Libido Dominandi: The Force That Fuels Leftism

Politics is really very simple these days: the agents of Leftism crave power over us all, and in as many aspects of our lives as they can possibly achieve.  None of their initiatives has any other bedrock motivation.

Power.  “Progressive” is a far more accurate descriptor of today’s Left than “liberal” (for I myself am a liberal in the eighteenth-century sense of valuing individual freedom)… yet more accurate still would be the word “power-hungry”—or even “megalomaniac”.  Everything about the twenty-first century Left in American politics and culture comes down to the lust for power.

Take any random slate of issues noised abroad by Leftist mouthpieces.  Take universal public health care, immigration reform, gun control, gay marriage, and more funding for schools.  Take them one by one, and you will find that all roads lead to the same place: the concentration of power in the hands of an arrogant, elite few—a destination that might as well be Hell, both for those masses who must live in it and those tormentors who preside over it.

Universal health care is the most obvious example, perhaps.  When a centralized government is given absolute power over a nation’s injured and ailing, then its agents hold a life-or-death grip upon the routine struggle of their citizens in a rather direct manner.  How will resources be allocated?  Doctors, hospitals, drugs, x-ray machines… none of these exists in infinite supply.  In fact, many are chronically in very short supply.  So the government’s representatives will necessarily be called upon to arbitrate who gets treatment and who must be turned away.  The old are generally less “worthy” than the young because they have already lived out their mortal coil and now—not to mince words—parasitize upon the work and resources of others.  Yet some elderly remain “useful”: the “rocket scientists” of the regime in power, for instance, or… well, if we’re not mincing words, the relatives of the highly placed and the wealthy who are willing to make a “donation” to the right party. 

No doubt, some of the young will also come to be viewed as less useful than others.  Does society really need an inexhaustible supply of roofers, gardeners, ditch-diggers, and burger-flippers?  Does not an excess of blue-collar labor, in fact, create a drain upon resources by swelling the numbers of the unemployed and requiring a huge outlay of tax dollars in benefits?  As long as progressive forces need the vote of such social cannon fodder, nevertheless, those benefits will continue to enjoy a high priority; but what happens when progressivism triumphs and future elections become mock-elections?  Sickness will then represent a golden opportunity to trim deadwood from society’s tree.  The very people—unemployed, under-educated minorities—who currently constitute progressivism’s most reliable voting bloc will find that a cancer or a failed organ or a congenital condition is a fast track to the cemetery (or probably the crematorium: cemeteries waste valuable space).

Immigration reform: is this sacred cause really any less obvious a gambit for acquiring power than universal health care?  The leadership of the progressive movement requires hordes of what Rush Limbaugh charitably calls “low-information voters” to catapult its candidates to victory.  These must be people whose condition is so miserable that they do not particularly care about the long-term consequences of surrendering constitutional rights.  Once their ears are filled with promises of free health care, free education, food stamps, police protection without questions asked or bribes demanded, etc., etc., their vote is effectively bought and paid for.  Their programming becomes even more reliable if their country of origin has no tradition of functional democracy where the will of ordinary citizens routinely curbs the abuses of politicians.  A tsunami of such people onto the voter register will lift progressive candidates to such political heights that, as noted above, they will eventually be able either to suspend elections or to stage them merely for propaganda, so stable will be the oligarchy of the elite.

Gun control: when I was a kid, no one on the Left would have needed this one explained.  The most vocal oracles of that persuasion were publicly calling the police “pigs” (screaming it, in fact).  The days when armed cops down South brutalized people of color were also a very recent memory.  Now, paradoxically, our Leftist neighbors must suppose their peace officers to be super-heroes.  I can’t think how else they imagine that a cop can respond to a 911 call in time to help as a rapist or murderer is battering in the front window.  The “information-challenged” also choose to overlook that their elected representatives—the same ones who promise to legislate the Wild West right out of our society—are themselves surrounded by armed guards both in the Houses of Congress and throughout their personal vagaries. 

Do the math.  The numbers are all neatly arranged in a column just waiting to be added up: Leftist politicians do not think private citizens should own guns, they believe that they themselves must be attended by a small army of pistol-packing defenders, they are willing to cut back on armed protection for the general populace as soon as their runaway budget is threatened, and their recommendations to those facing assault and rape include just playing along, faking menstruation, and urinating on cue.  The political elite is clearly not serious about protecting the rank and file.  Its collective passion for confiscating guns (on the Left, at least) plainly does not reflect any conviction that ordinary people will thereby lead safer lives.  Why, then, do Feinstein, Bloomberg et al. want so desperately to have our guns?  Any hairy hippie from the late sixties could have told you.

So what has gay marriage to do with power-hunger?  Elementary.  When you were an adolescent, to whom did you turn if you needed cash or had to chart a course for the future or ended up downtown without a ride?  Mom and Dad.  For adolescents of the twenty-first century, the answer to this question has become far more problematic.  Many (in some demographic groups, most) do not have both a Mom and a Dad.  Whatever parent-figure remains in their lives may also be more likely to steal cash from them than to lend it to them; and as for knowing anything about the future or having the time and the means to effect a physical rescue mission, the teenager might as well approach a stranger on the street corner.  Families have already fallen apart.  Gay marriage is one of many strategies intended to finish them off.  Once marriage becomes exclusively about adorning the person who gives you the best sex with a blue ribbon in a public ceremony, children will understand explicitly just where the obligation to rear them belongs.  It belongs to the State.  Mommy can’t be trusted to pack her kindergartner a healthy lunch: the State will see to that.  Daddy doesn’t know squat about how to train or apply for a job: the State can help you there, too.  Mommy and Daddy mean well, but they’re not experts about much of anything and may indeed qualify as downright stupid: the State is staffed by experts galore, a whole department of them for every star in the sky. 

Gay marriage, I repeat, may well be the final wedge for splintering marriage irreparably as a child-centered institution.  At the very least, it is part of the direct frontal assault mounted by the sexual revolution generally—the political objective of which is to center all sexual relations upon carnality and to degrade child-bearing as a dismal consequence borne only by the backward and the inept.  The more our youth are sold on the notion that marriage is all about—and only about—copulating, the sooner our modicum of unaborted children will find no parent-figure in sight except Big Brother.

The eternal Leftist romance with “funding better schools”, of course, thrusts government’s paternal presence into the void left by deadbeat dads and welfare moms.  For “better” always seems to mean “more intrusive”: it certainly doesn’t mean “more instructive”.  As student competency, by all objective measures, continues to plummet across the nation, the predictable response from the Left is that we must spend yet more, and ever more.  The school is the new home—the brave new hearth for children whose biological parents wish they had never seen a diaper.  School counselors greedily step in to fill the child’s head with advice about any values-related subject (a zeal not often shared by classroom teachers with regard to math, science, or grammar).  Naturally, the officially endorsed value system (as reflected, for instance, in the Common Core initiative steamrolling its way across the country) promotes thinking of society as a collective.  Leftist social and political ideas lace public-school pedagogy from end to end.  Our heirs will grow up to be good little proletarian troopers, voting as directed and reporting any demoralized conversation they may chance to hear at home. 

I will not even waste time explaining, besides, how the whole boondoggle bankrolls an enormous phalanx of Left-wing political support through teachers’ unions.  An average intelligence can quickly grasp how this dynamo is stoked to keep ginning up its energy until it blows the private sector and representative democracy to smithereens.

There are below-average intelligences, to be sure, whose owners will never see any of what I have described above.  They are the Left’s pawns, marks, puppets, and playthings… and there must be millions of them, alas.  Some of this lot even occupy positions in Congress.  They are not bad people: they are just terminal dopes.  The writing is on the wall… but they can’t read.

Literacy isn’t really required, however.  Anyone who has a shred of street smarts will be forced to admit the truth behind what I have said.  I wish it were not so—but people love power.  It is, I think, their single most repellent characteristic.  If you let them do things for you, pretty soon they’re doing things to you.  A saint comes along once in a blue moon who will cheerfully volunteer his interests and his life for others, year after year.  The rest of us may have brief spurts of such apotheosis… but the air in heaven is too thin, our heads start to swim, and then we forget that we were meant to serve God and not to play God. 

Power.  Lust for power is the most deadly passion in the universe, and it fuels the Left’s engines.  

Print Friendly


Government Secret Code Is A Documentary That Shows Code And The Way It's Utilized In Government Rule. It Reveals Big World Secrets In The Form Of Code Such As The 2010 Incident In Haiti Which Resulted In 250k Lives Lost, And Much, Much More.

1 comment to Libido Dominandi: The Force That Fuels Leftism

  • sedonaman

    Re: “How will resources be allocated?”

    Fourteen-year-old girls who want abortions will be at the top of the list.

    As long as we are basing survival on “usefulness”, then I suggest we cull out all those useless liberal arts classes in colleges. Of what use is finding the latent lesbianism in Moby Dick or an analysis of a Thomas Hardy novel? Not only that, but social “studies” have been the source of despotic regimes of the 20th century. We can finally rid ourselves of the negative influence of academia.

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply








Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner



IC Contributors