I have received some criticism from various people over the use of my terminology. That’s not communism Andrew, what you are describing is socialism, or fascism, or totalitarianism or – well – you understand by now. I typically do not bother debating semantical terms with people, and rather, choose to be happy that people are beginning to understand something is very wrong in our society today and that we are trending away from free market capitalism, freedom and democracy and dangerously towards indentured servitude to our political masters.
Marxism has been a plague on society since its inception. Karl Marx himself simply combined concepts and ideologies like Hegel’s dialectics, French utopian socialism and English economics. Marx later teamed up with Friedrich Engels and seeded these already dangerous philosophies with revolutionary ideologies, fundamentally dependent on violence through division, conflict and hate.
Since the inception of Marxism, the world has never been the same. Freedom has never been possible, or at least, not sustainable. Malicious humans who fancy themselves demigods have deployed this playbook, over and over again, with only minor and obvious adjustments to the identities and compositions of conflicting groups. Marxism, in its various forms, is responsible for the deaths of 100’s of millions of people and of countless human tragedies. Regardless of which costume it wears, regardless of how the Marxist game has been played and regardless of what name we have chosen to assign it.
Political theologians will publish countless books debating the differences and the classifications of various implementations of this asinine and horrific ideology. Sometimes, I think this is done purposefully in order to create confusion amongst the people, effectively camouflaging Marxist infiltrations from society until its too late, like the fly succumbing to the venus fly trap. Mostly though, I tend to believe our intellectual class possess a narcissistic requirement to pompously demonstrate their self presumed moral superiority, thereby justifying the potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars invested into those credentials they so proudly display after their names – and typically, they ensure we know these qualifications were attained from institutions like Harvard and Yale.
Thoroughly explaining Marxist ideologies would mandate the writing of a text book on the subject matter. I do not see the value in doing so here, especially since one can just read his book titled, “The Communist Manifesto”, where its all outlined, with its interwoven violence, clearly on display for anyone wishing to read it. To simplify the conversation, and for the purposes of this article, lets break Marxism down into a few fundamental principles.
Firstly, Marxism is, by definition, a revolutionary movement. Philosophically, its predicated on the existence of “internal tensions” within a socio-economic system – specifically capitalism. Capitalism is always the target of these malicious revolutionaries. After all, these people are free, and they possess a great amount of wealth. The successful execution of a marxist revolution always results in wealth flowing back to the ruling class, and out of the hands of the regular citizens. Fundamentally, Marxism can only result in mass poverty and death. This is by design. Marx originally leveraged class conflict within capitalist systems. The working classes (proletariat) and the ruling classes (bourgeoisie). Ironically enough, even Marx’s fundamental class definition is misleading. The “ruling class” are actually our political leaders, and ironically enough, that is who profits as a result of a successful revolution, and ironically enough, they profit at the expense of the same “working class” they purportedly pretend and convince they are benefitting from such a revolution.
This is the Marxist sleight of hand.
What Karl Marx fails to explain, is all people, outside of the government officials, comprise the “working class”. The level of success a member of the “working class” may achieve within a free market capitalist system is of course variable. For example, a person serving you coffee at your local Tim Hortons, likely will not experience the level of financial success as someone like Bill Gates – who developed a piece of software, which billions of people chose to purchase to install and operate their personal computer. The nefarious assumption within Marxism, is that all inequities within the system, are a result of a flaw within said system, and the only viable solution to such problems, since they are “systemic” problems, is the dismantling of the system and replacing it with a new, “equitable” system. Which again, is a very thinly veiled way of saying, the masses will starve, while the ruling class accumulates all of their wealth. After all, better to have everyone equally starving, vs allowing some people to be more successful then others. The inherent flaw of course in the argument should be apparent to everyone at first glance.
We cannot even demonstrate equality of outcome between siblings. Children born to the same parents and raised by the same parents, educated in the same school and by the same teachers, possessing the same skin color, religion and even gender – and – with access to the same number of resources. In families, you can see a massive disparity between siblings, even with so many conditions being so tightly controlled and accounted for. How would it ever be possible to accommodate equal outcomes over a massive population? The answer of course, is that it is impossible. The answer of course is that even Karl Marx understood this. The answer of course is that this has never been about “equity”. This has never been about “ diversity” and this has never been about “inclusion”.
Put more simply, Marxism at its core is a “how to manual”. Its a recipe a person or a group can follow to occupy a group of people, to steal their wealth and achieve ultimate power and control. In order to implement Marxism, you need classes or groups of people. There must always be an “oppressor group” and there must always be an “oppressed group”. These groups can be defined by economic status, religion, race, gender or any other distinguishing characteristic. Sometimes, as we are seeing in Canada right now, we can have multiple “oppressor” groups and multiple “oppressed” groups. The fundamental requirement however, is that some “inequality” can be demonstrated. Usually, and to be most effective, a history of tension between the groups should already be present. This tension, which could be resolved rationally, overtime, is instead replaced with radical notions of systemic oppression. Instead of any real or perceived inequities being addressed rationally, it is presented confrontationally, as being so deeply ingrained within the system, that it mandates and requires a revolutionary force to dismantle it and overthrow it.
The shear ridiculousness of this thinking should be apparent to everyone. Since a system cannot possibly be equitable for everyone, and cannot even be achieved amongst siblings possessing so many fixed variables, there are really only 2 options.
Option 1, is a constant and perpetual revolution, displacing one inequitable system with another one.
Option 2, is a system where everyone is equitably poor, possessing very little wealth or influence, and a few ruling elites are trusted to handle the wealth and the power. Marxism, is effectively, a regression of society back to the times of Kings and Queens owning all of the wealth and power, while the masses live equitably. In poverty and squalor of course.
Today, in Canada, we are experiencing a full blown Marxist revolution within our society. Anyone who dares question the revolution, is instantly labelled a dangerous “far alt right” ideologue. To demonstrate my point, lets use the current definition of “far alt right” which is employed by our media and our governing elite. By labelling anyone who disagrees with the current radicalization of identity politics burning through our society and culture, as “far alt right”, they are effectively calling such people “Nazi’s”. Which again, is nothing but a sleight of hand. The only difference between Stalins communist revolution or Maus communist revolution and Hitlers Nazism, was the groups identified as being the “oppressors” and the groups identified as being “oppressed”. There is fundamentally no difference between all three scenarios. All three scenarios structurally involved the economic displacement of one group, by a different group. The fact the Nazi’s accomplished this using race, instead of various other indicators of socioeconomic status is completely irrelevant. In fact, Hitler explicitly tied race to be a determinant factor towards socioeconomic classifications. What this effectively means is all three of the above “revolutions”, were indeed Marxist revolutions. Hitler was no less of a Marxist vs Stalin or vs Mau.
Using congruent logic, Justin Trudeau, the Canadian Prime Minister is an open an flagrant Marxist. Chrystia Freeland, our newly appointed Minister of Finance, who openly promotes wealth re-distribution and equitable outcomes, is an open and flagrant Marxist. Whether these two can ever achieve the nefarious status of Hitler, Stalin or Mau is yet to be seen.
Proving this point is relatively simple, but for some unknown reason, seems difficult for most to grasp. Maybe its a result of the massive propaganda constantly infiltrating our minds. Maybe its years of improperly educating our children, maybe its decades of universities being infiltrated by flagrant Marxist ideologues, indoctrinating young formidable minds with this rhetoric – or maybe its a bit of all of the above. The end result is our societies inability to recognize whats staring us in the face.
To prove the modern political left is radicalized, and beyond repair. To prove they are nothing more than flagrant and open Marxist monsters, and to prove they are simply gaslighting those who ideologically oppose them by labelling them “far alt right” and calling them Nazis, lets complete a few simple mental exercises here.
Can anyone explain to me the ideological difference between the following?
“Jewish privilege has created a system of oppression against the Whites. Because the Jews control all of the positions of power and influence in society, Whites are oppressed and are incapable of competing within the system. As a result, we must tear down the existing system, and ensure a diverse and equitable representation of Whites in positions of power throughout the system in order to ensure fairness is created for everyone”
– (paraphrased rhetoric from Adolf Hitler)
“White privilege is pervasive throughout our system. As a result of systemic oppression by the Whites against Black people, Blacks are incapable of competing within the system. As a result, we must work to defeat inherent whiteness, and recognize the systemic racism that is present in all of us and throughout our system. We must ensure diversity and inclusion within our power structures, and completely dismantle and rebuild our systems in order to achieve equity”
– (paraphrased from every left leaning politician today)
You see folks. All you need to know about Marxists is that they reflect absolutely everything. Just listening to them speak, is like being a priest listening to a confession. When the man hating feminist screams sexism, you know very well, that she is the sexist. When the Black person who hates White people screams racism, you know very well that they are the racists. The fact our society accommodates flagrant sexism against men, and flagrant racism against White people, should clearly indicate to you that there is a serious illness and disease which has infected our society, our culture and our politics.
The fact that the radical left screams “Nazi” and “far alt right” at everyone who opposes them, is clearly telling you that they are Nazi’s. They are flagrant Marxist revolutionaries, they have infiltrated our universities, our media, our politics and our culture. They are running Hitler’s exact playbook on our society. They aren’t even trying to hide it.
How do you know? How can you be sure? Just listen to them, they are reflecting it and confessing it repeatedly.