I don't know about you, but a rouge republican administration scares me.

The following is an exchange between author Lawrence Auster (“LA”) and poster “Mark D.” regarding an article http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_oh_to_be.html by Theodore Dalrymple who observed that the most trivial violation of “political correctness” called down the greatest and most immediate response by British law enforcement, while the most egregious violent crimes went ignored:

Mark D. writes:

“May I suggest that, grounded in liberal anthropology, anarcho-tyranny is perfectly consistent, and in fact required …(?)

“Liberal anthropology is derived from Nietzsche: it affirms the sovereignty of the individual will, that the individual human will is the highest and best value, and asserts that the individual will is the arbiter of all value. Within society, all individual human wills are considered of equal value, validity, and worth, and there is no principle [e.g., God] by which to discern among them. Society is then a contest of a will to power, of asserting one's preferences over those of others.

“On the ‘anarcho’ side, this translates into affirmation of the individual human will over such traditional values as private property, public order, and even human life (think abortion). If a crime of violence is committed, a conviction may be sustained, but a long incarceration is viewed with suspicion, as the imposition of a collective will over and above the highest good – the individual will that committed the crime. It is not legitimate within a liberal community to assert the communal will over (and) against an individual human will (unless, of course, that individual human will contests the “über principle” of liberalism itself)… .”

Now, when you have a society that is run according to this mentality, in which “long incarceration is viewed with suspicion and as the imposition of a collective will over and above the highest good – the individual will that actually committed a crime,” how can you expect anything but anarchy?

This has come to fruition recently in such crimes as the Virginia Tech massacre. James Lewis asks, “…was Cho (Seung-Hui) taught to hate? … Was his pathology enabled by the PC (politically correct) university? Or to ask the question differently – was Cho ever taught to respect others, to admire the good things about his host country, and to discipline himself to build a positive life? … And that answer is readily available on the websites of Cho's English Department at Virginia Tech. This is a wonder world of PC weirdness. English studies at VT are a post-modern Disney World in which nihilism, moral and sexual boundary breaking, and fantasies of Marxist revolutionary violence are celebrated. They show up in a lot of faculty writing. Not by all the faculty, but probably by more than half.” (Emphasis added.) http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/04/was_cho_taught_to_hate.html

To add insult to injury in this incident, the chair of the VT English Department, an avowed Marxist, gave the keynote speech at the memorial for the murdered students!

Which leads me to ask, does error have rights?
We're in this conundrum because of a phenomenon that I call “Newton’s Third Law of Social Studies”: For every idea, there is an equal but opposite idea. This is a result of a lack of moral clarity that has infected the academy for at least 50 years.

We are told that human knowledge is incomplete (except within liberal/Leftist ideas themselves). Thus, despotic philosophies are accorded all the rights and privileges of honorable ones because there might be a grain of truth in them that dare not go overlooked lest the salvation of all mankind be lost forever. Never mind the actual record of millions of corpses resulting from past attempts to implement those very despotic philosophies.

All ideas start with the academy and migrate out. Describing National Socialism's academic roots, F. A. Hayek states, "It is a common mistake to regard National Socialism as a mere revolt against reason, an irrational movement without intellectual background. If that were so, the movement would be much less dangerous than it is.” – Road to Serfdom, Chapter 12: "The Socialist Roots of Nazism".

Fifty million people paid with their lives for an idea that had academic roots. This is why the pursuit of truth should be a main goal (research being the other) of academia, not entertaining ideas proven to have disastrous consequences in the past, nor lending academic credence to every crackpot (like the Iranian president) who makes ridiculous claims.

And that's why professor Victor Klemperer said that, “… after a war of liberation, I would have all the intellectuals strung up, and the professors three feet higher than the rest; they would be left hanging from the lampposts for as long as was compatible with hygiene."

its not that the criminals aren"t responsible. no no, more so that they are responsible but to a degree so is the society that perpetuates the conditions in which crime thrives, like mould on a dirty kitchen floor.

the argument is a little uni-perspective. with small government society is at the mercy of a number of sick conditions: socio-economic unbalance (which can lead to elitism and rigid social division), uncertain economies, the undermanagement of securing and stabilising forces which stop societies and economies from flux, downturn and catastrophy, and which also prop and support societies and economies after incidents which small governments have no resources, provisions and foresight to counter. these may require the establishment of social, cultural, economic and political policies and forums instigated via government as it is clear free markets and ultra-liberal societies do not have the foresight to deal with these potentialities.

check out 19th century – early 20th century industrial europe. think of the slums of europe that were only addressed by the establishment of bigger governments than what this philosphical conservative imagines. keynes was not a personality whos ideas arose from nothing. His ideas, while not perfect, were based upon the economic and social upheavals of the time. they should not be brushed aside.

think of western europe before the marshall plan (a big government initiative which called on big governments in europe to deal with the social and financial management of the plan).

the trick is balance. small government is best but small in relation only to a societies prime functional necessities. if crime, after research and analysis, is best dealtt with by prevention AS WELL as punishment then the prime functional necessity in relation to crime is prevention AND punishment.

so you gotta work out the necessities (and necessities in large economies are not just bread and water… they include risk management, human resources, etc). I would argue one major necessity is the ability for economic advancement by any individual at any socio-economic level. if you don't have government support and programs this may not be at all possible.

"Because of our politically correct attitude towards crime, our policies are designed more to ‘prevent’ crime than to punish it; therefore crime is increasing and criminals are able to escape their punishment."

show me evidence and facts of crime increasing in relation to the proliferation of prevention policies. perhaps its more visible today with media and the fact that its not just tucked away in the slums anymore. dont know for sure but for sure need more evidence.

Also, show me where criminals are able to escape punishment? while you may see flaws, there are flaws in all methods (ie. where criminals are let off, or where innocents are punished or whole segments of society are targeted or undermined). would you advocate turning the light back off so the baton can swing freely and indiscriminately? im not at all convinced of the discussion of prevention versus reducing crime. elucidate please.

One final question. In your opinion, are certain types of people more inclined towards crime? for example blacks or muslims, turks or asians? if so, then i know where our differences lie. if not, then don't you think that, for instance, in the US the disproportionate amount of blacks in jail is attributable to either racial bias or some sort or unfavourable conditions contributing to crime by blacks in that society (which then should be addressed by government stimulated policies and programs)?

Many thanks for your time.

This article is both succinct and broad-in focus and application. The term 'important' hardly encompasses or labels it. One might assume the article is a condensation of many years experiences and much thought.

I should recommend it for all on 'the left', and hope it may circulate well beyond these pages.

Alternate sub-title:

"How the Marxists and 'Globalists' have sought to remake our entire culture, in their own image" { And, with awful results. Please see the casualty lists-in the millions! }

I have already sent it around, and saved and prinited it for future referrence.