It would be nice to have a rational discourse on the problems associated with globalism, and on the extent to which world leaders, such as Mr. Putin or Mr. Trump, are addressing those problems. But liberal media outlets like The New York Times simply demonize these men in an attempt to silence them…

The two so-called extremes of the political spectrum have much more in common with each other than most people realize. National and international socialism (Nazism and communism) both believe that the big problems are best solved by big government. They are both secularist ideologies which share an antipathy towards Christianity, and they both work to prohibit religious liberty. In practice, regardless of the theory or the pleasant-sounding slogans, both forms of socialism, on the so-called “left” and “right,” set in place totalitarian tyrannies which crush political opposition. They also share the same approach to political debate. They eschew reason and rational dialogue and proceed with a strategy of demonizing their opponents. Thus a right-wing secularist will demonize his opponents by labelling them as “communists” and a left-wing secularist will demonize his opponents by labelling them as “fascists” or “Nazis” or “racists.” Once the label is stuck on the opponent, especially if it can be made to stick, no rational discourse is necessary. The opponent can be ostracized, attacked, and spat upon; violence can be used against him with impunity, and indeed with a sense that one is behaving morally in physically silencing one’s enemies. It is easy to see how such an approach to political debate can lead to the guillotine, the gas chamber or the gulag archipelago.

Since this is so, it is imperative that we are vigilant in spotting these secularist demonizers, irrespective of which end of the meaningless left-right spectrum we find them. Such vigilance will show that large sections of the mainstream media have succumbed to such demonizing, a sure sign that they are becoming servants of neo-tyrannical tendencies. Take, for instance, the New York Times. One could cite numerous examples of the NYT’s practice of demonizing those with whom it disagrees. Indeed, it would be impossible to know where to start or where to finish were one to try to systematically expose the neo-tyrannical tendency in the New York Times’ reporting techniques. One example, and by no means the most egregious, will serve to expose this dangerous trend.

An article published by the NYT on December 3 offers a perfect example of the demonizing propaganda technique of smearing an opponent by association. The headline sets the tone for what will follow: “Extremists Turn to a Leader to Protect Western Values: Vladimir Putin.” The word-association connects Mr. Putin with extremists and, perhaps more insidiously, connects “western values” with both extremists and with Mr. Putin. The tone, thus set, is confirmed in the opening paragraph:

As the founder of the Traditionalist Worker Party, an American group that aims to preserve the privileged place of whiteness in Western civilization and fight “anti-Christian degeneracy,” Matthew Heimbach knows whom he envisions as the ideal ruler: the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin.

Since it is difficult to append the label of “neo-Nazi” to Mr. Putin, or to Western civilization, or to Christianity, at least convincingly, it is necessary to find something or someone to which the label will stick and then associate that thing or person with the things we wish to demonize. And so the NYT propagandists find the Traditionalist Workers Party, a tiny fringe sect, which speaks approvingly of its own distorted versions of Western civilization, Christianity and Mr. Putin’s Russia, hoping thereby to smear all Christians, all advocates of Western civilization, and all supporters of Mr. Putin with the same white-supremacist brush.

The absurdity of such an approach can be demonstrated by the employment of the same technique to demonize vegetarians and animal rights activists by association with Hitler, who was both a lover of animals and a vegetarian. Imagine this headline, published in the 1930s: “Vegetarians Turn to a Leader to Protect Animal Rights: Adolf Hitler.” Such demonizing of vegetarianism and those concerned with the humane treatment of animals by association with a tyrant would not constitute either a rational or balanced perspective. Why is it, therefore, that the same neo-tyrannical distortion of the truth is tolerated by the New York Times?

A few lines later, the NYT article reminds us that Donald Trump “mystified” many by his praise for Mr. Putin, adding that he had done so to attract neo-Nazi voters: “But what seemed inexplicable when Mr. Trump first expressed his admiration for the Russian leader seems, in retrospect, to have been a shrewd dog whistle to a small but highly motivated part of his base.” In other words, Mr. Trump’s public support for Mr. Putin was motivated by his desire to mobilize the neo-Nazi vote! And so the demonization continues: Christians are Nazis, Western civilization is Nazi, Mr. Putin is a Nazi, and so is Mr. Trump.

What is particularly intriguing is that Alan Feuer, who co-authored this essay, had complained elsewhere of the way that preppers had been demonized by the media: “It’s a shame that the media… has gravitated toward the most extreme and thus absurd elements of prepping. I don’t think we have to talk about why that happens, but it still [stinks]… So it would be nice if there were more attempts to explore the important issues that lie beneath an activity that does, obviously, tend to attract freaks from time to time.” In other words, Mr. Feuer complains that it is unfair to demonize all preppers by association with the freaks who are attracting to prepping. “The media’s not often good at focusing on rational parts of a story if there are other, more irrational parts out there that might expose them to looking foolish,” Mr. Feuer continues. “Wish that weren’t the case but it is.”

“They say there’s no such thing as bad publicity,” says Mr. Feuer, “but I don’t actually buy that. My sense is that Doomsday Preppers has probably been a net negative for people who take this sort of thing seriously. It’s allowed the whole to be ridiculed, and thus dismissed, because of the ‘sins’ of a part. It’s turned what’s at base an important, rational idea into evening entertainment.”

Compare Mr. Feuer’s rational complaint against the media’s irrational demonizing of preppers with this passage from his own co-written essay about Mr. Putin in the New York Times:

But for Mr. Heimbach, whose Traditionalist Worker Party uses the slogan “Globalism is the poison, nationalism is the antidote,” the term “international elites” is often an anti-Semitic code for Jews, though he denied any racist intent.

Isn’t it a shame, to remind Mr. Feuer of his own words, that the media dredges up “the most extreme and thus absurd elements”? Wouldn’t it be “nice” to remind him once again of his own words, “if there were more attempts to explore the important issues that lie beneath”?

There are many people who believe that “globalism is the poison” and that localism, if not necessarily nationalism, is the antidote. There are many who feel that “international elites” (global corporations, global financiers, the IMF, the World Bank, etc.) should not be able to rule the world without a democratic mandate. There are many who couldn’t care less whether these “international elites” are Jews or Gentiles.

The irony is that Mr. Feuer and Mr. Heimbach are both guilty of demonizing their opponents. It’s the proverbial case of the pot calling the kettle black, or perhaps, in this case, the pot calling the kettle white. As for the rest of us, we’d like a rational discourse on the problems associated with globalism, and on the extent to which world leaders, such as Mr. Putin or Mr. Trump, are addressing those problems. Let’s have reasoned debate—and to hell with the demonizers.      

The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.

All comments are moderated and must be civil, concise, and constructive to the conversation. Comments that are critical of an essay may be approved, but comments containing ad hominem criticism of the author will not be published. Also, comments containing web links or block quotations are unlikely to be approved. Keep in mind that essays represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Imaginative Conservative or its editor or publisher.

Leave a Comment
Print Friendly, PDF & Email