Michael Vanyukov
Michael Vanyukov

Maher’s pandemic and Mayakovsky’s throat

Remember how Bill Maher, the “comedian,” ghoulishly rooted for a recession — so that Trump’s re-election would be prevented? A recession, many of which, he said, “we” had survived — meaning, no doubt, that he would, unconcerned by suffering of the less affluent. He’s got his electoral wish, hasn’t he? With a bonus of hundreds of thousands dead.

No, I am not saying that was consciously part of his wish (although a recession is not that good for public health either). Nonetheless, historically, in the minds of progressives lusting for power, people’s suffering has hardly been a negative consideration. Quite the opposite, widespread death only makes the totalitarian rule stronger. It is easy to subvert the scared population into obedience, whatever pretext is used, and whatever method of killing — Red Terror or a virus imported from China. The goal is twofold: to soften up resistance by culling the older and thus more conservative generation and to prepare the survivors for marching in the direction ordered, stomping on those few who would still try to dissent and introducing increasingly aberrant behaviors as the norm, thereby rendering what used to be a norm an aberration.

Another tried and true way to control a society, adopted by the progressives, is divide et impera. The more numerous and minute the divisions are — from the good old “class” to “race,” to the sexual alphabet, to the political parties that adopt all those divisions as ideological sets — the more the conformist position is comfortable and desirable. In their variety, all those divisions are known as “intersectional,” meaning that they all converge in the same general direction. To the young BLMnik or “antifa” (the current version of Red Guard and Black Shirt), conformism satisfies the adolescent desire, unrestrained by the rudimentary moral norms, to reject parental control and seek new feeding grounds. All that, while intimidating those who cleave to the old order and ensuring the triumph of progressivism. Serving this purpose and creating a gratifying self-illusion of being rebellious, conformism also provides the comfortable safety of numbers: win-win.

The intersectional conformism is also safer and feels more natural in its granularity as compared to the old crude dichotomies of, say, “class” only. The time of The Communist Manifesto has passed. Today’s totalitarians — call them the Squad, communists, democratic socialists, or simply Democrats—do not wear Lenin’s caps. They wear business suits, drag, rainbow flags, and Arab keffiyehs. They do not need to demand bloody world communist revolution—it’s uncouth. They demand that men can become women on demand, with everybody immediately accepting the sad delusion as the new reality of “gender”—something that used to denote just a grammatical form. They demand “Palestine” to be “free from the river to the sea”—free of Jews, that is. They decree that a criminal thug who died while resisting arrest be recognized as a saint, with his statues erected and streets named after him, while the monuments of the short but proud American history are destroyed by the philistine mob.

The destruction is welcomed by the ruling Party. And so Bill Maher, the Party’s comedian, recommended to continue rioting—but only until Trump is destroyed, of course, and then stop. Smart, isn’t it? So much excitement on the “Kosher Culture Foundation” (a real name, not my invention) Facebook page that Bill Maher (!) condemned BDS! Let’s forget his support for everything that enabled BDS to become part of Democrat lawmakers’ platform.

Rising antisemitism is just a detail, perennial though and very telling, of a general shift in the society—toward new tolerance to totalitarianism in many of its manifestations. Jew-hate, a lethal form of racism, always flourishes when there is power struggle in a host country, particularly when it is for total control and ideological uniformity. It is especially troubling, albeit not unexpected, that the so-called intelligentsia joins and praises the pogromists, or justifies their actions by their grievances against some meaningless but readily identifiable “class of exploiters,” as the Bolsheviks would call them. For all its supposed searching for truth, academia has long been known for its progressive conformism and intolerance to dissent.

Seized by searching for “systemic” and “institutional” racism, this country has forgotten what that is, ascribing this cheapened term now to all the cases when a “person of color” (a racist term if there ever has been one) is in a conflict with a representative of an institution—even when, as in conflicts with the police, one has committed a crime. It does not matter that the interaction has nothing to do with race, as was the case with George Floyd. Race was, nonetheless, employed by the progressives to start another racial war and spawn countless parasitic “Inclusion and Diversity” departments in just about any institution or big business. To be sure, all these progressive organizations are likely unaware that those new departments are little different from the political departments that every institution in the Soviet Union had—to prevent any deviation from the Party line. The difference is that those were called simply “1st Department,” with no extra hifalutin verbiage.

That is real institutional racism, as all those institutions employ the racist anti-“white” “anti-racism” and “white fragility” concepts. Those are pseudo-intellectual poison sold by professional crooks DiAngelo, “Ibram X. Kendi,” and that communist darling and Israel-hater Angela Davis, Brezhnev’s favorite and a butt of jokes in the Soviet Union. It is institutional racism when professional organizations like Behavior Genetics Association pay tribute to the antisemites of BLM and refuse to revoke their support for those pogromists when asked by an old Jewish member. It is institutional racism when an antisemite and terrorist supporter like Angela Davis is invited to give a talk and lead discussion at a US university by its “thrilled” leadership. It is racism when the discourse is built on “race,” a concept that cannot be defined in any meaningful way, barring new Nuremberg Laws determining the proportion of white blood that makes one “white” and thereby guilty.

Racism, however, like its common variety antisemitism, again, is only part of the truly systemic problem: a society’s losing its freedom, going totalitarian. This is what is spurred by Maher-like talking heads, educators, and other “intellectuals.” While luxuriating in the material abundance created by free (or largely free) market, those opinion-makers have not been satisfied by their modest professional roles. They want to rule—and that rule must be established on the unassailable socialist principles of “social justice” and “equity.” Both mean the same: material redistribution, relieving both those rulers and the recipients of their largesse of personal responsibility and conscience, and paternalistic derision for the hoi polloi. John Stuart Mill was mistaken when he wrote of socialists’ forgetting that when people reach “any state of existence which they consider tolerable,” there is danger “that they will thenceforth stagnate; will not exert themselves to improve, and by letting their faculties rust, will lose even the energy required to preserve them from deterioration.” No, socialists do not forget that—that is exactly what they want.

In the ensuing power struggle, as always with totalitarians, all means are justified by the noble ends: employing the state apparatus and spies to create a grandiose lie about the competitor’s being a Russian asset, hiring actors to create a fictional lynch attempt, allowing an unruly but peaceful and unarmed crowd into the Capitol to then call that “armed insurrection,” or legitimizing “elections” in which anybody—any foreigner or felon—can vote to his heart’s content. Of course, as long as they vote for the ruling camarilla.

That is who comedians like Maher are in service to, ready to sacrifice other people’s well-being if not lives—only to rule by proxy. Maher, due to his rudiments of morality, does not like some of his colleagues’ “woke” lies, like those about Israel and its terrorist enemies? Tough. He does not understand that there will inevitably come the time when he will have to… like those lies. Worse yet, there will be the time when either he or somebody else, who has not yet reached his protective notoriety and wealth, will too be forced to tell those lies—even if not enjoying them.

Those won’t be the only lies he’d have to live with if life will indeed be possible—while worse than the pandemic that rid him of Trump. As the canonical exemplary Bolshevik revolution poet, Vladimir Mayakovsky, said about himself in his poem “In Full Voice,” extolling the future communist utopia, he “stepped on the throat of his own song” to spew agitprop (“at the top of his voice”). So will have to the mahers—if they have any song left by then.

I hope it won’t be too late for them—and for all of us. That was Mayakovsky’s last poem. He shot himself in a couple of months after finishing it.

About the Author
Michael Vanyukov holds a Ph.D. in genetics and is Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Psychiatry, and Human Genetics at the University of Pittsburgh. He immigrated in the US as a refugee from the Soviet Union over 30 years ago. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent any institution or organization.
Comments