This is Part 3 of my pre-election post:
Taking this to the natural conclusion, we delved deeply into policies that were clearly generated by a specific ideology—socialists imagining themselves as progressives. We can see “defunding” and “reimagining” emanating from Marxist thinking, while others simply wonder what were they thinking? Why is this happening? We saw the underlying motivations of criminal justice “reform” designed to divert offenders from the system. And of police policies designed to reduce, even preclude, proactive police enforcement. Detailing these changes and the resultant state of lawlessness takes the veil off their agenda. Crime data and the effects on policing, including the notion of a “thin blue line,” were also presented and analyzed.
Lawlessness is not just an unfortunate result of misguided thinking. It could also be seen as a strategy designed to “collapse” the system. Understanding the ideologies underlying this thinking, one can conclude that the real purpose of reforms and policies was to create pressure on the system designed to destroy it. This is my conclusion. In American Marxism, Mark Levin pointed to what he termed a “Cloward and Piven-type approach”1 and said something similar: “overwhelming the system, crashing the system, then blaming the system, and taking control of the system . . .”2 One can think otherwise, but those who advocate such ideological thinking fail to explain—or do so in only mantras and simplistic terms—why CRT, 1619, and “systemic racism” are beneficial or necessary.
Due to advocates using mantras, such as “mass incarceration,” “white supremacy,” “systemic racism,” and the like; the underlying goals of this thinking are not quantifiable—nor substantive. How does one even define such nebulous terms? How does one “fix” a society that is systemically racist?
Even if white supremacy does dominate this country (which we have disputed), can this be eliminated by interjecting racially-based thinking? These questions are left unanswered because advocates of such mantras have no answers. These were not intended to be answered. Instead, what is intended is the destruction of capitalism. The real “answer” is socialism.
Based on this premise, one can conclude that a revolutionary climate is at hand. If this is true, there will be push-back. It could come in many forms. From competing ideologies? From those who seek to maintain the capitalistic system? From those who want to live in freedom?