziism is just a flavor of Socialism. Socialism has several flavors, and all of them are really, really, really ugly. And violent. And horrible. And disgusting. Here are the various flavors of Socialism:
- Juche (North Korean Socialism)
- Medieval serfdom, and the most famous form of Socialism:
I hear you saying, “Wait! Wait! Medieval serfdom? How can that be? Socialism was ‘invented’ only in the late 1800’s! It’s a new idea, right? How can something from the Middle Ages be the Socialism of today?”
That’s actually pretty easy: First of all, recent times only gave a name — “Socialism” — to what had always been in effect as a governing system for all time. Including in the Middle Ages.
But, and this is the most important: Socialists of today promise to set up a society that has little or no difference from medieval serfdom:
- It would have great society-wide equality. A very flat, extremely non-hierarchical society.
- There would be no private property, as in medieval times.
- The means of production would be in the hands “of the people,” which is a euphemism for “in the hands of the government,” or: not in the hands of the people.
- There would be only a tiny, élite at the top of society, who would run things, make important decisions for all of society centrally, manage the means of production supposedly owned by “the people.”
Furthermore, this is exactly what every society that has called itself specifically Socialist has set up throughout history! We know what happens when avowed Socialists have free rein in a nation, and when they makeover their society in the Socialist image, they always make a medieval serfdom.
Look at the Soviet Union. Red China, North Korea. Unified Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, vast swathes of Africa and South America.
You can see it in reverse as well: All successful countries in world history are non-Socialist countries. Countries with the most respect for private property, for individual freedoms, and most importantly: respect for mobility. Financial, social and political mobility. There has never once been a successful Socialist society in the history of the world(1).
Well, the only way to have any of these forms of mobility is to explicitly reject Socialism. Here’s why: Mobility means the possibility of inequality. If you move upward financially, then I might move downward by comparison to you. This violates the principle of social and economic equality treasured by Socialists.
How might you move upward financially? By having more, by owning more. Whether it be property of some kind, or money. This violates the rejection of private property, a belief that is also sacred to Socialists.
If you move upward socially, then I might move downward , again by comparison with you. Your upward progress would also violate the principle sacred to Socialists: the principle of social equality.
Furthermore, as you advance, your upward progress threaten members of the élite, who recognize that with your social mobility comes the possibility of additional prestige, and with prestige often comes power.
In a Socialist country, power is a finite resource. A zero sum game. If you have more power in a Socialist country, then some other member of the élite has less power. Powerful élites defend their own power.
There are some very, very good reasons why Stalin murdered Kirov. Stalin knew quite well, that the popular Kirov was gaining prestige, and that he was therefore developing a power base of devoted admirers. If that power base were to grow too large, then Kirov might have a reasonable chance of toppling Stalin from his perch atop the medieval serfdom that was the Soviet Union of the day.
Anyway, this is the reason for which Socialism is really a primitive, backward, reactionary belief system.
Item 1: Now, why would our country, the greatest country that has ever existed in the history of the world, increasingly embrace this primitive, stupid, cruel system? Easy: When half-wits like Bernie Sanders first advanced the nonsensical idea of “Democratic Socialism,” no one laughed the moron, and, the ridiculous notion, off the stage!
Item 2: Why is it considered “scientific” to believe that a man, woman or child can, with the wave of his hand, “change his gender?” Again, the first time that some deranged nitwit advanced this idea, no one laughed the cretin off the stage.
Just as not enough people were there to say, “No! No way!” to Hitler in 1930’s Germany.
Item 3: Why is it considered “scientific” never to challenge only highly politicized policy prescriptions from the environmental industry? How can it be that very smart people will tell you that you’re “anti-science” if you question especially leftist environmental science? Even though the very essence of science is to question things… and especially to question established or consensus science.
Answer: Because no one laughed the environmental wackos off the stage when they advanced their patently absurd ideas.
Now, it’s important for this particular idea to understand what people didn’t laugh off the stage when they should have: it’s the notion that environmental science is unquestionable.
These items are all symptoms of a country ready to take on any idea at all, no matter how ludicrous. Like Socialism.
Now, it’s important to know why we got to this place — as opposed to why 1930’s Germany fell to the Nazis.
For 1930’s Germany, it was the global Depression that softened up Germany for the ludicrous ideas of the Nazis. Yes, yes, yes, this is overly simplistic, and yes, there were many other factors involved, but the Depression was a major contributor.
So, what do we have in the United States that’s the same thing as the Depression? Well, it’s the precise opposite of the Depression: prosperity.
Yep, as a nation we got fat and happy.
It turns out that: while desperately scrabbling to survive from day to day inhibits rational thought, so, it turns out, does excessive leisure and free time!
In America, our wealth and free time tempted us to develop an entertainment/celebrity-obsessed culture. We stopped thinking, and growing, and working hard to be better people. We instead began busily to ripen ourselves for an intellectual takeover by a bunch of idiots who support the primitive, brutish belief system called Socialism.
So, what have we been seeing in this rapidly accelerating deterioration of America’s intellectual capacity? Easy: the complete and total intellectual collapse of the American Democrat Party. They haven’t had an idea of any substance in decades.(2)
We knew the Democrats were corrupt; they’ve always been corrupt. In the last 20 years, though, they’ve become complete idiots, worthy of the movie Idiocracy, the story of a man who goes to sleep for 500 years or so, and wakes up in a society run by total morons.
The movie’s worth the viewing both for the entertainment value — they use Gatorade to water their crops, and wonder why the crops are dying — and for the possibility that it’s a prescient movie.
The only difference between the movie and now, though is that pesky 500 year thing. The Idiocracy is here. There’s one called “the CHAZ.” The State of New York is run by an Idiocracy — ie: a government of idiots, headed by the idiot-in-chief, Andrew Cuomo.
There are idiocracies dotted all across the nation, but most are clustered on the coasts. And it all happened in just a few short years. Just as in 1930’s Germany.
Now, I understand.
(1) My definition of a successful society. A successful society exhibits three characteristics:
- It allows maximum political, social and financial mobility.
- It’s characterized by stable political leadership that inspires confidence that everyone’s political, social and financial mobility will be preserved indefinitely.
- It inspires confidence that our children have a good chance of living a better life than we had. A general consensus is in place that this is true.
(2) The Republican Party is on the downhill path as well. It’s just been less prone to the decay because they’ve had to defend their thinking, their ideas, their policy prescriptions against a constant barrage of hostile attack from the media, academia, Hollywood — the Left. That level of constant adversarial opposition toughens up those who actually do defend their own thinking. Unlike the American Left who, up until only recently, had a free, unchallenged field for their thinking. The Left’s thinking, unexercised by robust challenges, got fat, bloated, stupid, ossified. Again, there hasn’t been a good or original idea from the Left in decades.