If the 1967 film Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner were remade today (I’ll leave that to Michael Bay), Sydney Poitier’s character ought to be replaced with C.L. Bryant, Herman Cain, Larry Elder, or Alfonzo Rachel. One watching would think that nothing has changed since 1967.
This is because the institutional left has not changed, and by its very nature, cannot change–this despite its virtual corporate ownership of the term “change.” It is defined by intolerance, division and xenophobia, and not as unfortunate side effects, but as structural pillars. Without these pillars, there would be no structure.
Be it “socialism,” “liberalism” or “progressivism,” as the left repeatedly changes names like an escaped convict fleeing from state to state, perhaps the most accurate denotation, aside from Mark Levin’s “statism,” is “collectivism.” This is due to the apparent inability to register persons as individuals, with the dignities afforded the description, but as nameless molecules of more relevant “collectives.”
It is a movement which seeks to retard discourse and critical thought to a vegetative state, resisting dissent from every corner by the strength of the establishment press. Via community organizing, it plays upon the unassuming optimism of its grassroots to empower the ever-assuming opportunism of its elite. It runs intellectual deficits as swiftly as it runs economic deficits, feeding on knee-jerk emotionalism, hobgoblinism, and manufactured xenophobia as its lifeblood.
By trade, the institutional left preys on populations, herds individuals into respective factions; convincing them against their individuality so as to organize them into groups that will congregate into strategic alliances as soon as wage internecine warfare against one another on cue. Its message to the black “community” is a paraphrase of a Jerry Maguire line: “Help us help you!”
As the brilliant community organizer Saul Alinsky advised in his 1971 book Rules for Radicals: “Pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.” The institutional left then instills in these groups notions of subjugation, self-projects as the indispensable guarantor of relief therefrom by the powers of government bureaucracy, erects straw men from the opposition as culprits, rallies the troops, propagandizes and declares war. This is called agitprop, and is prescribed rather transparently in Alexander Stevens’ 1958 book The Communist Party: A Manual on Organization.
Alexander Stevens, a KGB spy and community organizer identified by the heroic ex-Communist Whittaker Chambers as, “to the best of my knowledge, the head of the whole underground United States Communist Party,” wrote under his pseudonym “J. Peters,” of the imperatives of agitprop:
“To organize discussion around and popularization of the resolutions of the Conventions and Committees…To help the lower organizations to organize systematic discussions on actual political problems, campaigns, etc.”
Via agitprop throughout the latter half of the twentieth century to the present, the institutional left has campaigned to strip personhood from blacks, Hispanics, gays, women, Muslims and other “minority groups” — herding them into their designated “communities” which it organizes and fine-tunes as political instruments in its grand orchestra. This subtext can be decoded in its generic message to every organized community with the seductive and disarming lure of Tokyo Rose.
As documented in my Wisconsin “Noodles” video, these agitprop instincts have been inherited by those in my generation. Stevens’ architecture behind agitprop sought to divide the “workers” from the “capitalists,” significantly and permanently co-opting the labor union movement in America:
“The Party, in its every day work, must clarify to the workers in a positive and concrete way the principal difference between us and the reformists. The Party, by its practical work, must prove to the workers that we are the fighters for a united struggle and that the reformist leaders are the splitters and disrupters of the struggle.”
As written, any actual reformist attempts at helping minority groups risked upstaging the Communist Party’s grander ambitions for revolution, and needed to be discouraged. Rahm Emanuel’s “never let a crisis go to waste” axiom pre-dated Rahm Emanuel. The status quo of the “proletariat” was the crisis; total revolution was the opportunity.
Having nothing to say for itself in the great struggle for race relations, the Democrat Party, most notable for its role in supporting slavery in the 1860s and segregation in the 1960s, has sought catharsis for its inferiority complex on the issue by desperately maligning the Tea Party as the real racists. It is like the abusive boyfriend warning the girl to steer clear of that charming new guy Eddie–he’s trouble.
Somehow, they have been successful in courting 90 percent of the black vote, despite the occasional Tourettes–from the white, liberal, congressional lynch-mob that surrounded Clarence Thomas in 1992 to the white, liberal, would-be lynch-mob calling for his violent death in my Palm Springs Common Cause video.
But this success is only correlative to the institutional left’s success in defining blacks as a “community,” not as individuals, and snidely self-projecting in all its bureaucratic splendor as the “black community”‘s only salvation from poverty. As Stevens writes:
“The Communist Party as the revolutionary Party of the proletariat, as the one and only Party which is courageously and resolutely carrying on a struggle against the double exploitation and national oppression of the Negro people, becoming particularly intent with the developing crisis, can win over the great masses of Negro people as allies of the proletariat against the American bourgeoisie.”
This is why when blacks “flee the plantation” (in Herman Cain’s words), the left is armed and poised to give them the Clarence Thomas treatment. Nothing testifies to this arrogance more than how it reacts against its own organized “communities” when they act, you know, out of line. When 70 percent of blacks in California voted for Proposition 8, the wrath of the white liberal rained down hard: After everything we have done for you.
But as black Tea Party leader Lloyd Marcus famously states, “I am not an African-American. I am Lloyd Marcus, American.”
The institutional left does not care about freedom for Americans. Worse, it does not want Americans to know they are free. It does not want Americans to feel free. It wants Americans to feel completely and utterly at the mercy of its “protection.” This is slavery.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.