David Mamet Is Fighting for Our Dying Liberty As We Succumb to Marxism

January 27, 2013
By
David Mamet

David Mamet

Defiant ex-liberal and famed Pulitzer Prize winner, David Mamet, is an American playwright, essayist, screenwriter, and film director. He has made a full conversion from liberalism since it has come to represent collectivism.

Mamet’s latest column in The Daily Beast calls for a look at the Marxism infiltrating our society and its growing control over the individual through bureaucracy:

Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.

For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”

All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.

Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities.

Mamet recognizes the condescension of this movement which views blacks as so inferior they need to be given special consideration by the government:

The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.

One point that should not go unnoticed is Obama’s overreaching into our personal lives:

President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the “needs” of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he “needs.”

But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

Mamet’s position on private gun ownership must be read. Here is an excerpt:

…Many are opposed to private ownership of firearms, and their opposition comes under several heads. Their specific objections are answerable retail, but a wholesale response is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms.

The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.

Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot….Keep reading, you won’t regret it

I don’t see Marxism stopping with the erosion of the Second Amendment. It requires an attack on all the Amendments.

Freedom of Speech is under attack. The PC revolution is much more about silencing opposition and obfuscating truth than it is about being polite.

Freedom of religion is also in the crosshairs. Marxism demands that the State become the only religion through secularization.

Obama has attacked the core of religious beliefs of some religions with the HHS mandate but he’s not going to stop there. He will subjugate all religions to the State.

In the following video he sets up a straw man that somehow religion is trying to control our government.

What he is really saying is that we must not have a Constitution based on absolutes – everything is relative according to the dictates of the State. His straw men in this video includes Abraham and religion as a tool of attack – listen for the fallacious arguments as he mocks religion:

Wayne LaPierre of the NRA speaks to President Obama’s argument that Absolutism is not principle:

What happens when the one-size-fits-all mentality rules:

If we abandon one amendment, we will lose another, and another…

Are we headed for tyranny of the bureaucracy, the elites?

I will fight for my individual freedom, will you?

 

 

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Print this pageDigg thisShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponShare on Tumblr

Tags: , ,

Archive