They Still Look Backward to me

The new heights of present-day weirdness are not that different that the heights of warped left authoritarian weirdness of old. Case in point: the 19th Socialist Utopian Edward Bellamy was as obsessed with state control and socialist control over the lives of individuals as he was in love with war for no reason, and using nationalist sentiment to enlarge the power of central government, NOT the actual cohesion of a free society.

It [Bellamy’s book “Looking Backward”] was the third largest bestseller of its time. It appears by title in many of the major Marxist writings of the day. "Nationalist Clubs" sprang up in the USA and worldwide for touting the book's ideas. It was tranlsated into every major language including German, Russian and Chinese. It even influenced socialists in the countries of the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): 65 million dead under the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; 49 million under the Peoples' Republic of China; 21 million under the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSGWP).

Edward influenced his cousin Francis Bellamy, famous for the Pledge of Allegiance, created for promoting their dogma in government schools. The Bellamys admired the military and they wanted the entire economy to ape the military. They called their dogma "military socialism" and "Christian Socialism" and they wanted government to take over all schools and create the "industrial army" from children to spread the Bellamy vision. Francis' early pledge was the origin of the straight-arm salute of the NSGWP, as discovered by the historian Dr. Rex Curry, author of "Pledge of Allegiance Secrets." Shocking photos are on the web.

And to think that the book itself was a fantasy “alternate history” novel of the US in the year 2000 being a Socialist paradise. Does “patriotic taxation’ sound familiar now? Doesn’t it seem to fit better into the historical context of one of its’ ideological cousins, Fascism? Didn’t it seem to transit those great ‘nationalist’ borders though transnational relationships that didn’t seem to want borders for itself as Socialism and Fascism did?

That 19th century idealism sounds an awful lot like the tortured arguments about equalization by destroying wealth and success, or the obsession with executive pay. In fact it sounds like the trained imprint, no less meaningless, no more plausible as to why we need it, and with no more depth, no matter how hard they try now as then:

"I would give a great deal for just one glimpse of the Boston of your day," replied Dr. Leete. "No doubt, as you imply, the cities of that period were rather shabby affairs. If you had the taste to make them splendid, which I would not be so rude as to question, the general poverty resulting from your extraordinary industrial system would not have given you the means. Moreover, the excessive individualism which then prevailed was inconsistent with much public spirit. What little wealth you had seems almost wholly to have been lavished in private luxury. Nowadays, on the contrary, there is no destination of the surplus wealth so popular as the adornment of the city, which all enjoy in equal degree."

The sad thing is that he authored the United States pledge of allegiance.

The irony is that the brutal anonymity with which man was held under past tyrannies is the same as the one promoted by the socialist of old, as well as in the present day as ‘humane’, and the ahuman haters that call themselves ‘progressive’ say this is as much as legacy we have as the enlightenment. Maybe, but so are monarchies, and we no longer see any use for that legacy other as an object lesson of what NOT to do.

Luckily there is a thing called American exceptionalism, one applied to itself and well moderated by those that the likes “social theorists” like Bellamy detested.

Edward's book Equality (1897) shows his disdain for individuality and differences and his desire to make everyone the same. The book did not equal its prequel in success.

Funny thing about academics when they let their guard down. They forget that they aren’t supposed to be on a first name basis with their idols.

What should you name as the most prominent feature of the labor troubles of your day?"

"Why, the strikes, of course," I replied.

"Exactly; but what made the strikes so formidable?"

"The great labor organizations."

"And what was the motive of these great organizations?"

"The workmen claimed they had to organize to get their rights from the big corporations," I replied.

"That is just it," said Dr. Leete; "the organization of labor and the strikes were an effect, merely, of the concentration of capital in greater masses than had ever been known before.

And so the left’s present day “rhetoric” if you can actually call it that sound suspiciously like it’s been plagiarized, unaware of its’ failed foundations or the fact that it’s largest real-life test, the Communist states degenerated into failure by their precepts, and not by it not going “far enough’ or being “pure enough”.

So in the mean time we can look forward to people today who are ignorant of both history and human nature trying to refashion the way these ideas are implemented. The problem is that the ideas, the phrases, and even the voodoo dolls that they want to take joy sticking pins into - are the same.