The Greater Threat of Leftism

          The subject and threat of political extremism is an important and old one in human civilization. If you define the concept simply as violence enacted for political reasons, then examples of this behavior go back to the late-6^th century BC tyrannicide of Hipparchus of Athens. In modern American rhetoric, the use of political extremism has been contorted by an obscenely polarized climate as an association fallacy used by political figures to shun certain blocs of the political compass. Even as an anti-leftist libertarian, I shun the use of “leftist” or “commie” to refer to any left-leaning individual, just as I detest the overuse of “neo-Nazi” by radical leftists to refer to me and ideological compatriots.

Most shockingly, this whole saddening phenomenon is not even relegated to the ranks of low-level supporters and outliers! Remember in September of 2016 when Hillary Clinton, the Queen of the Democratic Party, called the entirety of President Trump’s supporters a “basket of deplorables”? A statement that was made at a Democratic fundraiser and which hundreds of Democrats laughed and applauded in response too!

But political extremism – empirically analyzed – is an important concept to look into, and the trends associated with contemporary extremism in the contemporary political climate of the US reveals an unsettling truth. Empirically, honestly, and without the fallacious logic I have just shunned, the simple analysis is that political extremism in the United States is far more dangerous among the so-called “left-wing”, and it is far more powerful.

This is a big claim to make, I know that, why would I shun logical fallacy and then make such a bombastic claim? Well, as you will see, this is no claim, but just a simple truth. Where do we begin in unpacking this, however? Anyone can make this realization, too, with their own realization, but how do they begin to unpack it to their fellow man? In making this article, I explored several paths I could take, but I feel like the best one to use is a comparison of the radical left and radical right factions and how their differences show the danger of the left.

First, this whole “left/right”, black-and-white, binary terminology is totally and utterly obsolete. It is only relevant in discussions of revolutionary France’s politics, which is where it originated. Political ideology cannot come down to a mere dichotomy, especially when you consider how inconsistent this is with ideologies such as libertarianism. Libertarianism is considered a “right-wing” ideology, but not as right-wing as the traditional right, conservatism. Yet, especially when you read libertarian treatises (Rothbard 2006, pp. 11-13, 28), you see that libertarianism is inconsistent with conservatism and that this ideology cannot be its more rightward relative. Anarcho-primitivism is also a political ideology, but it takes little from either the left or right, repudiating both.

Therefore, the traditional left-right dichotomy is completely insufficient. Neither is a political compass, the newest fad, sufficient either. How can someone be a hardcore economic liberal, but a hardcore political authoritarian? The Austrian economist Hayek has shown in his book The Road to Serfdom that political freedom is only free with economic freedom. This is why I believe that “directional terminology” is a farce, and instead we should only use the names themselves; “I am not a ‘rightist’, I’m a libertarian, and let me tell you what that means beyond your preconceived notions.” Ideologies are nuanced, and they must be weighed on their own, and not generalized.

All this being said, when discussing “leftism” and “rightism” we are off to a bad start. This does not mean we can work this out. “Leftism” for our purposes is those ideologies that share the principles of collectivism, opposition to property rights, egalitarianism, and some identity-based pride (e.g., the proletarianism of traditional leftism or identity politics of modern progressive leftism). Ideologies that we can identify from these principles include socialism, communism, Marxism, Maoism, social democracy, progressivism, etc.

So, what makes radical leftism problematic? Well, it is the radical part. While we may discuss all the issues with standard leftism, the radicalism is what makes it worse. Radicalism, as we are using it, means an extreme devotion to a particular ideology; that extreme devotion, if given power, will seek to assert and propagate itself. It’s essentially a fact of life; it is how life works, in fact, because when – say – bacteria gains food (power) it uses that food to fuel and replicate itself. A radical government will always lead to authoritarianism due to the inability to enforce a single ideology upon a broad populace; there will always be dissidents and variables that need to be done away with, and due to the extreme devotion of the government’s ideologues stronger and stronger efforts will be called upon to achieve that (for example, Nineteen-Eighty-Four’s ultimate goal is total mind control).

What also makes radical leftism worse is that, fundamentally, it is not different from radical rightism/conservatism. If a radically conservative government were to come into power, it would ask for much of the same things. Murray Rothbard has explained that German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck’s ideology could be described as “right-wing collectivism”, with its emphasis on militarism, protectionism, economic interventionism, and social order (Rothbard 2006, p. 12). It would also have identity-based virtues, namely in being Christian, or White, or American (nationalism). The censorious left-wing phenomenon of cancel culture, radical and totalitarian in every way, reflects the very oppression of speech present in [actually] conservative regimes like Franco’s and Pinochet’s.

What else could I say against the radical left? What sets these strands of radicalism apart and what makes it more threatening than the radical right? Well, to figure that out simple figure out what the difference between the radical right and radical left is. The radical right is a fully fringe movement; it has no support from mainstream outlets, it receives no funding from mainstream entities, and its members are generally shunned in contrast to radical leftists whose members have professorships and other social advantages. Prominent radical left groups receive extensive funding from upper-class coffers (as I’ve shown here), and there have been a number of examples of radical left professors or journalists making outlandishly divisive claims and being protected/promoted.

This is really where the danger lies, in the fact that the radical left is the side receiving institutional support. Radical libertarian or conservative groups like the Proud Boys, Three Percenters, Boogaloo Bois, and others, are decentralized, small, self-supplied, trained, and funded groups. Meanwhile, the complete opposite is the case for the radical left. While groups like Antifa have been presented to the public as unorganized, they are truly something else, their members having been repeatedly spotted engaging in [suspiciously] strategic and precise criminal acts. Indeed, political experts are saying that political extremism seems to be swinging leftward.

In order to put this all into perspective, I am going to analyze a set of political groups in the United States, its members, and show how: (1) they are heralds of radical leftism, and (2) they are influential and part of a large, interconnected subversive network. Additionally, whenever I name an organization of importance, I will do two things (if applicable): link its name to its page on KeyWiki and place after it “(InfluenceWatch)”, linking its InfluenceWatch page, so you can do further research into the connections of these groups. I will also show later how they are connected to high-profile institutions and are not merely a bunch of grassroots, angsty, 20-something Marxists.

BLM is the more noteworthy institutional front of the radical left, mostly due to its greater organization (as it literally is a registered organization), its greater publicity, and greater funding. BLM is the nexus of the radical left’s growing influence within the US over decades. It is the incestual bastard child of leftist subversion and influence within the US, quite literally incubated by the CCP and other Marxist agitators.

That’s right, don’t take this hip young nephew of the NAACP as a cool repackaging of anti-racism to the youth; it’s a dangerous force and reminiscent of the Soviet spy rings of the Cold War, just this time backed by China (the new empire of evil). These are all great claims, I’ll admit, but I use them to stress the importance of this issue, of how vile this tumor within our country and political system is and how it will come to destroy the values we hold dear if we let it metastasize further. In order to present the evidence against BLM, we will begin with a step-by-step retracing of the footsteps its founders and funders have taken through history.

First and foremost is perhaps one of the most public examples that you can find, which is BLM being backed by the group Thousand Currents (InfluenceWatch). Thousand Currents is a broadly influential organization that provides grants to numerous leftist programs worldwide, and according to it itself it has connections with 200 million people worldwide. The most unsettling detail about Thousand Currents is how, since at least 2016, Susan Rosenberg – a convicted and unashamed domestic terrorist turned academic – has been the Vice Chairwoman of Thousand Currents. Why on Earth would any group, in their right mind, appoint a convicted domestic terrorist as a board member, and go one stop further and make her vice chair!? Well, the clear answer is that BLM is not in its right mind, since it is a radical front group.

Continuing along the trend of covert, institutional support, there is evidence that BLM is connected to the “National Lawyers Guild” (InfluenceWatch). There are several things I could cite for this, but what else is better than their official endorsement of BLM? But what is so important about the National Lawyers Guild? The National Lawyers Guild is well-known for being a pro-socialist organization and is a member of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, a group that was described in 1978 by the CIA as “one of the most useful Communist front organizations at the service of the Soviet Communist Party” and received upwards of $100,000 from the USSR in the 90s (Staar 1991, p. 80). Spooky stuff, huh?

Well, it does not end there. The third and final group that I will list (meaning that there are numerous other groups you can go out and find socialist sentiments in/BLM ties to) is the Alliance for Global Justice (InfluenceWatch). The AFGJ is a very influential leftist organization, even more than Thousand Current, and much more nefarious, all for one reason: it is the political arm of the Nicaraguan Sandinista regime. The Sandinista regime, like every other radical left regime, was a horrid perpetrator of human rights violations and was responsible for thousands of crimes against humanity.

Yet, the AFGJ – despite being born of it – has risen to prominence, gives millions yearly to leftist organizations, is allowed to operate out of Washington, D.C. itself, and is buddy-buddy with groups such as BLM, the National Lawyers Guild, and numerous other groups. I pose the thought of how violently the media would react if connections like this were exposed on the right, and how flamboyant they would be in contrast to the silence that exists regarding coverage of the left.

Other important connections make include the relationship between the NLG and National Conference of Black Lawyers, who both are members of the socialist International Association of Democratic Lawyers. The NCBL joined the BLM Foundation to form the Movement For Black Lives (M4BL), which – as stated prior – is backed by the AFGJ, and by numerous other questionable names such as the Democratic Socialists for America (InfluenceWatch) and Freedom Road Socialist Organization (InfluenceWatch). Also, did you know that the NLG has a prominent member on the board of the AFGJ itself?

Now, we have already gotten quite deep into this investigation of the cobweb that the radical left has woven throughout the American political realm. These three backers of BLM, who are only a fraction of this web, expose a pretty disturbing network that I shudder to think of the consequences of, but which I cannot help but ponder. However, this is not all the evidence I have to present for my case. This goes much deeper, especially when we look at individuals, rather than simply the institutions. Just like with these three institutions, I will look at only three people, namely the three co-founders of BLM.

Let us begin with the queen bee of the BLM movement first, Patrisse Khan-Cullors. Patrisse Khan-Cullors has made it very easy to be made out as a conspicuous figure, because she has outright identified as a Marxist. She has named figures such as Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong (yes, that Mao, the one whose Cultural Revolution directly killed millions of Chinese people) as her influences. Additionally, Khan-Cullors also admitted to being a student of Eric Mann, the a major powerbroker of the radical left in the United States.

Mann is a big name to look into, as he was and is connected to numerous radical leftist movements throughout history, such as Weather Underground, which gives him a connection to names such as Susan Rosenberg and Joanne Chesimard, and the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (now affiliated with BLM). Despite all this, someone who is influenced by Christian ethics and John Locke (me) can be considered problematic and neo-fascist, but not Mrs. Khan-Cullors for being a “trained Marxist” and Maoist. Surely, this is as bad as it gets, right?

Oh, don’t worry, it gets worse.

Alicia Garza, another well-publicized and well-connected co-founder of BLM, is another wonderful covert agent of Marxism. As early as 2014, Garza has been public about her support of Joanne Chesimard, who was a co-conspirator of the aforementioned Susan Rosenberg (who now financially manages BLM). In addition, Garza is tied to the group Ear to the Ground Project (see PDF page 57), an affiliate of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, being described as “making sure that ‘[their] i’s were dotted and [their] t’s were crossed’.” Additionally, Garza also has connections to the National Domestic Workers Alliance (InfluenceWatch) as a senior officer, which is a prominent left-wing activism group which was founded in 2007 and is directed by Ai-jen Poo, an associate of the Chinese Progressive Association (InfluenceWatch), which is the most overt CCP front group in this country. Garza is also a student of Eric Mann, the kingpin of the radical left in the US, through her association with various Freedom Road Socialist Organization fronts (e.g., the Ear to the Ground Project and LeftRoots).

Ok, it has to end there, this can’t possibly get worse than this. Surely, BLM didn’t have one of its cofounders photographed hugging and meeting with Nicolas Maduro...right? Yeah…they did.

Opal Tometi is a very prominent member of BLM. She might even exceed Mrs. Khan-Cullors, being more deserving of the title “queen bee of BLM”. She has been publicized by CNN, Time, MSNBC, The Huffington Post, and more. She has been awarded numerous times by various organizations for social justice and leftism. At just age 36, she is honestly quite successful and prominent—but, just with all of these radical left hacks, not deserving of this power. Opal Tometi is a flaming hypocrite and tyrant-supporter.

In 2015, at an event named the “People of African Descent Leadership Summit” Tometi was a keynote speaker and organizer and was joined by pal Nicolas Maduro. During the event Tometi made numerous unsettling actions such as thanking the Venezuelan government, calling racism in the US “state violence”, and making references to Marxist murderer Joanne Chesimard. Huh…I guess it does get worse.

So then, what we have here is a grotesque, deep-seated, far-reaching network now laid bare showing the unsavory relationships that compose the radical left, and its seemingly mainstream fronts. Even beyond the institutional networks, the funding of groups such as BLM – despite these easily attainable records – by major foundations like the Ford Foundation, Borealis Philanthropy, Open Society Foundation, and more is distressing because it either shows an immense degree of ignorance by the leaders of these groups, or an ulterior motive by these seemingly mainstream groups to fund and expand radical leftism. I cover that ulterior motive more in my article “How the Left is Backed by the Deep State”, which is very similar to this article.

We have never seen such a widespread infiltration and subversion of and by radical left groups since the peak of the Cold War in the 50s and 60s, and unless we take action this will most definitely tear apart our society, unlike the Soviets failed to do. Word of this must get out, the veil must be torn, and the new Iron Curtain of Beijing must be broken.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Rothbard, Murray N. For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (2nd ed.; Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006).
• Staar, Richard F. Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union (Hoover Press, 1991).