They get it from Hegelian "dialectics," through Karl Marx. They believe that History (capital "H," like it was a god) is always held back by the status quo -- no matter what the status quo is -- and in order to "progress," History must be freed up from its shackles, through dialectical conflict. Chaos causes conflict, so chaos is good, and order is repressive. That's what Neo-Marxists think.Walker wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 6:55 am - In principle, the goal of The Left is not so much to keep Trump away. The goal is chaos and corruption as a principle of change. Chaos and corruption of systems has even been culturally romanticized in film, and film is a key into the minds of many these days.
But the power brokers have a different play, as you point out: for them, chaos is the opportunity to seize power, increase tyranny and bilk the masses. So long as the chaos doesn't affect their own position, they're delighted to see all opposition in disarray, all systems breaking down, and all order destroyed -- since it then rationalizes their own further power-grab.
That's why the Left is so squarely behind all the chaos-causers. It's not because the Left loves freedom, or wants to advocate for the oppressed. And you can see that, because the minute the chaos stops, the Left has no interest in helping the poor and oppressed. It's the chaos they love. The Neo-Marxists love it because it is the prerequisite to their wanted utopia...the establishment tyrants love it because it offers them a chance to establish a New Order. Just as the Third Reich arrived on the coattails of Weimar disorder, so too Stalinism arrived on the coattails of the bolsheviks, and Castro arrived after the Cuban Revolution, and Maoism after the Chinese one...it's the same pattern, every time: the promise of freedom, then the establishment of ever-tighter tyranny on the back of a period of induced chaos.
But we don't learn from history, so we keep making the same mistakes.
The Left wins when it trumpets freedom and promotes chaos. The conservatives (not radical Right), have to shore up the social order, so are easy targets for being accused of exactly what the Left is totally so very keen on doing: servicing a tyrannical order.
So in the US, the conservatives have to keep believing in the voting system, and keep bowing to whatever comes out of it: and the Left is then able to tamper with it unchallenged, because public confidence in the voting process serves their end -- any objection to the process is immediately called "election denial" and "conspiracy theory" and "anti-democratic." And the conservatives have to fall back into line, because they need the voting process to continue, and to have integrity, because it's the only way a conservative or classical liberal political program can go forward. But the Left gets to play as dirty as it likes.
So when Trump was in office, the Left called it a phony election, and him an impending dictator, and could even call publicly for "mostly-peaceful" protests at will. But when Trump was eliminated through vote-tampering, they could pose as the defenders of democracy and the voting process, and repeat (in a Greta Thunberg voice) "How dare you! You have stolen our election confidence!"
So now it comes down to this: if the election process is, as in the last election, infinitely corruptible by the Left, then the conservatives, centrists and classical liberals are all dead, as is the democratic process. There will no longer be any possibility of free and open elections in the US, but only the prospect of an indefinite number of "cooked" ones. But if they get Trump out, you can be sure that any such outcome will be trumpeted from the Capitol as "a triumph of democracy," if it happens. And if all the ruses, strategems and tricks the Left is currently pulling pre-nomination and pre-election should not succeed, and if Trump should somehow persevere and win, it will be deplored as certain evidence of the failure of democracy.
What irony. The pre-election erasure of a candidate is "democracy," in the US now.
