All Evil is on the Left

All Evil is on the Left

By Bruce Walker Tuesday, June 17, 2008


When men like Senator McCain, who I give the benefit of doubt in his
moral seriousness, seeks a moderate position, when anyone seeks the
“middle ground” in political debate, it is clear that the old bogeyman
of evil on the “Far Right” and evil on the “Far Left” has enthralled
them.

Let us be clear at the outset: there is no “Far Right” at all. Those
handful of nutty and dangerous separatist groups have no connection
with what are called conservatives at all. They resemble, in fact,
much more the very real Far Left. Recall that Jim Jones, the suicide-
murderer minister, was a radical Leftist who supported “social
justice” and Democrat politics before he convinced his Jonestown
thralls to drink poison Kool-Aid.

In politics, there is some goodness on what we call the Left; there is
some goodness on what we call the Right; but there is no evil on the
Right: all evil is on the Left. Before delving into the historical
basis for this position, consider today what the Right and Left are
supposed to represent. The Right is accused, essentially, of doing
little or nothing about our social and economic problems. Those on
the mythical Right are not accused of trying to impose enslavement on
others – Leftism, and Marxism, simply assume that in the absence of
government such enslavement will occur in free markets. The position
of the mythical Right represents the first rule of medicine: First,
do no harm.

It is very hard to characterize that as evil. Marx himself refrained
from defining that as evil, adopting, instead, an objective and
scientific approach (much like Barack Obama appears to be doing in his
elitist campaign.) In fact, the only way the “Right” can be
characterized as evil is by taking the path of Jeremiah Wright and his
compatriots: America is a vast conspiracy; America invented AIDS;
America deliberately hooked black youths on cocaine; America planned
9-11 to enrich *** Cheney; and so on.

This is one reason why the Left is so invested in a so-called
“ideological spectrum” that stretches from the Far Right (which
doesn’t exist) to the Far Left (which does exist.) Because the Far
Left does plan and hope for very real evil – simply reading what their
blogs say about Nancy Reagan and Charlton Heston should leave no doubt
about the evil that the Far Left represents – it must create a Far
Right that also harbors great evil.

In fact, those evils which historically in America have been connected
with the mythical “Far Right” were the Far Left. Consider, for
example, the anti-Semitic priest, Father Coughlin, who held captive
millions of Americans during the 1930s with his radio broadcasts.
Certainly Coughlin supported bad things, but was he on the “Far
Right”? It would have astounded him to be considered so. Repeatedly
Coughlin denounced “conservatives” of every sort and embraced
“progressives.” His radio addresses, when actually studied, show
contempt for the rich and an insistence upon socialism.

Coughlin had supported Roosevelt, not Hoover, in 1936. He abandoned
Roosevelt, not because he was too far to the Left, but because he was
too timid in confronting Wall Street and capitalist overlords. Yet
Coughlin is routinely trotted out as an example of the “Far Right” in
America. Ironically, Coughlin was also attacked by another group
reflexively considered on the “Far Right,” the Ku Klux Klan.

Was the Ku Klux Klan on the “Far Right”? Well, it was overtly
racist. But is racism a quality of this mythical “Far Right”? Marx
was profoundly racist and nationalistic. The Soviet Union was
profoundly racist during its seventy years or so of existence (ask the
Armenians or Uzbeks or Lithuanians or Ukrainians.) Communist China,
today, is racist (ask the Tibetans or several other captive peoples.)
Is there a society, a government or a nation that has not been
xenophobic or racist?

The deliberate rejection of racism, politically, in the foundational
document of the American polity, the Declaration of Independence,
which proclaimed to the world that all men are created equal and
endowed by God with certain absolute rights. This is the heart of
what is called the “Right” in American. The moral rejection of racism
came first in Judaism and then, more emphatically, in Christianity,
which proclaimed that we are neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free,
male nor female. Yet what is most consistently considered by the Left
as the most dangerous “Rightists”? - American Christians or Americans
who celebrate the Judeo-Christian moral heritage.

Racism was opposed in America by the “capitalist” North, relying
almost exclusively upon very devout Christians, and was opposed in
America by the anti-capitalist South, which relied upon Darwinism
rather than Christianity and which was opposed, in the South, only by
very brave Christians. Racism was opposed in America by the
Republican Party, which was expressly founded upon the rights of
blacks not only to freedom but to equality.

Who, then, supported racism in America? The Ku Klux Klan was the
terrorist wing of the Democrat Party in the post-bellum South. Their
outrages were not committed so much against blacks as against
Republicans, both black and white. The Klan continued to support
Democrats. Edward D. White was appointed to the Supreme Court by
Grover Cleveland, the only Democrat president between the Civil War
and 1912. White had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

William Jennings Byran, three time nominee of the Democrat Party, was
not only bigoted against blacks but also against Jews. His “Cross of
Gold” speech was in condemnation of “English and Jewish Bankers.”
William McKinley, his Republican opponent in two of those three
presidential races, as governor of Ohio had supported equal rights for
blacks, opposed lynching and appointed blacks to state government
positions.

Woodrow Wilson, the first true Leftist president, was enthusiastically
supported by the Klan, whose members campaigned at the Democrat
Convention in 1924 to get his son-in-law, William McAdoo, nominated
for the presidency. McAdoo himself had insisted in 1912 that Wilson
remained on the ballot, which he did, ultimately winning the
nomination. Small wonder that the Leftist bigot Woodrow Wilson got a
paltry seven percent of the black vote, the rest going to conservative
Republicans who consistently support equal rights for blacks.

The racism of that first pure Leftist American, Woodrow Wilson, was
not limited to blacks. He rejected the policies of Teddy Roosevelt
and William Howard Taft, which had been to treat Japan as a modern,
civilized nation and Wilson opposed the Japanese proposal that the
League of Nations charter endorse racial equality. He looked down as
well on Italians, who were coming to America in huge numbers (to our
great fortune) during his presidency.

Later the Klan would enthusiastically support Franklin Roosevelt, and
FDR responded by appointing another member of the Klan, Hugo Black, to
the Supreme Court, and appointing another member of the Klan, Tom
Clark, to be Attorney General (Tom Clark, the father of Ramsey Clark,
would also wind up on the Supreme Court.) Paul Robeson accused FDR,
the vision of American Leftism for many years, of engaging in “a
gratuitous and outrageous insult to my people” by appointing the
Klansman Clark to be Attorney General and Roy Wilkins of the NAACP
damned FDR with “moral cowardice” – the Left in America was saturated
with racial bigotry.

Harry Truman also signed up to join the Klan, making him the third
icon of the American Left who directly connected himself with the most
racist and malignant organization in American politics. The ideology
of the Klan was profoundly anti-capitalist, and those men sympathetic
to the Klan, like Tom Watson, were among the first to applaud the
Bolshevik Revolution – Watson, as a senator from Georgia, was among
the first to push for recognition of the new Bolshevik regime, thus
neatly tying together a hatred of blacks and Jews with an enthusiastic
support for the first Marxist government on the planet.

This connection between racism and anti-Semitism (twin moral maladies)
and the Left in America has never disappeared. Jeremiah Wright, the
mentor of Barack Obama, has displayed a bigotry toward people of
color (pink) and a disdain for Jews worthy of an Imperial Wizard.
There is another connection between Jeremiah Wright, Tom Watson,
Ramsey Clark, Woodrow Wilson, Hugo Black, Nathan Bedford Forrest
(founder of the KKK) and Franklin Roosevelt: all were Democrats. All
considered themselves on the political Left.

What is true about American politics is just as true about world
politics. If the Far Right did not exist, if liberty was not
extremism at all, if a private commitment to genuine Judeo-Christian
moral traditions is the best choice a morally serious person can make,
then all evil would reside on the Far Left. The mythical Far Right
would be the rhetorical equivalent of Kulaks in Stalinist Russia or
Jews in Hitlerite Germany – an innocent scapegoat; an illusionary
enemy of the people; a needed sham.

This is why when I write articles about the Leftism of Nazi Germany or
Fascist Italy, the Left reacts so passionately. We all do and all
should hate everything that Nazism and Fascism stood for, but we
should also draw out own conclusions about where these two movements
would have fallen on the invented ideological spectrum of the Far
Left. Consider, for the moment, what sort of political argument
could be made for the Left if Hitler and Mussolini, as well as their
movements, were on the Far Left and not on the Far Right?

There would, essentially, be no argument at all for the Far Left and
no fear at all of the Far Right. This is precisely why the myth of
the Far Right is so important. Yet this myth is also so transparent
that it collapses at any objective inspection. The predecessor of
Fidel Castro, Fulgenio Batista, for example, is often cited as a man
of the “Far Right.” Yet Batista was supported by the Cuban Communist
Party; he legalized the party and brought its members into his
cabinet; he supported the same leveling policies as the communists.
The Cuban Communist Party, in fact, supported Batista against Castro
until Castro won. Yet history has consigned Batista to the “Far
Right.”

The same is true of Juan and Evita Peron, both of whom adored both
Fascism and National Socialism, and yet both of whom condemned the
rich, disliked America, opposed Christianity, and harbored overt anti-
Semitic sentiments (defining characteristics of the Left.) Communists
did not know what to do with the Perons, and when Evita visited
France, L’Humanite could think of nothing more creative to say about
this competing Leftist than to describe her as a “Left Fascist.”

Europeans, from Jacques Doriot (the leader of French Communists who
ended up supporting the Nazis) to Oswald Mosley (the leader of the
British Union of Fascists who moved during his life from being a
member of the Conservative Party to a Labour Party cabinet minister to
something more Leftist), all display the same politics of the Left:
Abolish the phony idea of a “Far Right” and they are all on the “Far
Left.”

Even that generic term of imprecision, Fascist, is full of
contradiction unless we see it as a movement of the Left. Fascism, as
a sibling Leftist movement and thus a bitter rival of National
Socialism, was long the antithesis of what we consider it today. Not
only was Mussolini not anti-Semitic, but many of the leading Fascists
were Jewish and Fascist Italy strongly opposed anti-Semitism when it
appeared, for example, in Hungary after Bela Kun. The principal
mistress and official biographer of Mussolini was Jewish (Sarfatti was
also a feminist.) The Nazis opined that Mussolini was “probably a
Jew” and that Fascism was a “Jewish movement.” Fascists, almost
alone, halted the advance of Nazism in the early 1930s.

Both movement were malign; both movements oppressed freedom, religion
and democracy; both movements exalted violence and action; both
movements championed those causes of the common man which always are
used to justify oppression; both movements – as all Leftist movements
always do – connived against each other for power; and both movements
inevitably descended into hatred of serious Jews and Christians, whose
God would not allow men to behave like gods.

Everything about Fascism and National Socialism looked and smelled
like Bolshevism. Mussolini was known, as a Fascist leader, as “the
Lenin of Italy.” Hitler advanced policies much farther to the Left
than Hillary or Obama have ever proposed. The Nazis never called
themselves a movement of the “Far Right.” They were called
“Rightists” that by their enemies. The Fascists, like the Nazis,
rather portrayed themselves as parties of the middle or, better still,
something different from the “Left” or the “Right.” Yet the policies
of the National Socialists as well as the Fascists reflected some
incarnation of socialism and redistribution of wealth. Indeed, the
Nazis claimed to be the only true socialists. In Hitler’s 1943 New
Year’s message, he said:

“The alliance of the arch-capitalist state of the West, or even more
so of America, with the mendacious mock-socialist regime of bolshevism
is conceivable only because leadership in both cases lies in the hands
of international Jewry.”


We know, sadly too well, why the Nazi tyrant was spouting venous and
absurd calumnies upon Jews, but why was Hitler accusing the western
allies, America and Britain, of being “arch-capitalists” and accusing
the Soviet Union of being “mock-socialism”? Because Hitler believed
that the German socialism his party propounded should triumphant. Is
this Marxism? Consider that after the Prussian victory over France in
1871, Marx himself exulted “Now it will be German socialism that will
triumph in Europe.” The connection between Marx and Hitler was noted
by writers long ago. Ernest Hambloch, writing in 1939 before the
Second World War, suggests Marx may have been right, because the
“Mohammed of the Allah of ‘Scientific Socialism’ was Hitler, not
Stalin” and that Marx deserved a place of honor not only in Bolshevik,
but Nazi hagiography.

All evil is on the Left. Nazis, Bolsheviks, American “progressives,”
and Fascists have all held the same positions. They have suspicion or
contempt for Jews, Christians and the Judeo-Christian moral
traditions. They seek to collect as many material or psychological
dependents as possible and to “represent” the interests of these
individuals as if they were not individuals at all, but rather members
of some hive. They seek violence and propaganda (violence against
truth) as the primary instruments of their power. And they perpetuate
the idea that they are different from each other, much as Obama and
Hillary pretend to have real differences, because as soon as we see
that all evil is on the Left, the political debate ends and the
principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence – principles
which, essentially, end the role of ideology in government – lives
again.

.

Loading