By: Brent Parrish
If you’ve been visiting my blog lately, you might’ve noticed I’ve been posting some videos by a guy who goes under the moniker “Sargon of Akkad.” I absolutely love his videos. Granted, he uses some strong language. But, so do I. I don’t agree with Sargon all of the time; but I agree with him most of the time. His razor-sharp wit and substantial intellect has won me over, in many ways.
Sargon (Carl Benjamin) is blowing up on YouTube. He now has over a quarter of a million subscribers. Carl, or Sargon, has been confronting progressives (cf. “regressives”), social justice warriors, militant feminists, etc. head-on. And his analyses and commentary regarding “regressive” (aka “progressive”) culture in the West is brilliant, in my opinion. Obviously, I’m not the only who thinks so. For crying out loud, he has over a 250K YouTube followers and 60K+ Twitter followers! He’s striking a nerve with an awful lot of people. That’s no small feat.
I’ve listened to Sargon enough to get a bit of a feel for his political views. He doesn’t consider himself a “conservative” or “right-winger.” Sargon claims he is a “liberal.” But, if I understand him correctly, he is liberal in the “classical liberal” sense. Sargon clearly says that he believes in freedom of speech, the freedom of association, the rule of law, etc. All things that I regularly espouse. Sounds like the Bill of Rights, if you ask me.
Sargon hails from Britain. Often times, in my experience, Europeans often see right and left differently than we do here in the States. When I interact with people from “across the pond,” they often times interpret “right-wing” as being synonymous with fascism or Nazism, or some form of ultra-nationalism bent on world conquest. Of course, American progressives (i.e. regressives) are quite fond of this definition as well. Yeah. Huh. Imagine that. Go figure. But I digress.
In the Nineteenth Century, the term “classical liberal,” or “liberal,” was often used to describe people who believed in free speech, freedom of association, rule of law, limited government, individual rights, free enterprise, and the like. I think they had a novel word for it. Hmmmm. What was it? Oh yeah! FREEDOM! The staunch defense of these principles is now often associated with the “right” in the U.S. It’s unfortunate that the regressives and radical left have hijacked a perfectly good word like “liberal.”
Furthermore, the term “conservative” during the Nineteenth Century had much different connotation than it does now in the Twenty-First Century, especially in the States. Conservatives back then were seen as much more rigid and unyielding; which, in many ways, they were, in my opinion.
This is why I have begun to loathe the whole right-left paradigm. The terms “right-wing” and “left-wing” can trace their roots back to the French Revolution. Those who supported the aristocracy would be seated on the right at the Assembly, while those who supported “the people” were seated on the left. Nowadays, this whole right-left paradigm just reminds me of a Marxist dialectic that pits one group against the other—divide and conquer.
Ronald Reagan once said in a speech titled “A Time for Choosing“:
“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream—the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order—or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”
For the past eight years I have immersed myself in the study of the radical left—namely, the study of Marxism-Leninism and its modern-day manifestations. I wanted to better understand what made the far-left tick. The only way I was able to make any sense out of their ideology and political philosophy was to sift it through a Marxist filter. And then all the pieces that never made sense to me about the ideology of the far-left suddenly fit together perfectly. Today’s socialists and communists are loathe to refer to their ideology as Marxism-Leninism. Instead, they prefer to use “lovable labels” like progressivism, liberalism and democracy. Karl Marx was merely a theoretician—a radical scholar, if you will. It was Vladimir Ilyich Lenin who put Marx’s theory into practice, hence Marxism-Leninism.
Following the fall of the Berlin Wall, socialism gained a very bad name. At the time, nobody seemed to want anything to do with socialism in the West. But, as is always the case with the fanatical devoteés of all things Marx, Marxism simply went underground in the following decade, reinventing itself and reemerging under the guise of new academic methodologies—such as post-modernism, deconstructionism, semiotics, multiculturalism, feminism; and a plethora of academic programs—black, women’s, Chicano, critical and environmental studies. The scourge of “Political Correctness” (i.e. Cultural Marxism) swept through the campuses of the 80s and 90s, bringing about what Prof. C. Bradley Thompson calls the “Dictatorship of the Professorial.”
Returning to the interview with Sargon—the interviewer, Dave Rubin, has experienced a bit of conversion away from progressivism himself. While he seems reluctant to identify with “the right,” he recently started to reevaluate the militant and intolerant aspects of the modern-day radical left. Rubin mentions that he began to become profoundly turned off by the regressives’ tendency to so quickly label people they disagree with as racists, and other very derogatory terms.
Well, I’m sure many Americans can relate to that. For example, if you criticize the bad behavior and racist sentiments coming out of the “Black Lives Matter” movement—racist. If you express any legitimate concerns or fears about the massive influx of illegal aliens—xenophobe. If you have any difference of opinion with the LGBT crowd—homophobe. If you take a critical look at Islam—Islamophobe. If you express any patriotic sentiment for you own country—nativist … and on and on it goes. I call these labels “thought stoppers.” They are hurled by the regressives at their political enemies willy-nilly so that they don’t have to engage in thoughtful debate. They just want their opponents to shut the hell up.
The “progressives” want to keep people on their regressive plantation, placing their slaves in strait jackets of uniform opinion. If you wander off their plantation, they’ll send out a posse to hunt you down. If you refuse to return to the plantation, they will virtually lynch you.
I like the way Sargon prefers to call so-called progressives “regressives.” I think that is a much more accurate and precise description of those who call themselves “progressives.” Just like the leftist radicals hijacked a perfectly could word like “liberal,” they have also hijacked other fine words like “progress” and “progressive.” Time to take ’em back!