From the Black Liberation Army to Womens' Liberation to the Gay Liberation Front to Black Lives Matter, all rights movements have co-opted tactics linking back to the Soviet Union to achieve their goals: manipulating language, demanding "justice" for injury, pathologising detractors, infiltrating institutions, suppressing dissent, indoctrinating children, and worse. All of these "rights" movements have had as their convenient byproduct the collapse of the things which hold our open democratic societies together.
Communism is a natural way of living agriculturally on a desert island, or in a rural tribe of up to thirty-five people. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" is noble until individual differences and conflicts become too pronounced for it to be sustainable. It simply doesn't scale.
What Are Rights?
It's something you think you already know. However, you might be describing something else:
- Moral claim
- Legal defense/immunity
For example, you might have moral rights and economic rights to music you create. Or a right to respond to a charge. Maybe your subscription gives you the right to access the business lounge.
Almost all "rights" start as a moral claim featuring variations of the verb "should", and are canonised in law.
Rights affects individuals and/or groups, can be natural and universal (from nature or God) or legal (prescribed by law and custom). They can be positive (granting a permission to do something), negative (a permission NOT to be affected by something), active (the power to do something), or passive (immunity from something).
In the British and American constitutions, rights are negative: what is not illegal is legal. In European and communist countries, rights are positive: they are permissions granted by the state.
Not everyone agrees to these moral claims or their instantiation in law. For instance:
- The "right" to kill one's own offspring;
- The "right" to be immune from tax;
- The "right" to "free" healthcare;
- The "right" of people to be recognised as the opposite sex;
- The "right" of 12 year-olds to receive puberty blockers;
Perceived rights can be extremely divisive. They are potent weapons. Movements to legislate them are highly emotional and obsessive.
A simple formula for division is to claim something immoral is a "right", on the basis the practicer is a victim of oppression because they are socially inhibited by others from engaging in it. "Rights" groups have used Marxist tactics to great effect when the sinews of their original moral claims have withered.
As we'll see, communists have weaponised "rights" movements in liberal Western democracies as trojan horses we seem to let through the gates, unquestioningly, every single time. The more controversial they are, the better.
Raising awareness of "rights" issues is known as "consciousness" in dog whistle Marxist-speak. In order to "raise consciousness" of an issue, you must hyper-sensitize people to it so they incur a quasi-abusive hyper-awareness you'd only ever find in trauma patients.
And the simple way to determine whether or not it's a communist weapon is thus:
- In a classically liberal democracy, the rights campaign ends when the objective of obtaining the right has been achieved through conflict resolution (negotiation and consent). Peace and re-integration is the end result.
- In communist tactics, the "rights" campaign never ends because its goal is division and agitation.
Lenin's Grand Plan To Make Everything Outdated
Vladimir Lenin faced some severe hurdles in traditional Tsarist Russia: the conservative population didn't want to give up what they knew. He lost the first election they tried to hold, and so began his murderous rein when the decision was made to simply use violence to give them what they didn't know they actually needed.
As historians have long noted:
"Like Engels and Marx, Lenin believed that religion was an historical phenomenon, tied to the oppressive structures of human history such as feudalism and capitalism. Just as they believed that the state, as we know it today, would no longer be needed and would "wither away" after the world had turned completely to socialism, so too they believed that religion would wither away when there was no longer a need for it. In Lenin's words, "the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society."
Anything which Vladimir believed stood in the way of socialism was "backward" thinking compared to Marx's "scientific" materialism. This collectivism was "progress", or "progressism", which became known as "progressivism".
Nobody pointed out to Vladimir that lemmings also make "progress" towards a cliff together.
Mao, of course, had a similar idea, and put Gramsci's thoughts into action. His "Four Olds"- old things, old ideas, old customs and old habits - meant religion, weddings funerals, festivals, clothes, and so on.
"Progress" has two different meanings to the left-wing: classical liberals intend it as increased tolerance of those traditionally unwelcome or excluded from society.
But for communists, it has a totally different meaning: the complete rejection and erasure of what came before. "Progress" means magically transmuting into the next "stage of history" by abandoning the previous one.
Communists, of course, have an infamous saying:
"Liberals get the bullet too."
They noticed early on their softer colleagues gave in easily and were horribly prone to guilt-ridden sanctimony. Civil rights movements were the ideal Trojan horse to weaponise in their goal to tear down the "Olds".
It's this collapse of the reasonable left which has provoked the surge of Hell's system of governance on our everyday lives.
Agitation and Struggle: The War To Divide Everyone Into Categories
All flavours of Marxism - what you could call "Marxian" or "Marxoid" thought -have similar gnostic religious qualities:
- A small elite exploit the majority;
- Institutions and conventions function to conform/enslave/oppress/alienate;
- The conflict and its contradictions are unsustainable;
- An enlightened priesthood must lead a revolution to the utopia;
- Getting to the utopia will involve struggle;
- Struggle must be generated by sensitizing people's "consciousness" to it.
For the originals, the struggle was over "class privilege".
Just to illustrate how profoundly stupid and obsession-provoking this gnostic religion is, we can look to "The Sociology of Sport: Structural Marxist and Cultural Marxist Approaches" from 1990.
"A Marxian theory of sport has two major dimensions: a political economy in which one weighs the degree to which sport serves the accumulation problems of advanced monopoly capital and a cultural Marxist dimension in which one examines the ways in which sport solves the problems of legitimacy and helps produce alienated consciousness in self and society. This chapter provides insight to both uses to which commodity sport is put. The sociology of sport is increasingly disputed ideological territory in American social science. The solidarity function is central to a sociological understanding of sport, games, and play. The most significant structural change in modern sport is its gradual and continuing commodification. The usual approach to the study of sport sociology surgically isolates sport from the society in which it is found and form the content and outcomes of the cultural activities."
Key to understanding their violent, destructive tendencies is their dogmatic belief institutions exclusively function as a mechanism of oppression rather than a system of social belonging. These "systems" and "structures" dominate "power dynamics" which are endemically corrupt and obstruct us from progressing to a perfected state of humanity. The battle to rid ourselves of them is the cause of "liberation", in which the battle cry is justice for the oppressed. "Justice" is exactly what we all know as the cry to avenge an injury.
It's bonkers, of course. But this is pathology, not reason.
Communists always have the same problem: nobody turns up for the revolution, because few people want the horror of revolution. The proletariat aspire to be like their "oppressors"; they aren't really interested in politics and prefer pleasant quality of life with their communities and families.
These institutions, - the "Olds" - which bind us together, include:
- The Arts
All of these to which we belong. Although they have their weaknesses and experience ossification and corruption, institutions give us our sense of identity and belonging. They are the way humans instinctively organise themselves into meaningful groups giving them a sense of coherent definition, and historically speaking, are the defining existential success factor of stable countries.
The people who want to destroy them feel they don't belong.
Of course, not all of these have traditionally been fair, or treated people well. Liberalism functions as a conflict resolution system which inherent seeks to mediate disputes and rights violations. They are imperfect, but they are the best we've come up with to date; the worst, apart from everything else.
Classical liberals want to see the excluded or forgotten welcomed, and corruption reformed. A noble cause.
Communists want to see these institutions sabotaged and destroyed so the perfect flat "equity" can replace them. They've tried it 40+ times in a single century, and still don't have a plan. Apparently the utopia will emerge all on its own, after another few million deaths - which are everyone else's fault, for resisting.
How do you destroy institutions from within? Well, the Bible explains it:
"But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."
Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."
Division. You divide them. How do you divide? Categorize.
In the Soviet Union, criminals were treated accordingly to their social class. Those who "looted the looters" were released from prosecution to terrorise the population. If you were committing crimes which furthered the vanguard's aims, they were the "right" crimes which could be excused.
The Anti-Vietnam Counterculture of the Sixties, with its veneration of the "Alternative Society" of the USSR, offered the ultimate set of new Trojan horses for dividing and collapsing the "Olds" of the Western world: the "civil rights" bandwagons.
This process of inflitrating and subverting legitimate negotiation is known as entryism. Rights movements start out as legitimate grievances to be negotiated, and end as one attempted "soft" communist revolution after another.
Racism: Trotsky's Weapon Against Colonial Powers
Long before Herbert Marcuse proselytized using black people as the new proletariat, Stalin's rival, Leon Trotsky, had a real problem delegitimising the Slavophiles (Russian intellectuals). Around the turn of the century, many press outlets in France had been using the term "racialism" to describe cultural categorisations of human subspecies.
Right-wing nationalists - Communism's enemies - had latched on to it as a cause of celebration. Trotsky saw the opportunity to forge a tool of stigmatization, following Pratt's definition in 1902. What defined communism's enemies? They were racistov, or "racist".
In The Peculiarities of Russia's Development of The History of the Russian Revolution (1930), Trotsky writes:
"Slavophilism, the messianism of backwardness, has based its philosophy upon the assumption that the Russian people and their church are democratic through and through, whereas official Russia is a German bureaucracy imposed upon them by Peter the Great. Mark remarked upon this theme: “In the same way the Teutonic jackasses blamed the despotism of Frederick the Second upon the French, as though backward slaves were not always in need of civilised slaves to train them.” This brief comment completely finishes off not only the old philosophy of the Slavophiles, but also the latest revelations of the “Racists.”
Trotsky didn't invent the word, but he popularised and weaponised it.
Racial mistreatment, of course, was a completely valid grievance. But for communism, it was an opportunity.
Three years after the MLK civil rights movement, things had started to go a little awry. What had started as a classically liberal goal of upholding the unfulfilled promise of the US Constitution to treat all men equally, had splintered into virulent communist politicking.
The Black Power movement (popularized by Malcolm X), the Black Guards, the Black Panther party, the Black Liberation Army, the Republic of New Afrika, all had one thing in common other than their funding and training: a rabid hatred for capitalism, imperialism, and a revolutionary zeal for "liberation" - in a phrase, racial communism.
A generation later, we had Critical Legal Theory and Intersectionality emerging from law schools. Next, violent communist revolution in Southern Africa which completely destroyed formerly-prosperous nations.
"Progress" translates into... a nation within a nation, dividing it.
Now, we have Critical Race Theory smuggled into schools and Black Lives Matter riots deranging media and education over the dominant white bourgeoisie and the downtrodden black proletariat. The new inverted bourgeoisie are the fetishized black icons, against the reactionary whites.
These "rights" of the extremist black nationalists now somehow mean you have no right to criticise any black person, anywhere.
The Civil Rights movement largely achieved its goal over decades through awkward negotiation. But that wasn't the goal of the radicals.
Feminism: Marx's Dream of Destroying The Nuclear Family
Women aren't a minority group. They roughly make up a slightly largely group (+0.5%) than men and have a longer life expectancy. The enmity of women against men can be traced back to the curse of the Garden of Eden, and the patriarchal nature of apes to their genetic heritage in the split between chimpanzees and bonobos. Feminism traces its routs back to the 18th century with Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.
Gender mistreatment, of course, was a completely valid grievance. But for communism, it was an opportunity.
The liberal campaign to give women social parity started nobly with the right of suffrage at the turn of the 19th century, and was an unequivocal success: within 30-40 years, almost all Western and/or modernised countries had granted it. At the same time, the issue of reproductive rights had emerged in parallel, as well as owning property and marital rape.
Marx hated the family and believed it emerged as an "ideological apparatus" as a product of capitalism:
"On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.
“The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.”
By the 1960s, things had taken a turn for the worse. The Pill gave rise to the Women's Liberation movement. Not to be outdone, universities had started touting the word "sexism". As argued by Pauline Leet in 1965:
"When you argue ... that since fewer women write good poetry this justifies their total exclusion, you are taking a position analogous to that of the racist—I might call you, in this case, a 'sexist' ... Both the racist and the sexist are acting as if all that has happened had never happened, and both of them are making decisions and coming to conclusions about someone's value by referring to factors which are in both cases irrelevant."
Lesbian Marxist activist (and convicted child molester) Simon De Beauvoir had penned "Second Sex" in 1949, ushering in a flurry of Marxist authors on her tails. And they all had one thing in common: a rabid hatred of capitalism, imperalism, and a revolutionary desire for "liberation".
So we have had the "rights" of women to attack men, motherhood, and family. "Progress" translates into... abandoning motherhood.
These "rights" now somehow mean men have no right over whether their child is killed in-utero, or ability to criticize female behaviour.
Bourgeoisie and proletariat had been replaced with "patriarchy" and "the sisterhood". Their campaign was for the "right" to kill offspring, the rejection of marriage, and the stigmatisation of men. The new inverted bourgeoisie are the matriarchal female executives, against the reactionary males.
The Women's Rights movement largely achieved its goal over decades through awkward negotiation. But that wasn't the goal of the radicals.
Gay Rights: Pathologising The Oppressors
Few social groups have been as blatantly communist as the gays; many of whom were employed by the security services. Starting with the Gay Liberation Front, which took its name from the communist guerillas in Vietnam, the second most prominent organization named itself "Vanguard". Their slogans were "Gay Power" (echoing the black communist cry), "Gay Liberation" (from the women's movement), and the "Homosexual Revolution". They even had a manifesto.
The McKinsey report - an appallingly awful treatise of pseudoscientific nonsense written by a paedophile - had, ten years before, legitimised a scientific view sexuality existed on a "spectrum".
Mistreatment on the grounds of sexual orientation, of course, was a completely valid grievance. But for communism, it was an opportunity. None of the GLF even needed encouragement, as they were already paid up:
"As we cannot carry out this revolutionary change alone, and as the abolition of gender roles is also a necessary condition of women’s liberation, we will work to form a strategic alliance with the women’s liberation movement, aiming to develop our ideas and our practice in close inter-relation. In order to build this alliance, the brothers in gay liberation will have to be prepared to sacrifice that degree of male chauvinism and male privilege that they still all possess."
Progress was slow until one psychotherapist picked up an old Soviet technique of using psychiatric stigma to curse one's enemies. They needed an "ism". In 1969, Jack Nichols and Lige Clarke penned the term "homophobia" in gay porn magazine "Screw". Three years later in 1972, George Weinberg popularized it in his book "Society and the Healthy Homosexual".
There is no evidence whatsoever such a condition exists, or has ever existed. It is entirely imaginary. Like all social science ideas, it's gnostic science fiction turned into a smear.
There are few rolling campaigns in history which have been more socially destructive. The GLF manifesto is explicit in its ideas about children, and conveniently exists in multiple versions where the nastiest parts have been removed to make it more readable (specifically the parts calling for the age of consent to be abolished because "we all know" children sexually develop much earlier than scientists claim):
"We intend to start working out our contribution to these new models now, by creating an alternative gay culture free from sexism, and by setting up gay communes. When our communes are firmly established, we plan to let children grow up in them."
"Within a few months of our existence we have confronted millions of straight people with our homosexuality; these people will find it increasingly difficult to 'protect' themselves and especially their children from our ideas."
The "Gay Rights" movement never set out to negotiate, but ended up having to in order to reach its goals. In a strange turn of events, they were met by spurning the radicals. It should be noted what Russia and ex-Communist countries think of the LGBT idea: it's banned.
So we have had the "rights" of those wishing to sexualise brotherhood and sisterhood. "Progress" translates into... abandoning marriage, morality, and family.
These "rights" now somehow mean a church has no right to refuse to hold a gay wedding or object to behaviour they earnestly believe is deeply harmful and immoral.
Bourgeoisie and proletariat had been replaced with "heterosexuality" and "homosexual". The new inverted bourgeoisie are the sexually fluid, against the reactionary bigots.
Multiculturalism: Dissolving National Identity
Culture is an ethereal and nebulous concept, but it broadly describes the values and conventions a human population live by. Cultures which come into contact with one another who disagree on basic fundamentals resolve that conflict with violence: there is no exception to the rule. They can only co-exist when there is enough physical space to keep them separate enough for peace, which we know as pluralism.
Cultures can live side-by-side, but they do not mix.
The greatest expression of "we" (the first person plural) is the nation, as Scruton observed. For Marx, the nation was one of the biggest stumbling blocks of the cause:
"The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.”
The difficulty of immigration in a world of global travel, and the abuses of colonialism, of course, were completely valid grievances. But for communism, it was an opportunity.
Immigration was a violent change during the 60s and 70s: the dissolution of colonial empires meant large-scale immigration of their population back to the Motherlands - often, ironically, from the communist guerrillas destroying the newly-incorporated independent countries. Moreover, the genocidal nationalism of fascism and Nazism had resulted in the creation of the European Union as a prophylaxis against its repetition.
On the heels of the Civil Rights movement and opposition to apartheid, things had started to go downhill. Frantz Fanon's Lenin-inspired "The Wretched of the Earth" and Edward Said's "Orientalism" had created "Post-Colonial Studies". Once again, a rabid hatred of capitalism, imperialism, and a need for the "liberation" of the "subjugated".
By 1983, Stuart Hall had turned into a Marxist enterprise: "Cultural Studies" and its "analysis" of the “authenticated, validated” tastes of the upper classes and the unrefined culture of the masses". Unsurprisingly, a rabid hatred of capitalism, imperialism, and a need for the "liberation" of the downtrodden.
So now we have the "rights" of illegal migrants and immigrants not wanting to integrate with their host country. "Progress" translates into...abandoning nationality.
These "rights" now somehow mean ordinary people have no right to curate their own culture.
In the former, bourgeoisie and proletariat had been replaced with "colonizer" and "colonized". In the latter, they had been replaced by "upper class native" and "unrefined immigrant". The new inverted bourgeoisie are the global citizens, against the reactionary racist xenophobic hicks.
Governments never set out to negotiate with their people, as the mathematics made it a political necessity. Population change was an openly-stated goal, published across the media from day one. Because new immigrants, being inherently open-minded, voted in a specific direction.
Environmentalism: Stigmatizing Corporate Planet-Murderers
Author Michael Crichton noticed something strange about environmental groups in the 1990s, in his 2003 remarks to Commonwealth Club: it functioned as a religion. It caused him to write "State of Fear" a year later. Although Svante Arrhenius posited fuel oxidation's negative effects on the air in 1896, it wasn't until Stanford's Stephen Schneider popularized it in 1976 that it became politicised. It was popularized, infamously, by Al Gore, as a "spiritual" problem.
Excessive damage to the atmosphere, of course, was a completely valid grievance. But for communism, it was an opportunity.
The theory of the Greenhouse Effect, or Global Warming, was reasonable: carbon dioxide building in the air could be heating up the planet. However, there is a counter hypothesis: the temperature measurements may be part of a cyclical planetary process.
For Marxists, it was an old enemy: industrialisation.
This one was easy: Marx started "Capital" in Chapter 1 going after what industrialisation did to nature and how communism would solve it:
"…all progress in capitalistic agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the labourer, but of robbing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the soil for a given time, is a progress towards ruining the lasting sources of that fertility."
From the 90s to the 2010s, political organization attempted to tackle the problems of pollution and fossil fuel obsolescence with nuclear power, the Kyoto Protocols and Paris Accords. It was slow, but largely successful.
Around 2010, after the failure of the Marxist uprising against the Iraq war, things went awry again as "climate change" and the "climate movement" tried to surf the resentment of the 2008 recession. An array of communist front groups began agitating students with the eschatological overtone capitalism was to blame for the end of the planet itself.
So now we have the "rights" of the environment and the need for "climate justice". "Progress" translates into... abandoning industrialism and capitalism.
These "rights" now somehow mean ordinary people have no right to skepticism.
And they all had one thing in common: a rabid hatred of capitalism, imperialism, and a revolutionary desire for "liberation". Except the main culprit, communist China, apparently didn't have to do anything at all.
Bourgeoisie and proletariat had been replaced with "corporate greed" and "the planet". The new inverted bourgeoisie are the climate saviours, against the reactionary climate-deniers.
Social Science: A Gnostic Replacement For Religion
Marx modestly described his historicism as "scientific", when it was nothing of the kind. He was a sociologist posing as an economist, so it makes entire sense the quagmire of nonsense would erupt from the same domain. Engels termed Marx's ideas to be "scientific socialism".
Only one problem: like religion, almost everything Marx stated as fact (on top of his infamous rhetoric such as "My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism,”) ran against science, evidence, or reason. Sociology, of course, has developed considerable overlap with religion through "interdisciplinary" commentary, from its early roots of studying social organisation.
The pony trick of social science everywhere has been the same: the curriculum is constructed exclusively from Marxist authors and Marxist materials disguising their political nature as the "science" of people. Books like "The Authoritarian Personality" are described as academic literature instead of far-left agitprop from extremist communists.
One simple, deceitful trick: there is no nature; everything is a product of the human mind.
Social science, after decades of Gramsci's strategy of attacking "sott" institutions of useful idiot intellectuals, is virtually indistinguishable from Scientology or science fiction. Social science isn't science. It's barely decipherable as language.
This is familiar to any student of religion. It's an old problem which now appears as social science papers, Wachowski brothers' films, and instagram motivational quotes: gnosticism.
"The Gnostics' teaching places the origin of evil, of pain and suffering, in the conditions of the material creation; salvation involves overcoming ignorance and escaping these external conditions by finding divinity within. . . . The Gnostic finds the beginning of the path to salvation in the realization that the world is a great imposture, a prison of pain and frustration. His escape lies in recovering the intrinsic good within himself, the principle of illumination that he shares with other enlightened spirits. . . . What makes it possible for the self and God to commune so freely is that the self already is of God."
(Author R.V. Young, Harold Bloom: the Critic as Gnostic)
It's trivial to perceive how the intellectuals' world of wishful thinking and vapid theories merges spiritual needs with communism's ideas of remaking humans.
As Gramsci himself observed, socialism is a Gnostic religion:
"Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society."
So now we have the enlightened priest class illuminating the "rights" of those perceived to be below them. "Progress" translates into... abandoning academic science, reason, and objectivity.
These "rights" now somehow mean ordinary people have no right to refuse participation in idiotic schemes as lab rats.
Bourgeoisie and proletariat had been replaced with "biological essentialists" and "the social constructivists". Communism was a "modern, scientific way of thinking" compared to to Enlightenment science that gave us the gas chambers and nuclear bomb. The new inverted bourgeoisie are the academic priesthood, against the reactionary scientific traditionalists.
Zionism: Socially Acceptable Antisemitism
Jews have a particularly strange place in the matrix of Marxist oppression. Marx himself was Jewish, but hated Jews. They pose an enormous problem: Jews are simultaneously the most oppressed and persecuted human group in history, but also the Nazi enemies' enemy, on top of the intellectual and financial elite. Israel is a highly-nationalistic country which keeps its communities and traditions so tight they remain impenetrable.
Marx writes in "On the Jewish Question":
"What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general."
After the Shoah, it was always going to be a losing ticket to hate them publicly, and there's never been an originating point for the communist hatred.
The solution to the Marxist conundrum became apparent almost immediately after the formation of Israel at the turn of the fifties. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and its quasi-Soviet structure required the solidarity of socialists everywhere in their glorious struggle.
Those Jews are capitalistic, imperialistic, nationalistic, traditional, and the very definition of bourgeois banking conspiracy the poor Palestinians need to be liberated from.
So now we have the "rights" of people who bomb school buses and declare death to Jews. "Progress" translates into... the Balkanization or dissolution of Israel.
These "rights" now somehow mean a country and people have no right to be recognised as a sovereign nation free of existential terror.
It's not that communists hate Jews; just the ultra-Jewish ideologues of the Jewish government of the Jewish state set up as a homeland for Jews who want to make things more Jewish.
Bourgeoisie and proletariat had been replaced with "Zionists" and "Palestinians". The new inverted bourgeoisie are the freedom fighters, against the reactionary liberals.
Atheism: No Loyalty Higher Than The State
Since the mid-18th century and the Enlightenment, faith in religion had been lessening through the advent of modern scientific instrumentation and theory; particularly Darwin's literature on how species' originated. For those who wished to lessen spiritual loyalties, the period's scientific endeavours were perfect vehicles.
Marx, of course, hated religion and decried it as the "opium of the people", whereas simultaneously proclaiming atheism as an "abstraction" of a starting point.
Communism's championing of atheism was embedded by Lenin, who made the military reasons clear:
"A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."
However, its intellectual opposition is far simpler: it's a rival, competing religion. Engels describes the gnostic underpinnings equally clearly:
"Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history."
No, he didn't.
Each mistake organised religion makes, such as harbouring paedophiles - in synagogues, Asian temples, and Catholic districts - has been ammunition.
So we have the "rights" of "unbelievers" to defame religious institutions and claim immunity from moral imperatives. "Progress" translates into... abandoning religious belief.
These "rights" now somehow mean religious believers have no right to contribute.
Bourgeoisie and proletariat had been replaced with "fundamentalists" and "groups hurt by being considered sinful". Communism was a "modern, scientific way of thinking and accepting people" compared to "primitive and outdated" religion, as Lenin initiated a century before. The new inverted bourgeoisie are the materialists, against the reactionary religious.
Puppies, Fatties, and Wheelchairs: No Taboo Left Unturned
Animals for sport and food has its contentions going back to 18th century Victorian England. Cripples were given special attention in the Bible and cared for by the Church. Obesity was barely heard of until the eighties when children were being medicated for ADHD.'
Caring for those who are vulnerable is noble. Few people think it's morally neutral to be unkind to those less able to defend themselves.
However, three communist trojan horses no-one ever asked for weren't as successful.
"Animal Liberation", "Species-ism", or more accurately the anti-vivisection movement from decades ago has never gone away, and always appealed to our natural sympathies for furry friends. It goes without saying consumer production of farming and cosmetics - a genuinely worrying area requiring a re-think - is, of course, due to exploitative capitalism.
These "rights" claims mysteriously fall silent if it is Palestinian terrorists stitching bombs inside donkeys, PETA mass killing 15,000 pets, or communist China skinning puppies alive. Or indeed, nineteen centuries of much worse human behaviour towards animals.
"Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of their own race when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Sexists violate the principle of equality by favouring the interests of their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species. The pattern is identical in each case."
Peter Singer, "Animal Liberation" (1975)
Of course it is, if you're a Marxist trying desperately to find it.
Disability is something every human fears and pities. Some even fear it so much they advocate fetuses be killed if they emerge with them. The trouble is twofold: they never made a useful revolutionary proletariat until the Internet was invented (for obvious reasons), and people who have gone through such a level of suffering general don't want to be singled out or pitied.
The "lens" of intersectionality for this is, naturally, the "idea" disability is a product of the human mind (a "social construct") and our social conventions. This emphasis on work and "able-bodied"-ness is due to, of course.... alienating capitalism.
"Disability studies, a discipline that critically examines the meaning and implications of the social construction of dis/ability, provides a useful framework through which to understand the systemic oppression of disabled students, the construction of disability/ability in education, and disability-based oppression more broadly. Disability studies scholars and disability rights activists have long rejected the medical model of disability, which treats disability as an individual deficiency that necessitates medical intervention to “fix.” A disability studies perspective, on the other hand, understands disability as socially produced. Disablement is situated within social, political, and economic structures that ascribe its meaning within a particular place at a given historical moment." (Springer)
It's a tough sell for the speech code enforcers, as it turns out changing the term "cripple" doesn't change the biological essentialism of the reality: they're not running the hundred meters any time soon.
It is VERY useful though when it comes to mental disability, as recent data suggests over 50% of 18-30 year-old women have been diagnosed with mental illness: https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/over-50-percent-white-liberal-women-under-30-mental-health-condition .
Lastly, fatphobia. Fatties. It's oppression.
With its roots in the comical 1960s "fat acceptance" movement ("fat pride", "fat feminism", "fat empowerment", "body positivity") "fat studies" and "critical weight studies" are as absurd as they sound, until conflated with female body image and its ramifications in terms of eating disorders. However, they make an excellent tank division for the revolution.
"Like disability studies, fat studies draws on the work of [PAEDOPHILE] Michel Foucault and queer Theory to argue that negative attitudes about obesity are socially constructed and the result of systemic power that marginalizes and oppresses fat people (and fat perspectives) and of unjust medicalized narratives in order to justify prejudice against obese people (see also, healthism, nutritionism, Foucauldian, biopower, and thinnormativity). This prejudice is known as fatphobia." (New Discourses)
There are no fat or disabled people in the communist utopia. They starve, or are wheeled to the mass grave.
So we have the "rights" of "powerless" entities to be recognised as having unearned status, on account of their involuntary, immutable characteristics. "Progress" translates into... elevating the self-appointed partisan protectors.
These "rights" now somehow mean ordinary people have no right to maintain social conventions or a sense of normality.
Bourgeoisie and proletariat had been replaced with "the indifferent" and "the compassionate". Kindness is entirely reframed as a refusal to constrain, condemn or prevent immorality. The new inverted bourgeoisie are the compassionate empaths, against the reactionary murderous bystanders. It can all be cured by "empathy".
Critical Pedagogy: Priming Children For Revolution Against Capitalist Oppression
Education has long been the most politicised and extremist left-wing faction of academia, for the oldest of reasons contained in the Jesuit aphorism "give me the boy til he is seven, and i shall give you the man". Almost all of the left-wing terrorists convicted in the US during the Counterculture of the 60s can now be found as tenured professors focusing on their efforts to germinate the revolution from within.
Under communism, child are the property of the State.
Perhaps more relevantly, Lenin explicitly made it a goal to capture the most vulnerably for his tyrannical cause:
"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted; Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world."
Critical pedagogy is the application of Marxist critical theory to teaching. It aims to brainwash and cult-indoctrinate children into communism - nothing more, nothing less.
It's two most infamous blatantly-communist authors - two of the worst people ever to go near any school - are Paulo Freire and Henry Giroux.
"Pedagogy of the Oppressed" - the communist manifesto adapted to refer to the classroom - includes cutesy gnostic sophistry such as:
"Looking at the past must only be a means of understanding more clearly what and who they are so that they can more wisely build the future."
It, and all the other CP materials, quickly reveal their true face, however. Children are brainwashed into capitalism and need to be "liberated" from it by partisan "educators" so they are no longer "oppressed":
"The educator has the duty of not being neutral."
"There’s no such thing as neutral education. Education either functions as an instrument to bring about conformity or freedom."
This vile cult programming doctrine is referred to as inculcating a "critical consciousness" in children, i.e. ensuring they perceive the world as Marxists so they will become revolutionists and activists.
"The more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in the world as transformers of that world. The more completely they accept the passive role imposed on them, the more they tend simply to adapt to the world as it is and to the fragmented view of reality deposited in them."
Unsurprisingly, Freire destroyed the Brazilian education system. He's lauded as a heroic high priest of left-wing teaching unions everywhere.
How is this "consciousness" of critical theory ingrained in children? In the same way of raising "racial consciousness". By hyper sensitizing them so they are hyper-aware of what Marxism claims and seeing it everywhere. They need "safety" from offence, capitalism, and unfair things in the world communism will apparently fix.
CP is functionality indistinguishable from cult recruitment, and is an appalling evil found in almost every Western school and university.
So we have the "rights" of children to be "safe" from "indoctrination" by parents, religious institutions, and social conventions. "Progress" translates into... politicised cult indoctrination in the supposedly "opposite" ideology.
These "rights" now somehow mean a child has no right to being educated impartially and parents have no right to object to indoctrination.
Bourgeoisie and proletariat had been replaced with "colonizer curriculum-setters" and "colonized learners". Children are "oppressed" and need to be "liberated". The new inverted bourgeoisie are the pedagogic priesthood, against the reactionary parents.
Prostitution: Replacing Relationships With Pornography & Bodies-For-Hire
The "sex industry" is now full of "sex workers" and "stars" doing "sex work" which is apparently completely different from exchanging money for sex. The revolting Orwellian term was coined in the late 70s and has been adopted by the sexual revolution feminists to denote entrepreneurial "empowerment" in a "rape culture" which celebrates "slut shaming".
"OnlyFans has more than 1 million creators worldwide as of January 1, 2021, up from 70,000 creators in July 2019. The vast majority of OnlyFans creators make $0 to $5,000 a month, but there are 100+ creators making over $1 million."
When it comes to porn - women actors being prostituted by male producers on film - it's far more harrowing:
"New research from security technology companies suggests that children under the age of 10 now account for 22% of online porn consumption among the under 18 age while 10-14 year-olds make up 36% of minor consumers (Bitdefender, 2016)"
It's not much of a proletariat to gain solidarity from, but it's a useful disrupter of the "oppressive" institutions of marriage, family, and toxic teenage masculinity. Marxists, generally speaking, weren't fans of it prostitution.
"Karl Marx viewed prostitutes as victims of the capitalist system. In his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, he described sex work as being “only a specific expression of the general prostitution of the laborer,” and viewed the abolition of prostitution as a necessary part of ending capitalism. Similarly, in The Communist Manifesto, he called prostitution the “complement” of the bourgeois family, and predicted that both institutions would one day vanish. Still, some have used Marxist theory (especially as found in his later writing) to defend prostitution not as the buying and selling of bodies but rather as the selling of a service." (Slate)
So we have the "rights" of prostitutes to sell themselves for money without criticism. "Progress" translates into... dissolution of sexual morality which protects women and holds marriages together.
These "rights" now somehow mean a population has no right to enforce moral constraints on behaviour.
Bourgeoisie and proletariat had been replaced with "fundamentalists" and "stigmatized sex workers". The new inverted bourgeoisie are the sexually adventurous, against the reactionary prudes.
Trans: Engineering Women & Children
What can you say about "queer" and "trans" ideology which has not already been pointed out? There can be only one conclusion to draw from its promulgation: it's deranging nature is its purpose. Male and female are the most basic categories of definition for human beings; tear those up and we are almost unable to function.
The roots of "transgenderism" and "sex change" surgery go right back to the "Institute of Sexual Science" (not to be confused with the "Institute of Social Research" or "Frankfurt School" nearby) in 1920s Weimar Germany, whose books were burned by the Nazi party. The founder was a gay Jewish communist.
Developments of this chaos continued with two psychopathic paedophiles during the 1950s: Alfred Kinsey (the "father of the sexual revolution") and John Money (proposer of "gender role", "gender identity", "paraphilia"). The former published an alleged "spectrum" of pansexuality from reports of child rape, and the latter infamously pushed a patient to suicide before introducing the idea of gender as "feeling" and sexual "orientation". Both abused children, while doing public apologetics for incest and pederasty.
"Queer theory" - as it's become known - is a disreputable subdomain of sociology which aimed to replicate the success of "gay rights", complete with invented psychopathological slurs and Marxist oppression. This time, about gender, or, for anorexic teenage girls, the "soul".
The "theory" is so self-evidently preposterous it requires totalitarianism to merely exist: that gender is a product of human mind and language, yet unrelated to biological sex.
"Yes, I am oppressed in this society, but I am not merely a product of oppression. That is a phrase that renders all our trans identities meaningless. Passing means having to hide your identity in fear, in order to live. Being forced to pass is a recent historical development. It is passing that is a product of oppression,”
Leslie Feinberg , "Transgender Warriors"
Or as one redditor attempts to describe it, through a Marxist "lens":
"Gender" is not a universal constant state, because gender is entirely performative. It is dialectical, related to its material conditions. Gender refers only to one's expression of self, and since the onset of human society, some form of Gender Binary had been recognized, primarily based of physical attributes such as sex organs, secondary sex characteristics, etc."
"Capitalism, through the modes of Colonialism/Imperialism, had attempted to erase non-binary Gender expressions largely as a byproduct of Whiteness and Christianity waging genocide against indigenous peoples for subjugation as cheap labor/resources."
Utter, utter pathological nonsense.
"Progress" translates into... acceptance of sexual abuse, medical barbarism, compelled speech, and psychiatric illness.
These "rights" now somehow mean women have no right to privacy and safety, parents have no right to parenting, and ordinary people have no right to live in a sane society.
Bourgeoisie and proletariat had been replaced with "cisgender heeterosexuals" and "queer". The new inverted bourgeoisie are the brave transformers, against reactionary everyone.
Diversity, Equity & Inclusion: Commissars, Communist Quotas & Purges
It's not enough to have your personnel department renamed to the Soviet-style label of socialist "human resources". It must be extended to house a D.I.E department for maintaining political orthodoxy, and indulging social science whimsical fantasies. Call it what you want - "stakeholder capitalism", "social enterprise", "sensitivity training", "cultural competence" - it's good old fashioned communism.
Three words have never been more carefully chosen so they cannot be opposed. Or ridden off the (literal) back of a more sensitive subject. This nonsense began with people like Judith Katz in the mid-80s as black people providing "racial training" in the days affirmative action was underway.
“The workplace is no place to address phantom race and sex issues,” says Heather Mac Donald, a Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and New York Times bestselling author of The Diversity Delusion.
“It is about work, not therapy or alleged social justice. But corporate HR departments have been hijacked by the identitarian Left. Their members seek to use the resources of corporate America to implement the ideology of academic identity politics regarding America's endemic biases. Corporate CEOs do not have the backbone to forswear the costly, unnecessary diversity scam, however.” (Forbes)
Entryism and infiltration is the name of the game, and "equity" in the workplace is the tool for jamming open gullible employers' guilty minds. For the meritless, it's a heist. For the revolutionary, it's a beachhead for "critical consciousness". Ask anyone in Africa or the Caribbean what their kinfolk and skinfolk in the US are up to, and they'll tell you - but a lot more bluntly.
And it's extremely profitable. For the commissars and trainers, a.k.a the Emperor's Tailors:
"Workforce Management estimates that companies spend a combined $8 billion on diversity and inclusion training annually, while Human Resource Management Journal reports that diversity and inclusion consultants earn a combined $400 million to $600 million annually in consulting fees alone."
(Diversity Best Practices, 2020 Report)
Only a few small problems: the unconscious mind doesn't exist, "training" doesn't work, recruitment craters, and the companies start to collapse without competent talent.
"Diversity" means political commissars trained in "social justice" Marxism, not skin colour. It actually means ideological conformity.
"Equity" means equality of outcome: quotas and redistribution from the meritocracy. It actually means unearned favouritism.
"Inclusion" means people with the "wrong" ideas or skin colour being kicked out to make room for cult recruits. It actually means partisan exclusion.
- The opposite of diversity (D) is unity.
- The opposite of inclusion (I) is qualification.
- The opposite of equity is (E) opportunity.
"Progress" translates into... embracing communist political structures in the workplace, and undergoing involuntary reprogramming.
These "rights" now somehow mean workers have no right to refuse to conform to a political orthodoxy.
It's a simple inversion of a new bourgeoise in the form of "the enlightened" priesthood of trainers and companies, against the reactionary racist capitalists.
Covid: Medical Segregation & Moral Panic
Nobody wants to hear this word again. "2 weeks to slow the spread" has somehow morphed into "3 jabs to feed your family" and the solution to widespread disease being... authoritarian communism. Chine's corruption of the WHO means it has escaped blameless for a lab leak with its economy growing fastest than any other country - with all the other countries beginning to look like.... China.
Western liberal democracy with Chinese characteristics.
If Covid has done anything, it has exposed the monumental personality divide across the political aisle and the extraordinary cooperation between corrupt internationalist politicians. At least 40-50% - if polls are to be believed - live almost entirely in their media-stoked imagination and are willing to support governments in their most totalitarian endeavours as hall monitor and apparatchiks to lessen their own anxiety.
In just over a year, we have seen:
- Enforced medical treatments and clothing
- Internment camps for undesirables
- Whisteblowers fired and defamed
- Experimental emergency genetic medications
- Mass protests hidden from view
- Smear campaigns over medications and dissenters
- Ordinary people beaten for entering grocery stories
- ... and that's the first page of the index.
The coordinated lying, smearing, and abject inhumanity has been staggering.
This all seems familiar if you're a historian: the "deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable":
"Lysenkoism was “politically correct” (a term invented by Lenin) because it was consistent with certain broader Marxist doctrines. Marxists wanted to believe that heredity had a limited role even among humans, and that human characteristics changed by living under socialism would be inherited by subsequent generations of humans. Thus would be created the selfless new Soviet man."
"Lysenko was consequently embraced and lionized by the Soviet media propaganda machine. Scientists who promoted Lysenkoism with faked data and destroyed counterevidence were favored with government funding and official recognition and award. Lysenko and his followers and media acolytes responded to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists resisting the advance of the new modern Marxism.
The V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences announced on August 7, 1948 that thenceforth Lysenkoism would be taught as the only correct theory. All Soviet scientists were required to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenkoism. Ultimately, Soviet geneticists resisting Lysenkoism were imprisoned and even executed. Lysenkoism was abandoned for the correct modern science of Mendelian genetics only as late as 1964." (Forbes, 2013)
The campaign of suppression - based around the belief all science was "class-based" - cost 3,000 scientists their lives, careers, or reputations. The collectivist famines it exacerbated killed 12 million.
All over a minor disease with a 99%+ survival rate.
"Progress" translates into... medical Lysenkoism, and blind compliance to authoritarianism.
These artificial "rights" of those who willingly give governments autonomy over their body now somehow mean ordinary people have no right to refuse medical intervention or infringement of their basic human liberties such as freedom to travel and associate. It's gone very wrong.
This time, it's a simple inversion of a new bourgeoisie in the form of "the vaccinated" and "unvaccinated".
As China discovered, the Internet has given the bourgeoisie a handy new way to determine who is in the country club, and who isn't: your "temporary" digital wallet containing your social credit score, which determines whether you have access to the materialist necessities of life, which Marx claimed was the driving force of the "stages of history".
It didn't happen, but that doesn't mean we can't make it happen and claim it actually happened like he said it would, does it?