Free Markets, Free People

What happens when you let in the barbarians

The whole society felt that it was open-minded and objective. The mantra was “Diversity is good!”, and so they were diverse. They were tolerant. They were open-minded, even to concepts and philosophies that they felt were self-evidently false and dangerous. Marketplace of ideas, and all that.

So they accepted that the society had to admit barbarians – those whose ideas were contrary to the founding principles set down for the running of the society.

But then they encountered a problem. The barbarians agitated for more barbarians in the society. They pointed to how many barbarians there were in other parts of the world, and demanded more voice for barbarians.

No matter how many barbarians were let in, and no matter what accommodation was made for them, the barbarians always wanted more.

Eventually, inevitably, some parts of the society were controlled by barbarians. And, wherever that happened, the only new people admitted to that part of the society – were more barbarians. They excluded the original members. They didn’t care about tolerance or open-mindedness. All that mattered to them was promotion of their philosophy, their influence, their control.

The barbarians thought they were upstanding moral people, doing the right thing. It was obvious to them that their worldview was *right*, and those fuddy-duddies they replaced were wrong. So they had no doubts about their mission.

At times, they pretended to respect the older ways. They still didn’t control everything, and they didn’t want to arouse sufficient animosity to threaten their control. So they lied about their motives and their own tolerance. They carried out symbolic actions to reassure the gullible that they were just part of the vigorous back and forth of a free society.

But, whenever they had enough control, or whenever the stakes were high enough, they viciously enforced promotion of their own agenda. Accusations of partisanship, unfairness, or rule-breaking were brushed off, laughed off, or, if necessary, viciously counter-attacked to send a message to those who would threaten their dominance over the society.

Eventually, they wormed their way into the most important institutions of the society. Parts of it that had been founded on tolerance and openness were taken over, and transformed into citadels of rigid dogmatism. No one was admitted to thoses institutions unless they swore fealty to the fundamental rightness of the barbarians’ creed.

To ensure this end, one of the first parts of society taken over by the barbarians was the educational institutions that trained young people in becoming part of the society. They indoctrinated them all into accepting the tenets of barbarian thought with unquestioning faith.

It took a century, but at the end, only a few redoubts of the old open, tolerant society remained. The society was run by barbarians, for the promotion and benefit of barbarians in and outside the society. Anyone who didn’t accept the barbarian faith was ruthlessly attacked.

And that’s my recounting of how the society we call “the press” was taken over by the barbarian left.*

(*) This rambling was prompted by an article on the Wall Street Journal’s editoral page this morning. A barbarian, partisan leftist named William A. Galston blithely asserted that limited government types in the GOP “…want to get their own way without yielding an inch…”. This is a bald-faced lie. His entire column is a typical attempt to sound reasonable and moderate to gullible people while spewing unadulterated propaganda for the left. He is using the same techniques discussed in my post on “compromise” from a few years ago, so there’s no need for me to recount the details. He’s nothing more than a barbarian leftist pretending to be a tolerant, objective guy, carefully avoiding letting the readers know that he worked for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Walter Mondale, that he is a member of the academic left teaching “public policy” and is associated with the left-leaning Brookings Institute. He’s a dishonest shill, and it says a lot about the Journal that they even gave him a platform.

I’ve watched one media entity after another sucked into the barbaric left – US News and World Report, the Economist, and the WSJ have all moved left over the years I’ve been reading them. The only silver lining is that, when the barbarians take over, eventually the society is destroyed, and the legacy media is well into self-immolation.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

10 Responses to What happens when you let in the barbarians

  • You talk like someone who wears tampons as an earring is some sort of barbarian and probably shouldn’t exactly be considered credible or desirable

    You talk like lying for a good cause is wrong!
    Who are we to judge!

    Sheesh.

  • Gee, at first I thought you were writing about Europe and its current adventures with immigration. My bad, wrong barbarians.

  • I prefer the issue to be described in Revolution v. Counter-revolution terms, although that leaves some people confused, because they don’t get that the Enlightenment culminated in the American Revolution and its progeny.

    Which neatly typifies the triumph of the Boobarians in modern education and culture.

  • This fits better if you’re writing about Europe and how Merkel just killed it because she wanted to be seen as kind hearted and compassionate.

    Not so much for journalism because that assumes the journos were originally not barbarians. I submit they’ve always been barbarian scum, we just see it more clearly now because they basically dropped the mask

  • Three types of people. People who build civilization, people who exploit civilization, and people who want to tear it down. Builder, Exploiters, & Destroyers. At the outset, exploiters align with the builders because there is nothing yet to exploit unless it comes nearly directly from a builder. At some point the Exploiters decide to align with the Destroyers because they see more opportunity there. The classic case in point is Soros. I’m not even sure the Exploiters realize who they are and in many cases Destroyers may not realize who they are.

    I think the moment comes when a nation accrues enough wealth and security, the immediate harm of the Exploiters aligning with Destroyers is not felt and therefore not recognized In the short term Exploiters find this far more profitable and don’t moderate themselves or are not stopped by others. The Exploiters finds they are making out like crazy with their new tact, they become entrenched in this approach and ride it down to the end.

  • Yawn, the Germans were way better than the Romans anyway. I mean, look at how the economy of Germany compares with that of Italy…

    • The Romans defeated the Germanic tribes. What kind of idiot are you?

    • And today’s ‘Germans’ are probably no more the same Germans of Germania than the ‘Italians’ are the Romans of Rome.

      There were quite a few subsequent migrations of the ‘Germans’ the Romans knew, quite a number occurred THROUGH Roman territory….quite a few of them stayed and became the Italians of today.

      and Italy wasn’t a united country (not counting Napoleon’s unification) until the 1830’s –
      nor for that matter was “Germany” a country until the 1870’s.

      Consider the “German” victory anyone talks about over Rome was just that….>ONE< victory.
      Not a very good record considering the number of years involved.