The last word on Marxism

I recently added a link to this page on the main site:

http://aryanism.net/politics/national-socialism-and-communism/

but I feel it is important enough to also post here for extra emphasis, the reason being that over the years I have been (as regular readers will have surely witnessed) slandered as a “Marxist”/”communist” more times than I can count, both by sundry uneducable useful idiots and by occasional deliberately trolling Zionist agents, whereas I myself have been insisting the entire time that the racist far-right are the true Bolsheviks of the 21st century, also on this page:

http://aryanism.net/politics/multiethnic-society/is-race-the-new-class/

and in many blog comments (not to mention at times having to resort to pointing at pop culture Soviet caricatures such as Ivan Drago(!) and Zangief(!!) to get my point across…..)

Finally, a renowned Marxist scholar has taken the trouble to write an article which, in effect, declares me to have been correct all along and those who call today’s leftists “Marxists”/”communists” to have never had the slightest clue what they are talking about. He himself is significantly sympathetic to the Alt-Right, which just further rests my case as to where 21st century Bolshevism is to be found:

https://storia.me/en/@dubya/marx-would-line-today-3zz8b5

Marx Would Line Today’s Leftists Up Against the Wall and Shoot Them

Slavoj Zizek, the world’s most famous living Marxist theorist, wrote an interesting column in the Independent the other day. He defended the alt-right and populist right-wing figures like Steve Bannon by saying that they represent a genuine form of class consciousness, in other words they understand that their primary enemies are the bourgeois globalist elite who currently control the establishment of both parties.

In Marxist thought, the lumpenproletariat are proletarians (that is: workers) who lack class consciousness … Black Lives Matter activists are often deployed against the alt-right and other working class whites to instill violence and shut down their pro-worker rallies — does this not make Black Lives matter the very definition of lumpenproles?

As for the LGBT movement, … they focus exclusively on homosexuality, transsexuality, and other non-hetero sexualities that were illegal in most Marxist countries because they were considered a form of bourgeois sexual deviancy. And judging by today’s society, it seems the Marxists were right about that. …

Immigrant rights groups, which represent a powerful faction within today’s left, don’t give a damn about worker’s issues. …

Lastly, we have violent far-left groups like Antifa and By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). Who are they made up of? Go into any working class community and try to find a chapter of either of these groups — good luck.

This, overall, holds true for the rest of the left: none of them have a class consciousness, they are all either rich boujee kids from the suburbs or lumpenproletariat who have been fooled into believing that hating whitey or straight people is more important than class struggle. If anything, if a modern Marxist revolution actually happened in the West, all of these groups would be lined up against the wall and shot as traitors to class struggle. So how could any truly class-conscious movement like the alt-right or the populist right take the modern left seriously?

You may recall that I made virtually the same assertion long ago when I invited readers to imagine what Stalin or Mao would think of today’s leftists. Frankly, it’s not a difficult thought experiment.

The most important thing to remember is that Hitler, who should indeed be remembered  for his fight against Marxism, was fighting against the real Marxism, not what Red Pill junkies erroneously call “Marxism” today. It is precisely those useful idiots who imagine that Hitler was fighting against Red-Pill-hallucinatory ”Marxism” who necessarily presume that Hitler’s ideology was the same as neo-Nazism. On the other hand, it is those who understand that Hitler was fighting against the real Marxism who have an easier time beginning to understand authentic National Socialism.

In short, I wholly agree with the title of the linked article: yes, Marx would line today’s leftists up against a wall and shoot them. I only add: fortunately, Hitler would shoot Marx before Marx could shoot today’s leftists.

This entry was posted in Aryan Sanctuary. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to The last word on Marxism

  1. It’s amazing how this site is getting proven right as times and events go by.

  2. Steven says:

    Nice, I always appreciated the link to Marxism that you gave to the ethno-Bolshevikism. I recently mentioned again a thought I had a while back to do a parody of the Communist Manifesto as the WN Manifesto that would finish, “Whites of the World, Unite!” and basically show how parallel WN really is to Marxism, and somehow also could make clear how National Socialism really is anti-WN just as it was anti-Marxist back in the day…

    By the way, hopefully Pandorastop will get about writing to you, AS, and to JJ too, as I would really like to hear back from JJ especially about the Pacific Pivot. Seeing as we really want to actually move forward and see something happen, and I am the leader of our Party in Australia whether you emotionally like that or not, I really hope that his efforts for reconciliation can produce fruit. Maybe we don’t have to continue our futile war? Maybe Hess this time can achieve the aims of his Fuhrer, and we can stand once again united on the same side? Anyway, whatever God in heaven wants to come about, we’ll see…

  3. @Fatih Dion says:

    So people like Lauren Cohen, eh sorry Southern, and Star of….. David Duke is just Commie dumbass need to get shot on their head

  4. Pandorastop says:

    @Steven

    “By the way, hopefully Pandorastop will get about writing to you, AS, and to JJ too, as I would really like to hear back from JJ especially about the Pacific Pivot. Seeing as we really want to actually move forward and see something happen, and I am the leader of our Party in Australia whether you emotionally like that or not.”

    Yes, I did write to AS. About many things.

  5. anon says:

    I am not going to defend Zizek because he seems to believe in rather naive accelerationism “the worse, the better”, but I am going to defend marxism.

    It’s silly that in order to disgust marxism you had to cite an article written not only by someone who probably is alt-right, but who also have very poor understanding on what marxism is.
    Because if he had read Marx himself, he’d found that Marx would certainly stand with BLM and immigrants (just like today’s marxists do). It’s not, as author suggests, that class-related issues are The Only True problems, while identity issues are only divisive (let’s put aside the fact that identity is also constituted by socioeconomic relations). They are both results of capitalism. Marx once wrote about the racism of English workers towards the Irish, where he said that it is the English’s job to overcome artifical antagonism kept alive by the ruling classes in order to make a united working class movement. Therefore, it is plausible that Marx would say the same about BLM, immigrants etc.: it is the white’s job (as they occupy a relatively higher position) to overcome artifical antagonisms, and not underprivileged groups to submit to whites, risking marginalization in the process.

    If he had read Marx himself, he’d found that while Marx was privately not very fond of homosexuals (the “he was a man of it’s time” argument), there is nothing in the theoretical core of marxism to support a position of oppression towards them. On the contrary, Marx wanted to abolish “burgeois family”, which could mean that in it’s abscence a various new forms of non-patriarchal, non-hetero, non-cis etc. families would emerge. Besides, there is a political evidence: it was the bolsheviks who first in the world decriminalised homosexuality (and abolished age of consent), in 2nd Lenin’s cabinet there was a first (?) outed homosexual minister, and Alexandra Kollontai wrote a lot about feminist stuff. The fact that under Stalin it had all gone away means that it was a departue of marxism, rather it’s true realization.
    And so on, and so on…
    In short – the author doesn’t know shit about marxism and shouldn’t be used as an authority as to what marxists believe.

    “The most important thing to remember is that Hitler, who should indeed be remembered for his fight against Marxism, he was fighting against the real Marxism”

    And yet he sincerely allied with these “real marxist” Soviet state, and no one in Third Reich said anything against it…

  6. Steven says:

    @Pandorastop – Thanks brother… Much appreciated. May the Force be with you :)

  7. Fatih Dion says:

    @anon

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_under_communism

    1. Marx was homo-phobic

    2. Gay men were sometimes denied membership or expelled from communist parties[13] across the globe during the 20th Century, as most communist parties followed the social precedents set by the USSR. However, this was not the case in the West.

    3. Association of fascism with homosexuality by communists

    In the early 1920s western communist party leaders propagated the view that the increase in homosexuality and the open discussion of homosexuality were caused by capitalism “in its death throes”. In their view, homosexuality would vanish.[6]

    After Hitler’s seizure of power (the Machtergreifung), Marxist intellectuals correlated fascism with homosexuality.[6] Soviet writer Maxim Gorky remarked, “Exterminate all homosexuals and fascism will vanish.”[23] (!!!!!!!)

    4. Connections between gay rights groups and radical leftists were not merely a figment of the imaginations of demagogues. The Mattachine Society, one of the earliest gay rights groups in the United States, was founded by Harry Hay, a former member of the Communist Party USA, who was kicked out of the gay rights group he’d founded for his ties to the party.[30]

    5. Famous ex-communist former Soviet agent Whittaker Chambers notably spent his time in the left-wing underground pursuing both homosexual and heterosexual affairs, but he kept his liaisons quiet since his communist associates despised homosexuality.[31][32] Chambers later monogamously married the pacifist painter Esther Shemitz, working as a journalist and editor.

    6. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation and its Leader Gennady Zyuganov supported a ban on the “promotion of non-traditional sexual relations to minors”,[40][41] mostly named a ban on “homosexual propaganda to minors” in Western media.[42]

    7. Most countries that against homosexuality is former Communist country (Eastern Europe)

    8. And learn actual and authentic Communist in Eastern Europe where it began to power, not Western Europe and others, the Communist people use homosexuality to attack Western European people for making Communist into popularity

  8. Gerulf says:

    @anon

    >The fact that under Stalin it had all gone away means that it was a departure of marxism, rather it’s true realization.

    I don’t speak for this site, but I hear this excuse all the time. “It’s not the system that’s flawed, but the people.” That’s the same excuse Catholics use to defend the actions of the Church: the inquisitions, burning of witches, jesuitism, and wars.

    Stalin did not make such a radical departure from what Lenin laid down. By usurping Trotsky, he put himself in a position to steer the Bolshevik revolution on a slightly more realistic course. Under Trotsky, the movement would have probably ended up worse. I’d actually prefer Stalin over Churchill or Roosevelt. He was a man of character who even Hitler acknowledged.

  9. anon says:

    @Gerulf
    I am not a defender of a Soviet system, be it Leninst or Stalinist variation, and I was talking specifically about homosexuality, so I insist on a departure on that issue because as I argued:
    - Marx didn’t support traditional family
    - Marx didn’t write anything about sexuality in capitalism, and saying that homosexuality is supposedly modern, bourgeois decadence even when it’s the bourgeois who criminalized homosexuality everywhere in the world is complete rubbish
    - early communist parties and early Soviet state weren’t against homosexuality

    So one must conclude that unfortunate treatment of LGBT people in XXth century communist regimes was a result of various historical and sociopolitical forces and factors (leftovers of the previous system), and not an inevitable outcome of Marx’ thought. After all, who wasn’t homophobic at that time? Today, at least in Europe and Americas, almost every marxist or communist movement is pro-LGBT. Even Fidel Castro apologized for persecution in Cuba.

  10. John Johnson says:

    @Steven
    “I really hope that his efforts for reconciliation can produce fruit.”

    If you sincerely desire reconciliation, the burden of action rests squarely upon your shoulders Steven, not mine.

    You’ve been given multiple opportunities to reconcile with our movement yet rebuffed us every time. I’m not going to try to lasso you back into this movement when you yourself do not seem to want to commit yourself to being a team member and make the necessary concessions of ego which membership in any organized movement requires.

  11. AS says:

    @Daniel

    “It’s amazing how this site is getting proven right as times and events go by.”

    Meanwhile on the archaeology front:

    http://www.newsweek.com/ancient-china-colossal-waterway-system-built-5000-year-old-liangzhu-730351

    @Steven

    “I am the leader of our Party in Australia”

    If you lead it, it is by definition not our party.

    “Maybe we don’t have to continue our futile war?”

    Declare that Hypnotix was correct and you were incorrect about everything here:

    http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/summer-cleaning/comment-page-1/#comment-176149

    apologize to NS for this:

    http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/tribute-to-lavin-eskandar/comment-page-5/#comment-175500

    http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/tribute-to-lavin-eskandar/comment-page-5/#comment-175502

    http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/tribute-to-lavin-eskandar/comment-page-5/#comment-175523

    and apologize to our entire team for this:

    http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/tribute-to-lavin-eskandar/comment-page-4/#comment-175459

    I am not the one begging you to come back; you are the one begging to be let back in.

    @anon

    “Marx once wrote about the racism of English workers towards the Irish, where he said that it is the English’s job to overcome artifical antagonism kept alive by the ruling classes in order to make a united working class movement. Therefore, it is plausible that Marx would say the same about BLM, immigrants etc.: it is the white’s job (as they occupy a relatively higher position) to overcome artifical antagonisms, and not underprivileged groups to submit to whites, risking marginalization in the process.”

    But this is not what today’s leftists promote. Today’s leftists argue that “liberal whites” are only creating confusion by apparently speaking up for BLM etc.. This is equivalent to our position regarding so-called “anti-Zionist Jews” who apparently speak up for Palestinians etc.. In fact, in an encouraging development (as a direct consequence of our activism), today’s leftists increasingly refuse to let Jews speak up for BLM etc. either. So today’s leftists would still not be Marxists even according to what you claim Marx might say.

    “non-patriarchal”

    “Favorite quality: in man – Strength; in woman – Weakness.” – Karl Marx (replying to his own daughters)

    If this is not patriarchy, I don’t know what is.

    “in 2nd Lenin’s cabinet there was a first (?) outed homosexual minister, and Alexandra Kollontai wrote a lot about feminist stuff. The fact that under Stalin it had all gone away means that it was a departue of marxism, rather it’s true realization.”

    But the USSR that Hitler conisidered necessary to invade was Stalin’s USSR.

    “And yet he sincerely allied with these “real marxist” Soviet state, and no one in Third Reich said anything against it…”

    The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a neutrality pact, not an alliance. And if it was sincere, Hitler wouldn’t have invaded shortly after.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

  12. Steven says:

    Numinous Sun and I have no issues between each other… Many people in our team actually understand where I am coming from, as you would come to know for yourself if you came to the Discord one in a while… Anyway, I am not begging to come back. I am just wishing you would stop being such an idiot… You talk about wanting to do something positive, yet you continue to be an idiot… If that’s what you want, then so be it. See you in the Kingdom…

  13. anon says:

    @AS
    “Today’s leftists argue that “liberal whites” are only creating confusion by apparently speaking up for BLM etc..”

    Yes, “liberal whites” are creating confusion. “Leftist whites” probably not. So what’s your point? Also I don’t think it’s true that the left is refusing Jews or anyone else to speak againt Israeli racism.

    “If this is not patriarchy, I don’t know what is.”

    Marx could have had also beat his wife and it wouldn’t matter to marxism – which is a theoretical corpus of thought separated from the private person of Karl Marx. He, as a public figure, should be judge first and foremost by his public writings. Also I am surpised you didn’t cite this:
    [i]“Your favourite dish – Fish”[/i]

    “But the USSR that Hitler conisidered necessary to invade was Stalin’s USSR.”

    So was Stalin’s USSR marxist or non-marxist?

    “The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a neutrality pact, not an alliance.”

    Yes, neutrality pact where they agreed to partition of Poland and other territorial changes of Europe…

    “And if it was sincere, Hitler wouldn’t have invaded shortly after.”

    Hitler invaded because he found out that Stalin was going to invade him.

  14. Fatih Dion says:

    @anon

    “So was Stalin’s USSR marxist or non-marxist?”

    Marxism is the theory and Communism is the practical implementation of Marxism, while Marxism is a political ideology based on Karl Marx’s ideas, communism can be called as a political system, which is based on Marxist ideology.

    Eastern European (Stalinist) and Chinese Communist (Maoist), once again, is actual Communist

    Read more: Difference Between Communism and Marxism | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-communism-and-marxism/#ixzz50QbMTzvr

    “Yes, “liberal whites” are creating confusion. “Leftist whites” probably not. So what’s your point?

    The most important point is that the liberal white (Left-wing) is still care with other ethnic that still persecuted or discriminated, which is contrary to Marxist thought, which is more concerned with the indigenous ethnic proletariat inside the country

    They are potential to be Authentic National Socialist group

    “Also I don’t think it’s true that the left is refusing Jews or anyone else to speak againt Israeli racism.”

    And by the way, Jews also infiltrate right wing groups, so both wing is already poisoned, we need to infiltrate and correct the Left into true way

  15. Amaleq says:

    Let’s also not forget that Marx was funded by the Rothschild international banking family….

    Marxists should really ask themselves why a communist revolutionary was being funded by a capitalistic banking family?

  16. @Fatih Dion says:

    @anon

    “Marx could have had also beat his wife and it wouldn’t matter to marxism – which is a theoretical corpus of thought separated from the private person of Karl Marx. He, as a public figure, should be judge first and foremost by his public writings. ”

    Look Eastern Europe and China, that formerly Communist countries, they are strongly oppose homosexuality, anti-foreigners and preserve tradition

    For example, this is how homosexuality was banned in China

    For most of the 20th century, homosexual sex was banned in the People’s Republic of China until it was legalized in 1997. In 2001, homosexuality was removed from the official list of mental illnesses in China.[7]

    Homosexuality in China is banned during Communist regime

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_China

    Homo-phobic = Judaic

  17. RP says:

    @anon
    “Also I don’t think it’s true that the left is refusing Jews or anyone else to speak againt Israeli racism.”

    I beg to differ: https://youtube.com/watch?v=IDguUZEG8ZA
    @8:32
    “The Jewish community has kept alive the myth that they have solidarity with the black community”

  18. AS says:

    @anon

    ““liberal whites” are creating confusion. “Leftist whites” probably not.”

    Now you are creating confusion! True Leftists do not self-identify as “white”. “Leftist whites” are therefore False Leftists a.k.a. liberals.

    In the same way that sincere anti-Zionists will not excuse Jewish identity, sincere anti-racists will not excuse “white” identity.

    “Also I am surpised you didn’t cite this:
    [i]“Your favourite dish – Fish”[/i]”

    If you had tried to argue that Marxism is universalist rather than merely humanist, I would have done so. I am glad that you did not.

    “Western Free Thought … has never preached or even conceived a love more comprehensive than that of humanity. And every one of its aspects, from Descartes to Karl Marx, is as man-centered as any philosophy can be.” – Savitri Devi

    “Hitler invaded because he found out that Stalin was going to invade him.”

    Hitler’s plan to conquer Soviet territory was formulated long before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed:

    3 February 1933, at his initial meeting with the generals and admirals of Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler said that the conquest of Lebensraum in Eastern Europe, and its “ruthless Germanisation”, were the ultimate geopolitical objectives of Reich foreign policy.[42] That the USSR was the country to provide sufficient Lebensraum for the Germans, because it possessed much agricultural land, and was inhabited by Slavic Untermenschen (sub-humans) ruled by Jewish Bolshevism.[43]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum#Foreign-policy_prime_directive

  19. anon says:

    @AS
    “Now you are creating confusion! True Leftists do not self-identify as “white”. “Leftist whites” are therefore False Leftists a.k.a. liberals.”

    I thought it should be obvious I was referring to common-sense definition of “white” – as a skin color.

    “If you had tried to argue that Marxism is universalist rather than merely humanist, I would have done so. I am glad that you did not.”

    I believe it was Lenin who, when asked about what part of marxism should we be critical of, replied: “everything!”

    “Hitler’s plan to conquer Soviet territory was formulated long before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed:”

    Aren’t we supposed to look behind curtains of propaganda and mere words and see not what leaders says, but what they do? And the “do” part in this case consist of:
    - a real military and economic alliance between Third Reich and USSR
    - armament aimed at UK (construction of monstrous fleet under “Plan Z”) and not Soviets (lack of proper equipment was crucial in Germany’s defeat in Operation Barbarossa)
    - the actual military plan to attack USSR was not made until 1940
    - even Hitler himself in Mein Kampf says that the most dangerous thing for Germany is to wage war on two fronts. Yet he exactly did that, because he realized Stalin tricked him.

    Of course I am sure Hitler wanted to see the fall of USSR. But that would have been a long-term goal, perhaps during turmoil after Stalin’s death?

  20. @Fatih Dion says:

    @anon

    “armament aimed at UK (construction of monstrous fleet under “Plan Z”) and not Soviets (lack of proper equipment was crucial in Germany’s defeat in Operation Barbarossa)”

    Hitler have mixed opinion on British people, he hate most of them but also have some admiration to them, so the later conclusion he just want to force British people to surrender trough disarm their military power so he can make peace deal with them and together destroying Communist

    “the actual military plan to attack USSR was not made until 1940″

    Hitler’s primary enemy is Communist, even Stalin did not desire to attack Western Europe, Hitler still will invade Eastern Europe for terminate Communist ideology

    “even Hitler himself in Mein Kampf says that the most dangerous thing for Germany is to wage war on two fronts. Yet he exactly did that, because he realized Stalin tricked him.”

    Actually, French and British that make Hitler’s hope fail

  21. AS says:

    @anon

    “I thought it should be obvious I was referring to common-sense definition of “white” – as a skin color.”

    These skin colours (compare them with the shirts, which are actually white) are referred to as “white” in mainstream parlance:

    http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/314557/kevin-carroll.jpg

    https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.BZt6CF3aoBaQRiUlgYflPwD6D6

    https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_200_200/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAe8AAAAJDY3NDllMTkyLTNiNWQtNDY3Ni05NjgyLWRjY2YyZjM5ZDI5Mw.jpg

    And lest we forget (compare with the background):

    http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/2864b737c9fc6e5f09499cfd9bb1f193

    For that matter, even one of our favourite people (compare with the shirt again) can be respectfully used as an example:

    https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.MgEn7-m9N4Mzc3yQgJxuPwC0D5

    Meanwhile, this skin colour (compare with the shirt collar) is referred to as “non-white” by the same people who think of the above skin colours as “white”:

    https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2451/3619372267_c112fcc1ab.jpg

    “Common-sense definition”??????? Or Eurocentric definition? (For the record, I am emphatically NOT suggesting re-defining the skin colour in the last picture as “white” either, because that would still be optically inaccurate (even if somewhat less so).)

    “To be “white” in the first place requires a suspension of objective reality; you have to willingly deceive yourself to accept the membership card for the “White Club.” You have to look in the mirror and see a complexion that is nowhere near white and say, “I’m white,” and it is at that point that you’re ready to believe anything else no matter how absurd.” – JAM

    One last picture:

    https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/L1UiVxasDNZL8DWMSJeXzH8cau0=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4240707/158574127.jpg

    To believe that the skin is nearer in colour to the shirt than to the necktie is no less insane than to believe that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel or indeed that Israel should be allowed to exist at all, or that North Korea/Muslims/refugees/etc. are the bad guys, or that Western civilization does not need to die ASAP.

  22. Jesse Starfall says:

    I believe it is definitely worth noting the difference between Classical Marxism and Cultural Marxism here. People simply call it “Marxism” rather than what they actually mean: “Cultural Marxism”. The “Critical Theory” coming out of the Frankfurt School took the foundations of class struggle that Karl Marx had laid out and applied it in a different fashion. Modern day Cultural Marxism simply puts the (perceived) oppressed up against the (perceived) oppressors. It puts the minority against the majority. It will take group identities, whether it be based on religion, culture, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, etc., and use those identities to pit groups against one another. It’s identity politics turned up to 11.

  23. Amaleq says:

    @Jesse Starfall:

    “It puts the minority against the majority.”

    So does Aryanism.net. Veganism is also a minority movement in all countries?

    “Modern day Cultural Marxism simply puts the (perceived) oppressed up against the (perceived) oppressors.”

    What would be wrong with that?

    “It puts the minority against the majority. It will take group identities, whether it be based on religion, culture, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, etc., and use those identities to pit groups against one another. It’s identity politics turned up to 11.”

    Jewish democracy in general?

  24. Jesse Starfall says:

    @Amaleq

    The Vegan movement is noble, so is the cause of destroying oppressors. What is being done through Cultural Marxism however, is pointless bickering (although it often escalates beyond mere “bickering”) over non-issues, designed to pit people against one another as a distraction. This keeps people’s eyes on each other rather than on taking down Zionism. People wage wars about things like gender, or sexual orientation, as if those things will make a difference.

  25. Fatih Dion says:

    Sad, most of people now dont have many Aryan blood memory, they more care about themselves (Tribalist Gentilism), only 1 from 5 people in each society that have Aryan blood memory

  26. AS says:

    @Jesse

    “Modern day Cultural Marxism simply puts the (perceived) oppressed up against the (perceived) oppressors.”

    Yes, but how is this even remotely comparable to class struggle, which is based on wealth-makers against wealth-beneficiaries? If anything, is not the rightist narrative which stereotypes “non-whites” as “lazy welfare recipients/cushy public sector quota hire fillers” and “whites” (especially “white” males) as “Promethean innovators and Faustian problem-solvers without whom civilization would collapse within 24h” more comparable to the bourgeois vs prole dichotomy as Marx envisioned it?

    I understand what Critical Theory is; I am just saying it is superlatively ridiculous to call it “Cultural Marxism”. A vision of the oppressed rising against the oppressors is more similar to Christianity:

    “Woe unto the hunters for they shall become the hunted.” – Jesus

    whereas Marx wanted to abolish Christianity. So if rightists want to be more accurate, they should rename Critical Theory as Cultural Christianity. (Of course they don’t, because they think Christianity is on their side, when what is actually on their side is JUDEO-Christianity.)

    “It puts the minority against the majority.”

    Which is not what Marx envisioned at all. Marx was perfectly aware that proles outnumber bourgeois, so his vision was always of the majority acting against the minority.

    “It will take group identities, whether it be based on religion, culture, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, etc., and use those identities to pit groups against one another.”

    But does it? Does Critical Theory encourage conflict between Muslims and LGBTs, for example? Or between women and ethnic minorities? No, it does not. On the contrary, it encourages all these groups to stand together against the oppressor category.

    Our True Left criticism of (False Left) Critical Theory is that it attempts to promote unification among the oppressed without calling for de-emphasizing these denominations, which ensures that they will FAIL to stand together against the oppressor category (and we believe it was designed by Zionists to fail, in order that the right-wing backlash can then succeed).

    Another True Left criticism is that (False Left) Critical Theory categorizes Jews as an oppressed group rather than as an oppressor group, which is absurd. I am proud to say that we are already being listened to on this point, and leftists today are increasingly re-classifying Jews into the oppressor category.

    _____

    NOTICE

    The purpose of our uniform system is to let visitors know which commenters are authorized to represent our movement and which are not. Any commenter wearing a fake uniform will have their comments put into the spam folder. E.g.:

    http://aryanism.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/fake-uniform.jpg

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>