George Handlery about the week that was. A package and pre-conditions for North Korea. Celebrating 68: Corrections. Imposed equality: Pushing up or sanding down? Reality, the first victim of idle fantasies. The victims got what they deserved.
 
1. North Korea needs to be dissuaded from clinging to its offensive nuclear weapons. These are more than simple instruments used in repeated shakedowns. These arms are directed against the fundaments of international order. By itself, disarmament is apparently not possible in a pure “bombs for bucks” arrangement. Only a package deal can achieve a non-violent solution. To be effective, the basket must include a convincing deployment of overwhelming military instruments that make Kim’s rattled bombs and missiles ineffective. A finally binding solution after repeated cheatings could begin with negotiating with Kim based on pre-conditions. The first one of these: the preconditions should not be Pyongyang’s.
 
2. With much cooperation by their members that infiltrated the willing medias, the “68-ers” are still loudly celebrating themselves. It is indicative of the notable presence of leftists in the news business that the adulation does not cease. Now that we celebrate 1989 (the dissolution of the outer Soviet Empire), miraculously the two causes are made to appear to be Siamese twins. Let us remember a few things that will serve as sand in the churning wheels of self-praise and the forging of the record. To begin with, the undifferentiated term “68” is part of a brain wash. In that year, two popular movements unfolded. They were more than separate: they aimed at incompatible goals. One is the today uncelebrated or distorted ’68 behind the Iron Curtain – in Czechoslovakia. It aimed at limiting, reforming, and by its own logic to ultimately replace, Communist dictatorship. (The official aim, democratic Communism, is analogous to “cooling fire”.) Reducing Soviet influence played, as it had to, a key part in the program.
68 in the West – the now kowtowed-to 68 – regardless of Moscow’s support not a Kremlinite invention, had another goal. It wished to create, with the aid of fellow travelers and the incurable naïve, a socialist system. Many of those who went along were sincere in wanting “a better, fuller” democracy. However, contradictorily, they assumed that to be a system in which they would rule without an opposition (it would not be “needed”) contradicting them and so to be free of the restrictions of “formal” democracy. In this, blinded by what they read but not influenced by what they should have known, they saw in Moscow a friend of their project.
History has proven the 68-ers radically wrong. It sizes up the current representatives of the old movement that, even if bald and obese by now, they are still not capable to admit the errors of their judgment. Except one. Possibly. It is the old slogan “do not trust anyone above thirty”. Even this wisdom is now wrapped in a cocoon of embarrassed silence. The critical error pertains to their evaluation of world systems and to the uncomprehended limits that reality places upon fantasies dressed up as political programs. In the concrete case, the reluctance of the “proletariat” that did not exist in Marxian terms, to follow leaders the “toilers” did not elect, made the power grab fail. The reluctance of the masses to follow their schoolroom anointed leaders also point to a cardinal fact. It is that democratic socialism is not possible because its rule with the consent of the “masses” is not possible. The essence of a conversation of a leading German leftist (Teufel) in Czechoslovakia with local students sums the matter up. Once these wizened up to who wants what, they told the gust something like: “you are fighting for what we are trying to liberate ourselves from”.
Conclude: the West’s 68-ers were on the wrong side of history and political morals. In the world of facts, they lost. However, in the realm of propaganda (the repetition of a lie makes it into the truth of the retarded) they are still on the winning side.
 
3. The contemporary fashion to impose equality by government decree has an unintended, and by majorities as well as unorganized minorities, still not fully understood, drawback. It is that that such an intervention attempts to create equality in areas within which mankind’s innate differences create divergences. It is a fact to be reckoned with that different inputs in the pursuit of diverse goals are natural. Consequently, differentiated results are to be expected. Judged from a rational perspective these are not only to be anticipated but also need to be welcome. Ignoring the lawfulness of these outcomes, equality as a policy deteriorates into one that intends (unfairly) to manipulate results. This means that, regardless of the promises of the manipulators, the mandated leveling will not “push up” those left behind. Much rather, the policy to raise the failing being impractical, in the pursuit of equal results, the interventionist will have to chisel down whatever stands out. To ponder is the question whether fighting excellence can aid the laggards. Will cutting off the snake’s head move its tail to the top?
 
4. The terror of relativism. Those who insolently dare to criticize leftists, take on organized advocacies that are indirectly Marxist-inspired. In doing so, these impious critics run into a standard counter punch. Its essence is that to prove the contested theory right, the real world is compared to the left’s unedited utopia. Blemish laden shortcomings of the state-as-is on the one hand, has to measure up to polished extrapolations originating in delirious fantasy on the other. Although the practical construction of the utopia might not be possible, nevertheless, once it is juxtaposed to existing reality, it must prevail on the battlefield of abstract arguments. Let this be translated into images. A modest home in our reach stands on a lot. Given the limited means available, a single-family dwelling is suggested. Its alternative is a marble-floored mansion enhanced by a pool in the back and Dorian columns on the front. All this is dropped into the middle of a landscaped acre lot. Call the latter image the desirable outcome. Modestly, the first picture tells what can be carried out.
The problem in the real-world conflict between these desires is that the advocates of the mansion-version do more than to belittle the modest housing that can be had. Utopians that become active in politics might be able to grab power thanks to the mirage they promise. At the same time, in the real world, the practical costs of the utopia’s pursuit has implications. Sadly, the dream remains a dream while the achievable is lost. Those who prefer to get for the needed next meal the far away fat ostrich will therefore ignore the grabable chicken and risk winding up having neither in their empty pot. The conclusion: Reality is the first victim of idle fantasies.
 
5. Admittedly, our experiences influence our thinking and the actions that flow from these. Our consciously digested past shapes the perception of the crux of contemporary problems and influences the ability to detect existing or imagined shortcomings. The mirage also colors the solutions we can detect. Having been as a kid a very lucky detainee of the Stalin era’s GULAG must inevitably tint the color of the spectacles through which my reality is registered. It is a subject of understandable resentment to this writer when voter-rewarded persons, parties and policies, prevail that boldly advocate the repetition of old mistakes. These are the errors that forced the political ancestors of the present’s innovating prophets to terrorize their societies. The alternative, to desist, would demand the admission of the fallibility of their “science” and so of the missionary truth of the program that is being advocated. Life tends to confront us with the choice between pleasing but unedited creeds and a disobedient reality. In this situation it is natural to want to close the gap not through the revision of soothing and favored theories but by using violence to act as a bridge between the “is” and the “should”.
In the attempt to polish the poisoned apple, the princess makes those attracted to it by its appearance into advocates of policies that intentionally ignore pointless past suffering. If reminded of how and why the policy recommended as an innovation has once enslaved those subjected to it, the case is dismissed as not being applicable in modern societies. At the same time you will also be told that the earlier millions of victims of the “slight” error in calculation or application, stood in general in the way of progress. Therefore, the dummies only got what they deserved.