One shouldn’t think the Democratic Party militants – formerly the KKK (by now a marginal group with almost nothing behind the website) and now the exhumed Antifa and BLM – are some kind of anomaly. Recall other leftists. Recall the Soviet Union, where criminals were viewed as “socially close elements.” In contrast, politics-related people (dissidents, nonconformists, “undesirable,” and other “unreliables”) were viewed as “socially dangerous” or “socially alien.” Who is always the first to sincerely and enthusiastically respond to the socialist slogan “rob the loot”? That’s right – those who have experience in robbery and looting.
Before the left came to power, criminals were helpful to the Bolsheviks in creating chaos (read: “prerequisites for revolution”). After the left came to power, it became clear that criminals, as a rule, never intended to overthrow the existing government. As a result of this cooperation, in Russia in the 20th century, the leftists created political banditry – i.e., using criminals against “class enemies” and “politically unreliable” ones – and the American left successfully adopted the idea of using malefactors. (Should we say femalefactors or personfactors in Newspeak?)
In addition, the prevailing theory of “social Darwinism” among the left provided a simple answer to the question of where, in fact, criminals come from. It turns out that criminals arise from “unfavorable conditions.” It’s known that few of the Antifa and BLM mayhem participants were imprisoned – and those who were, for the most part, were released. The fact is that, according to social Darwinism, one should not punish the criminal, not put him in prison, but simply place him in other, more favorable conditions. And then – lo and behold! – the criminal will be corrected, “re-educated.”
As a result of this “progressive” idea, which cannot be called anything other than judicial Lysenkoism, at the beginning of the 20th century, prisons disappeared (not only in Russia, but practically in all countries), and in their place appeared “correction” and “corrective labor” facilities. In these establishments, criminals must “reform” – that is, “find their place in life” and “realize their abilities.” From the left’s point of view, it is necessary to severely punish the political opposition. At the same time, the “socially close” contingent should be encouraged to “realize their abilities.” Therefore, while conservatives consider shoplifting and looting crimes, the “progressive” leftists consider them “finding their place in life.”
Another postulate of the “progressive” left is that the overwhelming majority of crimes are committed either against “capitalist society” or against “owners of private property.” The conclusion the left draws from this is unambiguous: criminals are natural allies, simply because they have a common capitalist enemy. In the literature of the left, you can find many examples of the praise, glorification, and romanticization of criminals. Recall Robin Hood, pirates, Vito Corleone, and numerous friends of Danny Ocean.
Finally, another well-known Marxist dogma that has not changed over the past hundred years is that the police force is the class enemy of the left. In America, many police officers were forced to kneel before the BLM thugs. However, it was never intended to humiliate or insult the police. The goal was to establish control over the police to neutralize them, not officers’ humiliation. From the point of view of the left, the kneeling policemen have never been treated “inhumanely”; BLM views them as class enemies, defeated, repentant, and begging for mercy.
Since bandits, marauders, pogrom-mongers, and other criminals are “socially close” to the left, what should the left demand? That’s right: they should demand the dissolution of the police or at least a reduction in police funding. Since the police oppose the “socially close” folks, they immediately become “socially dangerous.” Leftists in Russia had dissolved police successfully. The left in America demands either the dissolution or, as a compromise, the neutralization of the police force.
In the Soviet Union, “socially close” criminals at the first opportunity arranged for themselves a “state within a state” – either inside a prison or within a concentration camp, or at large. In the United States, “socially close” bandits established “autonomous zones” in many cities at the earliest opportunity, too. A bacchanalia of pogroms, robberies, and arson swept across America in 2018–2020, which led to the creation of “autonomous zones” where police officers are prohibited from entering.
America’s “autonomous zones” were inspired by the numerous but small-scale “occupation zones” of the past, such as “Occupy Wall Street.” With the help of such occupation zones, the leftist swashbucklers had tested the degree of tolerance of the city authorities for public defecation, blocking off traffic, mass rapes of ideologically brainwashed women, and other forms of “protests against capitalism.”
The left is well aware of its natural connection with the criminal world; therefore, leftists consider criminalizing the opposition and dissidents one of the main goals. The Leninist terror, the Stalinist terror, the Nazi terror, the Cuban terror, and the Maoist terror are, in fact, variants of orthodox left-wing terror.
The criminalization of dissent is an attempt by the left to “level the political playing field.”
Without exception, all leftist regimes have come to this conclusion – from the French Revolution to the concentration camps of the twentieth century to Cambodia’s execution fields. The Biden administration is no exception. The people therein plan to return to the practice of Obama’s total surveillance. Now the surveillance of “suspicious” and “objectionable” citizens, who, however, did not commit any crime, will be carried out by private companies under contract with the government. Government law enforcement agencies must follow numerous legal procedures to conduct such surveillance. Compared to them, private companies have much more freedom.
The left considers itself “well educated,” in contrast to dissidents – people who are “uneducated” and “narrow-minded.” (Let us add here the widespread attribution of mental illness to dissidents – in the USSR, “forensic psychiatry” was rampant. In America, for several years, they have tried to ascribe a diagnosis of mental illness to President Trump in absentia.) Therefore, the joining of efforts of the leftists and criminals, which, at first glance, looks like stupidity or ideological insanity or political paranoia, is in fact just the dogma – the dogma that the left follows with preternaturally stubborn, even messianic tenacity.
The American left’s genuine sympathy for “socially close” criminals is now so apparent that no one even tries to hide it. The harsh repression and the full gamut of persecution against the participants in the unarmed protest on January 6, 2021, cannot be compared with the absolute apathy and demonstrative indifference of law enforcement agencies to the 2018–2020 rioters. About a hundred years have passed since the Soviet communists extended a helping hand to the “socially close” criminals. The idea has not become obsolete since then – their American ideological followers have not deviated one iota from the plan.
At the same time, the left’s political repression has nothing personal under it. If you are attacked by an Antifa or BLM activist (who, thanks to excellent education, does not even suspect that he is a neo-Marxist commissar), do not despair. There are no preux chevaliers among the left or among the criminals. This is just a business – the left-wing political business. Neo-Marxists think America’s leftification is complete, so they turn their attention to America’s Sovietization.
[Originally published by American Thinker]