Solvent: something that eliminates or attenuates something especially unwanted.

Merriam-Webster dictionary


Suppose we reject our God-given existence. What follows? The ungrateful creature, eager to thwart his Creator, would have to concoct an antidote to existence — a universal solvent — with which to dissolve Universal Being.

Dissolve every bit of it.

To achieve lasting results, your solvent might also aim at the dissolution of God. Therefore, include atheism in your solvent. Undermine belief in the supernatural. Declare that God is dead.

What if, in spite of your best efforts, God remained present — in faithful men?

Not a problem! Since nothing has been created that does not deserve oblivion, we may use Stalin’s formula: “No man, no problem.”

If you kill a man, no difficulty arises from his non-existence. (Assuming there is no afterlife.) The required solvent is therefore anything that kills the body. But why remove only one man to solve one problem? Aren’t all men problematic? Therefore the required solvent is an elixir of mass liquidation.

Are you shocked? You shouldn’t be. Remember: — The plan is to negate everything in the universe, including the Creator of that universe. The elixir, of course, has many corrosive ingredients. Its main ingredient, as history shows, has been “socialism.”

This will surprise many people, but it’s true.

Socialism was designed by the left — by the would-be negators of all that has been. As Marx’s colleague, Frederick Engels, once wrote, “The … negation of the negation …. has in fact to serve here as the midwife to deliver the future from the womb of the past.”

In country after country, for a hundred years, the socialism of Marx and Engels brought poverty, tyranny and corruption. The socialists claimed they were dissolving poverty, tyranny and corruption. They were — in Engels’s words — “negating the negation.” Why, then, did mankind lose by it? — in Stalin’s USSR, in Mao’s China, in Pol Pot’s Cambodia, in Chavez’s Venezuela?


Is the negation of the negation a matter of philosophic bungling? Or is it the malevolent outburst of a misfit? Is socialism, as dreamt of by the left, a logical impossibility? Or is socialism, as a solvent, a malicious project by those who crave annihilation?

No doubt, with the well-intentioned socialist, there is the bungle factor of the misbegotten idealist — an idealist who unwittingly opens the door to the psychopath’s malevolent cunning. There is a sense in which, with the advent of socialism, the idealist and the psychopath become political co-dependents. The logical impossibility of socialist utopia guarantees that the bungler and the malefactor will attend its advent; thus, we see, its destructive course is assured by a “binary” milieu. Here we see that two elements are needed to make a society implode.

Destructive outcomes follow from destructive principles. And all the principles of socialism are made, consciously or unconsciously, for the liquidation of essential things. Consider what is placed before us under the socialist banner: It is an “ideal” which deprives man of his property rights, of his family, of his father, of his nationality, of his soul.

How does it work, in practice?

It employs environmental regulations, schools, family and administrative courts, to negate the essence of the individual nihilistically.

Here is a special malevolence. One may dress it up with fine phrases and noble poses, but the objective is not to create something new. The real objective is destruction for destruction’s sake. And that is what we see in the communist passion for revolution. It is not a new tablet of values. It is the negation of all values — of the possibility of values.

If faith is a belief in God’s goodness, then despair is a belief in God’s malevolence. Revolutionary socialism is founded upon the latter. A truly religious person inevitably realizes that socialist revolution is an error. Salvation is not in it, but damnation aplenty.

Socialism boils down to one question: Is God’s creation a gift, or something to rebel against? Whichever position you take, everything follows therefrom. Ask yourself, as a practical matter, which premise has made the world better? Which premise makes us better people? Which premise preserves? Which destroys?

Only one answer is right.