How Liberalism Will Destroy The World Some of the most fecund ideas of the 20th Century were the failed concepts of Karl Marx. It is also quite ironic that as we begin the 21st Century, after the defeat of Communism and the visible failures of Marxists countries around the world that Marxism should be more prevalent than ever before. Twelve years after the collapse and disintegration of the Soviet Union, Western Europe is more socialist than ever. In Marxs words: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles With a Marxist philosophy all actions can be explained in economic terms, i.e. rich people exploit poor people, and poor people periodically revolt against rich people. This is why an op-ed piece in the New York Times, written by leftist Thomas Friedman can make the claim that the cause of terrorism today is poverty and a lack of jobs, In short, it is impossible for us to talk about winning the war of ideas in the Arab-Muslim world without talking about the most basic thing that gives people dignity and hope: A job. without even bothering to acknowledge the insurmountable facts that most of the September 11th terrorist were not poor, and that the leader and founder of Al-Qaeda is not only quite wealthy, but has previously owned a very profitable construction company. A leftists, or liberal as the word is commonly used today, sees everything in economic terms. Terrorism is a result of joblessness. High crime rate and drug abuse among blacks in America is the result of poverty. Wealth should be punished, and private property is a crime. The simplistic view that economics dictate human behavior is not only wrong it is dangerous. It is dangerous precisely because it assigns the wrong cause to serious problems and in so doing completely ignores their true causes which inhibits a workable solution. Trying to explain the causes of terrorism by saying it is economics is an attempt to ignore the problem of morals in a society, because liberals believe in moral relativism. When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire the evil the liberals saw was making the statement itself and not the brutal repression of humanity that exists beneath the heel of any communist dictatorship. To a liberal the US and the USSR were just two competing ideas of governance basically equal. Morality didnt come into it, and therefore it was reckless and wrong for Reagan to make such a statement. But there are differences between societies and the ideas of those societies. A civilization that advocates and perpetrates the murder of innocent people is an evil civilization. The root cause of terrorism is not economics, poverty, or jobs. It is in fact the values of those civilizations, and therefore it is the values that need to change in order to change the behavior. But a liberal cant make that claim. Believing such a thing would automatically disqualify them as a liberal. So Bill Clinton attempts to broker a peace between a democratically elected Prime Minister and a terrorist, because they are equals. The French, the Germans, indeed much of the UN did not support our removal of Saddams regime, because after all who are we to say we are right? In the eyes of the UN the USA and Saddams Iraq were equals. Morality didnt come into it and neither did humanity or human rights. So long as we as a species permit evil to exist on an equal level with good, we sow the seeds of our own destruction. When values and morality are tossed aside in favor of morally blind Marxist liberalism then the most depraved, sadistic, and evil acts become acceptable. Another symptom of the disease that is liberalism is something many of you may have read about. That is, the elimination of the honor roll in public schools. In the mind of a liberal it is better that no ones feelings are hurt, than it is to encourage excellence and congratulate success. What are the long-term effects of this? That should be fairly obvious. The long-term effect is the stagnation of human innovation. For a liberal it is better to have one class as opposed to a stratified education. An accelerated curriculum for brighter students, a standard curriculum for the majority of students, and a paced curriculum for those with learning difficulties is to be ignored in favor of one curriculum with no grades. What is the result of such a policy? Well naturally the slower students cant be expected to learn faster, so everyone must progress slower in order to facilitate equality. Equality at the expense of liberty. Given the choice between Liberty and Equality, a true liberal will always choose equality. Such a concept could only be described as nihilistically self-destructive. For the protection of a minoritys feelings we impose decay on ourselves. Truly the tyranny of the disgruntled minority. In the name of moral relativism we feed our enemies. In the name of equality we starve ourselves.