Posts Tagged ‘socialist’

How The Left Maipulates Language To Make Dangerous Ideass Seem Benign

March 24, 2017

<!– Authored by ReturnOfKings.com via The Burning Platform, –>

The political left, as they like to style themselves because it sounds less threatening than the more honest ‘authoritarian control freaks, bases much of its campaign rhetoric on conflict-mongering. Left wing political movements have always had as their raison d’ê that they are against something; capitalism, monarchy, religion, inequality, injustice, whether real or fantasized. In the past, when the social orders of the developed world were dominated by rigid class systems that prevented social mobility, left wing politics masked the real nature of what it stood for, replacing the old oppressive elite with a new, often more oppressive elite, by posing as something positive or progressive, the defenders of the working class (or more emotively, ‘the downtrodden masses’. To this end, generations of communists, socialists and paternalistic liberals twisted language to make themselves appear benign while the demon of the day (capitalism, conservatism, religion etc. was pained as something evil and threatening.

Eighteenth century libertines claimed to defend “freedom” while faith became “fanaticism” and “superstition.” In reality they demanded total freedom for the rich from all moral constraints. Double standards and hypocrisy was rife among these ‘liberals.’ A young female servant who fell pregnant after an (often coercive) encounter with the master’s son was classed as morally deficient and condemned to a life of shame and infamy, while the man could evade any responsibility, simply on the basis that the word of a gentleman would always be believed over the word of a ‘low born’ person.

Later, Karl Marx paved the way for emotionally needy virtue signallers to pose as “intellectuals” siding with “the masses,” against authority. The problem there was the intellectuals only cared about the social kudos they could gain by presenting themselves as defenders of the defenceless. Their self image depended on the masses remaining as ignorant, grovelling and eternally grateful for the patronage.

Some manipulated the media into pretending they were part of the “oppressed,” Jews, Roman Catholics, homosexuals or lesbians and thus entitled to sympathy when they were actually hateful, anti-middle-class Marxists who believed their delusions of moral superiority entitled them to be part of a new, academic elite, a meritocracy.

The whole theory of “progress” as it exists in liberal democracies of the developed world where a consensus has formed around the ideology dubbed Cultural Marxism Marx—society ought is that a society should move from capitalism to a collectivist utopia in which the individual interest is subsumed under the desire to serve the community. This is wishful thinking, look what happened in Sovie yett Russian under the communist tyranny of Lenin and Stalin, in communist China under they tyranny of Chairman Mao and his Red Guard, in Cuba, the Soviet satellite states of Europe and most of all in Cambodia under the murderous regime of Pol Pot.

While casting themselves as liberators of the working class and rewriting history to present a self-favoring view of their rise to power, Marxist regimes have always quickly become dictatorships prepared to kill millions of innocent people in order to quash dissent. History seems to have forgotten that in 1870 the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin warned Karl Marx that a future communist government would rapidly become more oppressive than the old monatchies of Russia and central Europe. History has proved him right.

Just as globalist corporatism destroys communities and enslaved poor and middle income families through debt, cultural Marxist ‘progressivism’ serves to destroy not only nations but cultures and communities. homelands. As long as people can be deceived by buzzwords into belieing some kind of utopia can be achieved if humans surrender their individual sovereignty to collective interests, the confidence trick that both socialism and communism are based on will retains its grip over their minds.

Socialism and communism are in fact the most extreme form of elitism. ‘The Controllers’, (as Aldous Huxley called them in brave New World) or ‘the inner party’ of George Orwell’s big Brother regime in the novel 1984 live in the greatest extremes of privilege and splendour while the masses labour in squalor.

Here are some of the buzzwords that are actual political ploys used by the left in their sinister schemes to worm their way into power.

1. Equality

Perhaps the most massive totem pole of it all. Written, shouted, used as a talisman an indefinite number of times, “equality” has been put forth to justify various mass killings from eighteenth century terror to twentieth century Bolshevism, and closer to us served to unleash female hypergamy and alien millions of young straight-white-males from the societies they should belong in.

Equality exists in mathematics. A number can be equal to another because an abstract unit can be replaced with another abstract unit without change. Mathematical equality exists because abstract units are identical with each other. Outside from the realm of pure quantity, qualitative differences emerge, and thus equality ought to be defined negatively as the absence of difference both in quantity and quality.

It is easy to see that equality between individual beings—not numbers—is a fiction, an attempt to perceive individuals as abstractions or numbers, void of any quality, personality or specificity. Equalitarianism stems from a rather incomplete view of the beings it pretends to apply to, and gets quickly used as a mask for envy or the will to grab something or exert power over someone.

Although equality can enter into the definition of true justice as equanimity—see Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, quote—, more than often, the word is used to foster particular interests at the expense of the wider social equilibrium, to fan the flames of division and sedition, and later, to deny vocations, human biodiversity, complementarity as it implies differences in nature and functions, not to mention ugly tradeoffs where some manipulative group plays the victim or claims rights to what doesn’t belong to them.

2. “Social” “justice”

Are you a victim? Are you victim of a particular inequality? Then you are living an injustice, and this wrong ought to be compensated. This simple framing has been widely used by anti-white, anti-male, anti-Western leftists to create a feeling of victimhood among various social categories. They used this powerful feeling to mount new social identities, inspired from Marxist classes—feminism isn’t about femininity but about women identifying as a separate, adversarial group, whose interests would be antagonistic to men’s—, and perpetual charges hung over the majority’s heads: Racist; Sexist; homophobe; Islamophobe; nationalist; And so on.

“Social justice” covers a blending of several features: an accusatory, anti-white, anti-male, anti-Western narrative, that taints and darkens past history; a feeling of victimhood and class identity for so-called “minorities” integrated into the wider narrative; the systematic, and very real, disenfranchisement and displacement of the majority that finds itself condemned to play the role of the bad guy—and hence charged—in said narrative. In this sense, “social justice” is deeply divisive, defamatory, aggressive, and amounts to a Moloch that eats families, nationhood, and most men.

Actual justice, call it social or not, is of course far from such a terrible conception. Methinks true justice should acknowledge the fact that we are the sons of the Western civilizations, its human substance and legitimate heirs, and that we have a prime right over it. We should have jobs, freedom of speech, protection over violent crowds, a right to fair judgment instead of getting screwed over by HR, “minority” impunity and pussy pass, a right to chances to thick relationships with at least some women instead of clowning our ways through hypergamy… Don’t forget we need to formalize at least some of our intuitions about what’s fair or not to replace the wicked theory of “justice” the Left shatters us with.

3. “Progress” (and the “reactionaries”)

This overrated buzzword has been straightforward long ago. Its Latin root, progressus, stems from the root verb gradior (walk, advance) and was mostly used in a military context, as in the sentence “the army is progressing into enemy territory.” Since then, it has been used analogically to qualify any advancement, even purely relative or fantasised ones.

The Left, following the pompous philosophies of Marx, Tolstoy, Lenin, Bertrand Russell and harold Laskey enshrined its own notion of progress into a general theory of history, thus making it absolute rather than relative. When various strands of modernity clash—for example, individual freedom and collective well-being, which one is “progressive”? Each can be used to fulfill a particular notion of progress. Aside perhaps from technological breakthroughs, “progress” is deeply relative. Even the most shining realizations of genius imply the sacrifice of thousands of potential choices that have been discarded during the process. The Left chose to forget this truth in order to judge everything and everyone from its own authoritarian and binary perspective.

If you do some research about such characters as, say, Ayn Rand and Lothrop Stoddard, you’ll notice they have been widely labelled “reactionary.” Yet each of them was a progressive in his own right. Rand considered industrial development and individual freedom as obvious landmarks of progress: she opposed vehemently to the environmentalist and collectivist—that is, anti-industrial, anti-economic growth, anti-conservative right as a “return of the primitive.”

<!– As for Lothrop Stoddard, he rebuffed Bolshevism and environmentalism as pre-scientific ratiocinations that willingly ignored human differences and the proper value of civilization. These “mistakes”, he said, are older than biological discoveries and stem from “degenerate” elements who would rather destroy civilization than letting it progress without them.

The only new thing about Bolshevism is its ” rationalizing ” of rebellious emotions into an exceedingly insidious and persuasive philosophy of revolt which has not merely welded all the real social rebels, but has also deluded many misguided dupes, blind to what Bolshevism implies. (Stoddard, Revolt Against Civilization, chap.8)

I also remember an old-fashioned Marxist who claimed feminism was “reactionary” because, he said, it comes from the wealthy and urbanized bourgeoisie, and hijacks the attention and care given to working classes for the benefit of actual exploiters. This guy’s progressivism has fallen out of grace, likely because it showed unable to destroy Western countries, but he is no less right according to his own logic.

Now, of course, we could say that MRAs are the real progressives as men’s rights are a progress, or that asserting our identities and associated rights are a progress, perhaps more so than SJW savagery and unrestrained hypergamy.

4. Openness or open-mindedness

We all heard about how being “open to new ideas” and possibilities, or being “open-minded” was good. In practice, what the liberals mean when they talk about openness or open-minded is “be a Leftist and believe in our notion of progress.” You have to be uncritical, hyper-sympathetic towards the last tranny or BLM activist that whines about how mistreated and misunderstood he is—and if you are “open” to wasting your money on the latest trendy fashion, it is even better.

But try being open-minded towards what the Left tags as “far right” or “extreme”, for example men’s right, race realism, skepticism on their dogmas such as anthropogenic global warming, or tradition… and it won’t be long before they shriek at you, in a typical display of rather irrational dirtiness psychology. “These ideas are impure! They are contagious!”

Open-mindedness along their lines means being gullible to media and college propaganda. You have to let the managers and social engineers fabric your consent, as Chomsky would put it. They want your mind to be open so they can fulfill it with self-hate and garbage. When it comes to better things libtards suspend open-mindedness, to the point of refusing any objective inquiry and hiding behind their biased, accusatory rhetoric.

In itself, openness or open-mindedness is a double-edged sword. It can, and should be used by those who are intelligent or morally structured enough to toy with potentially dangerous ideas. As to the others, those who are too easily tempted or misdirect by demagogues, especially women—who by their vote always favoured an anti-family, economy-devouring Big State—, the low-IQ and the unhinged, I think they should follow the lead of more qualified individuals.

5. Modern nationhood and citizenship

Since time immemorial peoples have been ethnocultural groups. Romans used the term natio to refer to a particular people, say, the Gaul, the Goths or the Basque. They also used the term civis to refer to a man as a member of his city, thus belonging to it.

Both words have been emptied of their substantial meaning. “Nation” is now mostly used to denote an abstract, bureaucratized State whom anyone can be a national if the bureaucrats hand him a stamped piece of paper. “Citizenship” refers to the pretense to identify with a particular public responsibility or to a world under globalist power: Leftists often claim to be “just citizens” or speak “in the name of the citizens of X place” when they are actually carrying cultural warfare. Remember when a bunch of hateful swindlers tried to rob Sherry Spencer, Richard Spencer’s mom, of her real estate by forcing her to sell it at a cheap price? Complacent media said they were just citizens, or that “the town” was doing it. Yeah, sure.

Citizenship today is a mean to virtue-signal when you are an urban elf. It has become empty, fictitious—it refers to a world of nowhere and more subtly to belonging to a globalist class that abandoned its actual fellow citizens or ethnic brothers long ago.

6. “Social struggles” and “achievements”

When they referred to actually good causes, such as trade unions maintaining a high standard of living for most workers and fostering a meritocratic middle-class, these words ringed well. Today, they seem to refer more to the unwarranted privileges of State officers—when theft through taxes and economic rent are presented as something “social.”

The heroic epic of “social achievements”, which conveniently forgets that there is no free lunch and that if a particular segment of population benefits much from them it must be at the expense of the others, covers a host of barely examined ill effects. When it is used to glorify the welfare State, it forgets how such a State tends to disintegrate organic social life by taking away charity or generosity, how it fosters a big parasitic and paternalist State, how it allows females to destroy their families, or how it attracts immigrants eager to get a check and imposes unfair burdens on the productive citizens—I’m thinking about, say, the middle classes who paid for Obamacare, not about cutting taxes for Monsanto.

Conclusion

From fake smiles and cute façades to seemingly innocuous buzzwords such as “you go girl”, “sex positivity” or “self-acceptance” – which sounds better than complacency – the culture conflict-mongerers managed to push their disruptions and degeneration into normality. One step at a time, from actual normalcy to an alien nation, all this believing they were cool or on the good side of history.

Shatter the illusion by explaining what stands behind and unveil the inner vacuity or potentially polymorphous use of the word. May progress not be “progress” and may the mainstream view of justice not be the anti-white, misandric “social justice.” They aren’t smarter than we are, just more manipulative. –>

RELATED POSTS:

Greenteeth Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Writerbeat ] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] … [ Minds ] [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer Headlines]
[ Ian at Facebook ]

The Worst Tyranny?

August 8, 2015

The Neo Nazis who describe themselves as ‘the progressive left’ or ‘progressive liberals’ seem to think they have a divine right to hurl abuse at anyone who disagrees with them.

“Divine right, Ian, but aren’t they all militant atheists?” You might well ask.

They might reject the God of Abraham (but then so do I and I despise the bastards) but they have turned socialism into a religion, with dogma, creed, a sort of catechism (immigration is good, homosexuality must be praised, science is infallible etc.) And like the tyrants of the medieval Catholic Church, their overweening self – righteousness leads them to assume follower of their faith and its various cults e.g. The Fabian Society) are qualified to instruct the rest of us on how we should organise our lives and what thoughts and attitudes are acceptbable.

Here’s a though on that from one of the twentieth century’s leading libertarian thinkers:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
C.S. Lewis

You’d be surprised (or maybe if you are reading this blog you wouldn’t) how many of the leading left wing intellectuals who are or were members of the Fabian Society have gone of record as saying democracy was obstructive to the socialist agenda and only a benign dictatorship controlled by the financial, commercial and academic elite can solve the world’s problems.

Read more >>>
and more >>>

RELATED POSTS:
Germany Opens Gates, Welcomes ALL Syrian Asylum Seekers: Urges UK To Do The Same

Russell Brand For Prime Minister?

March 13, 2014

Beldiueve it or not there are people out there who think it sounds like a good idea. Well OK I suppose they sort of have a point, he couldn’t be any worse than any of the last half dozen or so we’ve had. Surprisingly the people behind the brand for Prime Minister are not the same ones as are saying the Malaysian airlines Boeing 777 was planeknapped by a giant UFO, in fact but for one little thing they sound quite sensible.

Getting Brand into politics would be good from one perspective, it would stop him pretending he’s a comedian. marus brigstock could run for deputy PM thus killing tow turds with one stone. Politicians are comedians of course but they take themselves very seriously. Our Prime Minister though? That doesn’t sound a good idea, perhaps he could be President of The USA, although I suppose his not being a natural born citizen of Kenya might rule him out.

If you are interested in helping Russell Brand become Prime Minister here’s some more information on the campaign at Thomas Sheridan’s Official Blog:

People ask me why I am taking such a major interest in the Russell Brand/BBC Newsnight interview and especially the social, political and psychological aftereffects it has unleashed. They claim I am ‘jealous’ of Mr Brand (!!??!!). Giving him too much attention. Obsessed with him. They state this as they join new Facebook pages entitled Russell Brand for Prime Minister and share memes with Fabian Socialist platitudes on them, memes and statements they would have rejected only last week.

Some of the hatred directed against me has been staggering, as my basic criticism of this story robs them of their Dopamine rush, as they continue to see the Messiah on Tour as their main conduit of personal salvation. You know times are strange when you get called a ‘conspiracy nutter’ by people who believe the Royal Family are shape-shifting interdimensional iguanas because you took their Dopamine rush off them by pointing out that ‘Our Russ’ is not really what a revolutionary actually is. Besides, only Evolution changes things – Revolution just ‘revolves’ you back to where you started.

Aside from the fantastic hype, and watching the Cambridge Universities/SWP/Mi5/Activists Alliance monitor and gauge the reaction of the Truthers to the ‘Messiah Tour’ as they would lab rats. For me, this amazing and interesting last few days is not just about Russell Brand, he is just a part of the game plan – this is HUGE. Mark my words. In time, the full Pandora’s Box of what they are up to at the top are up to will be revealed.

Essentially the PTB are purposefully creating a rift or a Reformation/Civil War within the Alternative Movement. This serves many purposes, but the main one is to get people who have opted out ‘back into the system’ – have them voting for ‘Socialist Egalitarian’ candidates (in reality, traditional Left Wing Fabian Socialist parties such as Labour). Have them forget their anger at the system. Get them meditating, and not raging against the system, have them voting once more and all set for Agenda 21. Allow them their ‘silly conspiracy theories’.

Continue reading:

RELATED POSTS:
Saint Bob Geldof backs Russell brand for Prime Minister
Don’t Call Me A Conspiracy Theorist

Micawbernomics: A Gift Of Wise Advice To Politicians And Economists

December 23, 2012

Question the received wisdom of socialist and ‘compassionate conservative’ politicians and economics academics that the only way out of the financial mess is higher taxes and more government spending and they will get on their high horse to explain that you are only revealing your economic ignorance – and like comedy cowboys fall right off on the other side.

Read full post: Micawbernomics