Why Don't Leftists Condemn the Violence in DC?

"Marcuse, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!"

Yesterday we saw 200,000 conservatives rally in Washington, DC for a peaceful demonstration in support of President Donald Trump. There were signs and solidarity and songs of patriotism. There was no arson, no looting, no vandalism. There was no press coverage.

When night fell, Black Lives Matter activists and ANTIFA soldiers hit the streets. The video documentation of their acts of violence is everywhere. Here’s a sample:

In the face of this onslaught, right-wingers have… asked Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden to denounce it. “Still waiting for @JoeBiden to denounce ANTIFA and their violent acts.” “Why won’t Biden denounce Antifa and BLM after they attacked innocent pro-Trump demonstrators?” “I want to see Biden and Harris denounce Antifa.” It goes on and on… an endless parade of futility.

The probability that tweets like these will get Leftists to denounce violence is about the same chance that singing “ring around the rosy” will cure you of Black Death. Leftists won’t denounce violence because violence is part of the plan. In programming terms, violence isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. In military parlance, violence is part of their doctrine.

When you are fighting a war - and we are - it’s essential to understand the doctrine of the enemy. Who wrote it, and what does it say?

Today’s leftism evolved out of the New Left tradition, and the pre-eminent theorist of the New left was Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse’s teaching influenced thousands of left-wing professors and activists. The words of his ideology (which you’re about to glimpse) are nowadays the basis of action for everyone from politically correct professors to ANTIFA and BLM. Herbert Marcuse was one of the great thinkers of the Left, the Erwin Rommel of the Bürgerkrieg.

Rommel kindly laid out his doctrine in a book, and Marcuse kindly did too. Marcuse’s doctrine is laid out in a long essay called “Repressive Tolerance found in the book A Critique of Pure Tolerance.

Marcuse begins the essay by arguing that tolerance in our society is actually a tool of domination:

[Because] tolerance [is] granted to the Right as well as to the Left, to movements of aggression as well as to movements of peace, to the party of hate as well as to that of humanity, [this] non-partisan tolerance… protects the already established machinery of discrimination.

Therefore, Marcuse argues, tolerance should be granted only where appropriate to its telos, or purpose: “The telos of tolerance is truth.” But what is truth? Marcus explains:

[T]here is an objective truth which can be discovered, ascertained only in learning and comprehending that which is and that which can be and ought to be done for the sake of improving the lot of mankind.

Thus Marcuse asserts the special “truthfulness” of left-wing thought: Leftism, because it improves the lot of mankind, is true. That necessarily implies that right-wing thought is untrue or false. But of course most people disagree. So what is to be done? Marcuse says:

It is necessary to break the established universe of meaning in order to enable man to find out what is true and false... The people are indoctrinated by the conditions under which they live and think… To enable them to become autonomous, to find by themselves what is true and what is false… they would have to be freed from the prevailing indoctrination. But this means that the trend would have to be reversed: they would have to get information slanted in the opposite direction. 

So left-wing thought is objectively true, but right-wing propaganda has indoctrinated the people into believing falsehoods. In order for people to be able to think for themselves, the right-wing propaganda has to stopped.

The “established universe of meaning” has to be broken. (Think about leftist redefinition of words like man, woman, sex, gender, court-packing…It’s an ongoing project.) Finally, the people must be fed left-wing propaganda instead (“information slanted in the opposite direction”).

Since conservative beliefs are false, toleration of conservative thought, opinion, word, and even conservative people must be withdrawn. Marcuse argues for:

withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements before they can become active; intolerance even toward thought, opinion, and word, and finally, intolerance… toward the self-styled conservatives…

Marcuse calls us “self-styled” because he thinks we’re actually fascists. He is very clear that the goal of the Left must be to subjugate and pacify conservatives, whose views represent an “extreme danger” to society:

True pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance… at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs.

How is this to be implemented? What tactics should be used?

They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.

So if you oppose any extension of public service, social security, or medical care, or if you support freedom of religion, you are to be completely and utterly deplatformed. No freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly, no communication in word, print, or image.

And what happens if uppity conservatives continue to try to assemble and speak freely?

[The solution] may require apparently undemocratic means… To discuss tolerance in such a society means to reexamine the issue of violence and the traditional distinction between violent and non-violent action…

Passive resistance carried through on a massive scale… disrupt[s], or threaten[s] to disrupt, the economic life of the country. Quantity turns into quality: on such a scale, passive resistance is no longer passive - it ceases to be non-violent.

There is a difference between revolutionary and reactionary violence, between violence practiced by the oppressed and by the oppressors… If [revolutionaries] use violence, they do not start a new chain of violence but try to break an established one… [N]o third person, and least of all the educator and intellectual, has the right to preach them abstention.

Thus, in order to pacify and subjugate conservatives, leftists are entitled to engage in “resistance” at such a scale that it “ceases to be non-violent” and becomes violent. Since revolutionary violence is moral, no one should condemn them for it.

And that is why leftists don’t condemn the likes of ANTIFA and BLM when they use violence against conservatives. ANTIFA and BLM are doing what they are supposed to.

Let’s summarize the doctrine of Herbert Marcuse in plain English:

  • Tolerance is only to be extended to truth.

  • Leftism is objectively true, and anything other than leftism is not.

  • Anyone who disagrees with this has been indoctrinated. To the extent that the majority of people disagree, that means the majority of people are indoctrinated.

  • Since most people are indoctrinated, leftists must break the indoctrination so that they can grasp the truth of leftism.

  • To break the indoctrination, leftists must promote left-wing thought and suppress right-wing thought.

  • Promoting left-wing thought is accomplished by changing “established universes of meaning” and actively presenting “information slanted in the opposite direction,” e.g. by political correctness and propaganda.

  • Suppressing right-wing thought is accomplished by withdrawing the freedom of speech, press, and assembly for anyone who disagrees with leftists on race, gender, religion, armament, public services, social security, or healthcare, e.g. deplatforming us entirely.

  • If necessary to withdraw these freedoms, leftists must operate at such scale that the actions cease to be non-violent and become revolutionary violence. #Resistance!

  • Leftists who use revolutionary violence are not to be condemned by any leftists.

Use the above bullet points as a checklist, and ask yourself how many of these attitudes you encounter every day from leftists. You’ll find that the answer is “all of them.”

This is the doctrine we confront in the culture war. This is the operational art of the Leftist Bürgerkrieg. This is why the right wing cannot hope that leftists will denounce violence. They embrace it. The right wing cannot hope for a “return to normalcy.” The Left will not permit it. We represent an “extreme danger” and progress demands that we be utterly silenced and subjugated.

When World War II began, countries toppled in days and weeks before mobile war waged by leaders like Rommel. Today, establishment conservatism, like France, has surrendered with barely a fight. Right-wingers who wish to fight on must support leaders who — like Patton — have mastered the enemy’s way of war and turned it against them. Perhaps President Trump, as he re-enters the White House in January 2021, could wave a copy of A Critique of Pure Tolerance and cry “Marcuse, you magnificent bastard! I read your book!"