Passive-aggression is among the most irksome of all human behaviors. Most individuals I’ve conversed with about the issue agree that it is both profoundly insulting and utterly cowardly. But why is that, exactly? What about this behavior makes it so reprehensible?
The laws of war are instructive on the matter. Generally, it is understood that wearing the uniform of the enemy, or clothing a combatant in civilian dress, is a violation of the laws of war, and the perpetrator may thus be treated as a spy. Passive-aggression operates under a similar principle. Somebody intends to do you harm, or may even be in the process of doing you harm. He is your enemy. And yet he disguises his actions as a sort of non-combatant so as to avoid retaliation. He may even pretend to be your friend.
Naturally, this is a favored tactic of the Political Left, at least when it possesses insufficient power to work its will more directly. Leftists are able to wear your uniform as a good, concerned, moral citizen, and do you harm in this disguise. A Progressive might say that he is merely concerned with accessibility of healthcare for the poor, downtrodden folks of wherever. In truth, his main concern is personal power. As the arbiter of wealth redistribution, he may decide who to rob, and who to pay, and how much he might take for himself.
Dinesh D’Souza explains:
The relevant quote is this: “…[Obama] holds a gun to your head and says ‘Michael, turn your sandwich over to Dinesh’. And so you do. And then he puts his gun back and rides away. Now, the outcome is the same, I have the sandwich. But the moral content of that transaction is completely different. You deserve no moral credit, you didn’t give willingly. I don’t even feel a sense of gratitude, I feel a sense of entitlement. I feel that you actually owe me seven sandwiches, but you only gave me one.”
The thing to note about this transaction, is that the guy with the gun gets to take all the credit. He gets to say “if I didn’t do this, he would have starved.” And yet the guy with gun didn’t give up his sandwich. Me merely stole it from another man. So how is it that he gets any moral credit either?
So a “concerned citizen” might point out that one person has a sandwich, and somebody else needs it, then appoints himself to be the arbiter of sandwiches. The “concerned citizen” aspect is a ruse. It is a lie. He put on your uniform, and then uses a form of passive-aggression to bully you into nominating him for power. The implication being, of course, that if you disagree with his redistribution of sandwiches, you are a bad person and you want everybody to starve.
Unfortunately, unlike spies caught in time of war, we are not permitted to hang these cowardly cretins.
It goes further, however. Selective statistics are another favored weapon. During the Obama years, many of us on the Right mentioned that the reported numbers on unemployment and the economy didn’t add up. Obama claimed to add millions of jobs, and claimed a massive reduction in unemployment, and yet individuals would look around their communities, and still see the effects of terrible recession. They weren’t getting jobs. Their friends weren’t getting jobs. So who was getting all these jobs?
Of course, the unemployment rate figures have been bogus for as long as I’ve been alive. It’s a manipulated statistic. Aside from not including those who are no longer seeking work, it fails to account for underemployment. So it is easy for the government to move numbers around, change the definitions of those seeking work, and otherwise manipulate the figure. In terms of jobs added, one might fail to mention the jobs lost in the same period. “I added 1 million new jobs!” Well, great, how good is that if, in the same period, 2 million people lost their jobs?
It’s absurdly easy to do this with any statistic. You can find statistics telling us that Soviet economy was just fine. This article cites many. You can find the same telling us that Cuban health care is great. Yet my father-in-law, who escaped from Cuba, explains that if you get a cut, you need to bring your own needle and thread to the doctor to stitch you up, because you are lucky enough if the doctor even bothers to help you. He certainly won’t supply you with anything.
Now, the Leftist might claim something like “well, that’s anecdotal evidence, and anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence.” Perhaps that is so in a formal debate, where the objective is to convince others. But in truth, it is among the strongest forms of evidence for you, personally. It is precisely how you can avoid someone telling you that 2+2 = 5, even if that person is more educated or intelligent. It is how you avoid being gullible.
It is telling that the Leftist essentially tells you to ignore the evidence of your own eyes, and trust him, because he is the expert.
Like the man who wishes to be the arbiter of sandwiches, these sorts of people want to be arbiters of knowledge, and decide what is true, and what is false, by fiat. They are a collective Xerxes, whipping the sea for disobedience.
Again, the objective is control. These people want power for its own sake, and merely dress themselves up in the uniform of reasonable intellectuals so as to avoid triggering resistance.
Marxism has always operated this way. It is the ideology of cowards and spies. It is passive-aggressive behavior turned into a code of political conduct. And were the full power of Western civilization ever deployed against it, it could be wiped out entirely with relative ease. So the objective of the Marxist is always to clothe himself as your friend, as a concerned citizen, as a reasonable intellectual, as anything but what he actually is, so as to avoid retribution. Never let the Marxist fool you into believing otherwise.
So around 2 o’clock in the morning, on November 26th, we got the call from my father-in-law. Fidel Castro was dead, squatting over the coals in Hell. Most often, the Christian man would wish for someone to achieve a measure of repentance and forgiveness from the Lord as his life comes to an end.
I, on the other hand, must ask forgiveness for wishing nothing of the sort for this man.
There was celebration in Hialeah, where my wife’s family lives. An ad-hoc parade was on the streets not long after his call came through. A family friend captured this on video here, if you’re interested:
The most fascinating feature of Fidel’s death wasn’t the expected parades in Hialeah, or the celebrations of Cuban exiles and their descendants. It was, rather, the adoration and love expressed by our rulers.
Jimmy Carter had this to say about the Communist tyrant:
Rosalynn and I share our sympathies with the Castro family and the Cuban people on the death of Fidel Castro. We remember fondly our visits with him in Cuba and his love of his country.
Barack Obama, who famously attempted to hug Raul Castro, and posed in front of Che’s memorial was no less glowing in his eulogy:
We know that this moment fills Cubans — in Cuba and in the United States — with powerful emotions, recalling the countless ways in which Fidel Castro altered the course of individual lives, families, and of the Cuban nation…
…History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him.
No mention is made of the brutal dictatorship this man launched, the thousands murdered, and the millions exiled. Nothing is said of the property stolen, the economy ruined, and the rotting streets of Havana, once one of the most glorious of Caribbean cities.
The Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, was even more lavish in his praise of the dictator:
“It was with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest-serving president,” Trudeau said. “Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century.
“A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.
“While a controversial figure,” said Trudeau, “both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for ‘el Comandante.'”
Of course, there is a famous picture of Fidel holding Trudeau’s brother when he was a baby. The alignment of the political elites with Communism and tyranny has been a thing much longer than I have drawn breath:
Totally coincidental, right? The elites hobknobbing with Communists…
As far as I’m concerned, the only good Communist is a dead Communist. And in that, we might say that Castro finally became a good Communist. I do hope that someone flushed his ashes into the sewer, where they properly belong.
I have always despised Castro and other tyrannical Communists (but I repeat myself). However, upon meeting my wife and learning first-hand from my father-in-law exactly what life was like in Cuba, as difficult as it may be to believe, I came to despise Castro even more.
He spoke often of how, as a child in school, children were taught to regard Castro as their father, and to turn in parents who spoke ill of him in private, so that those people might be imprisoned or murdered. The children, of course, were rewarded with gifts for doing this — you can well imagine what such a system produced. A family friend once shared a film that showed his own uncle being executed by firing squad because of his political beliefs. The remainder of the family was fortunate enough to be exiled instead of murdered.
Don’t believe the people who say Castro didn’t do those things, or those who excuse him. He was a tyrant, and the only reason he didn’t kill more was because Cuba was a small island. A man like him in charge of a larger country would have slaughtered millions, not merely thousands.
Make no mistake, our rulers know exactly what men like Castro do, and they approve of it. Indeed, they can only dream of the day when they can take such measures upon us. Imagine if Hillary Clinton, for example, had the power to imprison or murder all of her political opponents on a whim. We all know how that story would end.
I had a taste of this on Facebook, where a fellow Industrial musician (who is much more skilled than I, mind you), Ted Phelps of Imperative Reaction, posted on the subject. He, too, married a Cuban girl and shares a disdain for Communist tyranny. Some of his erstwhile fans, however, most certainly did not share this view.
One decided to call Ted and his supporters Nazi Trumpkins, and proceeded to write on about how Communism is horribly misunderstood, and it is really Donald Trump who will kill millions and put them in concentration camps.
When cornered with well-sourced facts about the crimes of the Castro regime, our intrepid Leftist tried to escape with “well, nobody should speak ill of the dead.”
Sorry, when you found a brutal dictatorship that slaughters, imprisons, and exiles something like 20% of the population because of political beliefs, I will speak ill of you.
Donald Trump, meanwhile, echoed my own sentiments:
Trump followed that up a few hours later with a lengthier statement, in which he called Castro a “brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades” and said he hoped Castro’s death gave Cuban Americans “the hope of one day soon seeing a free Cuba.”
“Fidel Castro’s legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights,” the statement said.
Whatever Trump’s myriad of flaws, he got this right. And that’s one reason why he got elected. People were exhausted of mealy-mouthed statements like Obama’s, or outright praise of murderous dictators like the compliments delivered by Jimmy Carter and Justin Trudeau.
They wanted the truth. And Donald Trump delivered that, at least.
But remember, folks. Our ruling elite has told us that Donald Trump is literally Hitler, and Castro was a wonderful visionary who loved his people.