RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2018/08/11/russian-collusion

Paul Manafort may or may not have violated tax and banking laws in 2010. Given the twisted and arcane nature of those laws, who knows?

What we do know is that Manafort first was investigated for breaking those laws in that year by Robert Mueller’s FBI. A discretionary decision was made not to prosecute. It wasn’t a priority of the Obama Administration to indict consultants over how they reported income from foreign governments. If that were a priority, a lot of big shots in Washington would have gone down.

There is insufficient concern that what is broadly called “election tampering” really means efforts to influence voters by legitimate means. It was unnervingly Orwellian when Congress cudgeled Facebook’s founder for selling ads to the highest bidder without first assessing the worthiness of the content. Manafort’s real crime is not that he chose to book certain income as loans from offshore shell companies, because a lot of people do that.

No, Manafort’s crime is the same as Facebook’s: he failed to measure the orthodoxy of his political client’s message and, because of that, he now faces an inquisition.

In 2010, pro-Russia candidate Viktor Yanukovych was elected as president of Ukraine. Manafort provided extensive consulting services for Yanukovych’s campaign. Politico has called it “a political love connection.” Vladimir Putin was pleased. His strategic endgame has been to create a united Eurasia that is nationalistic, Christian, and steeped in local culture and history, that would compete with Europe for regional hegemony.

This was an early inkling of the zeitgeist that would later lead to Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. Manafort was one of its architects.

Of Course There Is Such a Thing as a ‘Perjury Trap’ And it’s a legitimate reason for President Trump to decline to be interviewed. Studies will someday be done on the deleterious effect Donald Trump has had on the brains of people who loathe him. It drives them to say things that are as palpably […]

Don’t miss the significance of the Sarah Jeong affair. In this story freedom of speech, double standards, and the question of whether someone should be fired are all secondary distractions from what should be most alarming about it. The most important thing to note is that Marxism is now in the mainstream.

Jeong is the poster child for modern leftism. In a genuine and unassuming way, she dislikes people based on race and gender. Of course it is racist on its face, but so what? For her, everything comes down to group identity and the didactic world of who has power and who does not. That she and the New York Times are comfortable enough to openly spout this view is telling.

Is it Marxist?
Is this Marxism in the original sense of the term? No, but it is a descendant of the original. Marxism denies that human beings are individuals first, and instead identifies them first as members of a particular class. Ultimately, it divides the world between two classes: the oppressor and the oppressed. Whereas Marx divided the world only between rich and poor—the proletariat and the bourgeoisie—contemporary Marxists also divide the world along the lines of race, gender, and sexual preference. Everything comes down to power and group identity.

Those who want to be precise might take issue with me lumping together these new Left-wing categories with the old Marxist ones. As I understand it, the early progressives, themselves influenced by German idealism, unintentionally laid the foundations for this totalitarian view in America. Others, notably Antonio Gramsci, made it cultural; others still in the Frankfurt School brought it to the university. Finally, John Rawls probably made it palatable for polite society. But what does it matter? The end result is the same, and Marx was the father of it all.

To be fair, most people today who hold and espouse Marxist views may not even see themselves as Marxists. Most don’t even know they are Marxists. Very well; we can call it whatever you want: cultural Marxism, neo-Marxism, new-Left, Leftism, progressivism or neo-progressivism, identity politics, democratic socialism, feminism. The list of names is long and parts of these approaches conflict with one another, but the core thought is the same. And all of it is subversive and destructive of American ideals.