Two Faces of the Spirit of Control

Email Print

The same spirit and philosophy that animates bipartisan anti-Russianism animates suppression of rights and freedoms at home.

This is the spirit of control and domination.

Criticism of U.S. meddling in foreign countries is not defense of the similar suppressions of their states or those of their neighbors. Criticism of U.S. meddling in Ukraine is not defense of Russia. Russia’s meddling is not justified by similar U.S. meddling in its back yard and elsewhere.

The criticism of U.S. interventions overseas is directed at the expression of the spirit and philosophy of control by U.S. politicians and officials. That spirit has two faces: foreign and domestic.

It is not accidental that when Lincoln sought to control the Confederacy in the South, he also suppressed rights in the North. It is not accidental that when Wilson brought America into World War I, the government suppressed freedoms domestically and instituted mass propaganda and mobilization. It is not accidental that when the U.S. launched a far-reaching war against terror that suppressed rights in foreign lands, it also passed a Patriot Act. It is not accidental that the same U.S. governments that seek foreign hegemony also are instituting centralization of police, health and education.

Socialism and progressivism at home in America, with their suppression of rights, are going hand in hand with the extension of control and domination across the world. These are the two faces of the spirit and philosophy of control.

That philosophy marries socialism and nationalism, creating a national socialism at home that has a decidedly control-oriented and nationalistic side in foreign affairs. This philosophy is collectivist, placing the state and society above the individual. It is set against the individual and person, against freedom and rights.

National socialism paints itself as aiming for the “good” of all, for the welfare, safety, security, education, health, progress and well-being of all. It delivers only a centralized control that prevents people from achieving these goals that can only be achieved in and through freedom and rights.

Let us be as clear as possible. Criticism of U.S. interventions overseas are not defenses of any of the suppressions of foreign governments. They are criticisms of the attempts by the U.S. to control foreign affairs, which are animated by the spirit of control whose domestic face suppresses rights at home.

3:29 am on March 6, 2014