What is Marxism, really?

by

When you dig into a philosophy, you try to find that one kernel that gives life to all the other bits of philosophy.

For instance, for LDS theology, that idea could be summed up as “revelation”, the idea that God still speaks to men. From that, we get everything else.

For Marxism, it’s very difficult to identify the core philosophy because Marxism seems to be inherently illogical. But I think I have found it.

What revealed it for me was my study of Naziism. Here’s what I uncovered about some of the central tenets of the Nazi philosophy:

  1. There is no objective, universal truth.
  2. Each race of men has a different morality and definition of truth.
  3. Truth is fungible. What is true today may be false tomorrow, replaced by a new truth. The arbiter of truth is the leader of the group.
  4. The ultimate evil is egocentrism (putting your own needs ahead of others.) The ultimate good is altruism (putting other’s needs ahead of your own.)
  5. Violence is justified.

What’s shocking is that this isn’t really that shocking anymore today. A hundred years ago, our ancestors would’ve been able to easily identify the problems with this philosophy. Today, not so much!

Marxism seems to boil down to a similar set of tenets, a sort of Naziism, so to speak, but on a different basis.

  1. There is no objective, universal truth.
  2. There is no morality. (Everything is justified.)
  3. The only truth is that there are classes of people, and they are at war with each other, always have been and always will be.
    1. The upper classes, though numerically inferior, are slave drivers who use whatever tricks they can come up with to convince the lower classes to feed them.
    2. The lower classes believe the lies of the upper classes and willingly enter slavery, without realizing that their numerical superiority gives them all the means they need to overthrow the upper classes.
  4. There is a direction to history, and it’s clear that ultimately, the lower classes will own the means of production, and the other classes will be eliminated.
  5. Since that is the ultimate destiny of mankind, we might as well get their sooner rather than later, and avoid all the bad bits that have to come in between here and there by doing it quickly.

What’s most striking to me is whereas Hitler divided humanity by race, Marx divided them by economic class. In Marx’s world, people didn’t move from one class to another; you were basically stuck where you were born. In other words, Hitler and Marx seemed to believe the same thing, just they disagreed on the distinguishing characteristic, even though they agreed that you were born into that class or race, with nothing you can do to change it.

Even though Naziism advocated the suppression of basic rights, they didn’t completely write off all morality. Marxists do. There is literally nothing that a Marxist would ever claim to be “wrong” except the oppression of the lower classes. That is, it’s perfectly ok to rape and murder little children, as long as you’re not rich!

Of note, Nazis espoused altruism. Altruism sounds nice. I mean, after all, didn’t Jesus teach his disciples to love one another? What people forget is that Jesus said “Love your neighbor as yourself“, meaning, you are also supposed to be egocentrist. That is, you are supposed to weigh your own needs as you weight your neighbor’s needs. As I like to put it, you can’t help anyone get rich if you’re poor yourself! As Jesus said, “First cast the beam out of your own eye!” Indeed, Jesus’ parables are full of examples of righteous people acting in their own self-interest, from the master who rewarded his servants who doubled his assets, to the master of the vineyard that built a wall and a watchtower and put servants in place to protect it, to the parable of the sower, who sows seeds and expects to reap the rewards for himself. Indeed, Judaism teaches that while you are supposed to care for the poor, you are not supposed to sacrifice yourself doing it. Let the poor glean your fields, let the travelers eat the edges of your fields, but the rest is yours to keep, and you cannot simply give it away.

What do Marxists espouse? They espouse the class struggle. Individuals won’t own the means of production, *everyone* will. This philosophy, to me, is even more detestable than Naziism. At least Nazis taught that people were human with individual needs; Marxists teach that they are nothing more than a member of a group, and only the group should benefit.

Nazis looked forward to a future when each race could live in their own lands with their own way of life and their own government. In a sick and twisted sort of way, they actually looked forward to a peaceful world. I often wonder if indeed the Nazis would’ve invaded the US if they had taken Europe; indeed, whether their goal was simply to annex all the German lands or all of Europe. (Historically, the Frankish kings that created France came from Germany as well.) Did Hitler have plans to seize the Iberian peninsula? We can’t really tell, and no one seems to be bothered to explain these things. What was Hitler’s end plan? From my limited knowledge, it was simply to unite the German peoples, create a pure race with pure blood and pure culture, and remove the rest.

What about Marxists? Marxists look forward to the inevitable moment when the rich will be eliminated, that all will be the same. In a way, Star Trek’s Borg race is the perfect ideal of what Marxism anticipated for mankind. Everyone the same, everyone owning everything altogether. This sort of reality, to me at least, is complete dehumanizing. What would “other” mean when we are all the same? Would we even have different names, or even individual personalities, with our own likes and dislikes? Or would we be expected to be identical to each other, and not just in our appearance, but out behavior and attitudes?

Most depressing is that Marxism predicts a long and brutal war as the lower classes rise up against the higher classes. They see it as inevitable. Much like Sherman’s March, where General Sherman thought he could save lives by taking them, or the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this kind of thinking truly leads to horrific behavior. I shudder to think what people might do if they felt like they were averting a greater disaster. “Let’s murder 100 million today,” they say, “Because if we don’t, then 200 million will be killed tomorrow.”

To sum this all up, let me introduce you to the liberal philosophy that our Founding Fathers espoused. I call this “Radical Whigism” because no one is using that term and it’s not overloaded.

  1. God gives individuals rights, such as the right to life and liberty. There is a long list of these rights, and we’re not going to spell it out for you but let individuals assert these rights as far as they believe God gave them to them.
  2. Government exists solely to protect rights. Any more or less than this is grounds for altering or abolishing the government.
  3. People are accountable to themselves and themselves alone.

That’s pretty much it. The Utopia that conservatives imagine is a diverse population, with people speaking whatever language they like, wearing whatever clothing they like, but all agreed that they won’t trample each other’s rights. And when someone gets it in their head that trampling rights is a good idea, we’ll bring down the force of government on their pathetic souls to make it right.

Finally, let’s consult the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for his opinion on which political philosophy we should follow. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Both Naziism and Marxism are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths. What about Radical Whigism? If you count the Civil War casualties along with every war American participated in, it doesn’t even compare. And unlike those two philosophies, we have built a nation where anyone can come and build their own future.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “What is Marxism, really?”

  1. Jason Gardner Says:

    “Nazis looked forward to a future when each race could live in their own lands with their own way of life and their own government. In a sick and twisted sort of way, they actually looked forward to a peaceful world.” — What is sick and twisted about wanting to be with your own kind in your own land?

    Marxism was about class struggle. However, after the publishing of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn book “The Gulag Archipelago” and a fuller understanding of what Mao and Pol Pot did it was almost impossible to still be on board with economic Marxism.

    However, viola! in the 70s the academics simply switched the economic classes for racial classes (post-colonialism was all the rage at the time) and we now have neo-Marxism.

    Neo-Marxism is based on the idea that, sure capitalists are bad but the real villain is white men. They are the real oppressors. White men have “privilege” which they use to exploit women and the browns. So, you have a job and a house isn’t due to your work, it is because you have the unfair advantage of white male privilege.

    To have equality and harmony there is only one answer…. Whiteness must be “smashed” and white people must lose their privilege. Basically, you must have your political rights removed and you must be removed.

    They are serious about this and it is a commonly held belief in government and academia.

    There is a reason that the Neo-Marxists are tearing down statues of Confederate heroes and refuse to study “dead white men” in university. They want you gone. They want you dead or at least in prison. The neo-marxists are not hiding this goal. Just google some of the signs you see at Antifa protests. They up and say “We will replace you.”

    Think for a minute how scary this is. The only answer is you being dead or at best politically impotent. This should make you crap your shorts. The one thing we know about Marxists is that they are serious and will kill. (Quarter billion last century alone!)

    Make no mistake where it comes from as well. I’ll let you figure out who that is… https://twitter.com/FellowWhites

    “That’s pretty much it. The Utopia that conservatives imagine is a diverse population, with people speaking whatever language they like, wearing whatever clothing they like, but all agreed that they won’t trample each other’s rights. And when someone gets it in their head that trampling rights is a good idea, we’ll bring down the force of government on their pathetic souls to make it right.” —- This is a utopia only in the sense that it will never happen. Humans don’t work this way at all. We feel more comfortable around our own kind. Basic human biology. Most people are not emotionless “Spocks” but enjoy living in a community of people they relate to.

    Further, there is no such thing as a multi-ethnic utopia. Look at the history or Zimbabwe or South Africa once it turned “multi-ethnic.” Not pretty.

    What is annoying about this is the response from conservatives:

    Neo Marxist: “We want you dead and we want to genocide you.”
    Conservative: “I’ll just kill myself. Haha! Checkmate asshole!”

    Seriously, conservatives advocate letting people who want to destroy them, and hate them deeply into their countries! Crazy. How do you think Sweden is going to fare in 30 years when they majority of Sweden isn’t Swedish? You think that’ll be fun?

    Read again the statement you made above:

    “God gives individuals rights, such as the right to life and liberty.

    There is a long list of these rights, and we’re not going to spell it out for you but let individuals assert these rights as far as they believe

    God gave them to them.

    Government exists solely to protect rights. Any more or less than this is grounds for altering or abolishing the government.

    People are accountable to themselves and themselves alone.”

    This resonates with you because you are of Anglo Saxon stock. These ideas are completely foreign to an Arab, the Chinese, Japanese, or a Bantu African. They just don’t resonate.

    The critical error in conservatism is the narcissism of conservatives. Just because you and your people like certain ideas, you assume that other people will find the value in those ideas as well. “Of course we are right” brand of conservatism.

    The facts are the opposite. Conservative values are not universal. The are completely foreign in Africa, Asia and the middle east. The mistake that white South Africans made is that they thought somehow that the Africans they handed power to would respect the law and basic civil rights. Why wouldn’t they?

    363,000 white murders later and people are starting to understand the truth.

    http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/bury-them-alive-white-south-africans-fear-for-their-future-as-horrific-farm-attacks-escalate/news-story/3a63389a1b0066b6b0b77522c06d6476

    Seriously, blacks are not native to South Africa. (Seems counter intuitive but the Bantu expansion had not put blacks in South Africa by the time the Dutch arrived). They were guests. Their numbers grew to the point where they were dominant. They took control of government and now are ethnically cleaning the whites from their land and are running just another corrupt African kleptocracy.

    This is the nature of sub-Saharan Africans. The white South Africans ignored this fact and they now are experiencing a genocide.

    But ‘muh free markets!

    You seem to be advocating for people to come to your lands and displace you. Why? To take political power from your people and give it to foreigners in the hopes that your ethnic replacements will let you live in some sort of racial fantasy land? What is noble about giving away your heritage? What is moral about ruining the society your forefathers created out of nothing? Are you afraid of being called a racist?

    Europe is headed down your fantasy path. You think all those Muslims are going to be so nice to the Dutch when the ethnic Dutch are not a majority in their own country? Where can the ethnic Dutch go when Holland is Hollindastan?

    But ‘muh free markets! If we just let the average-IQ-of-60 Africans know about free markets then everything will be utopia!

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      The “sick and twisted” component of Naziism is how they intended to do it.

      Yes, conservatives must face the fact that other people don’t share their values. It should absolutely be a requirement for entry into our country that you respect our rights. If you’re not willing to protect your own rights and the rights of others, with physical force, you can’t come here and you can’t stay if you’re already here. This is what is wrong with out immigration policy, and conservatives know it and we want it changed. Now.

      Regarding people migrating towards living near people who are like them, yes, that is the natural order of things. Give people the freedom to choose where to live and work, and they’re going to settle near people who look, speak, and act like them. There’s no need to separate people, they do it on their own. Witness the way New York City is set up, with different ethnicities congregating in different parts of the city. Even though we’ve experienced massive immigration of Germans and Irish, for instance (who did *not* share the Anglo-Saxon tradition of individual rights and respect for them — one of the reasons why Americans opposed the mass immigration from Europe, nothing to do with skin color, everything to do with political philosophy), we let them settle their communities and then we held them accountable according to our laws. I read that when the draft was instituted in the North during the Civil War, the Irish were upset because so many of their young men were called up. Well, Lincoln dispatched veterans from Gettysburg to put down their rebellion, and they happily turned Gatling guns on the rioters. At that moment, I am sure a message was sent to Irishmen everywhere: We don’t care where you come from, if you’re not going to fight to protect rights, then we’re going to kill you. The Germans spread out and adopted our way of life, so much so that you can’t tell who is 3rd generation German or who is 15th generation Anglo-Saxon in their political philosophy.

      The immigration policy we’ve had since 1970’s is a disaster, and must be revoked. I am one of the many conservatives who want to shut our borders, end all immigration, until we can get a handle on what it means to be an American citizen, and what it is that makes us who we are and what we are trying to protect. Europe is lost (I doubt Poland can hold out for long), but we can still save the US, and Trump is the only man holding office who seems to be willing to do something about it.

      But trust me, real conservatives aren’t sitting on their hands, aren’t for opening our borders to anyone who wants to come. We know borders-language-culture is important (though most of us can’t say why), and we know that our political philosophy and history is of the utmost important. We want the commies out of our country, and if you’re going to come here to preach slavery or to subvert our way of life in the slightest, we want you tagged and bagged and never allowed to set foot on any lands that has our flag on it.

  2. Jason Gardner Says:

    I couldn’t agree more. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 has radically remade the American demographic.

    This was not an accident. The purpose was to dilute the vote and prevent you (and all legacy Americans) from having full agency. This was, of course, secondary to the purpose of having you be a stranger in your own land and, eventually, dead. Unfortunately, it worked.

    We have lost the demographic battle and are now in a simple battle for survival. For instance, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/mayor-de-blasio-aide-ripped-racist-facebook-photo-article-1.2876568. This is not a unusual position for people of her particular tribe.

    The first step is to erode your demographic position (done), the second is to destroy your religion (done), next destroy the family (done), after that the move is to destroy your history (see removing of the Confederate statues and not studying any dead white males), after that we end up with political disenfranchisement then finally we get to the genocide part.

    The end game being very similar to South Africa. Stateless people with nowhere to go in a hostile world.

    It isn’t a political discussion anymore. The left/right thing is over. The discussion now is whether your culture and people will exist in the future. It is a fight for survival.

    It happens fast, by the way. We have not seen it in the US but Russia and eastern Europe sure did. It will happen in Sweden in our lifetime (10 years or so). The UK, France, Germany and Denmark won’t last 100 years.

    I’ll leave you with this quote from a Harvard professor:

    “The goal of abolishing the white race is, on its face, so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists… Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as the ‘white race’ is destroyed.”
    ~ Noel Ignatiev

  3. Jason Gardner Says:

    Gentle reminder, in case you are still wondering what the political questions of the day are…

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/century-old-francis-scott-key-monument-defaced-with-racist-anthem-in-baltimore/article/2634255

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/rapper-xxxtentacion-sparks-outrage-after-11167874

    http://wset.com/news/local/red-paint-symbolizing-blood-found-on-thomas-jefferson-statue-at-uva

    The “protesters” and “artists” do not want to argue capital allocation or the role of government. They want you and your culture and your people to die.

    First they erase your history, then they erase you.

    “The first step in liquidating a people, is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was. The world around it will forget even faster.”

    Why do you think they are going after statues and wanting universities to stop teaching dead white men?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mems-ayinla/dead-old-white-men-continue-to-dominate-our-curriculum_b_9636000.html

    Look at a picture of the author and see if you notice anything… The author is in the UK, and clearly not British, but a guest in a foreign land. Once in the foreign land the author immediately advocates for the destruction of British history and values. Some thanks for civilizing her!

    This woman and her people are parasites. An equivalent to what the Herpes virus is to our bodies. If left unchecked, they will destroy the host.

    The root of the problem is the Marxist Magic Soil Theory. The idea is that you can take an uncivilized/low-IQ Afghan or African and move them to a western country and … viola! They become civilized. The reason is, of course, is that the soil in western countries is magical. It transforms backwards peoples to Jeffersonian Democrats instantly.

    Of course, this is not true. Savages are savages no matter where they are. If you are unclear about this feel free to ask the girls that are going to be raped in Sweden today by “new Swedes” if they feel culturally enriched by their newly civilized brothers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: