Posts Tagged ‘neo-communism’


Thursday, November 9th, 2017

The Age of Ideology slowly ends in the rising dust of its own failures. Our learning has been augmented by the knowledge that no matter what type of “system” we design, they all end in failure because they focus too much on making everyone get along, and not enough on real-world results.

Something called The Human Problem invades every human group. It consists of herd behavior brought on by a desire to get along with others, and that desire replaces goals, at which point the group is shaped by the demands of the individuals in it instead of the shared principles, mission or purpose that originally created it.

We thought we could avoid The Human Problem by avoiding the systems based on social engineering, like Communism and National Socialism. As it turns out, any system based on “equality” — a group-think term used to conceal the individualistic motivation of all involved — ends up in the same place through inversion, or the replacement of meaning with “safe” terms that flatter the group.

Consider the term “equality” itself. When originally designed, it meant that you did not commit an ad hominem and say to something, “You’re from another caste, family, tribe, region or religion, therefore your opinion is automatically wrong.” Instead, you listened to what he had to say, and if it was correct, treated it as closer to the truth.

However, most humans tend to think backward, since they think in terms of effects on themselves, which makes them think the effect was intended, and blinds them to the actual causes. These people therefore are oblivious to the causes of those effects, and so when unequal results occur, they blame the results instead of considering the actual cause, which is that people are unequal.

Over time, the term “equality” inevitably and without exception morphs from treating people fairly to ensuring that everyone has the same level of power, wealth, status and acceptance. To do this, since they cannot raise the lower above their own ability level, they have to tear down the higher and simplify every standard to the mediocre, because that way everyone feels accepted and important.

Through this method, “equality” comes to mean taking from the stronger and giving to the weaker. In the same way, morality has come to mean tolerance of the immoral; fairness has come to mean relativistic judgment; intelligence now means having the “right” opinions memorized. Any attempt to use social engineering to create a more equal, fair or just society seems to result in these inversions.

As such, we recognize now that we are have been living under an undiagnosed regime which we might call neo-Communism. In the years after WW2, it became clear in the West that whatever ideas appealed to the masses would win out over ideas that required sacrifice of personal freedoms in order to have social order, as the Axis powers required of their citizens.

In order to win these conflicts both real and imagined, the West adopted its Leftward tilt from after WW1 and accelerated it. This culminated in the 1960s, after which point Western Civilization — already heavily damaged by the crass commercialism of the 1950s, the French Revolution and the individualistic fallout of The Renaissance™ — really fell apart.

Neo-Communism resembles the old form of Communism, but has two changes: first, it is decentralized, meaning that it is enforced by citizens to show loyalty, instead of by secret police; second, it is grafted onto capitalism, which enables it to avoid the crisis that did in Communism, namely the ability to have any kind of functional economy.

Its decentralized nature means that it works through incentives toward personal reward or social popularity, both of which require the person in question to affirm the ideological narrative in some way. The recent #metoo frenzy of reporting of sexual assaults shows us this market for attention: anyone who can participate in the latest trends, affirming ideology, gets ahead.

In that provides a uniform series of incentives, such that members of all political parties behave roughly the same way, creating a “uniparty” of people who are working to affirm the narrative however they can while staying in the news as much as possible. Since ideology is what holds this society together, the media takes on far greater importance than in any other type of society.

Ideology thus provides both our motivation and a type of currency, in that those who wield ideology well will be rewarded in a society which is mobilized in the military style for perpetual war to enforce that belief system.

Neo-Communism specializes in making us appear “free” while finding ways to entrench us in the system. Simply surviving costs endless money, and jobs are the only way for most people to have that, making people dependent on their paychecks and in turn, on saying the “right” thing so that they do not get fired and end up in the poorhouse.

We can visualize Neo-Communism as a society centered around the idea of equality as enforced by a cultural revolution, as opposed to a political one, and having the following attributes:

  1. Political Correctness. Thoughts are pre-emptively censored for fear of what the neighbors, friends and co-workers might think; this requires establishing an absolute good by setting up an absolute bad, for example, “Hitler was racist, therefore anti-racism is good, and anything against Neo-Communism is racist.”
  2. Wealth Transfer. Neo-Communism synthesizes consumerism, which beat Communism in 1991, with the idea of the socialist-style welfare state, and so it specializes in creation of taxes to perpetually shift wealth from the top to the bottom. This also continually “primes the pump” by encouraging the least affluent to spend money that was given to them by government.
  3. Trend Culture. Neo-Communism specializes in using mass culture as a weapon of cultural revolution, but it must keep its weapon from being turned against it, so it generates constant distractions in the form of trends, or whatever “everyone is talking about” this news cycle, month, year or decade. These overlap and keep people chasing low-carb foods, small urban living, climate-friendly pollution, low-fat foods, collaborative working or whatever other paradoxical but consequently appealing idea they can spin to you to keep your mind fascinated, dazed and misdirected.
  4. Unofficial Nature. What has enabled Neo-Communism to survive for this long is that it is invisible because it consists of social incentives and fears; whatever is popular and trending will result in personal advancement for an individual in any field, and whatever touches the taboo line will destroy that same individual. As a result, you can declare yourself an anti-Communist and still be an agent of Neo-Communism.
  5. Replacement Culture. Like the Cymothoa exigua parasite, which sneaks into a fish through the gills and then replaces its tongue, Neo-Communism uses its cultural revolution to re-define what is “good,” and in doing so, replaces both culture and religion. Soon even all art and media products revolve around the ideas of Neo-Communism.
  6. Individualism. At its core, Neo-Communism appeals to the individualism of others in the form of, “Why do things the right way? You can get ahead by doing things our way,” which creates an attraction for those who do not fit in, uniting them. It also creates a “race to the bottom” as others then compete with this new and trendy mediocrity.

The rise of Neo-Communism came from attempts by the need to reconcile their Socialist leanings with the horrors of Communism, causing them to embrace market-driven communism:

But as evidence of communism’s horrors emerged over the decades, it rightly shocked liberals and leftists in the West, who shared many of the egalitarian aims of the revolutionaries.

…But if we’ve learned one lesson from the communist century, it is this: That to implement Marxist ideals is to betray them. Marx’s demand to “abolish private property” was a clarion call to action—and an inexorable path to the creation of an oppressive, unchecked state.

A few socialists began to recognize that there could be no freedom without markets and private property. When they made their peace with the existence of capitalism, hoping to regulate rather than to abolish it, they initially elicited denunciations as apostates. Over time, more socialists embraced the welfare state, or the market economy with redistribution.

Since then, we have learned that to adopt egalitarian ideals at all leads to the creation of a crowd, or a herd of people dedicated to the type of behavior we see at carnivals, sporting events and Black Friday sales at Wal-mart. The problem is not Communism; it is egalitarianism.

Neo-Communism was created to conceal that learning. The ideal of the Neo-Communist is to befuddle the population with consumerism while simultaneously indoctrinating them in egalitarian ideological dogma. The thinking is that, like political correctness, this will reprogram them so fundamentally that it fundamentally over-rides “human nature” and makes a working form of socialism.

The problem it faces is that human behavior is not so much “human nature” as it is a reflection of the mathematics of survival. People left unchecked will create a tragedy of the commons by which they exploit whatever they can; individualism is the rule of individuals except for the exceptional. It is why in nature, species tend to consume all resources and then die out. Nature imposes a test to see who can transcend raw individualism.

However, creating a perverse incentive by declaring reward-before-performance, or subsidy for simply being human and “equal” as egalitarian philosophies like classical liberalism and Communism demand, ensures that individualism will be rewarded. That in turn forces others to descend to that level, and herd behavior results, with the herd consuming everything it can and then running over cliffs like lemmings, which is how human societies throughout history have self-destructed.

As a result, Neo-Communism is failing just like Communism, democracy, and European Socialism are: it mutates people into selfish, morally nullified, anti-conscientious beings who are oblivious to everything around them because all of it is based on a lie. Democracy killed ancient Greece and Rome, and now it is killing the West because (apparently) people were so oblivious they were willing to try it again. Socialism, or “economic equality,” is a parallel to democracy, or “political equality,” and both lead to Communism and through it, Neo-Communism as the virus evolves.

If we look at the human condition, we see that in individuals, individualism — a denial of the reality of the inevitable consequences of our actions in preference for individual desires — causes lives to become self-destructive, and that in groups, individualism becomes herd behavior.

The herd ruins everything. Any time we have structure, purpose and principle, we succeed; when we descend into herd behavior, we fail.

We can see the effects of Neo-Communism on our current civilization through attitudes toward Communism:

According to the latest survey from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a D.C.-based nonprofit, one in two U.S. millennials say they would rather live in a socialist or communist country than a capitalist democracy.

What’s more, 22% of them have a favorable view of Karl Marx and a surprising number see Joseph Stalin and Kim Jong Un as “heroes.”

Leaving aside the impossibility of ignoring, as a young person, the prospect of trolling a survey by praising Kim Jong Un, this attitude shift shows the effects on the generation that directly received the wisdom of the 1960s because those who matured in the 1960s came into power in the 1990s and re-made the educational system to be Marxism lite. Communism is legitimate again, to them.

The survey, which was conducted by research and data firm YouGov, found that millennials are the least knowledgable generation on the subject, with 71% failing to identify the proper definition of communism.

Smith explained that this “troubling turn” highlights pervasive historical illiteracy across the country and “the systemic failure of our education system to teach students about the genocide, destruction, and misery caused by communism since the Bolshevik Revolution one hundred years ago.”

Perhaps we will find it less surprising that people think in this way when we look at the shift of our economy from capitalism to capitalism with lots of socialism, such that government has become an industry in itself and a part of the economy upon which most people, as under Communism, depend, to varying degrees:

The fastest growing component of household income since 1959 has been ‘transfer payments’ from government. By the turn of the 21st century, 20 per cent of all household income came from this source – from what is otherwise known as welfare or ‘entitlements’. Without this income supplement, half of the adults with full-time jobs would live below the poverty line, and most working Americans would be eligible for food stamps.

One influence on the drive toward full Communism is the shift of American society toward those who are from cultures that are more individualistic and thus more prone to collective subsidy, such as the Irish, Eastern Europeans, Southern Europeans, and the vast number of third-world peoples imported since 1965.

Future historians will probably record that the closer a society gets to third world status, the more accepting it is of regimes like Communism because its people will understand nothing more complex than having someone take care of them. The quality of intelligence in a society determines what systems its population can understand, and simpler populations understand only strongmen.

As the West becomes more ethnically mixed and through that, racially mixed, its possibility of avoiding Communism approaches zero. Neo-Communism offers the West a way to fail gracefully by accepting a crypto-Communism rather than the branded, out-of-the-closet full form, and this enables the elites to continue sipping cocktails guilt-free as they watch their world fall around them.

Do We Really Want To Live Like This?

Wednesday, October 18th, 2017

One of the worst Cuck Jobs you’ll ever hear from the pulpit happens when your contemporary Reverend Iwanna SWPLToo opens The Good Book to Acts 10:9-18. After sitting through purge-and-vomit instead fire-and-brimstone, I wanted to log into to my training program at work and see if could claim that homily as my annual diworsity brainwashing session and skip the pablum from HR.

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.

You see, Reverand Iwanna SWPLToo seems to believe we just need to take anyone into the church who claims to want in the door. That excluding them on any grounds makes you a sinner that fails to understand Christianity. Putting a high-pass filter in place would lead us straight down the broad thoroughfare of damnation that AC/DC sings about so nicely. He then informed us if we didn’t all agree with this message he would take his act back home to Arlington, Texas. I figured it was nice he favored open borders and free movement and hoped to someday soon bid him a fond farewell while the church looked for a minister who could read The New Testament and not imbue it with Progressive, New-Fangled Amorality.

So what’s wrong with the SWPL interpretation of this old tale from the scriptures? According to Der Spiegel, nothing the old East German Stasi couldn’t stitch right up. I mean once you’ve decided everyone, literally everyone, regardless of their standards of personal conduct are welcome, you get pretty much what you tolerate. It’s just plain common sense to ask if God would call sepsis clean. Maybe God would call intestinal rotifers and cancer tumors clean as well. It was pretty harsh of Old Jesus to discriminate against Legion for having an excremental résumé. He did ask Christ nicely not to render him homeless.

How would the secret police get involved in a theological discussion with Communism now consigned to corrupt, declining institutions like The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York? It gets involved once Reverend Iwanna SWPLToo’s vision completely dominates a society. You see Germany deigns to assume anything that crap and take a walk has been called clean by whatever they believe in since Nietzsche signed Gnon’s death certificate. So as the old game show trope goes, “Show ’em what they win, Dom Pardo!”

The assassin from Breitscheidplatz, Anis Amri, murdered twelve people and injured almost 100 more. Many of them are traumatized to the present day, some still in the hospital, some will remain nursing care for their whole lives. Could the attack have been prevented? In his report, former Federal Prosecutor Jost assumes at least that Amri could have been arrested in the summer or autumn of 2016 with “high probability” – if the police and the public prosecutors had done their work properly.

Pretty typical conclusion. Better police work would prevent criminals from doing crime. How does this even implicitly indict our true Cuck-Christian duty to !CELEBRATE! diversity? Umm, let’s discuss what proper police work has to entail in order to run the managerial state that can manage diversity.

The LKA observed Amri only for a few weeks. And even though the Berlin police in the meantime considered him to be the most urgent case in the capital, she observed the Islamists only sporadically during this period. Jost is sober: “All observations are limited to the weekdays Monday to Friday, even during the weeks in which Amri ranks first among the” Berliners “. On weekends and holidays, no observers take place.” The ex-federal prosecutor concludes that the findings of Amris’s Islamist activities alone would not have sufficed to put him under investigation. However, from his point of view, it would have given him a great opportunity to get him out of circulation because of drug trafficking.

So my questions are not whether the German neo-Stazis should have received better direction from Zee Merkel’s totally non-Communist politburo. My question is why do we allow elements into Western Society that require us to emulate the failures of the CCCP to avoid having them deliberately and maliciously blow us up or run us over at a Christmas Market? Who in their right mind wants to live like that? Acts 10 aside, we were told by a higher authority than Saint Luke that you can judge a tree by its fruits and that those who don’t bear the desired fruit for the Kingdom of Heaven are tossed into the fire and burned.

We have a theological duty to to read our scripture properly. The injunction is against rejecting that which God made clean. Where does Acts or any other book of the New Testament claim everything is de facto clean? It doesn’t. Reverend Iwanna SWPLToo is deliberately implying valid philosophical induction without an effective base case. Accepting Cornelius the highly decent and squared away Roman Centurian is several standard deviations away from accepting anything that walks out of Left Point with a commission as a 2LT. Peter knew it. Rev. SWPLToo and Angela Merkel know it well. Acts 10:9-18 is being used as a normative bait and switch. Buy not the used mechanical conveyance using an internal combustion engine from any preacher quoting Chapter 10 of Acts.

Why the dishonesty from people we should otherwise be able to rely upon and trust? Maybe I asked the wrong question when I asked who in their right minds would want to live in a society that requires a Stasi? The real question here is who benefits from deracinating a society and culture until it requires a Stasi. Importing fear imports the need for control. The need for control empowers the tyrant. The society that accepts literally everything can only be preserved in the end by a despotism. It can only exist under the baleful, watching glare of The Lidless Eye.

Signals to send to young women

Monday, December 15th, 2014


With the collapse of the narrative in the UVA rape case, the prime sin of modern time — noticing — has become unavoidable and has momentarily broken through the media embargo on uncomfortable truths about personal responsibility. For at least a few moments, we have an opportunity to observe a truism about life itself.

The usual hand-wringing neurotics wish us to not continue noticing and instead to proceed with enforcing the narrative, continuing the power of those who use that narrative to justify their intrusion into every aspect of our lives. We should believe those who say they are victims even when they are lying, says neo-Communist propaganda rag The Washington Post:

We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist…The cost of disbelieving women, on the other hand, is far steeper. It signals that that women don’t matter and that they are disposable — not only to frat boys and Bill Cosby, but to us.

The real problem with this rhetoric is that it lets everyone off the hook for responsibility for their actions. Men, who are all considered rapists, are now able to shrug it off because whether they rape or scrupulously avoid it, people will call them rapists. Women no longer have any responsibility to avoid getting in situations which facilitate rape, like getting blackout drunk and surrounded by naked football players in the basement of some frat house.

I suggest, in line with my article “Legalize Rape,” that we take a more realistic view. We should never knee-jerk believe the accusers because it makes someone powerful for being an accuser, thus creates an incentive to “be raped” and then accuse. Even more, we should stop worrying about rape entirely and by doing so, create an incentive for women to avoid it.

Of course, that’s politically taboo. Young women, their minds bloated by years of advertising and political promises, want a reality where they can do whatever they want and get away with it, and if they cannot it becomes someone else’s problem the instant they claim it is rape. But this sets us up for a terrible situation, which is trying to tell the difference between casual sex and rape. In both cases, two people got blind drunk, groped in the dark and fornicated. In the “rape” case, the next day the woman says she did not consent. These cases boil down to his word against hers.

A sensible system would direct its energies toward avoiding bad results. When men and women disappear in the dark for casual sex, it inevitably results in he-said-she-said situations, and from the distance all of us have to the issue, morning after regret and full-on rape look identical. Any sane court would throw the case out as impossible to judge. This is a change from 50 years ago when we expected women to, if they were being raped, fight back and draw some blood. That produced something called evidence which is highly useful in deciding court cases. The court would have thrown out any claim by a woman who was too intoxicated to stand on the basis that she not only could not have consented, but could not have known if she did or not either and thus was an unreliable witness.

When we tell women to behave in dangerous ways, and that we will then believe them when they make an accusation arising from those dangerous ways, we give them too much power. We also encourage the same dysfunctional behavior that has been shown by the last forty years of disasters to be a completely destructive way of life. Instead, we should send a strong signal to young women that preventing rape is their responsibility and so they should avoid rape-prone situations and, if attacked, be sober and present enough to fight back and get some real evidence.

Recommended Reading