



WARNING: This page contains several images that are likely to be upsetting to anyone who has empathy for the suffering of others. In other words, Marxists can ignore this warning and proceed without caution.







Essential Facts That Every Uninformed Westerner Should Know About Marxists & Marxism









Written from the perspective of an atheist who has lived under several communist dictatorships for a number of years. A bulk of this text was placed on the net on a different site a few years ago.



The following text is written as a list, so you don't have to read it in order, i.e. you can skip to certain parts without getting lost or confused. (Only ridiculous Marxist theory can confuse you, anyway.) Nevertheless, there is a certain structure to how I've written this lengthy rant, so it'd be perhaps better if you read it in the given order.





The text/list explains in fairly simple terms the essence of Marxism and the reasons for its total failure. It also describes the confused and damaged psyches of Marxists (especially the deranged Western variety) and other Far Left extremists. Of course, no analysis of this topic would be complete without extensively covering U.S. liberalism, which is latently Marxist in nature. It's also hard to avoid mentioning Hitler's National-Socialism, a quasi spin-off of Marxism. Far Right = Far Left.



Predictably, red-in-the-face Leftists start foaming at the mouth at the mere hint of somebody daring to criticize i.e. say the truth about their dear, demented ideology, but I'd ask Marxists who want to post their goofy comments to first carefully read all the points on the list before jumping to emotionally-charged conclusions like the zealous, impatient, fanatical little children that they essentially are. For example, the text very clearly equates the evil of the Far Right with that of the Far Left, so any attempts to brand me a "Fascist" or a "Hitler sympathizer" will only make these posters look stupid. When Leftists run out of arguments (which is nearly always), the only "solution" they've got remaining is to brand their opponents "Fascist", complete with a fit of rage which may or may not include large quantities of saliva dripping from their mouths and nostrils. This laughably cheap and obvious defense "strategy" has an air of desperation about it that evokes pity from me, and nothing else.



There is absolutely no doubt that this text will cause extreme anger and distress amongst the incurably rabid Marxists who glance over it, dare I say read it even to some extent. This page offers them all an uncomfortable but unique chance to take a look in the mirror - and what self-deluded malcontent wants to find out that they are a moron - complete with a detailed, unflattering, disturbing, but also occasionally giggle-worthy description of their peculiar brand of pathology.



However, this text is anyway not really intended for people already afflicted with this debilitating disease. No text or deed in this world can possibly deprogram, teach, educate, reform, improve, de-brainwash, enlighten, or in any way help a westerner already ill with this mental condition we call Marxism. Nor do I give a toss about "improving" these luckless buffoons. Western Marxism is beyond anything that western medicine can cure. This very lengthy rant is more intended for center-leftists, centrists, right-wingers who want to learn more, young people who are confused whom and what to believe, and for apolitical people who are only starting to show interest in the ideologies of the Left and the Right.



Just look at that vacuous grin. She has absolutely no clue what's going on around her.

Typical, of course. She doesn't want to "fight for Communism" but wants others to do it for her.





Karl Marx: "My goal is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism."



Vjetropev: "My goal is to expose the idiocy of Karl's theory and remind of its destructive application in practice."







1. Before even learning about or getting involved in politics, every person makes a basic but crucial decision, whether they know it or not. The choice is between reality and denial. Hence most people can essentially be divided into two basic groups regarding how they view the world that surrounds them: pragmatists and idealists.



Pragmatists (or realists) usually choose capitalism and democracy, whereas idealists (or romantics, or dreamers) choose Marxism and/or socialism. The question you have to answer for yourself is: “will I bite the bullet and accept reality as it is, warts and all, or will I ignore it, hoping it miraculously and suddenly gets better?” The latter leads to Marxism, socialism, and American liberalism.





2. Another group of people who often choose Marxism are called idiots. They don't have to be either idealists or romantics, but merely stupid. They are what we capitalists call morons.

(I don't use words such as these lightly, but if you complete reading this text you might understand why I am forced to resort to such labels.)



3. Marxist ideology was created in an intellectual vacuum of denial, written up by a man whose arrogance and confusion are the main culprits in turning his writings into such malarkey. His followers are slaves of their own denial, wishful thinking and rosy-cheeked optimism.



Without denial and extremely romantic notions about the Universe, life, and man one simply cannot believe in any of Marx’s ideas. All basic principles of Marxism are deeply rooted in denial, and do not in any way shape or form deal with the real world or with true human nature. Did I mention the word "denial"? Denial. It's a key word here.



See no evil, hear no evil... but talk a lot of shit.



Just like a child, a Marxist blocks out anything he doesn't want to hear or see - but eagerly and happily expresses his views on matters he knows next-to-nothing about. Extreme denial is a very childish trait; it is the hallmark of weak minds, inferior minds, non-inquisitive minds, and cowardly minds. We all indulge and engage in denial to some extent because it is part of our survival-kit and a defense mechanism, but Marxists are certainly the record-holders in this respect. They take it to its absurd, harmful extreme. They own denial.





4. You will often hear people say that "communism doesn't work in practice, but it does sound great in theory". Wrong. This is perhaps the most widespread falsehood about Marxist ideology . Marx's fanciful ideas sound absolutely awful in theory. The fact that a "perfectly" constructed theoretical model could so abysmally fail in practice every single time is astounding - and quite telling. Or at least it should be telling.



His philosophy is deeply flawed and based in its entirety on non-scientific, naive assumptions about man and nature. Rather than employ common sense and deal with facts (whatever little real science there was at the time), Karl Marx chose to conceive a romantic idealization/glorification of man ; an economic and political system firmly planted in delusion, wishful thinking, and denial rather than any kind of down-to-Earth logic.





5. Marxism is purely idealistic, capitalism is purely pragmatic. These are two entirely different ideologies; one is entrenched in myths and with religious overtones and aspirations, whereas the other is based on hard facts about man's flawed nature and his insignificance in the Universe.



What this means is that Marxism deals with hopes rather than facts, whereas capitalism deals with facts which will result in a system that hopefully works.



I say "hopefully" because not all societies and cultures are advanced enough, i.e. ready, to employ capitalism with success. Like any ambitious project, capitalism requires certain pre-existing conditions, such as high enough literacy, for example. Marxism, on the other hand, requires gullibility, low literacy, and other conditions that are very easy to achieve or have. Basically, to introduce capitalism into a society, a lot of work is needed. To introduce Marxism, all you need is empty populist sloganeering and a large (voting) block of morons. So yes, a capitalist democracy is a much tougher sell. It is much tougher to install than a tyrannical system - any tyrannical system - which is why tyrannies (religious, autocratic, or marxist) outnumber functioning democracies by 5 to 1, or something on that level.



Capitalism deals with the real world as it is - rather than how it should be in some grand, fictitious scenario concocted by a 19th-century German couch-philosopher/dreamer/hypocrite.





Translation of this pseudo-intellectual self-contradictory self-serving gobbledygook:



"I am in favour of a democracy BUT...

BUT

(get ready for a lengthy BUT, ye sheep) as long as government institutions are under popular control - and by that I of course mean that the control they're under is popular amongst me, other college Marxists, me, Castro, me, and Al-Qaeda. Additionally, I am for this democracy thingy but only if it entails no freedom for ambitious, intelligent, hard-working people to acquire personal assets and increase their wealth which is of course extremely evil, and as long as wicked corporations (which are so very evil by a ludicrous definition that only I and my obedient, dumb students understand) only function under strict supervision from massive, heavily-bureaucratized government institutions that are run by people appointed by Marxists (and even better: by myself personally). Capitalism does not allow anybody to do anything that's remotely free - aside from letting people get on happily with their lives - and of course the system I propose (which I can't mention here by name) isn't anti-democratic at all - because I say so. Industrialists are all crooks because they hog all the wealth for themselves and never let me have any, although I always pretend that the real reason I despise them is because they starve the poor that I frankly couldn't give three shits about, which is why I prefer a system in which a handful of dogmatic assholes like myself pull all the strings and get rich without having to work for it, while people who play by my rules get the shit end of the stick. Forget the fact that corporations when given breathing space generally increase employment and create more and cheaper goods - that is of no interest to me because I fucking hate the rabble i.e. those damn humanoids and their "needs". The only alternative to so-called "capitalist democracy" (which is such an oxymoron - simply because I the magnificent Marxist intellectual say that it is) is something that I dare not mention directly, which is why this quote sounds so mysterious. Suffice it to say that the alternative that I am unwilling to mention here by name starts with M and ends with ism."



So strong is Noam's urge not to have everyone find out he is a Communist, and so cunning a linguist is he that he totally avoids using the word but at the outset - in spite of the fact that the entire statement is one big anti-democracy BUT rant. A semantically-gifted bullshit-meister language-rapist par excellence, our honourable professor.





6. You won’t get to read this in Das Kapital, and you sure won't hear it from Professor Chumpsky, but denial and wishful thinking are the actual fundamentals of Marxism . Its lofty, populist promises of a perfect society are a very seductive LSD pill to the weak-minded, the gullible, the uninformed, the pushovers, the pathologically optimistic, and the semi-literate and illiterate. In fact, it is such a powerful drug that it will continue to attract naive morons for many centuries to come. Marxism is a permanent disease that cannot be eradicated, only (hopefully) controlled, with varying success. As long as there are very stupid and naive men and women with unrealistic hopes (for the world), socialism will have numerous adherents. (After all, why do you think the left-wing Establishment in the West is so keen to dumb-down the masses? They are working on it tirelessly.)



7. Idealistic bullshit is the opium of the masses . Promises of Heaven, perfection, bliss, and a carefree existence are the opiates of the (m)asses. That’s why we have religions. Marx must have known everything there was to know about opiates, hence why he so cynically used them as a metaphor to decry religion - while hypocritically borrowing heavily from it. A classic case of pot and kettle.



8. Many sane people wonder why communist ideals are still alive and kicking world-wide, given this ideology's abysmal track-record, its genocidal sprees, and dozens of ruined economies the world over. They wonder why Marx's cretinous teachings still attract so many rabid followers in spite of the over-abundant historical evidence that this ideology is in some ways worse than the Plague. (Because plagues come and go, while Marxism stays.)



The answer is simple: Marxism's promise of perfection, total equality, and eternal bliss for all is as seductive to the naive masses as any religious propaganda before or since. Religion will never disappear - for the exact same reasons Marxism won't either. They are both here to stay: they are one and the same. As long as stupidity and misinformation rather than intelligence and education are the norm among the masses, both will reign supreme, for as long as civilization exists.



I have much more respect for a Christian or a Moslem than a Marxist, simply because they have at least come clean about their need for a Big Daddy. Cosmic insecurity is a very human trait, nearly all of us have it, and perhaps (non-extremist) religious devotion is the proper means with which to deal with it. Marxists, on the other hand, live under the illusion that they are pro-scientific, down-to-Earth atheists. (More on this comical delusion later.)





9. No Marxist tyranny has ever worked, and by "worked" I mean brought a decent, half-way comfortable existence to its luckless, long-suffering citizens. Despite this fact, Western Marxists firmly remain loyal to this perverted ideology . The communist strategy of lofty promises (which never materialize) succeed in attracting incurable optimists like shit attracts flies.



10. There are two essential types of Western Marxists , when it comes to how they view past and present Marxist governments:



a) Those that defend such regimes, making absurd claims such as that the likes of Stalin and Mao were great leaders and benefited their people (rather than killed them in their tens of millions, which is not quite the same as bringing prosperity and happiness).





b) Those that grudgingly admit the failures of (some) past Marxist regimes, but still defiantly defend the ideology itself by claiming that "true Marxist principles had never been applied properly". They belong to that hopeless "the theory still sounds great and that's why we're hoping it finally gets applied properly in practice" category. They are like cats hoping to finally one day catch their tails.



To them, it is worth sacrificing millions more people in yet more political/economic experiments. Unfortunately and hypocritically, Western Marxists often don't want to act as guinea-pigs themselves; they prefer to stay in the cozy safety of a capitalist democracy, munching happily on their Wal Mart pizzas, preferring to let these devastating experiments take place elsewhere.



11. Neither category A nor category B Western Marxists have any excuse for believing in socialist nonsense - certainly far less of an excuse than their father-figure Karl Marx ever had. The Father of Marxism conceived his world-famous drivel in the 19th century, at a time when the capitalism he witnessed was still in its early, raw, "merciless" stage ; it is an undeniable fact even among the most die-hard proponents of capitalism that the earlier stages of the Industrial Revolution saw the implementation of a rampaging form of unbridled capitalism that was quite inhumane, vicious even.



Karl, bless his deluded heart, didn't have the benefit of hindsight that his modern-day devotees have today. Perhaps armed with the knowledge that capitalism had evolved greatly during the 20th century (due in large part to the democratization of society) into a successful system would have made Marx realize the folly of his ridiculous ideas, and perhaps (if he were man enough) he would have even decried all of his past misconceptions about it. (I, however, doubt it. As a narcissistic egomaniac, Marx is unlikely to have ever admitted he was wrong.)



His present-day followers, however, have the benefit of observing the transformation of capitalism i.e. reading about it in history texts - and yet they remain loyal to the teachings of a man who didn't even have an inkling of what was going to happen a century after his books were published, but could only wildly speculate. Never does it occur to them that even their "infallible icon" might have disowned socialism had he had the chance to witness the 20th century unfold. (Or at least may have modified his philosophy.)



Instead, they choose to believe that this man was some kind of an all-knowing, flawless predictor of the future, some mystical Hindu baba, a sort of Nostradamus Marxicus, who had somehow figured out everything about the human race - on his own - in an age when science was still in its infancy, and when economic principles and the means of applying them were only starting to be understood. This failure of Marxists to regard their teacher as just a regular flesh-and-blood flawed human from a distant past underlines the zealous religiousness with which modern-day Marxists look at their idol - i.e. as a god in the almost literal metaphysical sense of the word.



"They are religulous!"



Bill Maher exemplifies the stupendous, proverbial irony of the pot calling the kettle black. A man who would so zealously defend the teachings of Marx (if he dared admit publicly that he was a sympathizer), and who so blindly and above all religiously/religulously believes in every socialist doctrine, has coined a new term for Christians, not realizing that he suffers from the exact same affliction.



The fact that he was too cowardly(?) until recently to mock Islamic devotees with the same satiric bluntness that he mocks Christians, but chose instead to focus much less on this (currently) radical of all religions, reveals the dishonesty and favouritism behind his alleged anti-religulousness. If anything, radical Moslems should have been his priority from 9/11 at the very latest. Hence his "anti-religion" rants are not what they seem: they have essentially just been an excuse to go after Christianity, i.e. his focus is not a critique of religion as a whole - which means his "cause" is dishonest.

In other words, he primarily aims to attack the core of Republican Party support, i.e. Christians, hence his critique is political, not truly religious in nature. He merely uses his alleged "atheism" as a cover.

(More on Islam, bogus atheists, and parallels between Marxism and religion, later on in the text.)



It took him 20 years to realize which religion was the true threat to freedom. So why should anyone listen to this guy?

12. The so-called proletariat of today and the proletariat of the 19th century are not the same at all . If Marx could have seen how "poor" today's western lower-class is - i.e. able to own cars, TV sets, computers, have central heating, refrigerators, and iPods and stuff their faces with McDonalds food every week - he might have changed something in his theory. Poverty isn't always poverty. The American lower-class is hardly starving, are they? In Marx's time, there was actual starvation amongst the actually poor - poor in the dirt-poor sense of the word, not poor in the "I can't afford three cars" poor (non)sense of the word. And while we are at it, there were countless examples of extreme poverty and starvation during most communist regimes, so the goal of fixing poverty not only failed but completely backfired.





Today's western lower-classes live a life that is infinitely more comfortable , luxurious even , than the lives lead by the 19th-century's middle-class, if not the upper-class even - and all thanks to brilliant scientists and a capitalist democracy i.e. freedom. The argument that "poverty is a relative term" is far-fetched and essentially flawed, because it ignores the fundamental common-sense definition of what it means to be poor, a definition that has to be fairly constant throughout all eras and civilizations, and not drastically altered according to some Leftist's whims. Poverty shouldn't be defined by looking at a curve on an income chart.



In other words, hypothetically speaking, if the middle-class were to one day become so wealthy that the average person owned a jet - would the lower-classes then be poor because they can "only" afford yachts?



I remember once watching a left-wing Dutch TV documentary about the "ghettos" in New York. An unemployed black man was shown going inside his own flat with a large grocery bag. While this man may struggle somewhat, obviously, can his existence be even remotely comparable to a 19th-century London family of seven who literally went for days without eating anything but moldy bread? This man lives like a KING compared to the poor of yesteryear.



To apply the same theory - that was written by a hypocrite know-it-all prophet wannabe without the opportunity of hindsight in the 19th century - to the world of today is a crucial mistake only people with zero understanding of history and society can make, i.e. modern Western Marxists.



In conclusion, western liberals champion equality at all cost, even when nearly everyone is well-fed. In their inferior, delusional minds, a society is deeply flawed until everyone owns the exact same amounts of property. This is a result of simplistic, child-like and above all religious thinking. Every western politician who rants and raves about equality and the "increasing wealth gap" is a closet Marxist - without exception.



13. Marxists who live and rule in left-wing tyrannies are mostly sociopaths and criminals. (I have lived under Tito in Yugoslavia and Milosevic in Serbia, which certainly helped a great deal in getting a very good grasp on the psyche of such individuals. While that fact alone doesn't necessarily make one an authority on the subject, it certainly gives me a huge edge over clueless Western Marxists who think and talk out of their asses.)



Marxists who live in the West are either:





a) Clueless, uninformed idiots.





b) Self-centered misfits, losers, failures, and other malcontents who cannot cope in a competitive capitalist environment , and so lash out against their own society as the last act of envious desperation. (Neo-hippies, SJWs, Antifa, "progressives" and Greens belong to this pathetic category, among others.)





c) Hypocritical psychopaths, just like the ones who reside in Marxist tyrannies.





Here's a world-famous psychopath tyrant doing free (?) promotion of yet another ridiculous book authored by a world-famous aspiring psychopath tyrant from the West. Hugo Chavez certainly knows whom to turn to for support when visiting the States.



In spite of millions of pieces of in-your-face evidence that Noam Chomsky is a flaming Marxist, many of his braindead western followers/sheep will still deny it until they're blue in the face (and they're constantly blue in the face because negating millions pieces of evidence is truly strenuous work and an ambitious undertaking for even the brightest scheisster-lawyers, let alone for the misguided zombies who worship and pray to his every word).

14. If one were forced to define in one simple term the essence of what draws the majority of westerners to socialism, it would be this: ENVY . Class envy.



A capitalist: "He's got so much! I want to have just as much as he does! I need to roll up my sleeves, and step it up a notch."



A communist: "He's got too much! I want to have some of his stuff right now!"



Humans are by-and-large emotional rather than rational creatures, and self-centered, seeing only their own needs while avoiding to understand the big picture. Socialism, not to mention its more devious older brother communism, is nothing but an excuse for many sympathizers of these ideologies to get back at those people who have (much) more than they do. Sort of like a little boy seeing that his playground pal has better toys than he does, and then deciding to solve the problem by hitting his pal over the head with a stick.



You will find this kind of class envy between most neighbours, for example, with people being obsessed how much and what they own as compared to the guy next door. It's the same thing.



It's quite telling that Marx conveniently failed to address class envy, considering he'd used up pretty much every phrase and concept that is class-related.



The notion that one man should against his will and by government decree financially take care of another - as if he were his parent - is not only immoral and unfair, not only illogical, but goes against nature's most essential but least respected (by socialists) law - the law of the survival of the fittest.



"Lemme have that, I wanna have it!"



A kindergarten is a bit like a primitive, simpler form of adult society, with behaviour being more obvious due to the kids' primal animalism. The kid in the orange shirt can't stand the fact that the kid with the red (ironically) shirt has a toy that he doesn't, so he applies force to obtain it unfairly: pretty much how socialism works.

The kid in the orange shirt is now a fully grown up self-centered loser, protesting against capitalism during a Occupy Wall Street rally.

"Who cares that capitalism benefits most people? It hasn't brought me any riches! Kill! Kill! Kill! Eat the Rich!"





15. Socialism is forced charity , but charity should always be optional i.e. a matter of individual choice. Besides, you do not improve the morality of your citizens by forcing them to grudgingly give up a large chunk of their earnings for the "less fortunate". You only create more resentment that way among those who provide, while giving the "less fortunate" the wrong notion that they are entitled to other people's money - a very dangerous idea, mainly because it distorts the reality of man's existence and how nature works.



Nothing comes for free in this world - should be the mantra, instead of bleed dry those who have more than you.







16. Marxists like to align themselves with Charles Darwin and science, but Marxist ideology goes contrary to Darwinism. Marxists believe that humans can evolve in a record amount of time and that their evolution can be artificially controlled through political and economic means. This kind of amazingly unscientific nonsense of course has nothing to do with the principles of Darwinism, or even the basics of biology - not to mention good old-fashioned common sense.



Not to mention that some communist regimes have occasionally interfered with scientific studies, pressuring the scientific community to chuck away results that didn't suit them, and even forcing their scientists to conduct pointless experiments that aim to reach impossible or improbable conclusions which would fit in with absurd and illogical Marxist dogma.



The same is happening in Obama's America: anthropologists for example have to be very careful what they say these days, because political correctness has essentially stopped open debate on a number of taboo subjects in a number of scientific fields. Such as race, for example; racial differences exist, have been proven scientifically, but since the 90s they have been shoved under the carpet - with scientists being forced to pretend they don't exist. (Yet, how do we overcome race-based problems if we don't face scientific facts?)



Soon, even scientific differences between the sexes will become taboo, and then we will really be up shit creek. Soon we will have physicians being forced to treat men and women equally, that is to say, ignore a person's gender when making an evaluation. Do you think this is far-fetched? Nothing is far-fetched in an Orwellian society.





17. There is great irony in their attempts to speedily "evolve" man. They indeed succeeded in changing man in the shortest amount of time - but for the worse. Every society that had managed to rid itself of the Red Scourge (it's basically a political/economic plague) needed a lot of time to recover from the deep psychological and economic wounds that communism had inflicted. Some societies are still recovering, and some will be recovering from the aftermath of Marxist destruction for decades to come. It is like a debilitating disease that once it leaves its host also leaves deep scars and lasting wounds.



Just look at East and West Germany. Even after 26 years of a unified Germany since the anti-communist revolution in 1989 (*), the East is still an economic and financial burden to the West. That's because communism had changed people's mentality in the East, made them lazier and more reliant on the government. They had lost their self-initiative, which couldn't have been much different than from people in the West before Russian occupation.

East and West Germans, the same people, but with entirely different outcomes; one prosperous, the other still struggling.



North and South Korea are an even more extreme example of this - additional proof not only that communism doesn't work at all, but that it destroys both the spirit and the body (North Koreans are several inches shorter than South Koreans, a difference that has occurred only after Korea was split into two countries.)



* part of a series of anti-communist revolutions all of which occurred in 1989-90, including Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Poland, freeing up all of the colonies that made up the extended arm of the communist Soviet Empire, i.e. the so-called Soviet Bloc





18. Darwinism doesn't idealize man. If anything, it brings man down to the level of a common animal. Marxism, however, glamourizes man to absurd levels, elevating him to an almost divine status. This is just one of the many aspects in which it mirrors nearly all religions.



The main reason Marxists are perversely drawn to science (without taking it seriously) is because it to the most part negates god or at least makes him non-essential. That's the part they love, the philosophical implications of huge scientific leaps - not actual science itself.







Darwin believed that aiding the weak to survive and have families could lose the benefits of natural selection - but cautioned that withholding such aid would endanger the instinct of sympathy which is essential to a civilized society.



And this is precisely where left-wingers have a totally wrong perception of modern capitalist democracy: the moderate Right is not against all forms of welfare, or for allowing all poor people to starve or continue suffering. It is merely against going TOO FAR in the other extreme, i.e. socialism and then later communism.



Darwin's observation implies that the balance between these two extremes will be very difficult to define and carry out. Capitalism does not equate to not caring about the poor. Quite to the contrary; the poor indirectly benefit a lot more in the long run from a tougher system than one in which they are being (supposedly) taken care of, pampered and spoiled like a bunch of retarded children.

19. Marxism regards man as a being with the potential to be perfect. This is the most crucial flaw in its overtly silly ideology. (And yet, many Marxists hate humankind, which is a startling irony. You cannot help those whom you latently despise.)





20. By seeking to create “the perfect man”, "a new man", Marxism becomes the political equivalent of the crazed B-movie scientist looking to create a race of supermen. Sounds familiar?



It should sound very familiar. Hitler’s Nazis were also obsessed with the idea of creating a race of ideal, flawless people. This text exposes many similarities between Marxism and National-Socialism.



21. Western Marxists aren’t particularly interested in science and generally exhibit little respect for scientists and their views whenever scientific reports clash with their rigid views. Their preferred sources of "ultimate truths" are sociology (a mostly pointless and overrated human "science") and Marxist theory. There are many examples of Marxists and U.S. left-wingers being anti-scientific and non-scientific. Here are just a few of them.





a) Their opposition to GM crops reveals a staggering lack of knowledge about genetic engineering, the history of food manipulation, and agriculture. Interestingly enough, some Far Right movements across Europe have the exact same stance as Greens (who are communists).





b) Their arguments relating to climate change are also full of flawed reasoning, self-serving exaggeration, and the ignoring of some basic scientific facts and data - and the lack of it.





c) Their child-like persistence on the widespread usage of solar energy totally ignores the exorbitant costs and the total lack of feasibility in carrying out such a radical implementation.





d) Their insistence that the dangers of harnessing nuclear power far outweigh its huge benefits reveals amazing ignorance and shows extreme arrogance (because they won’t even bother to find out the truth).





e) The portrayal of scientists in left-wing Hollywood has ranged from indifferent (at best) to that of showing them as semi-insane out-of-control geeks who are often on the verge of bringing destruction to the planet and civilization. The typical left-wing movie scientist is a cold-blooded murderer who dissects freshly murdered alien bodies, and happily accepts unwilling human guinea-pigs provided to him by the evil evil wicked democratically-elected government to be used for his weapons-related experiments. This is the stereotype of scientists created by the Left.



f) Radical Women, a Marxist feminist organization, argues that only the elimination of the capitalist profit-driven system will remove all sexism and racism from society. (They actually believe that, no joke.) An example of blatant disregard of sexual psychology, biology, genetics and other related science fields - in favour of a totally unproven, bizarre and outright idiotic socialist theory. (More on this in fact no.176.)



(Later on in the text you will find out more about other possible reasons for the Left's insistence to often ignore science.)





22. Most Marxists don’t respect either science or scientists . This makes perfect sense, in light of the fact that Marxist ideology is entirely based on wishful thinking and totally ignores all scientific facts that conflict with their ideology . Perversely and ironically enough, U.S. liberals are just as un-scientific as their loony Religious Right counterparts who believe in Creationism and other such nonsense.



Left-wing "atheists", just as creationists, only pick and choose the science that suits them - but that's not how a "science-friendly" movement (as they think they are) should function.



Noam Chomsky, the Jesus of modern western Marxism, has no college degrees in chemistry, biology, or physics. What he does have, though, is the arrogance - and cojones - to criticize the greatest modern minds of astrophysics and cosmology by telling them that "the singularity is science-fiction". In his non-professional, uninformed, dilettante view, physicists had been wasting their time on utter nonsense the past few decades.



Whether or not the singularity is fact or fiction is not the point here. The point is that Chumpsky is out of his depth discussing a highly complex mathematical/cosmological theory that he knows next to nothing about.



The megalomania and narcissism required for a linguistics expert to suddenly start fancying himself an expert on everything must truly be vast. Professor Bullshit, as I refer to him, would very gladly teach the whole world about all fields of both natural and human sciences, if he only had the time to do it - for he is as all-knowing and omniscient as a god. What a putz.

He has publicly decried the "overly complex language" that physicists use, reminding me a bit of a truck-driver who stares emptily at 2001: A Space Odyssey, burps when the film ends, and then cries out "what the fuck is this shit all about?!". And then burps again. What a fine, fine intellectual Professor Bullshit turns out to be.



Mr. Chumpsky is a typical sociology-obsessed pompous egghead with an anti-scientific mind, and with the kind of disrespect for scientists and science that is so prevalent amongst Marxists. He should have been born 300 years earlier when men like him became renowned philosophers - i.e. so-called thinkers who never had to prove any of their mostly wild scientific claims. That this kind of anti-intellectual conspiracy-theorist fraud managed to make a name for himself in the 21st century is a testament to the West's inability to deal with public liars and thought-polluters.

And that's yet another irony: it's the freedom a capitalist democracy offers which enables anti-democratic liars such as Professor Bullshit to try and undermine it from within. This is a crucial flaw of democracy.

23. Marxist theory naively/stupidly assumes that man, given a lot of power, will use that power only for the common good, and never be corrupted by it - as long as that man is a devout communist, of course. As if becoming a communist somehow magically transforms a man into a near-flawless being.



Far from it.





24. Marxists are definitely not proponents of the wise old saying that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" (and neither are Nazis). But if there is any political group that should believe in it, it's them; no political ideology has managed to bring forth so many powerful men so utterly corrupted by power as Marxism.





25. Plenty of political power - not to mention absolute power - has the potential to corrupt even the most benevolent men. The catch is that benevolent, unselfish and selfless people rarely have political aspirations, and the few that do have them rarely join communist political parties. The fact that such people rarely pursue public office only makes the idea of the Benevolent All-Knowing God-Leader even more preposterous and stupid.





26. Try to picture a man so enveloped in his own arrogance and narcissism that he is utterly convinced of his complete and utter understanding of nature and man, to the extent that he smugly and confidently dreams up a fairly detailed prediction of the future of the world (most of which turned out to be utter nonsense), while essentially denigrating all of man’s past achievements. Ladies, and gentlemen, Professor Marx, the hero of idiots the world over.

Marxist theory reduces man’s comparatively recent history, i.e. the several thousand years of civilization leading up to the birth of the Messiah (*), to a collection of failures, basically equating it with a complete waste of time. While much of man’s existence leading up to the Renaissance and then The Industrial Revolution had been devoid of (significant) progress, surely Marx should have been able to recognize the comparatively giant leaps that were being made in his own time. But he didn’t. (Speaking of hindsight, I defended Marx in fact no. 11, but I can't defend him forever. )



Marx was a pathological over-simplifier, an absolutist of the worst kind. He saw the world through a prism of naïve simplicity that would shame a nose-picking 3 year-old. Don’t be fooled by his linguistically fanciful books, written in the typically confusing and semantically-jumbled complex style of most of his fellow philosophers (some of whom were more concerned with impressing with their literary style than their ideas; style over substance).

The most crucial simplifications are these.



a) all of history is useless, hence the need to start from scratch

b) nothing can be learned from history except for negative things such as how the rich exploited the poor c) religion and belief in a metaphysical god are to blame for everything

d) all rich people used religion to subdue the masses

e) the biological reality of man’s mortality and his limitations implied therewith are fully irrelevant

f) the poor are all victims of the rich, never of their own shortcomings or other unfortunate factors

g) all of the rich are to be blamed for all of the problems in society

h) only one path to progress exists and it is a dictatorship of the few over everybody else – no other alternative can possibly exist

i) formation of society started off all the evils, and corrupted man

j) before society and civilization, man was in a state of blissful happiness, one with nature and with no problems at all (**)

k) every time an individual fails, it is society's fault



And then left-wingers post comments here, accusing me of making sweeping statements! I make generalizations, yes, but not absolutist statements, and even if I may sound arrogant occasionally, my arrogance is peanuts next to Karl’s.



* I am referring to Karl, of course

** Karl's equivalent to the Garden of Eden, with the rotten apple being replaced by society





27. A 100% failure rate, when it comes to past and present Marxist regimes, should lead anyone with a smidgen of common sense to conclude that the real reason this system has never worked is not because it wasn't implemented as Karl Marx had envisioned it, but because it is a system that is not applicable to the human race. Besides, if a system is being applied time and time again without any success whatsoever, what could possibly be the reason to keep on trying? Only cretins and highly disturbed individuals don't learn from theirs or other people's mistakes.



28. Democracy offers the masses a choice between different ideologies, rather than have them callously subjected to a few self-proclaimed all-knowing, flawless “intellectuals” who will run their lives completely and forever. Even if some democracies boil down to giving the people a choice between two evils, a bigger and a lesser evil, then even that is a choice. Any choice is better than no choice at all. The real world isn't about perfect solutions i.e. black-and-white dilemmas but about the best solutions that are available at a given time.



"Why give the stupid rabble a choice, when they can have a mighty intellectual like myself make ALL the decisions for them?"

29. Marx essentially argued that democracy is destined to fail by implying that the rabble/proletariat is basically retarded, i.e. too stupid to make intelligent decisions during free elections. He then contradicts himself by claiming that in a communist state that same stupid proletariat would be running the show! Now, how does that work ? The bad logic in Marx's theory is all over the place.



Besides, this self-contradictory theoretical model isn't what really happens. In practice, a handful of middle- or even upper-class intellectuals (or badly educated thugs) such as Noam Chomsky hold all the power, fully ignoring the "rabble". Most of the so-called proletariat (which Marx most definitely secretly considered “rabble” and most likely despised) end up being even worse off than before. This has been the practice, time and time again. Theory and practice - not to be confused.

30. Once Marxist thugs and/or mankind-hating intellectuals gain power and re-write the laws, it becomes constitutionally illegal to even question the authority of the freshly-decorated junta, let alone ask for this new regime to be replaced. In that sense, Communism is like the life-sucking parasite in Ridley Scott’s Alien: once communism gets a hold of you, there is almost no hope, and no turning back.



This is why even the smallest Marxist movement needs to be taken very seriously, because it can grow quickly (especially in underdeveloped and developing countries) into a monster with an appetite so voracious that it annihilates everything in its path. Make no mistake: destruction of the old in order to set up the new is always the first order of business – and this includes mass imprisonment/torture/murder/exile of political opponents and intellectuals, plus the taking over of television, radio, and the press.



At least in a democracy a bad choice by the voters can be rectified a few years later, which makes a flawed democracy akin to a common cold next to communism which is more like the HIV virus, or the Plague even.

Once you allow communists to take power, there is very little hope left. The only profiteers from this new political/social order are the blood-sucking parasites, i.e. Party members, blood representing a nation's assets and capital.



31. Democracy was designed in such a way to not allow anybody to stay in power for too long, precisely because as a politician’s power rises, so does his appetite for even more power and even more money, which of course inevitably leads to high corruption, which in turn leads to moral decadence which nearly always results in economic ruin. Marxism, on the other hand, advocates giving freedom to one Party to do as they choose, for as long as they chose to do it. What this amounts to nearly always is one man (never a woman (*)) who rules for decades. (In Fidel Castro's (**) case that rule has been going on for over half-a-century.)



Anybody who believes that all political, economic and military power should be held by one or a handful of individuals for decades is an utter and complete moron who lacks even the most basic understanding and knowledge of both human nature and history.



* Do left-wing western feminists even knowledge this fact?

** Fidel, a great role-model and respected icon among Hollywood leftists





32. The great irony about communist regimes is that many of them degenerate into monarchies . The idea of a King or Queen ruling a country was abhorrent to Karl Marx, and yet that’s the road Marxist leaders have been taking. Just look at Nicaragua, Cuba, or North Korea: all have dynasties, i.e. powerful family clans that hand down power from one generation to the next. This just goes to show that tyranny will always exist, but in different forms, whether it be feudalism, monarchy, an Islamic tyranny, communism, or Fascism. These are all just slightly differing shades of yellow from the same poisoned vanilla ice-cream urine cocktail.



The North Korean Marxist Monarchy in full swing, since 1948.

Above: The Father of the Revolution Kim Il-Sung (left) croaks and hands power to his son Kim Jong-Il (right), The Son of the Revolution.

Below: Kim Jong-Il (left) finally snuffs it and hands all power to his son Kim Jong-Un, The Grandson of the Revolution.

Three Kims, passing on the torch of torture from father to son. It would be almost touching if not for the millions of starved and murdered.

(While we're on the subject of nepotism, the recent developments at the top of U.S. politics are alarming. We've recently had a father and a son as presidents, neither of them particularly good, and we've had a very serious presidential contender in Hillary Clinton, the wife of a recent president.

Nepotism is essentially corruption or at least leads to it, and at the highest levels it becomes an extreme liability for a nation. It is up to the American voters to smell the coffee and either rectify this preposterous situation by rejecting it, or to continue voting for the same clans (the Clintons, the Bushes, the Kennedys etc), as if a population of 300 million cannot provide other - and better - alternatives.

Still, at least in a democracy you can choose between different clans, i.e. lesser evils, whereas in a Communist Monarchy such as that in North Korea there is just one clan of enormous evil that reigns supreme over man, woman, animal and plant.)



33. What is the difference between a supreme religious leader (in a non-secular nation), a monarch, a Fascist dictator, and a communist tyrant? Essentially and usually none, except that a Fascist dictator can occasionally bring a measure of economic prosperity, but only occasionally, and that several monarchies weren't malicious. But Marxist regimes have a 100% success rate in destroying the lives of their citizens.





34. One can always spot a Western Marxist or extremist liberal (i.e. libtard) by the way they refer to their political opposition.



"Fascist !"



Name-calling (in the political-terminology sense) is a tool used by children and Marxists in equal measure. Every single person who holds views that aren’t left-wing gets labeled a “Fascist” by such inferior-minded idiots. (Just take a glance at the reader comments on this page.) In other words, any viewpoint that is right-wing, including views that are clearly center-right, i.e. based on democratic beliefs and totally opposite to those of the Far Right, will be dismissed as “Fascist” by the bird-brained Western left-winger. This reveals two things: a) how little they understand politics, political ideas, and its terminology, and b) how intolerant, fanatical and non-inclusive these alleged "diversity"-loving people are.





35. Utopia, the end-goal of Marxist dogma, is a perfect society for the perfect man. Can anyone with half a brain actually believe in this horseshit? Only confused dreamers and reality-hating cowards can actually subscribe to such gobbledygook.





36. The precise and simple explanation as to why Utopia will never come about is because man is not only imperfect, but extremely flawed. He is as far from perfection as Sean Penn (or an ape) is from writing a brilliant novel. The notion that man can be artificially brought to the level of perfection - with the "help" of Marxist leaders (who are always misanthropes and criminals) - is as stupid a concept as any ever concocted by even the most deluded philosopher. This makes Karl Marx one of the biggest "intellectual idiots" of all times . But it's not the first time that a hypocritical (lying) fool has had millions of followers.



37. It is fairly ironic that Marx who trashes society for everything - the continuous scapegoat for nearly all of mankind's misery in all his silly texts - proposes the formation of a perfect society. Shouldn't it make more sense then to do away with society altogether, since he claims that it is at the core of all of man's corruption and greed? This, of course, is the back-to-the-caves scenario which environmentalist extremists would prefer, one which Marx doesn't propose but is sympathetic to. (More on this in fact no. 96.)





38. Capitalism acknowledges man's flaws. It is a system that works with those flaws (rather than childishly ignoring them) in order to optimize man's limited potential - rather than stubbornly force an end-outcome that is bizarre and totally unrealistic. Man is not perfect i.e. god-like and will not conquer the world, that much should be obvious to anybody with a smidgen of intelligence and experience.





39. Capitalism is an imperfect system precisely because man is also flawed i.e. imperfect. A flawed system for a flawed being makes perfect sense to me. If man is an imperfect being then he cannot be expected to create and exist within a perfect system, nor does he even “deserve” a perfect system.





40. Capitalism is easy to criticize because it isn't necessarily Politically Correct, i.e. it doesn't offer the Great Big Lie of making EVERYONE happy (as Marxism does), and because it isn't perfect. However, anybody who enjoys the fruits of capitalism and yet opposes it, is a flaming hypocrite. (You know who you are.)





41. Capitalism is the only viable, workable system man has. If anybody can think of a better way of harnessing man's potential without the use of gulags and oppression, raise your hands now. Marxism, on the other hand, is based on totally wrong assumptions on the nature of man, hence it is entirely flawed, not just partly, and cannot be implemented with any measure of success.





42. Capitalism works in line with the simple but ugly truth that there are always winners and losers in every society. Marxism, on the other hand, ignores this truth and tries to sell us dreams of total equality, a world of eternal bliss in which everybody is provided for and happy. That dream always turns into a nightmare. That's because it is a retarded dream.



Who is meant to provide for the losers who aren't able to provide for themselves? It is expected of the winners to feed the losers and work for them. This makes absolutely no sense, and totally denigrates nature's survival mechanisms that favour the strong, not the weak. Any society that implements this socialist model is doomed for failure, sometimes sooner, sometimes a little later.





43. Marxism abandons the notion of God only because it elevates man to the potential position and power of God. In essence, Marx had replaced God with the state (and unintentionally replaced God with himself too). In fact, Marx clearly stated that one of his main ambitions was to "dethrone God" - using these exact words. Dethronement is essentially replacement, not the changing of the essential concept.



Marx's laughable idealization of man has deeply religious overtones, something most Marxists are blissfully unaware of - or simply choose to ignore.





Make your choice: that fella in the clouds or the one impersonating Napoleon? Either will do, they don't even look that dissimilar.



44. Marxism starts with the assumption that man is born good, if not perfect even, but is gradually corrupted by (a non-Marxist) society. Capitalism acknowledges the reverse: that man is born essentially flawed (i.e. greedy and selfish) and needs to improve i.e. curb his anti-social traits and destructive desires as much as possible as he moves into adulthood.



It is the job of society and parents to steer the child into a more socially acceptable hence productive direction. Look at any study of the behaviour of infants and children, and you will find zero evidence that people are born morally pure or unselfish. (People tend to confuse a baby's "cuteness" with "goodness"; a purely emotional, rather than rational, deduction.) To expect a totally clueless and helpless baby to even have a set of morals is asinine in itself. Every infant is like a wild animal with only the one goal of making itself happy. That is how nature made us, and there is very little point in either bitching about it or ignoring it.





45. It is the job of Marxists in the West to prevent education and betterment of the youth. It is the job of Marxists to be counter-productive by giving young people decadence instead of a moral sense, and misinformation instead of education.



Hollywood movies, with their incessant idealization of drugs, criminals, extreme violence and reckless sex, have had a major impact in the downfall of morals in the West. Naturally, they like to pin the blame for this on "decadent capitalism", as they always do, or they simply mock and dismiss the idea of "moral values" as old-fashioned and comical. But without a moral sense, we're headed straight back for the caves - which is where the hippie "revolution" comes in.



46. It is no coincidence that most outspoken 60s/70s Marxists promoted a drug culture and sexual hedonism. Timothy Leary's "drop out" slogan is as blatantly counter-progressive as it can possibly be. In a Marxist society, not only would he not advise young people to behave that way, he would not be allowed to do it. Leary's slogan isn't about freedom, it's the exact opposite.



47. It is no coincidence that the vast majority of American liberals and Marxists defend and promote rap music, in spite of the fact that its lyrics go totally against the Left's much-touted belief in racial and sexual equality, and tolerance. This blatant hypocrisy shows that left-wingers will always choose decadence over their own ideology, if forced to make a choice between the two. This, in turn, means that they are political opportunists at heart, and not at all the kind of hardcore idealists they try to fool us all into believing they are.



Intellectuals, all in a row.



Antisemitism, Korean-bashing, anti-white sentiment, blatant sexism, glorification of violence, and tips on how best to sell drugs in your "hood" - none of those things bother the destructive American Left. Rappers have a carte blanche, because:

a) they are mostly black hence beyond criticism, and more importantly

b) because they spread decadence, primitivism and misinformation. The rapid rise and continuing commercial success of this childish and amazingly unmusical form of "music" is a blessing for liberals.

For a more detailed appraisal of so-called "hip-hop" music, go to:



48. American liberals and Marxists are usually only idealists when it suits them, i.e. when a situation allows for it. It is then that they utilize their populist rhetoric to its maximum effect (provided the listener has a minimum of intelligence and common sense, and/or is blinded by idealism and wishful thinking).





49. A simple example of the above: recently, liberals made an outcry about a silly, harmless computer game in which slapping Hillary Clinton is the objective. They accused the game's makers of promoting violence against women.



Of course, when an almost identical face-slapping computer game came out a few years earlier in which right-wing Sarah Palin was being hit and molested, no feminists and liberals complained . In other words, these self-righteous liberals, socialists, closet Marxists. and women's-rights fanatics are always ready to sell their idealism for any opportunity to collect political points . They are just as bad as anyone else, and in fact a lot worse.



(Before any of you idiot Marxists start assuming I am a fan of Sarah Palin, be assured that I am not.)

Left: acceptable and funny. Right: unacceptable and totally tasteless.

Only U.S. liberals reserve the right to have double-standards. They love freedom - as long as its only theirs to use.



50. Marxists, with the power of the media they largely control, have successfully managed to demonize many words. The adjective “corporate” has gained an extremely negative ring to it, in spite of the fact that it denotes nothing evil or bizarre. Marxists use and work with corporations just like anybody else to get wealthy or to spread political propaganda, and yet publicly they will never miss a chance to use the words “corporate” and “corporations” in a heavily negative manner. This vilification of the corporate world is an example of astounding hypocrisy and fact manipulation.



Every hippie would have a cute little story of hypocrisy to tell... if only they were aware of it.



51. Even the word “oil”, on which we ALL depend (especially wealthy Marxists who travel a lot), is starting to sound like a curse. Marxists will try to convince the gullible masses that every war America wages is essentially oil-driven. Of course, some of the wars are related to oil. But where is the problem? Oil is energy, and energy is needed for survival, i.e. without energy our whole modern civilization would collapse like a deck of cards. There is nothing wrong with basing foreign policy on fuel. After all, fuel is what makes everything work, fuel is off essence if we are to maintain our relatively cozy existence (which so many left-wingers as well as right-wingers have started taking for granted). Every single person who criticizes an oil-based foreign policy is either a hypocritical cretin or a hypocritical manipulator . Only people who live in caves or reside in huts in remote forests have a moral/logical right to protest.





The happy hippie dweller of this cave, however, has no right to bitch. He is sleeping on sheets made by corporations which use fuel. He's also got corporate-made pillows, a clock (not hand-made but a corporate/fuel product), a table (perhaps made by a small business which relies on capitalist freedom in order to prosper and not get heavily taxed), and other corporate- and small-business- made gadgets. I appeal to this deranged left-winger to either leave the cave and re-join the human race, or to discard all his capitalist possessions, because only then will he be able to protest on May Day without being a flaming hypocrite.



52. For decades, U.S. liberals have pleaded for solar energy to replace the existing forms of energy. They insist that it can be done. What is stopping them? They have the freedom, the time, and the finances to develop such supposedly “easy-to-develop” technology. Nobody is preventing them. Liberals are of course, much like their comrades the Marxists, NOT capable of developing anything of their own, much less an energy source that would revolutionize the global economy, but they do expect OTHERS to develop these things, and when these caviar dreams do not occur then the Leftists start blaming auto-manufacturers, corporations, right-wing politicians, scientists, or whatever other group their idiotic and baseless conspiracy theories may target.





53. It is easy to criticize, pointing out faults in an economic system, because every system is going to be flawed. Offering alternatives to existing problems is the hard part – and that’s what U.S. Marxists rarely do. (In fact, most of the time they won't even reveal that they are communist sympathizers.) In other words, they are like a bunch of spoiled children whining and nit-picking, complaining their food isn’t tasty enough. But they don’t offer any viable solutions, other than vague promises of a perfect society once we all unite and violently overthrow our own governments. Any idiot can just complain. Bitching is the easy part.



54. Corruption is not a matter of if, it is a matter of how much. It is unavoidable in any system, any society. The notion of doing away with all corruption is asinine, but is fully in line with Marxist fantasies of an ideal, perfect world devoid of struggle and strife. But the much more realistic question always has to be: Which system promises less corruption? Democracy, because it gives you a choice, and because it doesn't guarantee life-long power to anyone. The longer you leave someone in power the more you risk an increase in corruption. It is that simple.



Communist regimes are corrupt to the core - that much should be blatantly obvious. Even if we were to completely ignore all history of Marxist regimes, by sheer logic we would deduct that this is so - purely on the basis of the absolute power corrupts absolutely maxim. Who has absolute power; capitalists in a free democracy or Party members in a communist tyranny? The answer is so obvious I won't even bother to write it down. If you don't know by now... then keep on reading!



55. Left-wing nit-pickers often focus on public cases of corporate corruption, especially on Wall Street. Nobody ever said that Wall Street was a perfectly functioning entity. Humans are deeply flawed, so capitalism is far from perfect. Nothing perfect can exist in human society - except for perfect evil. Left-wingers use an example of Wall Street corruption, magnify it ten-fold, exaggerate every angle that they can, drag the story on into infinity, and then try to convince the country that these examples prove that this is what all of capitalism is about. They choose to ignore all the benefits and success stories at Wall Street - which is very typical of these rabble-rousing fact-manipulators.



Out of such twisted, one-sided propaganda arises a movement such as Occupy Wall Street - a Marxist-organized group of misfits and morons whose only aim is to spread lies through meaningless and deceptive slogans - by yelling and shouting. Make noise over nothing! That's the essence. The more your movement is based on nothing, the more noise you must make to attract attention.

The more a person yells and shouts, the more likely they are to be lacking arguments. This is a general rule when it comes to protests in western democracies. It's usually the loud, malcontent, fairly small loser minority that causes trouble by making road-blocks and shouting simplistic slogans that are nothing but populist demagoguery ; quotes of their heroes (such as Professor of Linguistics & Bullshit, Noam Chomsky).





Don't fall for this shtick. Evil never sleeps. These hate-filled loonies are constantly working at undermining a democracy from within by spreading flat-out lies.



Take this banner, for example. These buffoons actually want the rest of us to believe that 99% of Americans are fed up with Wall Street and capitalism - i.e nearly all of 300 million people living in a powerful country of wealth and prosperity. If this were true, then their revolution would have happened decades ago. Certainly, if these clueless nincompoops had that much support in the population, they would have had millions join them in their pathetic street protests - all over the country - as opposed to thousands (of mostly unemployed bums, bored youngsters, easily-lead student sheep, MTV-brainwashed popcorn-munching fad-slaves, extremist vegans, cave-dwelling Greens, and man-hating feminists).



"Jobs, Justice, Education." What the hell does that even mean? Just words lined up in a row. A well-trained parrot can say these three words - and it would make as much sense as when this emotionally-charged cretin does.



Does this banner's content actually constitute an argument, a proposition, or even a basic statement? Of course not. This is typical meaningless "sloganistic" drivel we have come to accept as normal when these hammer-and-sickle-waving blockheads rush to the streets like a bunch of headless chickens.



The only thing that's bullet-proof is this gal's empty head. There is nothing inside it that can possibly be damaged in any way, shape or form. I can't think of any military technology that includes bullets that can damage vacuum.



This banner describes the essence of the Western Marxists' unwavering fanaticism and utter unwillingness to question anything they are told by Professor Chomsky, Michael Moore, and other public liars who act as one-man business enterprises, making huge amounts of money from their propaganda films, college appearances, and trashy conspiracy-theory propaganda books.

If you were to succeed in getting this hysterical Marxist groupie to calm down a bit so that you could ask her what the banner means, she would probably fart out a whole load of confused, quasi-meaningful, pseudo-political gibberish, peppered with words such as stuff, like, and dude. She has no clue what is going on around her - but she does know how to make noise! That's all that counts.



This guy couldn't even figure out how to program a DVD-recorder, let alone solve mankind's most pressing problems (real or imagined).

He looks as if the Taliban itself had sent him to protest against capitalism (i.e. America), but he's got a shirt portraying an Arab and an Israeli embraced in a passionate hug, so chances are he's just a well-meaning chap.



Movements such as Occupy Wall Street don't just consist of hateful misfits hungry for rich people's blood, and the psychopaths and greedy opportunists who lead them into these needless street "battles". Its ranks also hold gullible innocents, such as this possibly good-natured sheepish follower of fairly low intelligence. Proudly he holds his banner, a statement so stupid I'd be embarrassed to quote it aloud, let alone pose with it in front of the international press.

For more on these fools, go to link:



http://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-cretins-of-occupy-wall-street.html





Clueless western Marxists are in love with the IDEA of the revolution, as the ultimate act of romantic/heroic rebelliousness or whatever, rather than being interested in what that idea actually means . The fact that they stubbornly refuse to read up on the history of communism is one of the many proofs of this.



56. Neo-hippies, Greens, and Marxists, who oppose nuclear energy, do not offer any practical alternatives. They are however experts in making road-blocks and causing havoc.

Destruction and obstruction are the only tools Marxist have at their disposal. Creation and innovation are skills they sorely lack.



57. The great irony is that nuclear power is and was used by many communist dictatorships , making one suspicious that perhaps hippies and liberals aren’t against it because they honestly believe they are too flawed and dangerous – but because they do not want democracy and capitalism to continue their success . Hence why Western Leftist parties willfully seek economic weakening by sabotaging crucial energy sources.





58. When a hippie group tries to obstruct a power plant from being built, they are blatantly disrespecting the will of the people, whose representatives in power had been green-lighted to carry on with the nuclear-power program. But that’s how they are. Marxists’ sense of self-righteousness allows them to do whatever they feel like . They do not respect democracy in the slightest hence logically they do not respect the will of the majority. They only care about their own wants and needs. Neo-hippie Marxists are egotistical, self-absorbed misfits blinded by their own stupidity and selfishness, unable to compromise and incapable of understanding anything more complex than the so-called "peace sign". Whether they are aware of it or not, they are driven by pure hatred for society (while projecting their hatred onto the millions of imaginary "Fascists" that surround them), their ultimate goal being to reverse whatever progress a democracy has made.





59. The more-than-obvious self-righteousness which pompous American Leftists exhibit gives them “the right” to lambaste others for what they consider "inappropriate thinking", while they themselves indulge in hypocritical breaking of all these unwritten laws.





60. Only a truly hypocritical political system of thought could possibly have come up with something as decadent and anti-intellectual as Political Correctness.



Translation of Professor Bullshit's hypocritical bullshit:



"I question everything, except my own dogmatic arrogance and my pathological fanaticism. I want you also to question everything - except my own views, which are to be taken at face value and learned by heart without questioning.

Question everything the Right does, but make sure you only question their views - as opposed to trying to analyze their arguments with an open mind using logic. Only QUESTION, and then stop there, not allowing any further thought processes to take place in your empty head. In fact, when I say question, what I really mean is ignore, i.e. ignore anything you hear from the Right - especially if it sounds as it might make sense to you."



61. Political Correctness is an invention of the American Left, and has spread rapidly from the U.S. to Europe. It is the result of the Left's dominance in the media and pop culture. For a political movement that preaches freedom at every corner, they have shown very little in terms of offering any actual freedom to the masses. Pretending to be pro-freedom is essential for U.S. liberals and Marxists to fool the masses. It's like the classic case of the powerful mobster who gives millions to charity in order to make himself look like the opposite of what he actually is - a tactic that has worked on mindless sheep many a time.





62. Political Correctness acts as a muzzle. It is anti-Free Speech. It is anti-thought. It is anti-intellectual. It is contrary to freedom. It forbids the questioning of established "truths", and turns many crucial topics into taboo areas which are not to be discussed or even thought about. Political Correctness is in fact thought-control.





Our pot-smoking, LSD-popping Vera simply loves her free speech - but only as long as its HERS and not an opponent's.



They also adore their simplistic, infantile "equations".

HATE SPEECH = MURDER.



For once they are correct; left-wing hate-speech certainly has contributed to many a murder quite often in the past 100 years.



What she really wanted to write:

EVERY RIGHT-WING SPEECH = HATE SPEECH

or

EVERYONE TALKING SHIT I DISAGREE WITH = HATE SPEECH





63. Political Correctness - i.e. cultural Marxism - has firmly entrenched itself into American and European cultures, rendering parts of their media incapable of freely expressing themselves. It has successfully shut down open discussions on a number of "controversial" subjects. The masses that lived in once-free democracies are becoming increasingly afraid to talk openly about a number of important issues. This we have the Left to thank for. They did this very deliberately.



Translation of Professor Bullshit's spin-doctoring bullshit:



"Of course, I am talking about the fucking idiots in the States, not the fucking rabble in Marxist dictatorships. I am fully aware that if the damn western riff-raff doesn't know much, that this could only be the fault of left-wing liars such as myself who control most of the media hence most of the information that the fucking rabble gets must be erroneous or at the very least heavily filtered - so no wonder the morons are clueless. Of course, if they voted for the American Communist Party, I'd praise their intellect, education and common sense."





What Professor Bullshit knows all-too-well, but prefers to keep to himself, is that nowhere is the acquisition of (more-or-less) reliable information easier than in free (capitalist) democracies - even those whose press is heavily left-leaning i.e. almost as bullshit-happy as our respected professor of bullshit, Professor Noam Bullshit. Even flawed sources of information such as the British The Independent (anything but independent) & The Guardian (perhaps a guardian of Marxist ideology?), the French Liberation (meaning enslavement in this case), or the German Berliner Zeitung are more reliable and less biased examples of journalism than the utter propaganda fabrications that are being served to the luckless proletariat in tyrannies such as Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea - all communist regimes which Chumpsky whole-heartedly supports in spite of literally millions of human-rights violations ascribed to them, filed in part by human-rights organizations which Chomsky recognizes.



Furthermore, this statement reveals much of Professor Bullshit's sense of superiority plus hidden disdain and low opinion of the "masses" he supposedly cherishes, treating them not like idiots but double-idiots, for not even being aware that they are not aware of what's going on in a successful 200 year-old democracy.



This quote, one of many learned by rote by Noam's army of misfit fans, is a typical example of the upper-class snobbery (the irony...) which intellectual frauds such as Chumpsky exhibit, i.e. everybody is a bloody fool except his Royal Marxist Highness. To make this claim in a country with arguably the freest media in the world is nothing short of demagoguery of the most blatant sort. I could easily re-name this professional liar into Professor Demagogue, but I think his current new name suits him much better.



The U.S. voters aren't nearly Left enough for Chomsky's extremist desires - that's ALL this quote is about, nothing more. A bitter statement from a bitter man who made a bitter realization that America is still quite far from the Red Revolution nightmare this incurable sociopath dreams of.

Here's another moron from Occupy Wall Street. Please read the Goethe quote. Sounds familiar?

64. Nothing will bring down a prosperous civilization quicker than shutting down the freedom of speech. Ironically and cynically, it is the Leftists who smugly assume the role as Protectors of Freedom Of Speech.

An example: in separate incidents in which Assange and Snowden harmed Western governments (hence their people), the left-wing media jumped largely to their defense. Of course, those same left-wing media manipulators mostly ignored the hypocrisy of these two felons seeking asylum and help from tyrannical regimes well-known for their blatant disregard of freedom of speech and human rights.

Yet another example of how Marxists and liberals bend and twist their supposedly strong ideals whenever it suits them. In theory it is idealism they hold dear, but in practice it is their sly opportunism that outweighs the idealism, always. Their language is that of populism - always .





Brave and fearless pioneers in the fight against capitalist oppression, western aggression, and murderous corporate globalization - or just a pair of self-righteous malcontents/nerds starving for attention? Left-wingers get the answer wrong every time.



65. Basically, liberals and Western Marxists are not bothered when a communist dictatorship or an Islamic tyranny commits genocide or violates human rights in all manners. However, should the American government commit even the slightest atrocity (which it has done) or act inappropriately in a tricky (diplomatic) situation, they will jump on the story and magnify it ten-fold, over-dramatizing the entire situation, giving the events every possible negative and fictional spin they can think of.





66. Western Marxists and American liberals have successfully managed to position themselves as freedom-loving in the public eye, while pursuing the exact opposite. The so-called "60s Revolution" wasn't about gaining freedom. It was about crushing it.





67. Trying to discredit and crush democracy just in order to establish a left-wing dictatorship obviously has nothing to do with freedom in the slightest. It has however everything to do with enslavement, sadism, delusion and sociopathy. It is a mark of brazen spin-doctoring that Western Marxists misuse the concept of freedom, enveloping their movement in it, and claiming they are the only ones who are freedom-orientated, even though their goals are the exact opposite of liberty. A crook is always the first to proclaim himself a bastion of morality, just as a floozy will rush to profess her chastity.





68. Hippies represented the direction which Marxists wanted Western youth to take. They wanted young people to become drug-obsessed, hedonistic, lazy, useless morons who have more erections than thoughts. Anything that undermines a successful capitalist society will be what Marxists will go for and support.





69. Hippies were to the most part spoiled, clueless, usually well-off middle-class kids, brainwashed by misfit Marxist college professors into believing that they were living in a decadent and totally flawed system which needed overthrowing. Hippies were actually lulled into believing that the Soviet Union and China were far ahead of the West in terms of living standards and freedom. Such brainwashing on a fairly massive scale shows how effective - hence dangerous - communist propaganda can be. Jane Fonda, for all practical purposes a (typically well-off, privileged) hippie at the time, famously said: "If America only knew how great communism was, we'd all become communist straight away."





70. 60s hippies were/are the retarded extension of Marxism's sly college-professor middle-aged usurpers. Hippies were the braindead sex-obsessed pot-smoking dazed-and-confused zombie army sent into the streets by middle-aged Marxist deviants in order to create needless havoc and destabilize Western democracies. The end-goal? A Marxist tyranny. That is ALWAYS their ultimate goal.

When properly trained, this hippie zombie will do anything its middle-aged radical master tells it to.



71. The myth that most young people in the late 60s were hippies is still perpetrated by Marxists and their powerful media propaganda. This is not true. Hippies were a minority. Had they been a majority, most likely they would have succeeded in their attempts to violently overthrow certain free and democratic governments in the West. A lot of young people adhered to the hippie fashions of the day rather than the political/social ideals themselves.



America's communists have always had an inferiority complex - in terms of their fairly low numbers - hence their need to lie about being "the oppressed majority".



Just this one snapshot of Occupy Wall Street shows at least 4 banners stating a blatant lie: 99%. "We are the 99%!" Sure you are.



The agonizing frustration of Western Marxists has been growing for decades, as they have failed miserably time and time again in organizing a proletariat uprising. They aren't even remotely there yet. (I stress "yet" - anything is possible in the future, given how things are going.) They are aware that their numbers are too small to wreck real havoc in society, because it is quite tough to convince the whole country to give up their relatively comfortable existence for a life devoid of possessions, luxury, and food.



72. People who idealize the 60s student/hippie movement are either morons or manipulative, bullshit-happy communists. These are the same people who don't want you to read or hear about the other revolution, a real revolution, that was going on at the time on the other side of the Iron Fence.



Ever heard of the 1968 Prague Spring (*)? Did western student protests look anything remotely like this?



Chances are that you are far more likely to have heard of whiny, brainwashed western students and hippies protesting against nothing, rather than knowing about a real revolution that was attempted but sadly failed that same year, in communist Czechoslovakia.

The uprising was crushed when Soviet tanks entered Prague with clear orders to do whatever it takes to stop the rebellion. This was a true people's rebellion , not the comical, slyly-organized slapstick provided by a fairly small number of bored students and their Marxist professors in 1968 in a few American and European capitals.



A very similar rebellion/revolution was thwarted in Hungary, 1956: another anti-communist people's revolution largely ignored by western Marxists because it served to prove that they were utterly wrong about the Soviet Union and the "success" of communism.



Only a handful of Hollywood movies deal with or even mention these two very important, bloody events, but hundreds of movies focus your attention on spoiled, pot-smoking western hippies throwing alcohol bottles at cops.

Compare the treatment of western-student protestors who fought for nothing, and the treatment of Soviet-Bloc protestors who were fighting for basic human rights. Over a hundred Czech demonstrators were killed during the invasion, hundreds others were injured, and hundreds others imprisoned, some never to return. In other words, "the Fascist capitalist governments" didn't use 1% of the force used by the communists in Prague.



So who's the real Fascist: the Western Marxist who ignores the plight of those oppressed by communism, or the right-winger who points out to these crackdowns? Obviously, I'M the Fascist - to them.



* for those barely educated Western Marxists: Prague is one of the most beautiful European cities, the capital of former Czechoslovakia, and since 1993 the capital of The Czech Republic





73. The so-called "60s Revolution" wasn't a revolution at all, or at best a failed revolution. It did succeed, however, in accelerating the West's gradual decadence.



If anybody should be calling for a revolution (of sorts), it is the Right. I am referring to the way Political Correctness and the mostly left-wing media have been brainwashing a large chunk of the population, especially the young, setting up a potential political disaster scenario in a few decades.



74. The idea of hippies existing in communes, which is where the word communism got its name, was a wonder of human stupidity. Whenever we observe the behaviour of higher species of animals (no, not hippies), we find that territoriality is one of their defining traits, a characteristic that is common amongst all forms of higher life. Another unifying characteristic is their reluctance to share food and shelter, except with close relatives (if that). Are humans much different? Certainly, we are not animals (strictly speaking), and we have shown that we can make sacrifices for others or give selflessly even to complete strangers, but is this kind of noble behaviour actually a prevalently common feature in human mentality on a global scale? Certainly not. Essentially, we are very similar to the animals that many of us place so much lower beneath humans.

Hippie communes in the 60s and 70s were abysmal failures because they lacked structure, rules, and defied all natural and societal logic. (The fact that its inhabitants/participants were generally of below-average intelligence didn't exactly help either.) The totally selfless sharing of material possessions - and even sexual partners - are, frankly, rather weird concepts applicable to the rarest of human individuals, habits that only few of us can actually apply all the way from rosy-glassed theory into hard-ass reality. And very few of us would want to.



75. The difference between the West's decadence and the decadence in communist countries is that decadence in the West gradually grew (and is still growing), whereas communist countries always have extreme decadence from day one. The West has still a very long way to go in order to reach the levels of decadence that are/were to be found in every single communist regime.





76. Western left-wing propaganda would have you believe that the "60s Revolution" was a good thing, while McCarthy was a demon. The opposite was closer to the truth.



McCarthy’s attempts to curb Marxist propaganda in Hollywood made perfect sense. Supported by the Kremlin, Hollywood’s studios were misusing their enormous media power by allowing communist sympathizers to write scripts and direct movies, which in turn get viewed by dozens of millions of mostly very dumb or naive Americans, exerting a lot of influence. It is completely natural and logical that a secular democratic society fights against any political or religious extremism. This fight does include the war on destructive (either foreign- or domestic- influenced) propaganda, which is what some Hollywood screenwriters, actors, and directors were involved in back in the 30s, 40s and 50s.





77. Nowadays, Hollywood’s Marxists are free to politicize their movies to any extent they wish. They have won the media war.





78. The claim made by American Communists that McCarthy was anti-democratic and anti-free-speech was a tad like the pot calling the kettle black considering it was coming from a bunch of Marxists who above all else hate freedom and democracy. But this is just an example of the kind of dirty methods communists use to win over public support while twisting and bending facts at will. They hijack principles that the right-wing believes in, only to turn those same principles against them.

Only fools fall victim to such blatant spin-doctoring. Western Marxists want it both ways: to be pro-freedom and anti-freedom - this is as obvious as the dumb facial expression attached to Sean Penn's empty cranium.





79. Arthur Miller compared McCarthyism to a "witch hunt". The one gaping-hole problem with this laughable analogy is that communists do in fact exist, whereas witches don't. There is a huge difference between seeking to eliminate real threats as opposed to imaginary ones. Only an utter idiot or a liar-manipulator could possibly make that kind of comparison. Of course, Arthur Miller, the author of the much-overrated The Crucible, was a flaming Marxist. This "intellectual giant" not only based an entire novel on a flawed political analogy, but he also married a bird-brained starlet such as Marilyn Monroe - that's how concerned he was with intellectual pursuits. (I guess erections cloud any man's judgment, fair enough.)





80. So freedom-loving and humanistic are Western Marxists such as Arthur Miller that they never utter a word about the extreme oppression implemented by Marxist regimes overseas. Whether the Soviet Union, Cambodia, North Korea, Poland, Romania, Cuba, China, or any other "utopian" place, Western Marxists completely ignore(d) the suffering and enslavement of hundreds of millions of people, while NIT-PICKING in America over comparatively minor issues related to the freedom of speech.





Translation/Interpretation of Professor Chumpsky's bullshit:



Noam picks and chooses whose suffering he will make public to the hordes of devoted morons who cling on to his every word as if they come from God himself. Listening to rabid Western Marxists such as this consummate liar and fact-manipulator, one would almost be lead to believe that 60s/70s Vietnam, 30s Spain, and WW2 Europe were the only times/places where death, destruction and supreme injustice reigned supreme. Professor Chumpsky couldn't care less about the dozens of millions of people who died under Communist regimes and as a result of Marxist-initiated wars and conflicts, yet is mysteriously concerned and teary-eyed about the dead in their favourite wars - the only "justifiable" wars, as far as Leftists are concerned.

Furthermore, this almost criminal statement would have you believe that all those Vietnam corpses were a result of U.S. gunfire. To the uninformed and naive ears, Noam is implying, quite slyly without saying it bluntly, that the Vietnam war was all about American airplanes randomly bombing the entire country - rather than mention the fact that it was just another needless Civil War in which both sides committed murder on a large scale. But Noam couldn't care less about people murdered by Communists; such death-tolls are of no interest to this fine intellectual and humanist.



81. Do not be deceived for one second into believing that Western Marxists and American liberals are anti-war. This couldn't be further from the truth, since Marxism in its very theoretical (and practical) essence is a violence-based ideology. U.S. and European Leftists are merely anti-certain-wars. Nor are they against military aid as such, but merely against military aid to whom they consider enemies. The likes of Chomsky, Michael Moore and Sean Penn would applaud the decision to militarily help the Sandinistas, Nepalese Marxists, and others. The term "U.S. colonial aggression" which they use almost as often as "corporate crime" would disappear out of their phrase-book if the White House had a Far-Left-leaning President. Phrases like "justified aggression as means of solving a humanitarian crisis" would replace the old ones within a day of such a horror-scenario - i.e. of a Marxist taking over the White House. (Don't think this can't happen. Obama - a Muslim-Brotherhood-embracing Socialist - got elected twice, didn't he?)



This is precisely the double-standard that the Western Left is all about, and one of many examples you will find in this text of their clandestine strategy which reveals how their much-touted "ideals" always play second fiddle to their real, actual interests - their more secret, practical goals. War, military interference and aid - these they are perfectly fine, as long as they are utilized to help Marxist insurgencies. Their well-established "peaceniks" public image is a well thought-out scam designed to give them a politically-correct moral upper-hand over their allegedly "war-like" right-wing opposition.



This deceptive strategy seems to be working, unfortunately.





82. War = Bad. Peace = Good.



Just one of many dumb hippie equations, i.e. asinine left-wing over-simplifications of reality. This "war is bad - peace is good" logic seems to suggest that war should be avoided at any cost because peace is always comparatively wonderful. But is this really the case?



North Korea is officially in a truce with South Korea. It has been this way for the past 60 years. For all practical purposes, North Korea has not been at war with anybody in these six decades. So what did this amazing peace bring them? Millions of people who died of starvation and political persecution.

What kind of results do we have from years of peace under Saddam Hussein? Tens of thousands political prisoners tortured and murdered. (Saddam was at war for around a decade out of the 35 years he ruled, so most of it his rule was full of "peace".)

What did the Red Revolution "peace" in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979 bring?



Above: communist forces conduct a body count after a massacre of innocent civilians.

Below: one of many sites in Cambodia built in honour of the one million that died (mostly in labour camps) during the 4-year communist rule.

The Khmer Rouge, as their communists were called, managed somehow to kill ONE-QUARTER of Cambodia's population in a mere four years. Run that through your mind.



My simple point is this: peace ain't always what it's cracked up to be , nor is every war avoidable or should be avoided. An absence of war doesn't necessarily mean peace, let alone prosperity. Banalizing reality by declaring absolutist rules such as "war is bad" and "peace at any price" negates the horrors that occur in "peaceful" dictatorships when one psychopath is given free reign - without anyone to oppose him - to do as he pleases, for as long as he pleases, i.e. as long as he lives.



Peace at all cost, always ? Only simple-minded fools think that way. Brainwashed left-wing western fools, in particular, prefer "facts" to be handed to them on a shiny, clean, non-complicated plate; things ought to be black-and-white, crystal-clear, and simple-to-understand, which is why left-wing propagandists find them to be such easy sheep to manipulate and lie to. (The great hypocrisy is that they constantly point the finger at the Right for allegedly being black&white world-view simpletons.)



Besides, I already discussed how Western Marxists are only opposed to war and conflicts that don't suit them ideologically. Communists are hardly peace-loving angels... They are the exact opposite. After all, Marx's theory instructs them to use force whenever it is needed - and that includes all types of armed conflict. It also includes staying in power by any means necessary.



Left: Amnesty International have recently offered evidence that the Marxist Monarchy of North Korea is expanding its gulags i.e. concentration camps. They estimate that around 200,000 mostly political prisoners inhabit them.

Right: one of very few gulag escaped survivors shows the effects of torture.

This is all during peace-time.

More photos of North Korean labour camps. The few survivors have described the horrors of these gulags, stating that rape, beatings, and death are a daily occurrence.

During peace-time. Above: another rare photograph from a North Korean concentration camp.

Below: just two of the millions of children and adults who have died from starvation during the by-now 65-year Marxist-Monarchy rule.

North Korea is the most closed society in the world, a country whose inhabitants cannot cross the border, and any rare foreign guests are supervised/followed closely, so these kinds of images are quite rare. Common-sense tells us that this must be just the very tip of a huge, bloody iceberg. The true magnitude of the horrors of North Korea will only be fully known and understood if/when its people finally get liberated (because they sure aren't going to liberate themselves, that much is certain).



The fact that all this evidence may have been used for "propaganda purposes" by the West and South Korea does not alter the fact these events took and still take place. Western Marxists lie to themselves that all proofs of Marxist genocide and slavery must be falsified because capitalist democracies provide them. Talk about denial, and talk about a convenient way of putting blinders on, not having to hear, read or see anything related to the real world.



These are just a few examples from dozens of how "peace" can bring as much if not more suffering than war.





82a. What a peace-at-all-costs attitude can lead to is also perfectly exemplified by the policy of appeasement. When western powers attempted to avoid war with Nazi Germany in the 30s - at all cost - they used this abysmal diplomatic strategy, with disastrous results. By allowing Hitler to annex Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia, they not only gave him confidence and an additional public boost in Germany, but gave the Nazis even more time to prepare militarily for the "Big One".



British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain as he proudly waves a useless piece of paper signed by Hitler.



Appeasement: the policy of practically sucking up to a conquest-happy greedy dictator by allowing him to have most of what he demands. It is the most dangerous diplomatic game, and occurs either in an environment of war-weariness or in an environment of abject stupidity and intellectual/moral decadence.

The end-result is nearly always the same: the dictator increases his power, and as his power increases so does his thirst for even more success/riches/territory, and he keeps asking for more, until he has cornered his prey to the point where the appeaser has nowhere to go but fight back.



Peace at any price? Concentration camps and mass genocide are where such narrow-minded, simplistic thinking can lead to. Not to mention a war that the Allies almost lost.

82b. The truth of the matter is that the first things Communists did when they first got hold of power in a country (Russia 1917) was to start off a series of armed conflicts.



The only intelligent or reality-based thing this man ever said. Leon is often quoted by Western Marxists, but very rarely quoted for saying THIS. Obviously, this universal truth isn't something Western Marxists won't you to think about; too involved are they in trying to prevent western governments in getting involved in any conflicts in which their enemies are left-wing regimes or regimes - such as Islamic states - that have close ties to left-wing regimes. Nor do they want you to know about this side of Trotsky: the warmongering. conquering, butchering Marxist sociopath.





83. Complaining, bitching, whining and moaning about every single aspect of a free, democratic, capitalist society is what Western Marxists are all about. They specialize in this field, and they specialize in spinning facts into their own advantage. They are master spin-doctors, manipulators, and liars. Their verbal diarrhea and their logic-twisting, fact-ignoring arguments are not to be taken lightly or underestimated. They have a deep impact on the masses of sheep that listen to them, hence need to be taken very seriously.



Speaking of Leon Trotsky and modern-day cultural Marxism i.e. political correctness , here is a classic case of spin-doctoring and fact-bending. What modern-day white (non-liberal) American hasn't at least once been a victim of this often baseless - but very fashionable - accusation? The precursor to all-encompassing white guilt - i.e. inducing guilt as means of shutting down the opposition and brainwashing the (white) masses more efficiently. But more on that later.

84. Western Marxists cannot win with logical arguments, nor can they prove in the slightest that capitalism is overall a failure, nor can they prove to anyone with a smidgen of intelligence that Marxist ideology works - because it clearly doesn't. So what they are left with (no pun intended) is not to promote communist ideals openly but to undermine, criticize and destroy the capitalist democratic system that does work (or at least works far better than their inane Reddish alternati