Reminder on how the globalists are trying to destroy Western civilisation


Reminder on how the globalists are trying to destroy Western civilisation

We've picked up a lot of new people so I wanted to make this post to inform people on the truly insidious nature of Communism and its history. This information is pretty much not taught at schools and universities period. Every single university nowadays teaches Critical Theory so it would be counter productive for them to actually teach the truth. A Brief History of Communism 1850 Germany: The Proletariat is borderline exploited. Old capitalism treated them like refuse, causing them to be mentally & physically destroyed to such an extent that when the German military was looking for new, healthy people they had big problems finding them. Marx seeing this as an opportunity writes the 'Manifesto of the Communist Party’ in which he declares the following goals (that no one seems to know): By causing a violent proletarian revolution which will kill all the capitalists he wants the: 1) Nationalisation of all means of production aka, abolishment of all competition 2) Creation of fictional property that belongs to everybody aka, the takeover of said property by those who led the revolution 3) Creation of a 'system of terror' which will make sure the communist leaders will stay in positions of power as soon as the system goes bankrupt and the people will rebel. Sidenote: so actually pretty much the same situation we have in the EU right now. The system is bankrupt and a rebellion (in form of the rise of the right) is coming. The difference is that the modern EU does not (yet) has a 'system of terror' which it could use to suppress said rebellion. The fact that for Marxism to be put in place a violent revolution was mandatory was the main difference between Marxist socialism and other socialist ideas which wanted to achieve their goals via peaceful reforms. The problem both versions have to face eventually is that socialism as a whole is a system that has to fail sooner or later. The difference is that when this happens the socialists trying to get to power via peaceful reforms will inevitably lose it compared to those who got there with violence and can simply use their 'system of terror' to keep their power any time. After three major attempts classical Marxism failed in the west for two reasons: Because of the technical revolution & the changes in the proletariats mentality which for the first time in history allowed them to escape from poverty and moral degeneracy just with hard work and discipline. What do I mean by that? The changes in their mentality were caused by the introduction of different help & educational programs which were funded by the state of Germany and the church in the 1860s. Those originally very primitive, pessimistic and frustrated people started to study and have basic moral values again which increased their outlook on their future. At the same time the technical revolution increased the demand for highly qualified workers. This was the main reason why big companies had to start to compete with each other over them. That’s what caused capitalism to slowly change since these companies had for the first time an interest in the education and wellbeing of their workers. This eventually resulted in the so called Fordism of 1910 where Ford was able to pay his workers so much that they could buy the cars they were building at the time with just saving 3 months of salaries. But in return Ford demanded a perfectly educated and behaved worker who never made any mistakes while at work or at home. This strict work-ethic caused his factories to skyrocket in production efficiency and sales. Prime example of good capitalism. The rise of the proletariat was an issue for Marx because he knew in order to start a bloody revolution he needed a frustrated, pessimistic, uneducated group of degenerated people who have as little moral values as possible and will (if necessary) kill if he wants them to. Back in the day the proletariat met these conditions perfectly because those were people who (originally) didn't know how to work and even if they did they had a deep rooted hatred towards it because their last several generations got exploited through their hard & honest work by their (old) capitalistic employers. The increasing well-being of the proletarian masses caused a major drop in the communist party’s popularity in 1875 which forced many Marxists to give the idea of a revolution up and try to achieve their goals via peaceful reforms. That's how the first (pre-runner of today’s Social-Dems) social democracy was created. When Marx found out about this he was furious, because for him the violent revolution was an indispensable, holy part of the party. But whatever Marx did, his idea of a violent revolution was still losing popularity. What did this mean for Marx and his followers? It meant that they were losing their army of 'degenerate' proletarians which was designed to kill all the capitalists and help the Marxists to take over the positions of power as it is clearly described in the Communist Manifesto. At the same time more and more people started to prove all the pseudo-economic statements Marx made in his manifesto wrong. Even though he tried to correct them he was hitting a new low. The classical Marxists needed help and help they got. Lenin wrote a book in 1902 for the German SPD Party in which he changed one major thing compared to classical Marxism. He summed up that 'one can't count on the proletariat because they have been corrupted by capitalism' and that 'they are too primitive to understand real communist values and real freedom.' As always the progress has to be made by the elite and the revolution has to be carried out by an elite party of professional revolutionists (see similarities today: Leftist groups such as Black Lives Matter/Antifa funded by Soros) against the will of the people if necessary which later are going to be kept down by the use of propaganda and/or terror. Even though Lenin saw this revolution happening in Germany, the war and other factors ended up making this plan possible for the first time in Russia. Sidenote: Lenin and his little crew of professionals got a lot of money from Germany and America to make sure the revolution was successful. Why? Because in the early days of the 20th century Russia was becoming an increasingly powerful economic danger to these two nations and they saw the revolution as a way to stop Russia’s growth. It worked and Lenin paid them 130x (!!!) the amount of money he owed them back as soon as he was in power. So if you think the revolution was a movement of the people, think again. Lenin realised in Russia every single goal described in Marx’s manifesto and used his 'system of terror' to allow the communists to reign over the country for the next 60 years. One example is the persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union which started as early as 1917 and ended up killing 12-20 million Christians in total. And yet somehow we only talk today about 6 million Jews? Why is this important? Because propaganda caused people to believe that Marx & Engels were good-spirited idealists that were simply misunderstood by Stalin and it ended up badly. Nope. The communist ideology talks from its earliest days in the communist manifesto about killing people to take over their positions of power and killing more people to keep it. After the revolution was successful in Russia there were 3 major attempts to make it happen in Germany/Europe. One in 1918 where the (99% Jewish) communist party wanted to use the frustrated and weakened German proletariat to overthrow the German government with violence. They failed, yet this may give some context why Hitler who knew about this and watched what the (mostly Jewish) communist party in Russia was doing to Christians (12-20mil dead), wanted to get rid of all Jews in Germany. The last attempt failed in 1923. That's when Marxists understood that they have to find another way. So remember: even though Russia was the first country to realise Marx’s wet dream, Marxism is an ideology which was created in the west, evolved in the west and in the end won in the west. But how? As it became clear that the people of the west rejected the classical idea of a bloody revolution, Marxists in the west had to find another way to use them to gain power. To find answers, they founded in 1924 the first Marxist university in Frankfurt (these people eventually ended up in America because of Hitler) where they focused on 2 main questions: 1) Why did Marxism fail in the west? 2) What could be improved/changed to succeed in the west? Compared to today where every single meaningful university or institute is Marxist, one can see how much has changed in the last 90 years. In 1931 a group of new communists came to said university in Frankfurt who made significant changes to the theory of Marxism which was the beginning of the so called 'neo-Marxism'. The most important people there were Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm and Theodor Adorno. Sidenote: Many years later Adorno added his interpretation of neo-Marxism as a theory to the foundation work which has been done in the 30s and 40s. For some reason until this very day, every university wastes the people’s time trying to understand neo Marxism by looking at what Adorno meant in his complicated thesis instead looking at the very clearly formulated foundation work. To make it clear: Neo-Marxism completely changed its foundation by removing all the economic-talk classical Marxism was based on because 1) almost everything Marx wrote himself about economy turned out to be wrong 2) they had nothing economic to offer for the proletariat since they started to escape poverty themselves thanks to capitalism. They needed to find another way to 'liberate' people because liberation from poverty wasn't needed anymore. This is the basic Marxist thinking: They are going to liberate everyone. Doesn't matter if they want it or not. So who can they liberate and how? Finally they found the answer as Erich Fromm introduced the neo-Marxists to a sex maniac’s theory about a 'sexual revolution'. The maniacs name was Wilhelm Reich who used to be Sigmund Freud’s student until Freud threw him out for being too radical. Reich’s thesis was that the very purpose of a human being is complete sexual liberation. He claimed that the church and traditions are the main reasons why people can't liberate themselves sexually, which eventually ends up turning them into fascists. Reich’s idea was that first communists are going to overthrow capitalism so that later the liberated people will have all the time necessary to focus only on their sexuality. (Seems familiar in today’s society? Liberals who never experienced hard work, yet are obsessed about their sexuality?) But Erich Fromm and his neo-Marxist friends immediately saw this revolutions immense potential if one would simply reverse its steps and first liberate the people’s sexualities and as a result overthrow capitalism from within. And they were right. They carried this plan out in the sexual revolution of the 60s which resulted in the society we live in today. So what can we learn from that? That the neo-Marxists understood that capitalism can get overthrown without a violent revolution if they can destroy the work-ethic/respect of work people have within by occupying them with their sexualities. Achieving this wasn't easy; they had to de-educate people from what they've used to believe. So their main goals were: 1) Destroy families. We all know what feminism and Hollywood did (and continues to do) to destroy white, heterosexual families with faith in god. (Mind you that 99% of the feminist movement founders were communist, Jewish women) 2) Pull a kid out of its parents influence at the youngest age possible (movies & pop culture) in order to have influence on it at the crucial time when it develops it's personality and teach it to rebel against his/her parents (or any type of authority) as much as possible. And later on, teach the kid that any constraint at all equals almost slavery and is inhumane. Government constraints? Slavery. Sexual constraints? Slavery. Work related constraints? Slavery. Big Media today: 'You gotta be young, wild & free and have as many (sexual) experiences as possible' Remember? Anyone having any sort of self-control, discipline or moral values is by definition a slave and 'regressive' instead of progressive. 3) The next obvious target therefore was the church and its influence. One needs to understand that back then the church was the only well-organised institution that had a pretty big say in the average person’s life. Either a society has a general direction/ideology according to which the people live or it doesn't. The neo-Marxists aim was to destroy any sort of guidance people got from the church until it is widely labelled as a gay-hating, paedophile infested marginal institution only blind fanatics’ care about. They succeeded. Why was that so important? Because when using all these tactics you create generations of lost people without any work-ethic which then won't be able to create the prosperity they crave by themselves any longer. They depend on the neo-Marxists now and will vote for them whatever may come. In other words, the genius move the Marxist here did was that they promised people all kinds of rights and freedoms but at the same time depriving them of ways to earn different goods to utilise said rights. What is a right to travel good for if you can’t rent a car or pay for a bus ticket? See, a right you can't utilise is pure fiction. So what does one do when he has all kinds of rights and freedoms (and just to be clear; for the last 60 years everyone has been promising freedom to everybody) but no way to earn goods to be able to utilise them? He has to steal these goods. And thus will vote for any party/system that is ready to steal them for him. He will vote for any party that promises 'free stuff'. (Democrats in America, Social Democrats in Europe). And exactly this is what Marxists have been promising to people for the last 100 years. Freedom without the necessity of work. Just vote for us and you'll get it for free. A prime example for that mechanism that comes to my mind is how liberals in Austria created the right for everyone to go to universities while depriving them of ways to earn money, making sure that people couldn't afford to pay for the tuition fees. What is such a right good for if you can't pay for it? Soon enough people demanded that the tuition fees had to be dropped but the ruling conservative party (VP) at the time said that the state can't afford this. That's exactly what the Social Democrats (SP) have been waiting for. As soon as the word was out, they promised to abolish any type of tuition fees as long as you vote for them. What they didn't mention is that they had to generate incredible amounts of debt to do so. Literally anyone could have done that. But nobody cared; people got out and voted making them into the strongest party at the time. A side product they also achieved was that that every student and university became liberal. But as one might have foreseen, this type of 'free stuff' government can't continue forever: The utopian world leftist politicians have been keeping alive since the 60s by constant generation of new debt is coming to an end. Let's be honest here. The west has enjoyed prosperity which the world has never seen before simply as a result of exploitation of 3rd world countries. Almost all heavy industry from the west left to Asia, while promising us that we are something special and that machines / automation or some cheap workers imported from Mexico/middle east are going to do the dirty work for us. But fact is this system never was and never will be sustainable. We just got comfortable on the massive influx of goods from these countries and can't comprehend a reality without them. Since 1969 this utopian world is being artificially kept alive by constant generation of debt in almost all European countries. Thus every party pretending it will keep these goods coming (doesn’t matter from where) will win any election because of deniers who can't handle the fact that their safe-space bubble might burst soon. Already in 1971 Germany had 3 million 'guest workers' from the middle east taking the hardest/dirtiest jobs from their hosts for half the price a German would do it, while the Germans students were out in the street demonstrating for sexual liberation. (Remember? Neo Marxists dream: no work, obsessed with sexuality) This 'counter-cultural' revolution of the 60s and 70s was the last nail in the coffin the Social Democrats needed to gain total control over Europe and to keep that safe space bubble alive until this very day. So why did Europe happily embrace these neo-Marxist ideas instead of stopping them? Because the Social Democrats which were granted power over the EU parliament in the 60s were filled with neo Marxists who were very happy with the progress they were making. As soon as they got into power they turned their focus on the next goal: the replacement of the original founding block of the European Union 'the Schuman Declaration' by the Ventotene Manifesto written by Italian communist Altiero Spinelli. They managed to do this in 1984 as one of their biggest accomplishments, yet we know so little about it even today. It might sound surreal but as a result the Europe we know today is based on communist ideas and values. The content of the Ventotene Manifesto is easy to look up but I'll break down the most important points: 1) All European countries have to give up on their sovereignty and currency (no borders, only Euro) 2) Nationalisation of all independent means of production 3) All European countries have to relinquish their own armies which will then be replaced by one collective 'EU Army' to enforce everything the EU-Central has decided in case a country will not cooperate. (Note that a nation state without armed forces is unable to enforce its sovereignty) Preferably, said EU army is comprised mostly of members of some other culture (cough Islam cough) who won't have any mental resistance shooting Europeans if they might oppose the EUs decisions. Still wondering why Merkel is so happy about immigration from foreign cultures? Does all that sound familiar? Because it is. Especially 3) is a necessary step in creating the 'System of Terror' Marx was talking about in the communist manifesto back in 1850. There is more: 1) has already been tried in 2004 but France and Holland had a referendum where the people decided 'no'. Even though Merkel and the EU have been trying hard to achieve their final goals 1), 2) and 3) they weren't able to which caused them to become increasingly desperate because they don't know for how much longer they will be able to sustain this illusion we live in. We have that exact scenario Marx predicted, that the socialist system is going bankrupt now (Spain, Italy, France, Greece etc.) and an increasing rebellion (rise of the right/populism) which can't be stopped. There are 2 possible endings to this story: 1) Merkel/Marxists will finalise steps 1, 2 and 3 in time and will gain a 'system of terror' which they will use to suppress any rebellion for years to come. 2) Merkel/Marxists won't finish in time and the rebellion of the right will overthrow them. Let's be honest: If the current system in Europe is to be kept alive for much longer a complete collapse is inevitable because most countries are already at their maximal capacity when it comes to spending money and creating debt. And to top it all off there is nothing to counteract that, since Europe isn't able to produce any goods itself. One more financial crisis and everything crash. This is why you can literally observe the increasing tension within the EU. Merkel is desperate. She knows an era is coming to an end so she is looking for a way out and the only thing the left has left is to promote degeneracy and hope when they go for a final push of 1, 2 and 3 there won't be much resistance left. They also know that one such resistance people have is their identity. People won't be happy about giving up their country’s sovereignty or borders as long as they can tell themselves apart from people from other countries. The solution is simple isn't it? Miscegenation (race mixing). That desperation is the reason why nowadays you will see transgenderism and other degenerate filth on television every single day, homosexual courses in kindergartens and constant talk about fake news in Europe. They are afraid and this is their only hope. Merkel now introduced a law against 'fake news'. But who decides what is fake and what isn't? We can already see Facebook / Twitter / Google censoring conservative opinions and anything contrary to the mainstream narrative is brushed under the rug. Attempts at legislating ‘fake news’ is simply a step towards totalitarian government and by censoring dissent, it becomes much more difficult to challenge bad ideas. In the marketplace provided by freedom of speech, bad ideas are always met by good ideas and the free market usually decides with the good idea. A case in point is how almost all unmoderated or lightly moderated forums on the internet lean conservative while those with heavy moderation are left-leaning. Whilst the laws against fake news are relatively new, legislation against 'hate speech' has existed for decades in most Western countries. Hate speech is one of the most sinister concepts developed and appropriated into our culture. Hate has been stigmatised in our culture for decades to the point where merely pointing out statistics on crime etc. is a major cause for contention and is enough for them to get 'triggered'. Being filled with hate is indeed a bad quality to have as it can cloud one's judgment. Today, hate has replaced real evil as the thing to demonize and resist. It sounds like a good thing at first, until you realise what doing so has enabled. By demonising hate as much as our culture does, it makes it far easier to demonise the things someone doesn't like by claiming words and actions from the opposition as hate. And it's even easier if one is rooted in the emotional whirlpool that many are stuck within where their feelings rule their world view. When your values are completely based on the feelings over reality, it's nearly automatic that anyone or anything that opposes one's feelings based values would be seen as hateful, which again is their biggest evil. The practitioners of the new political correctness are not equipped for a world in which individuals can disagree with what is deemed appropriate thought. They rely on silencing the opposition with hysterics, instead of winning with superior ideas. It gets even worse though. Because hate has been so stigmatised, where anything labelled as hate justifies any form of treatment or resistance to it. Deplorable actions are justified because it's the greatest evil, so do anything against the greatest evil even if it's something you've professed to be against. Slapping on the label of hate strips something or someone of all their normal social and civil protections and declares open season on the hate label recipient, which is why it's ok to punch a racist because they're spouting hate speech. It's ok to accost Trump supporters because Trump is hateful. Hate speech isn't real speech and therefore not protected. Most free countries’ freedom of speech contain a short list of what isn't protected: fighting words; (inciting someone to violence); obscenity (very high standard, like child porn); libel/slander; criminal activity (extortion, fraud, etc.); threats of violence (must be credible); copyrighted material. Hate speech was something the Soviets would use to control the narrative in the USSR. Especially when it came to holding it together and being able to do whatever they wanted to do while being able to put down complaint. Ironically McCarthyism was a Soviet thing as well. However for them it was used to accuse people of being a Nazi. Eastern Europe bore the brunt of the Nazis far worse than the allies on the western side did. Even the invention of the term racism was a Soviet trope. Essentially if you were one of the countries the Soviets took from rather than liberates from the Nazis if you wanted independence from the USSR or objected to things such as force migrations then you would be called a nationalist racist Nazi making hate speech. It's ironic that today what's happening in the west is more like what happened in the USSR and Russia is an ally against that. In addition, most countries in Western Europe are attempting to pass legislation cracking down on the internet and encryption. They claim it is to prevent terror attacks but exactly how many attacks has the vast US spying apparatus prevented? Exactly zero. The real aim of the creation of backdoors into encryption and software is for unrestricted mass surveillance of the populace to identify and unmask dissidents and anyone who might cause trouble for the government. It is plain to see how much of a danger this has the potential to be in the hands of a totalitarian government. Even if the government of the time is somewhat benevolent, there is no guarantee of succeeding governments to wield the vast spying apparatus with restraint. The supreme irony of Communism, which no supporter of Communism gets, is that the intellectuals and activists who agitated for Marxism in the first place are usually the first to be lined up against the wall to be shot. They imagine they'll be elevated to philosopher kings, when in fact they'll just end up in an unmarked grave. Dictators have no use for potential nonconformists, even the ones who gave them power. The issue is that government fills a power vacuum. It's why anarchy would never work, and why Libertarianism is also flawed. Remove or weaken government, and a different type of power will just move in – be it criminal, religious, or military. Someone will always try to exercise their power over you, and I'd rather it be my elected representative than someone with a gun and a bad attitude. With Communism, because it’s always brought about by opportunists and thugs (as the working classes never actually vote for it), the government becomes ruled that way, and becomes just another criminal enterprise. Now they have power, the first thing they want to do is make sure nobody removes them like they did the last lot, so they round up all the agitators and have them shot. Including ones on their 'side', as their ideals and organisation skills could easily turn against them one day. Marxism is like a spiritual infection, there's just nothing good about it even if you're one of the useful idiots who believe in it. Marx viewed traditions and civilization as the 'infection' of humanity. His ideas could be considered chemo-therapy, if they wipe out traditions, cool. If they kill the civilization, meh, it was going to die of traditions anyway. Most people attack Communism like it is just a set of opposing social/economic beliefs, it's not. There is nothing creative about Marxism. It was designed by Marx to be destructive. Its’ purpose is to destroy. It wasn't promulgated to create society but to tear it down. That's why there isn't a single functioning communist society on this earth. Seizing the means of production includes labour aka the individual person is required to do whatever job the state deems the person is fit for. Failure to comply will result in the person being deported to gulag or shot. This fact of Communist states is often neglected to be stated. These Antifa / Black Lives Matter fantasists are no different than the useful idiots from the West who flock to Syria to join ISIS, and just end up as cannon fodder on the front lines while the actual leaders are busy hiding billions of stolen oil money in personal Swiss bank accounts. Fascism almost exclusively goes with socialism. It's a system it was designed for. Group collectivity, that sort of thing. However, socialism was never designed to be used permanently. It was meant to be a transitionary state between capitalism and communism. To add some perspective, imagine that some communists were to take over the US government today and get directly into communism. You'd notice, wouldn't you? This is why communists follow a pattern: 1) Find a nation that hates its government to a very high degree, be it due to a war (Russia, 1917) or an economic depression (Germany, Italy, Spain, and other European powers during the 1930s). 2) Tell the people about a supposedly wonderful new system that makes sure everyone is paid enough and that all are equal in every aspect (socialism). Note that this doesn't need to be true, nor will it be true. In truth, all will live in poverty as you soak up their money, but during a slow transition wherein they forget. Speaking of which- 3) Make them forget. Heavy use of propaganda, and even purges of dissidents. 4) Slowly replace the old ways by enlarging it, until it becomes communism. At this point, few will remember the old ways, and all must have great fear of the government. That is how communism begins. It is worth noting that, yes; communism works better than socialism because at least communism was intended to work. However, that's like comparing a paper umbrella to a cardboard one, as neither will work permanently, only longer. Eventually, communism fails in the same way a lobster dies. For those who don't know, lobsters are biologically immortal; they do not age and never stop growing. However, lobsters eventually die when they become so large that the strain of moulting their old shell is too much and kills them with the strain. Communism is the same as the lobster. It never stops growing, and essentially can't stop growing, until the moment that the strain of controlling the economy becomes so great that the state cannot handle it and it collapses. How long does this take? 80 year at the max. The Soviet Union lasted the longest, and was also the first implementation of communism. Even the lobster lives longer than communism, some living for over a hundred years before finally dying. The oldest one found was alive during the American Civil War, for context. Communism has no place in the world. It is a system based on both fear and reverence. In it, the state chooses who is taken from and who is given to, who gets to think what, who lives and who dies. Communism is an attempt to play God. An attempt to place in the hands of foolish and short-sighted mortal beings a power that could only work in the hands of an omnipresent, all-knowing being. It is an attempt that makes men rewrite the codes of morality to fit their needs rather than what is truly right, making the law into sin and virtue, the only sin being to go against the state of stand in its way. That is why communism fails, because no man can ever handle even a fraction of the power of God, simply because they lack the knowledge and reasoning of God. They don't even have the knowledge and reasoning of most other mortals, for it they did, they wouldn't attempt to institute that system at all. If Marx did, he never would have written the Communist Manifesto, and would have dismissed it as a bad idea doomed to fail, as all people of normal or higher intelligence should be able to do. No society ever thrived because it had a large and growing class of parasites living off those who produce. I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money – Thomas Sowell


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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