Get the dictionaries off the hands of commies and beat the fuck out of the with those books.
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
11 comments:
Even the term "communism" itself holds little meaning. The jews throw that one around too.
They want communism to be equated with Marxism *specifically* because they don't want any other brand of it to exist. And they have basically succeeded in doing this, because after the collapse of the third position, the ussr hijacked every "left wing" movement on the planet, and *all of them* espoused some variant of Marxism.
Just like how they don't want any other capitalist system, besides the one that they invented in the Netherlands in the 1600s, and that Adam Smith wrote about, to exist. This is the system that exists in america, and this is the capitalist variant built off of corporate exploitation. Japanese capitalism, and hitlers capitalism, were extremely different. But these don't functionally exist anymore. The closest thing is chinese capitalism.
What if I told you that falangism is, effectively, a communist ideology that falls completely out of the purview of Marxism? It sounds almost impossible, because they want you to believe it's impossible. But it isn't. It was a heterodox far left socialist movement that believed in establishing proletariat control over the means of production. Textbook communism. But not marxism, because it didn't believe in internationalist, atheistic jewry and anarchy.
Capitalism is just merchant control over the means of production. Communism is just working class control of the means of production. They have very little to do themselves with any social politics. Jews just want their hands in both cookie jars simultaneously to control YOU regardless of what system you're under. So they hijacked every "communist" or "socialist" movement, and they hijacked every capitalist movement, with both tentacles from America (and, originally, the UK and the Netherlands) and from the USSR respectively.
They will counter any variant of socialism (like falangism) and any variant of capitalism (hitlers capitalism) that poses a threat to what they're trying to do. While the populace sits around and fights over economics like fucking morons.
They want communism to be equated with Marxism *specifically* because they don't want any other brand of it to exist. And they have basically succeeded in doing this, because after the collapse of the third position, the ussr hijacked every "left wing" movement on the planet, and *all of them* espoused some variant of Marxism.
Just like how they don't want any other capitalist system, besides the one that they invented in the Netherlands in the 1600s, and that Adam Smith wrote about, to exist. This is the system that exists in america, and this is the capitalist variant built off of corporate exploitation. Japanese capitalism, and hitlers capitalism, were extremely different. But these don't functionally exist anymore. The closest thing is chinese capitalism.
What if I told you that falangism is, effectively, a communist ideology that falls completely out of the purview of Marxism? It sounds almost impossible, because they want you to believe it's impossible. But it isn't. It was a heterodox far left socialist movement that believed in establishing proletariat control over the means of production. Textbook communism. But not marxism, because it didn't believe in internationalist, atheistic jewry and anarchy.
Capitalism is just merchant control over the means of production. Communism is just working class control of the means of production. They have very little to do themselves with any social politics. Jews just want their hands in both cookie jars simultaneously to control YOU regardless of what system you're under. So they hijacked every "communist" or "socialist" movement, and they hijacked every capitalist movement, with both tentacles from America (and, originally, the UK and the Netherlands) and from the USSR respectively.
They will counter any variant of socialism (like falangism) and any variant of capitalism (hitlers capitalism) that poses a threat to what they're trying to do. While the populace sits around and fights over economics like fucking morons.
One of the symbols of the US is a literal fasces.
America is and always will be fascist. Because fascist means people setting aside their differences and coming together for their mutual benefit.
Commies hate fascists because they can only succeed with divide and conquer. Refuse to be divided, and they cannot conquer.
America is and always will be fascist. Because fascist means people setting aside their differences and coming together for their mutual benefit.
Commies hate fascists because they can only succeed with divide and conquer. Refuse to be divided, and they cannot conquer.
My understand of what left vs right is has changed tremendously over the years, and no doubt there is some truth in what you say.
Leftism to me means the cult of Human Rights which emerged predominantly in the French Revolution, and the theology that has developed around "rights": a really broad collection of universalist beliefs that the material is sacred. Which does a good job explaining the worship of worldly metrics like gdp and gini index and universalist concepts like inequality.
I grew up in a really liberal area and one thing that struck me in reflection is how fundamentally in agreement liberals and communists often are. Liberals will look the other way when communists murder people every single time. They are the same religion. There are also liberals who hate communism, in the USA called "conservatives" but even many of them still see communism as somehow a "lesser evil" to white germans defending their own people; these people are the butt of every joke and have lost every cultural battle for half a century because what they hate is fundamentally the religion they believe in.
Meanwhile the word "right" seems to have just evolved as a catch-all to mean anything that wasn't whatever the Left was doing at the time. You could say the national socialists worship the material in the sense that they worship the race or volk, but this is not really universalist; its generally understood our race is not the totality of history, whereas human rights worshipers tend to see human history as described in totality by the origin myth of human rights emerging through liberation; the completeness of this explanation is a crucial aspect and no other teleology is even permitted. And yes over the years the theology has developed and splintered and grown just like every other.
So yes like the Jacobins were very nationalist whereas nationalism is now considered "far right" because nations are inherently not universal. Capitalism emerged out of individual rights/property rights but is now also considered "right-wing" because owning property is inherently unequal.
In your other comment you mentioned the similarity between the bolsheviks and the Italian fascists. I think you could say there are a lot of similarities between Nazis and Jews. Both groups are centered around fighting for the survival or their own people, both recognize the inevitability and even necessity of struggle. This was a great insight to me in understanding what national socialism is. The most fundamental beliefs are antagonistic to human rights in both cases. The two groups just have vastly different interpretations of what those beliefs mean and how to follow them.
Interestingly, Jews never advocate for human rights in their own domains. Human rights remains a whites-only religion, no other race on earth practices it on any systemic level whatsoever. Only white people practice it, and almost all whites practice it at least somewhat. And all it ever seems to do is destroy white people. So maybe there is something white about leftism in the sense that there is something Jewish about parasitism.
The thing about the ussr highjacking other left wing movements is interesting, and I agree about environmentalism. I think that trying to pin down left and right in economic terms is a non-starter because it's not fundamentally about money, it's about something more subtle.
Leftism to me means the cult of Human Rights which emerged predominantly in the French Revolution, and the theology that has developed around "rights": a really broad collection of universalist beliefs that the material is sacred. Which does a good job explaining the worship of worldly metrics like gdp and gini index and universalist concepts like inequality.
I grew up in a really liberal area and one thing that struck me in reflection is how fundamentally in agreement liberals and communists often are. Liberals will look the other way when communists murder people every single time. They are the same religion. There are also liberals who hate communism, in the USA called "conservatives" but even many of them still see communism as somehow a "lesser evil" to white germans defending their own people; these people are the butt of every joke and have lost every cultural battle for half a century because what they hate is fundamentally the religion they believe in.
Meanwhile the word "right" seems to have just evolved as a catch-all to mean anything that wasn't whatever the Left was doing at the time. You could say the national socialists worship the material in the sense that they worship the race or volk, but this is not really universalist; its generally understood our race is not the totality of history, whereas human rights worshipers tend to see human history as described in totality by the origin myth of human rights emerging through liberation; the completeness of this explanation is a crucial aspect and no other teleology is even permitted. And yes over the years the theology has developed and splintered and grown just like every other.
So yes like the Jacobins were very nationalist whereas nationalism is now considered "far right" because nations are inherently not universal. Capitalism emerged out of individual rights/property rights but is now also considered "right-wing" because owning property is inherently unequal.
In your other comment you mentioned the similarity between the bolsheviks and the Italian fascists. I think you could say there are a lot of similarities between Nazis and Jews. Both groups are centered around fighting for the survival or their own people, both recognize the inevitability and even necessity of struggle. This was a great insight to me in understanding what national socialism is. The most fundamental beliefs are antagonistic to human rights in both cases. The two groups just have vastly different interpretations of what those beliefs mean and how to follow them.
Interestingly, Jews never advocate for human rights in their own domains. Human rights remains a whites-only religion, no other race on earth practices it on any systemic level whatsoever. Only white people practice it, and almost all whites practice it at least somewhat. And all it ever seems to do is destroy white people. So maybe there is something white about leftism in the sense that there is something Jewish about parasitism.
The thing about the ussr highjacking other left wing movements is interesting, and I agree about environmentalism. I think that trying to pin down left and right in economic terms is a non-starter because it's not fundamentally about money, it's about something more subtle.
I view left vs right wing as, essentially, "revolutionary vs reactionary", with conservatism sitting squarely at the center.
The one difference in many cases is actually very easy: it's jews.
For example: classical fascism is an ideology created by a prior marxist, it's revolutionary, it's anti reactionary, it's anti capitalism, and it's based off of sorelian marxism. Heavily based off of it, actually.
Classical fascism to me, is mostly left wing. It has reactionary aspects, but despite having reactionary aspects, it always finds itself at odds with reaction, and it uses these reactionary aspects to put forth a revolutionary ideology. "Fight fire with fire".
Liberalism, by extension, is a conservative ideology. Both typical western "leftist" liberalism and "classical" liberalism, because they maintain a status quo, that status quo being economic capitalism (regardless of what they say), and social retardation.
Advocating for a feudal system would be economically reactionary. There's not many *actual* economic reactionary movements in existence, period. Socially reactionary politics is actually difficult to define. The soviet union was effectively socially reactionary in *many* ways, just not on an official party propaganda basis, and this reactionary influence comes from Georges sorel. He is the same person that gave fascism its reactionary influences.
But bolshevism? It shares, on the surface level, a great deal of ideals more with fascism than it does with liberalism. It's somewhere between classical fascism and orthodox marxism, ideologically speaking. Fascist Italy and the ussr actually had, at one point, quite cordial relations. Bolshevism is also based quite a bit on georges sorel, and diverges decently far from marxist orthodoxy. The ussr actually had a lot of the same reactionary features that italy did. What's the difference actually? *Jews*. That's... it. Jews in the bolshevik party were responsible for literally everything wrong with it.
Both liberalism and bolshevism are jewish ideologies, which is why they tend to be in agreement with each other. I don't think this is because they are both leftists. Bolshevism and fascism are both left wing too, and fascism is more "true" left wing than liberalism is. It's because of jews. If you ripped the later jewish influence from leninism out of it, and dialed back the marxist orthodoxy slightly, it would be virtually indistinguishable from a 3rd positionist ideology. Particularly stalinism, which axed the internationalism from bolshevism.
Here's an example of something interesting from history that more or less backs up my thesis:
Have you ever noticed how much more anarchistic and libertarian the Spanish communists during the Spanish Civil War were as opposed to the bolsheviks, or the Chinese? The reason why is because the Spanish authoritarian communists had already by and large joined the falangist party, because it was a safer bet than being a ragtag group of retards, and went off to fight the anarchists and Republicans that both of them were opposed to. The russian and chinese authoritarian communists didn't have a left-wing nationalist authoritarian group to join, the Spanish did. So the Spanish (actual) communist parties suffered as a result. Most of the Spanish communists, in fact, did not want to shoot nuns and establish a worldwide revolution and shit. Most of them were catholics, most of them were nationalist. They wanted to shoot conservatives and government leaders. The falangist party said: "we will protect your religion and you can shoot conservatives and government leaders, plus we'll install socialism", and they were on board. But Rivera died, so Franco betrayed everyone and purged the party of anyone that wasn't exactly who the Falange de Las JONS was against.
In fact, it seems standard that when there is a fascist party *in general*, they will typically be victorious over marxist ones, because marxism alienates more people with its anti religious internationalist horseshit, and fascism offers a revolutionary state without state mandated atheism. So they (the would be footsoldiers of communism) do not have to compromise on religion and nationalism vs quality of life. They get it all. It happened in Germany, Italy, Spain, Romania, etc. A significant core of a 3rd positionist movement necessarily comes from prior marxists.
The issue nowadays is: people do not become marxists out of despair anymore, unless they live in a 3rd world shithole. They become marxists because its trendy. So they're far more likely to just shoo away any movement that doesn't wave a red and gold flag because they now have the luxury to do so. Furthermore, they usually actually *are* atheist internationalists, whereas your average bolshevik footsoldier was an orthodox Christian who wanted the best for Russia and didn't know any better. The reason for the disparity is because they legitimately believe that all leftists at all times hated fascists and considered them the ultimate evil, when it isn't even remotely true.
The one difference in many cases is actually very easy: it's jews.
For example: classical fascism is an ideology created by a prior marxist, it's revolutionary, it's anti reactionary, it's anti capitalism, and it's based off of sorelian marxism. Heavily based off of it, actually.
Classical fascism to me, is mostly left wing. It has reactionary aspects, but despite having reactionary aspects, it always finds itself at odds with reaction, and it uses these reactionary aspects to put forth a revolutionary ideology. "Fight fire with fire".
Liberalism, by extension, is a conservative ideology. Both typical western "leftist" liberalism and "classical" liberalism, because they maintain a status quo, that status quo being economic capitalism (regardless of what they say), and social retardation.
Advocating for a feudal system would be economically reactionary. There's not many *actual* economic reactionary movements in existence, period. Socially reactionary politics is actually difficult to define. The soviet union was effectively socially reactionary in *many* ways, just not on an official party propaganda basis, and this reactionary influence comes from Georges sorel. He is the same person that gave fascism its reactionary influences.
But bolshevism? It shares, on the surface level, a great deal of ideals more with fascism than it does with liberalism. It's somewhere between classical fascism and orthodox marxism, ideologically speaking. Fascist Italy and the ussr actually had, at one point, quite cordial relations. Bolshevism is also based quite a bit on georges sorel, and diverges decently far from marxist orthodoxy. The ussr actually had a lot of the same reactionary features that italy did. What's the difference actually? *Jews*. That's... it. Jews in the bolshevik party were responsible for literally everything wrong with it.
Both liberalism and bolshevism are jewish ideologies, which is why they tend to be in agreement with each other. I don't think this is because they are both leftists. Bolshevism and fascism are both left wing too, and fascism is more "true" left wing than liberalism is. It's because of jews. If you ripped the later jewish influence from leninism out of it, and dialed back the marxist orthodoxy slightly, it would be virtually indistinguishable from a 3rd positionist ideology. Particularly stalinism, which axed the internationalism from bolshevism.
Here's an example of something interesting from history that more or less backs up my thesis:
Have you ever noticed how much more anarchistic and libertarian the Spanish communists during the Spanish Civil War were as opposed to the bolsheviks, or the Chinese? The reason why is because the Spanish authoritarian communists had already by and large joined the falangist party, because it was a safer bet than being a ragtag group of retards, and went off to fight the anarchists and Republicans that both of them were opposed to. The russian and chinese authoritarian communists didn't have a left-wing nationalist authoritarian group to join, the Spanish did. So the Spanish (actual) communist parties suffered as a result. Most of the Spanish communists, in fact, did not want to shoot nuns and establish a worldwide revolution and shit. Most of them were catholics, most of them were nationalist. They wanted to shoot conservatives and government leaders. The falangist party said: "we will protect your religion and you can shoot conservatives and government leaders, plus we'll install socialism", and they were on board. But Rivera died, so Franco betrayed everyone and purged the party of anyone that wasn't exactly who the Falange de Las JONS was against.
In fact, it seems standard that when there is a fascist party *in general*, they will typically be victorious over marxist ones, because marxism alienates more people with its anti religious internationalist horseshit, and fascism offers a revolutionary state without state mandated atheism. So they (the would be footsoldiers of communism) do not have to compromise on religion and nationalism vs quality of life. They get it all. It happened in Germany, Italy, Spain, Romania, etc. A significant core of a 3rd positionist movement necessarily comes from prior marxists.
The issue nowadays is: people do not become marxists out of despair anymore, unless they live in a 3rd world shithole. They become marxists because its trendy. So they're far more likely to just shoo away any movement that doesn't wave a red and gold flag because they now have the luxury to do so. Furthermore, they usually actually *are* atheist internationalists, whereas your average bolshevik footsoldier was an orthodox Christian who wanted the best for Russia and didn't know any better. The reason for the disparity is because they legitimately believe that all leftists at all times hated fascists and considered them the ultimate evil, when it isn't even remotely true.
Here's a person who will no doubt challenge any conventional understanding of left and right:
Georges Sorel.
Sorel provided the intellectual meat and potatoes for both *bolshevism and fascism*. And actively approved of *both* simultaneously. He lived to see the ussr and fascist Italy. He was in correspondence with mussolini and Lenin. He liked both of them.
Perhaps the most unhinged of all communist philosophers, Georges Sorel was originally a conventional orthodox marxist who decided to foray into radical French neofeudalist reactionary groups, very interestingly enough, and formed his own ideals based off of the synthesis of those 2 incredibly opposing interests.
Some ideas he had that were taken by both the bolsheviks and mussolini, that were not from marx were: glorification of war and violence, the status of heroic myth, anti democracy, collectivism, the organization of society into syndicates (corporations in fascism, soviets in bolshevism), et al. Read his work if you get the time, you can see where both splintered from him.
These ideas came from his workings with the aforementioned French reactionary neofeudalist monarchists. Not from Marx, but he was originally a marxist. These ideas are all incredibly reactionary, almost reaching the level of *evola* in effect. But what made the ussr and fascist Italy different enough to be at odds at the end of the day is incredibly simple: nationalism, jews vs non jews, and Christianity.
Yes, the soviet union had aspects of an extremely reactionary, evolian, state. And Lenin pissed off every orthodox marxist on the planet, essentially. They had more reactionary features than almost any western country. Combined with far left ones, because of sorel. But what made it *bad* is literally *that fucking simple*. It's because of *jews*. If the ussr had *no jews*, it would be completely and perfectly fine. It would be "third positionist" even. Because that's the thin line that separates the third position from marxism leninism. Jews.
Georges Sorel.
Sorel provided the intellectual meat and potatoes for both *bolshevism and fascism*. And actively approved of *both* simultaneously. He lived to see the ussr and fascist Italy. He was in correspondence with mussolini and Lenin. He liked both of them.
Perhaps the most unhinged of all communist philosophers, Georges Sorel was originally a conventional orthodox marxist who decided to foray into radical French neofeudalist reactionary groups, very interestingly enough, and formed his own ideals based off of the synthesis of those 2 incredibly opposing interests.
Some ideas he had that were taken by both the bolsheviks and mussolini, that were not from marx were: glorification of war and violence, the status of heroic myth, anti democracy, collectivism, the organization of society into syndicates (corporations in fascism, soviets in bolshevism), et al. Read his work if you get the time, you can see where both splintered from him.
These ideas came from his workings with the aforementioned French reactionary neofeudalist monarchists. Not from Marx, but he was originally a marxist. These ideas are all incredibly reactionary, almost reaching the level of *evola* in effect. But what made the ussr and fascist Italy different enough to be at odds at the end of the day is incredibly simple: nationalism, jews vs non jews, and Christianity.
Yes, the soviet union had aspects of an extremely reactionary, evolian, state. And Lenin pissed off every orthodox marxist on the planet, essentially. They had more reactionary features than almost any western country. Combined with far left ones, because of sorel. But what made it *bad* is literally *that fucking simple*. It's because of *jews*. If the ussr had *no jews*, it would be completely and perfectly fine. It would be "third positionist" even. Because that's the thin line that separates the third position from marxism leninism. Jews.
There is no left vs right. There is just ideologies vs perversion of ideologies.
And yes the kikes perverted all the ideologies, even Christianity
And yes the kikes perverted all the ideologies, even Christianity
There's a blatant kike push on ConPro to push the false narrative that the world should not unite against the jew because we should all be fighting among ourselves instead of Finally Solving the Jewish Problem.
Toast message
they BOTH WANT OUR EXTINCTION AND ONE SIDE WANTS IT FASTER AND THE OTHER SIDE WANTS US TO DIE FOR ISRAEL FIRST