The world is complex, and when faced with complex things societies generally turn to ideology to foster group cohesion and so we don’t have to explore the complexity of reality, because that, we think, is no fun. It’s way more fun (read way more violent) to moralize and jargonize than to have to sit down and study the world (“science”)–or heaven forbid our own thought processes (“philosophy”). So, just as it is popular now to say that religion and magic were merely devised by lazy or ill-equipped minds to explain away the complexity of the physical world with a “God of the gaps” catch-all, so too does the “irreligious” left do the same exact thing they accuse their political opponents of, except the left directs its voodoo at dismissively generalizing social questions. Hence it is clear that what separates political parties is an intrapersonal fragmentation based on an arbitrary decision on which field of study to engage seriously and in which one to stifle all tenacious research, let alone critical thinking. (I’ve termed this phenomenon “strategic self-delusion”.) That is why even if you say that your political ideology, strategy or party represents what you “believe”, isn’t it true what they say that belief is just a fancy word for “ignorance”?
Politics, because it is about groups marching to drumbeats, is the opposite of thought (in any robust, independent or competent sense). So although most of these hyper-political com-rads are all about reducing complex social phenomena to agenda-serving dog-whistles (sometimes called doublespeak) dressed up in high intellectual jargon (even mass has a scientific meaning as well as a Marxian one) with lots of obscure French terms sprinkled on top, what this doesn’t mean is that you’re allowed to test their theories in reality, since they’ll quickly tell you that reality itself has been skewed by the (they’ll insist unnatural) forces of ownership (wait, aren’t most animals of prey territorial?) and capital (as they and they alone define it). And this closes the circle of that envy-based reasoning that is the professional agitator’s ticket to job security as the de facto pseudointellectual leaders of an endless (because circular) revolutionary struggle probably ultimately intended just to wear down the host-population for an easier takeover by their inner-circle Bolshevik Ashkenazic cabal. But dude, you should have known the moment they began interpreting the free market as somehow being an unnatural or cohesive “system”/“conspiracy” that they were projecting their own mentality onto reality, in short that you were being snowed!
When the communist claims to reduce society to a “field of science” while reducing science to a set of dogmas, he is actually undermining the legitimate sciences–what are known as the “hard sciences”–and advancing a method not for Cartesian meditative inquiry but rather for leveraging control of the mass landed populations for–and here’s the kicker–his own ethnic group’s profit.
It’s a truism most painful to say that there are atheists who aren’t scientific, atheists who are sordid, atheists who are total fucking weirdos, atheists who are only atheists because (they think) it absolves them of any accountability, but give that a moment to sink in. We’ve been pseudoeducated to consider atheism as a radical commitment to scientific rigor, and atheism (like its half-witted spawn communism) is quick to insist that it’s all about that and nothing else. So it’s the perfect crime when communist atheism undermines its own alleged foundation, namely the scientific method, which is shockingly easy to do when we’re all lumped into groupthinking “communities” in the city with no sense of how agriculture, let alone wild nature, even function. When a people have lost the strength of the hills and their only remaining instinct is anger, well of course they’re ideal livestock for these bad actors to steer into stampedes (“protests”) against those who stand in their way and those who’ve “wronged” them (probably by standing in their way, as the Romanovs did). The principle at work here is that a group that’s renounced hierarchy is only as smart as their stupidest member: ergo, as long as we’re only allowed to do anything as a group (manufactured “consensus”), the provisional revolutionary government need be accountable to no one! And in the case of its newest climate hysteria tactic, they have a word for pseudoscience: BUSINESS AS USUAL!
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not a scientific organization. It calls itself that, but it’s not. It’s a political advocacy group that dresses itself up as a scientific body, all the while defying the basic tenets of scientific inquiry by selectively accepting some experimental results and refusing to acknowledge a whole lot of others. It’s latched onto this theory about CO₂ emissions produced by man, and they’re saying that’s the culprit of everything that’s wrong with the planet”.(The staunchly counter-revolutionary journalist Michael Voris.)
It is this blogger’s assertion that communism is merely a different form of capitalism that regards human beings as another natural resource and nothing more.
To further illustrate my point, or I should say to give legs to common sense, I’m going to present a brief glossary of politically charged words that have lost almost all of their original meaning, which I will revive alongside each word.
The Left. “Equality”. Whereas rightism means hierarchicalism, leftism means egalitarianism. (The French word for “left” is gouche.)
Liberalism. A liberal is someone who believes in individual liberties.
Communism. A communist is the opposite of a liberal. A communist believes in a unit known as a commune (see Yiddish kibbutz) and that only groups, and by no means individuals, have rights. See also socialism. (Most so-called “liberals” today [I call them neo-liberals for clarity*] seem to be in fact communists.)
Socialism. See communism. (Now wording aside, theoretically there is a difference: with socialism the state allegedly [“re”]distributes wealth more judiciously by rewarding contributions, whereas communism spreads out resources according to needs, independently of what they contribute to the state. It’s the difference between From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs VERSUS From each according to his abilities, to each according to his usefulness.)
Democracy. Rule by the commoners, proletariat, or simply “the people”.
Redistribution of wealth. This is a radical proposal because it assumes that wealth was once evenly distributed or that it can’t be created through ingenuity, both of which are clearly a stretch at best.
* I’ll make the contention that neoliberals, like neoconservatives, are Bolsheviks.