WHY THERE CAN’T BE PEACE WITH THIS PRESIDENT

"The fact is, we live according to Lenin’s formula:  Kto-Kovo?" explained Joseph Stalin in a speech to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in April 1929.  And indeed, President Zero lives by it as well.  Which is why there can’t be peace with him – not for Republicans in Congress nor for any non-mooching American.

For Lenin, the only question that mattered in human affairs was Kto-Kovo? – Who-Whom?, who defeats whom, who wins and who loses. (For some perverse reason, you often see the phrase transliterated from the Russian Cyrillic as "Kto-Kogo."  I insist on transliterating it as pronounced in Russian.)

It is the only question that matters for Zero.  It is not just a stance, an intellectual assumption of faculty lounge Marxism.  It defines his basic outlook on the world and makes him who he is – profoundly anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, and anti-American.  It makes him, as was Lenin and as the Left has always been, metaphysically fascist.

Only by understanding this can Republicans on Capitol Hill prevent their being hopelessly steamrollered by him.  Kto-Kovo? is far more than a political strategy for power.  It is a statement about how the world works, about the nature of reality.

Zero’s ubiquitous moral justification for anything he advocates is "fairness."  What does he mean by that?  He means that it is "unfair" for someone to get more of something by making someone else get less.  Imagine grandma’s freshly baked apple pie with several hungry grandkids waiting for her to divvy it up. 

They will watch very carefully how she cuts the slices – and she knows unless she cuts them evenly, once one of them gets a slice that’s bigger, the others will scream, "That’s not fair!" – for they know a bigger slice for one of them means a smaller slice for the rest.

Any parent knows the best way: one kid slices while the others get to choose which slice. 

Any Marxist like Zero knows this – but the difference is, for the Marxist, there can’t be any other way.  There is only this pie of this size.  Where it came from, how it was made, how to make another, how to make lots of pies so everyone can get a big slice, are questions they not only don’t understand but make no sense to them.

The only question that does make sense to them is how to best divide the one pie – fairly, with everyone getting the same size piece, or unfairly.  Since unfair=immoral, the government has the moral right to prevent someone from immorally taking more than his fair share.

What does "make no sense" mean?  It means that the concept of wealth creation is as nonsensical as the concept of a square circle for a Leftist.  Asserting that wealth can be created is asserting that something can come from nothing – and the ancient Greeks were right: ex nihilo nihil fit, out of nothing nothing comes.

That’s where Zero’s infamous "You didn’t build that" comes from.  You couldn’t have created something on your own out of nothing.  Others helped you, others are responsible, you can’t claim credit by yourself – and "can’t" doesn’t just mean you have no moral right to, it means can’t metaphysically, like you can’t construct a square circle.

Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of Marxist metaphysics is that, despite wealth-creation being a contradiction in terms, its basic assertion is that nature itself is contradictory – that contradictions not only exist in our thoughts, but objectively in reality.

This is the basic tenet in "dialectical materialism," the philosophical world-view of Marxism (the term was coined by Georgi Plekhanov, the founder of Russian Marxism in 1891), and is best expressed by Marx’s co-author of The Communist Manifesto, Frederick Engels:

"Motion itself is a contradiction.  Even a simple mechanical change of position can only come about through a body being at one and the same moment of time both in one place and in another place, being in one and the same place and also not in it… Here, therefore, we have a contradiction which is objectively present in things." (Anti-Dühring, 1878)

This, of course, is a restatement of Heraclitus (535-475 BC) who said you can’t step in the same river twice, as it’s not the same the second time since it’s constantly moving and changing.  His disciple, Cratylus, said you can’t even step into the same river once, for its changing as you do so. 

And if reality is in a constant state of flux, so must be the meaning of words which allegedly refer to them.  Thus, Cratylus abandoned language and communicated solely by pointing and gesturing.

If Marxists truly believed what they say, the very least they could do is follow Cratylus’ logically consistent example, and shut up.

But no.  Marxism’s "solution" to its self-imposed "problem" of the contradiction of change, its explanation of why there is any change or development of anything is a fantastic piece of Scholastic jugglery that Engels called "the Interpenetration of Opposites."

Sounds pornographic, doesn’t it?  Change in the world consists of contradictory, opposing forces overcoming or being overcome. Kto-Kovo?

Accordingly, the basic Soviet textbook on Marxist dogma, Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism, that was required reading for all Soviet high school students, concludes:

"The antagonistic contradiction between the exploited working class [represented by the Soviet Union] and the exploitative capitalists [represented by the United States], will therefore not disappear until the capitalist class has been deprived either by peaceful or non-peaceful means of political power."

You don’t get more fascist than that.  There metaphysically can’t be win/win cooperation between people.  Mutual cooperation to mutual benefit is impossible by the nature of reality.  Reality has to be win/lose.  If someone wins, someone has to lose.  That’s the way the world is – for Marxists like Zero, it can’t be any other way.

Which is why there can’t be peace with him.  What he means by peace is completely different and the opposite of any normal American’s.  The Soviet/Russian word traditionally translated as "peace" – mir – does not mean peace as we understand it. 

"Peace" for Americans, means the absence of violence. Peace means freedom, people being left alone without violence so they can conduct their lives and work toward their goals peacefully.

Mir does not mean peace, it means order.  Mir is the absence of disobedience.  For Soviet Communists, for this current President of the United States, peace means obedience: the "vanguard of the proletariat," whether it be the Soviet Politburo or Arrogance Personified in the White House, giving the orders and everybody else obeys.

When "the masses" are all good little boys and girls and do as they’re told, when Republicans on Capitol Hill obey their master, you have order, and then you have "peace" – mir.

In Lenin’s words: "As long as capitalism and socialism exist, we cannot live in peace.  In the end, one or the other will triumph — a funeral dirge will be sung either over the Soviet republic or over world capitalism."[i]

As just so – either a funeral dirge will be sung over the Zero Presidency or over America. 

Ronald Reagan understood that the Soviets looked at the world as Win/Lose.  You could not negotiate with them, you could not cooperate with them, you could not have peace with them.  That was the way they played the game, and no amount of wishful thinking could change that. 

Reagan realized we had no choice but to play the game their way, which is why he announced his policy towards the Soviets at his first Cabinet meeting after his inauguration in January 1980:

"Here’s my strategy on the Cold War:  We win, they lose."

If your opponent will not allow you to play Win/Win – like a mugger in an alley or a Zero in the White House – then your strategy must be we win/they lose.  Reagan knew it, and that’s how he won the Cold War.

Every Republican in Congress, every Republican Governor, every Republican state legislator, has got to understand this.  They cannot play win/win with this White House.  So they must either decide to win and Zero lose, or quit and get out of the way for a replacement who does want to win. 

If Zero wins, America loses.  The only way for America to win is for Zero to lose.  It’s a tragedy that it’s the way Zero looks at the world.  Then again, the metaphysics of the Left, which Zero embodies, is the most freedom-killing tragedy of modern times.

[i] V. I. Lenin, "Speech to Moscow Party Nuclei Secretaries," November 26, 1920. Selected Works (New York: International Publishers, 1943), vol. 8, p. 297.