One flavor, different colors

June 15, 2017

It is very funny when far left types call anyone to the right of their position a "nazi" and, by all means, same goes for the latter calling the former "marxist". Back in the 1930s both sides argued about which side was truly socialist and they had very clear ideas on what their differences were. Almost 100 years later, those differences have disappeared. History is so recent that whomever doesn't see this does it on purpose.

 

During the interwar period there were three political forces in Germany, i.e. the Social Democrats, the Communists, and the National Socialists. Quite often, the discussion was between Communists and National Socialists as to which one was the true socialist. While the National Socialists accused the Communists of being internationalist and materialistic, the Communists berated the National Socialists for being nationalists and idealists. Yet they saw each other as the correct version of collectivism. Goebbels and Adolph themselves were explicit about it in their writings and speeches. You see, their common enemy was liberalism, not directly each other. Look it up.

 

So, the only reason that the version of collectivism that survived was the Communist one is that the National Socialists were handed their own butts on a platter. The Communist vision of collectivism was the one which survived the spray of bullets and the rain of bombs, nothing more. Until that point it would have been a happy story for them, but their utopia wasn't meant to succeed. In the next years the Soviet Union failed miserably and broke the hearts of many reds. Khrushchev's speech confessing the genocide perpetrated by Stalin, the invasion of Hungary, the slaughter by Mao, and, ultimately, the demise of the USSR left millions of leftists orphan of an ideal to hold onto. And everybody knows what happens when a kind is deprived of his safety blanket or favourite teddy bear, or not allowed to suck his thumb. Panic ensues.

 

Marxism had to go into psychotherapy , and that is what brought us today's postmodernists. The so-called New Left is essentially Marxist, seeing everything in terms of class struggle. However, it survived by embracing what it used to criticize about the National Socialists. As Marxist predictions failed one after the other, they came to the realization that international working class consciousness was too much complex a subject to be grasped by the masses. So they turned to ethnic, sexual, racial, or other smaller, atomized group consciousness. On the materialistic front, as the "iron laws" of Marx failed, they turned to social and subjective relativism. For them, the West is oppressive and henceforth its truths ought to be seen with suspicion. There are no universal values and any interpretation about the world is as valid as the next one. Everything around us is socially constructed according to these bozos.

 

Have a look at an academic journal these days, for example. Or any event or publication coming out of a sociology, education, or gender studies university department. Those dudes are completely bonkers. If biology, history, or any other fact is against their postmodernist view of the world, then it must be because biology, history or facts in general are oppressive, patriarchal, heterosexual, or whatnot. And if anyone not agreeing with them is invited to campus, they turn violent and act like little Stalins or Hitlers to an extent that the left, formerly sold as champion of dialogue and inclusion, is now in a true censor machine armed with a huge baton called political correctness. But that is nothing to be surprised about. It is what collectivists have been doing for a long time now. If you don't dance to their tune, you're a Nazi. Only that, well, they are ideologically more similar to the Nazis than the rest of us, poor, stupid liberals who cling onto the values of the Enlightenment. 

 

Far left and far right are equally mad and murderous.

Please reload