This pamphlet is a complete explanation of political ideology; both left and right. It is an adjunct to the full book: “The End of Prejudice – And Explanation of Liberalism, Human Rights and The Civil Society.” Like most readers of the full book it should leave you with very few questions about political ideology, especially concerning members of the left. So read on my friends. Enjoy this, learn from it and share. – Kelvin Smythe
Our story begins in the year 1776 as the United States of America began its battle to become the first nation founded upon the concept of equal political rights for its citizens.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal.”
In the imaginations of many, these words find their origin in the Declaration of Independence. The truth is that the idea of human equality has far earlier origins, but it was the American Revolution which first codified equal rights as the supporting philosophy for a nation. That democracy, prosperity and freedom spread across the world following America’s founding is no coincidence.
Though as the centuries advanced, this split in history would give rise to a new sort of split, that being the left and right wing ideologies which we associate with modern democracies.
Our current ideological divide has left democracy in the balance. We are a people who have lost any ability to understand each other, let alone communicate. If we are unable to remedy this separation, there is little hope that we could ever secure freedom, peace and equality for future generations. This pamphlet and the parent book “The End of Prejudice” were written so that we may understand both left and right wing ideology in their totality, and in fact understand one another, for only then will society have chance to reverse the division which has set upon it.
Our initial look at left wing ideology explores two basic definitions of prejudice. In the first, we see prejudice as “adverse opinions held without having sufficient knowledge.” This definition of prejudice can be thought of as the “information destroying” version of prejudice.
The second definition of prejudice shows it to be “negative judgments made about entire social groups.”
By combining each definition we see that holding negative views about entire groups will destroy information and will lead to unreasonable judgments.
Most of us were taught to judge people as individuals, and that stereotyping entire groups was wrong. Unfortunately, the unfair judgment of groups is the cornerstone of left wing ideology, and so to achieve “The End of Prejudice” should be the desire of those who wish to see lasting harmony within society.
Left and right wing ideology are both rooted in the concept of equality. Right wing ideology is based on political equality, where all members of the society would have equal political rights. Left wing ideology is based on material equality, where members of the left seek to equalize the life experiences of all people.
The most typical example of material inequality is the difference between the rich and the poor, however, there are a great deal of other “groups” that are classified as haves and have nots. We can think of these so-called “enemy groups” as the “big guys and little guys”; these political identities which we are cajoled into either defending or detesting. And so from the view of a society at perpetual war, we now present to you the sworn enemies of the left, the big guys.
White People – I once asked an African (African) co-worker if he had any interest in history. His response? “Why I would care about history? It just be the white man kicking everybody’s ass.” If your view of history is limited to which “groups” are winners and losers, then the “big guys” would surely be the whites.
Men – Unless you aren’t a huge fan of the obvious, you understand that men are physically superior to women. And with history as our guide yet again, we would see men as the big guys and women as the little guys. This stereotypes hold strong, even in societies where men and women are politically equal.
Rich People – Long before the current era, where every imaginable group is pitted against each other politically, a disastrous ideology known as Marxism was born which focused only on the rich versus the poor. Rich people seem to be the classic standard of the big guy.
Christians – As if the perfect vessel to encapsulate the historical marauding of rich, white, men, the religion of Christianity is seen as fundamentally oppressive, despite the fact that other religions are far more malevolent. Christianity is associated with a big guy race, a big guy gender, with big guy nations and it is the largest religion in the world, crossing regional boundaries like no other. Of all the religions, Christianity is the big guy.
Corporations – Even for those of us who appreciate their efficiency, corporations have a soulless, money sucking quality to them, and we should all agree on the danger of mixing big business with government. Though in some circles the phrase “The Corporations” is simply a synonym for evil itself. Corporations are definitely a big guy.
Rednecks – Usually seen as a racist lynch mob waiting to spontaneously rise up and return America to the era of slavery, Rednecks get little consideration beyond this stereotype.
Straight People – The gay community has in fact faced political and social discrimination, though the left wing response has been as much about punishing the so-called offenders as rectifying the political inequality.
Israel – In the context of peace in the Mid-East, tiny, little Israel is considered the oppressive big guy. This mainly has to do with the wealth of their economy, the color of their skin, their Western values and that the Muslim little guys who want them exterminated are exceedingly versed in the propaganda of victimhood.
Human beings – Though not strictly a “social identity”, the highly effective political war known as “Environmentalism” characterizes the planet earth as the little guy and the entire human race as its big guy tormentor. It might sound silly, but the planet earth is a little guy.
America – Of all of the big guys, the United States of America stands above the rest. America is wealthy, America is powerful and America is the most influential nation in modern history. In the world of big guys and little guys, irrational blame for the fate of “little nations” can be assigned to “big nations”, where a third world nation is a mess because a first world nation is prosperous. It makes no sense, but it doesn’t have to if the narrative works. The truth about America is that it is big, it is prosperous and it is exceptional because it was founded upon exceptional ideas, which will be explored further on.
As we saw in the second section, prejudice is the destruction of information due to irrational hatred of certain social groups. And in the third section, we were introduced to the big guy and little guy political identities. By combining these concepts, we are then able to explain the totality of left wing ideology in a single sentence.
So hold on to your hats, because whether you believe it right away or not, the following sentence literally explains everything about left wing ideology. Are you ready?
Liberalism is a Prejudice in favor of the Little Guy and against the Big Guy
It may not sink in as deeply as if you were reading the full book, but still, the idea of “prejudice” truly encapsulates the ideology of the left. It’s all about the support and opposition of social groups. You may have thought that liberals were simply “stupid” because of the bizarre opinions they hold, but the reality is that they are replacing rational information with allegiances to preferred social identities.
Take healthcare for instance. You may have come to believe that liberals were passionate about the state of public health, but look closer at “single payer” and you will see that it revolves entirely around social outcomes and not health outcomes. No people are able to become rich (big guys) by providing healthcare and no rich people (big guys) are meant to receive better healthcare than poor people (little guys). As a result, any information showing how free markets could improve public health is eliminated.
The topic of abortion follows the same pattern, with women (little guys) being the victims of the men (big guys) and Christians (big guys), who are supposedly “at war” with women and abortion rights. What you will notice about abortion is some pretty key information which is missing; that information being the fetus to be aborted. The lengths that liberals will go toward “fetus denial” are limitless, and are all due to their blind allegiances to social identities.
You might wonder why liberals are seemingly indifferent to or aggressively in favor of open borders. Well, illegal immigrants are thought of as poor (little guys), foreign (little guys), brown skinned people (little guys) who are here in America (a big guy) to take whatever they can plunder from white Westerners (big guys). That is a splendid proposition as far as the left is concerned as it fits seamlessly into their value system. Unfortunately the information eliminated in this scenario is the rule of law, the functionality of a border and national security among much else.
The pattern repeats in every single political issue. Their blind support of blacks (little guy) eliminates the idea of racial equality. Their support of poor people (little guy) annihilates their understanding of economics and minimum wage laws. Their blind opposition to Christians (big guy) threatens the first amendment and the list goes on and on and on.
The mass destruction of information is based on their inability to examine individual people and situations fairly. Where we see wrong and right, they see big and little; where we see bad and good, they see big and little. The ultimate result is that they have replaced reason and morality with strict loyalties to certain social groups.
The elimination of information is fundamental to left wing ideology, but it’s just part of the story. In this section we’ll explain more of the other seemingly inexplicable qualities of liberals.
Liberals are Control Freaks
The fact that the average liberal gains no real control because of their ideology is irrelevant. The representatives whom they elect are expected to exert their control over society, which they do. The inequality between big guys and little guys creates an opportunity to equalize, and the only way to equalize is by taking full control of the fates of all parties along the political divide. Division is an opportunity for control and liberals are of course control freaks.
Liberals are moochers
This is a myth. Liberals are masters, not moochers. Liberalism is a class system of three classes: big guys, little guys and liberals. The liberals convince the little guys that they are victims of the big guys, and this partnership produces government crumbs for the little guys and power, vanity and votes for liberals. In the endgame of liberalism, the big guys are eliminated and what remains are two classes: the masters and the moochers.
Liberals are Emotion Driven
This one is fairly simple. Virtually all things left wing revolve around convincing some groups to blame, hate and envy other groups. The entire scheme is fueled by emotion.
Liberals are Elitist
It’s a well worn notion that liberals are elitist. After all, if someone feels entitled to reign over society, it would follow to say that they felt superior to other human beings. And since liberals present no academic version of their ideology, we can do it for them by classifying it as a class system. The class system has been the political model throughout most of civilization and is such a natural order that it should be no surprise that one ideology stands to reconstitute the political system that the Constitution stood to de-constitute.
Liberals are Brainwashed
We have already seen that liberals replace reason and morality with a strict allegiance to the little guy political identity, and we can clearly attribute much of their “brainwashing” to this. However, there’s more to brainwashing than the loss of information. There is also the cult-like support people have for their leaders. This is easily explainable. You see, regardless of the state of ruin in which they may leave society, people on the left will still support their leaders as long as they continue to rally blame and hatred toward the enemy – the big guys – and their main representatives, the Republicans. Assuming that this fundamental antagonism is being carried out with adequate zeal, the performance of their leaders isn’t subject to much scrutiny.
Liberals are Liars
Even the most honest and decent left wingers can’t help but lie about politics. Dishonesty is built into the ideology. For one thing, they have replaced reason and morality with loyalty to social identities. For another, they’re convinced of bizarre ideas such as rich people being rich because they stole the money from the poor people that the poor people never even had. But ultimately what makes liberals liars is that their quest isn’t for truth, it’s for control. And for those seeking control, any lie that delivers it will be repeated once it has taken on popular acceptance.
The Moral Equivalence
Once you understand that left wing ideology is about nothing more than creating conflict and alliances, it shouldn’t be surprising that criticizing their allies will never happen. In the case of Islamic terrorism, the terrorists are Muslims, and since Muslims are a little guy, the liberal is incapable of damning Islam as the driving force behind Islamic terror. Instead they will argue that something else is “just as bad” and that something is always a big guy. Their moral equivalent is often America or Israel, but in most cases Christianity is held up as the equal evil to Islam before the subject can be hastily changed. When people on the right tie themselves in knots trying to explain the moral equivalence, they usually say that “liberals refuse to make judgements.” This is close, but the full story is that “liberals refuse to make judgements about little guys.”
The Cone of Prejudice
There are times when liberals seem rational about some issues, and this occurs when things “get a little too real.” One example was when the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001. The “reality level” got so high that their prejudice in favor of the little guy vanished, and the country was united for a short time as a result. As the reality level steadily went back to normal, their prejudices went back to normal and we were all back at each others throats. These sorts of situations show that we could in fact all exist in the same reality, if only there was a way to rid the left of their prejudices.
History has produced an abundance of terrible ideas which have defined its various social orders. This is because these terrible ideas preserved the political power of those who held them. In virtually every instance, the awful ideas had to do with some people being superior to others. Any competing ideas weren’t welcomed, and we can see how the left repels unwanted ideas by observing the layers of “The Information Force Field.”
The first layer is the metaphorical force field itself. When attempting to present rational information to the left, prepare for the “blocks”, “deflections”, “about faces” and “retreats” to follow, but don’t expect them to admit they were wrong. It will never happen.
Perhaps by some minor miracle you will have a member of the left agree with you on some level. Fear not, for after you wait long enough they will have completely forgotten the information. This is because their second defense layer – “The Elasticity of Prejudice” – acts as a mental muscle to stretch any deviation in their thinking back into its original form.
Finally, beyond the outer defenses, we find the nerve center that gives rise to the entire ideology. “The Control Pleasure Center”, that electric bundle of neurons and impulses that makes us all feel so important and masters of our destinies. But for those on the left their aims on control go beyond their own destinies and encroach upon the destinies of all. The deformities of the left wing Control Pleasure Center are no less obscene than in some Medieval crusader, which makes it plain why such vulgarity would need to be so vigorously protected, and why the left are so loathe to contemplate any ideas which might expose their sense of superiority.
Having removed so much information from their minds, it only makes sense that the same information should be removed from the imaginations of the rest of society. It is for this reason that “You can’t talk about that!”
We can’t talk about how economics proves minimum wage laws to be counterproductive, we can’t talk about education outside of the dictates of the school board, we can’t talk about the “settled science” of “Global Warming”, even when the “settled science” changes to “Climate Change.” In fact, the only thing that remains the same about our changing climate is that you can’t talk about it.
Bill Cosby can’t talk to the black community about fixing its problems from within. And this was of course before his reputation was ruined, but while he was still “America’s Dad” Bill Cosby was forbidden to discuss solutions within the black community. I think what finally got to him was that they called him a Republican, and so it was that he was silenced.
The left have eliminated masses of information from their minds and they have been successful at reproducing this effect within society. They have created their cultural censorship through Political Correctness, which by any accurate evaluation could be considered “the art of destroying ideas.” Political correctness is the codification of “what you can’t talk about”, and it exists for the obvious reasons: to reduce information.
“Hey Hey! Ho Ho! Something or other’s got to go! Hey Hey! Ho Ho! Something or other’s got to go!”
Social Justice is the activated state of left wing ideology. Scouring society in search of their next political prey, the practitioners of Social Justice are boisterous, aggressive and thirsty for any and all retribution, and it is quite courteous of the left to openly employ the word “justice” to signal the intentions of their ideology.
Right wing ideology also has an activated state. It is known as “The Civil Society.” By simply comparing the words “Civil” and “Justice” we might be able to conclude which ideology should produce a more harmonious society. The comparison of the two ideologies will bear itself out in further chapters, but to be clear, the ultimate target of the Social Justice mob are the natural rights of their fellow citizens.
Marxism is the original ideology of “standing up for the little guy” and communism is left wing ideology taken to its completed state. And if the fact that communism is a “society with zero human rights” wasn’t bad enough, we can also note the 100 million people slaughtered during the Red Holocaust as the collateral damage needed to tinker with an ideal version of left wing society.
Liberals mostly reject left wing ideology taken to its rational completion. This leaves us with little choice but to conclude that they have no classical blueprint for their political philosophy, so we should go ahead and attempt to differentiate Marxism from liberalism for them.
Karl Marx claimed that capitalism was unfair and would “collapse under its own wight.” You see, according to the “philosopher” and “economist”, Marx thought that capitalism would collapse not for economic reasons, but because all of the little guys would RISE UP and DESTROY the greedy, rich, big-guy-capitalists.
Marx and Marxism clearly advocate for violence, where the average Western liberal is still comparatively tame regarding their lust for control. Once Westerners from the left become more violent, we’ll know what to call them. For now we should feel “secure” in the idea that they have ruled out violence as a method of stripping society of its natural rights.
At this point, you shouldn’t have many more questions about the left. The formula for their ideology is absolutely identifiable, consistent and predictable. It is about creating conflicts between social identities, because conflict breeds alliances and alliances create political power. It is about spreading the idea that blacks are always repressed by whites, that men always repress women and that Christians always repress everything, because any perceived material inequality is an opportunity to attack.
In short, liberalism is a prejudice in favor of the little guy and against the big guy.
But even once we understand their ideology, there is still the great problem of trying to subdue it, and this will never happen if we continue to “debate the issues.”The ideologies are two completely incompatible value systems, which make the issues look completely different to each side. There is literally no information being exchanged in all of the debates. And so what you need to do is Stop Debating the Issues, and start Explaining the Ideology.
We can begin with some of the easier concepts like pointing out the big guys and the little guys in every debate. Over and over and over and over and over, since you will no doubt recognize the pattern in each issue. From there you can point out that only those seeking to take advantage of society would want to magnify or invent conflict. You could also point out how people who want to control people must feel superior to others by definition.
Whatever techniques you use, stop doing what you’re doing. Stop Debating the Issues, because as you must know, none of it gets through to them. You must be able to engage them from their own point of view. Using their own values and by stepping into their world. When you can anchor the debate from the point of view of their ideology, your message will actually become effective.
And if explaining their own ideology isn’t enough, our next great intellectual weapon is our own ideology. Right wing ideology. Unlike their formless and self-centered view of control over society, right wing ideology is grounded in a timeless and natural philosophy, which is in fact the basis of Western political society.
There’s nothing quite like the stony silence you get from a liberal when you have explained the formulation of freedom, equality and peace and further explain that is the product of the Age of Enlightenment, so if you believe that the ultimate remedy to our seemingly intractable divide is the possession and dissemination of the most liberating ideas in history, then read on my friends. Our explanation of right wing ideology is next!
There was a period in history when reason was all the rage, and it should come as no surprise that so many historical advances came from the time known as the Age of Enlightenment. However, reason is lost if it is not properly stewarded. We find ourselves in a time where the fundamental knowledge of right wing ideology is all but lost. It is not discussed by politicians, it is not taught in schools and it is largely unknown to the average member of the right. If we are to preserve the freedom, equality and peace which is the product of Western political philosophy, then it is our obligation to re-learn that heritage and pass it to new generations.
Throughout the ages philosophers were in search of a law to be found in nature, but it was not until John Locke published his Two Treatises of Government in 1690 that such a law could be presented to humanity, along with the entire form of society which would come about as a result of it. We may then explain the philosophy of Natural Law from its beginnings, keeping in mind that it is the first component of right wing ideology itself.
Begin by singing a song or wiggling your fingers, and then ask yourself where these abilities came from. Did they come from a king or from a judge? Certainly not! These gifts are called natural abilities because they come from none other than nature herself, and it is nature which has given you the freedom to use any of these natural abilities.
But there are certainly limits to this natural freedom, and they would come once our actions would deprive any other of their own natural abilities. In fact all people are bound by this law equally, where none of us shall harm another and where we will act in our own defense if our natural abilities are threatened. And so it is that all people are equal in their natural rights to their health, body, freedom and possessions.
So we can see, that as long as all people abide by the order inherent to Natural Law, where no one will violate the natural rights of others, human kind will of course find itself in a state of peace. And so beyond the symbolism of American liberty, our founding philosophy shows that freedom, equality and peace are all inseparable components of Natural Law.
But in our state of nature, the laws of nature will be ill-suited to carry out effective forms of justice against criminals. It is then rightfully concluded by Locke and others that the solution is for people to surrender their natural rights to justice to “The Common Wealth” and to enter into society; a society which will pursue orderly forms of justice, but which would remove no further freedom or equality from its citizens.
Now, for those of us who may have considered the words of the Declaration of Independence to have been the original work of revolutionary Americans, it should be clear that they had different origins. However, the greatness of the founders should not be diminished considering that they had the wisdom to preserve and advance the ideas of the Enlightenment, and risked everything to make them the foundation of the most important nation in history. For that reason, the words that they etched into the story of the human experience should take on even greater reverence.
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
It was reason which led the American founders to apply the wisdom of the Enlightenment to the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. We can show how many people destroy reason when they evaluate the Constitution today. They will say that our nation was “founded on slavery” or that because women and other citizens had less rights than others, that the Constitution is inherently flawed. This sort of thinking is reason in reverse, as it takes the bad and uses it to dismiss all of the good. These sorts of people have a very regressive view of our founding and of our future. The fact is that the Constitution itself is what would rectify the social imperfections of its original era. Those who dismiss the vast amount of good within the Constitution would then of course be “reason destroyers.”
As we saw in the previous section, the philosophy of Natural Law is the intellectual foundation for right wing ideology. Among its tenets is the concept of “The Social Contract.” The Social Contract is the agreement that citizens make when entering society. In the case of the United States Constitution, the rights of the citizens are enumerated within it. In fact, if you were to examine the Bill of Rights, you would find that each one of them represented a natural right, or some form of social protection which would not be attainable in a pure state of nature.
The Social Contract is then to be thought of as the second component of right wing ideology and the Constitution is of course the American social contract. We can now show the full equation for right wing ideology to be the following:
Natural Law + The Social Contract + The Civil Society = Right Wing Ideology
We will explore The Civil Society in the next chapter, but for the moment, we see that right wing ideology has clear structure and definition, and that it is premised on the main idea of securing the freedom, equality and peace of the citizens and the society.
There are a host of observations about human rights in the parent book, but the one that should be focused on the most revolves around the political spectrum. There are various “popular” political spectra floating about the political sphere. Some are quite comical, if it weren’t for the fact that they were widely accepted. Take for example the idea that at the far left of the spectrum we would find communism and at the far right of the spectrum we would find systems such as Naziism, fascism, theocracy, racism or slavery. This sort of spectrum makes no sense whatsoever as it randomly assigns evil to the right, without any specific measure of why.
The proper measure of all things political are the natural rights of the individual. If we were to correctly construct our political spectrum around individual human rights, then we would see Naziism, fascism, theocracy, racism and slavery swing all the way over to the left where they belong, since all of these systems revolve around removing people’s human rights. And because each component of right wing ideology is inseparable, these systems also destroy equality and break the peace.
People on the right are often bemoaning the loss of their heritage. Well one way to “take things back” would be to relearn the fundamentals of our ideology and to accurately construct the political spectrum to revolve around the measure of human rights.
People on the left don’t care about human rights. They don’t care about the Constitution, or equality or peace. If they did, they wouldn’t consider themselves masters of society as their egos seem to tell them that they are. As people who revere the Constitution, we would serve ourselves well to understand what it stands for more than simply the legal origins of a nation, since it is much more than that. It is the result of the application of reason, it is the second component of right wing ideology, it is the basis of our freedom and our rights and unbeknownst to those who slander it, it is the blueprint for a society at peace.
People on the left have one extremely alluring idea which works in their favor, which is that without “help”, society is a cruel and uncaring jungle for the have nots. This narrative has left a gaping vacuum in the arguments from the right, who are portrayed as uncaring and worse due to their belief in government constraint.
Well here’s the thing. In this respect, we finally have something that we can agree on with the left. Because society at large does have an obligation to help the less fortunate, and if some more forward thinking members of both sides set forth to do it, they could build the institutions of “help” that neither side could be opposed to.
Imagine the homeless shelter that could employ the “down and out” for $3 an hour until they could get out on their own. Yes, you’d have to lower the minimum wage, but do you notice that unless you lower it, there are less opportunities to help homeless people become independent?
Or what if we took politics out of healthcare and by statute, appointed the doctors and health providers themselves to run the system which would optimize costs, access and quality as well as provide catastrophic and charitable care? Their incentive to get this plan right would be the freedom to govern the whole system. For the people, by the experts, and no role for government other than diligent observation and reporting on behalf of the citizens.
Or what about “Real Help Incorporated!” This could be a big one where the Republicans teamed up with big time attention-craving celebrities and built private “social safety nets” outside of government. Rich people could help fund Real Help Incorporated and Democrats would have no choice but to accept the idea of Real Help Incorporated. After all, how could they be opposed to real help? In fact, Democrats might set up their rival group “Compassion Unlimited”, which would create a “compassion arms war” between the parties, and because it would be competitive, the help would probably work.
But do you know who else would be sending in their checks? Everyday Americans, who would realize that their support could crowd out government and help put the “we-are-taking-your-rights-away” sort of help out of business.
You may think that these ideas sound far-fetched, but you must recognize the gaping hole in right wing ideology. It has no means to go on offense. Freedom, peace, equality and the Constitution are beautiful things but all need to be defended. The truth about politics is that “help” is the only way to go on offense. Without an ideological means to go on offense, it is quite clear what will ultimately happen to America and to freedom in the West. They will continue to play defense until there is nothing left to defend.
The time has come for members of the right to pursue the missing third component of their ideology before the rest of it has succumbed. It is time to build the ideological institutions of the Civil Society.
Group identity is the formula for division, and division is the formula to destroy any civilization. But how does group identity work?
When we discuss people in terms of groups, each member has become part of “a team” to a certain extent. If someone says something critical of someone on your team, you defend them. The end effect is that even the worst members of the group end up being defended, and when this happens, the culture itself takes on the identity of its worst elements. This effect is especially powerful the stronger the sense of political victimhood is within that group.
We see the lowest elements defining black American culture, where misogyny, crime and violence are celebrated and where it is next to impossible for poor education and fatherless children to be tackled by anyone. The reason for this is because even if people within the community try and address the internal problems, there is a scripted political narrative that all of the problems are due to external causes. Therefore, the moment that any productive “dialogue” makes contact with people outside the community, it is shut down in order to save political face for “the group.” And nothing ever changes as a result.
In order for black America to thrive, it will need leaders who can recognize that black problems are human problems, and that the isolation within the political identity is the reason that the community is suffering.
We can see the same phenomenon in the Mid East crisis, where the Muslim little guy identity gives political cover to the terrorists who define that culture. Homegrown, internal terrorism is an Islamic problem, but because Muslims are the little guy, the left will find outsiders to blame. And because members of the left are mostly only interested in calling their Republican friends and family “racists” and “Islamaphobes” the scourge of Islamic terrorism is unable to be faced with any seriousness.
So we can see that the exploitation of group identities sponsor most of the worst social havoc around the world. It traps people within and it blockades those from without, assuring that common ground, progress and of course peace can never take hold.
Members of the left are initially sincere in their desire to help the less fortunate. They begin by holding rational ideas about economic safety nets, a concept which I call “Efficiency Socialism”, but they graduate to far more destructive ideas over senseless division and hostility. We will not be able to unravel their ideology without getting through to them on some level. If we were able to point out the difference between their more efficient ideas and their toxic ideological fervor over group conflict, we could begin the journey away from prejudice and towards peace.
Thank you for reading. Think Peace!
1. Share this as an email forward
2. Post the link on social media
3. Buy the full book at www.endofprejudice,com
4. Contact the author at firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2017 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes