Marxism: A Basic Guide For The Gullible Clueless Westerner

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:

http://vjetropev.blogspot.com/2013/06/fitting-in.html

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 alternative), trying to crush it from within by spreading lies and creating self-serving myths.

85. Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, Michael Moore, and Jon Stewart may seem like harmless, unfunny, talentless clowns monkeying around with anti-Republican propaganda, but they exert far more influence than meets the eye. Marxists have cleverly incorporated comedy into the Marxist-bullshit propaganda machine. The jokes are rarely funny, and they take cheap shots, but their strategy is nevertheless highly effective because their audiences consist mostly of primitive, misinformed morons. Powerful media personalities such as these three closet Marxists can affect the outcomes of elections, especially since America usually has close 50-50 elections most of the time.

86. Most of the Western media is in the hands of left-wing criminals and manipulators. This is perhaps the single-biggest failure of Western Civilization, the result of which might make the crucial difference between a bright future or a total downfall: political, social and economic. 

87. One of the basic principles of Marxism and socialism is sharing your wealth and possessions with your fellow man. You aren’t supposed to be rich, and certainly not much richer than people surrounding you. And yet, how many Marxist Hollywood and European actors and directors give away their wealth? How many Communist Party leaders live modestly like monks?

Left-wing hypocrisy at its finest. It is as though these cretins have no idea what they are promoting and supporting.

In fact, when one looks at Marxist/liberal ways of thinking, one notices quickly a total absence of in-depth analysis. 
The Che-Guevara-T-Shirt-wearing moron in the cartoon has only thought about the initial step of wealth-distribution, i.e. the Robin Hood phase, without actually bothering to scratch underneath the surface and think how this social strategy might develop i.e. what complications might arise out of this deeply flawed concept. He doesn't follow through on a concept or idea by looking at it from different angles and trying to predict possible outcomes of its application, but stops at its inception. "They poor, so they must get money from rich." Apes have better analytical skills.

"Being poor sucks, so we must re-distribute." Period. This is the extent of the liberal's thought process. He won't move an inch after this one initial thought.

88. What right does any one man have to decide that the fellow next to him has too much money, then concluding that a large chunk of his wealth needs to be taken away from him? Socialists talk about freedom but only when it’s their kind of freedom, the type of dodgy definition of freedom that suits them.  Their perception of freedom does not seem to include the freedom to accumulate wealth and assets through hard work, ambition and entrepreneurial know-how. Rather, these traits become punishable by means of government theft – should the individual become too good at expanding his collection of possessions. It’s called heavy taxation, and it has destroyed many an economy, usually in the long-run, but sometimes fairly quickly too.

89. When a Communist junta comes to power, they don’t take chunks away from the wealthy. They usually take EVERYTHING they possess, sometimes even imprisoning those people – the “icing on the red cake”. Communists justify this by saying they are merely following through on Marx’s instructions. But are they?

Not really. There is no part – not even in that insane handbook called Das Kapital – where it says “and once all power switches over to the criminal revolutionaries, they shall take all the assets from the wealthy and keep it for themselves, thereby merely creating a new set of rich people”. But that is exactly what happened, every time.

90. Communism is a means by which one group of rich people loses all of their possessions to a new group of newly-rich people. That's not exactly wealth re-distribution, now is it. More specifically, communism is a means by which (often) totally innocent people get all their possessions taken away from them by a group of criminals and deviants who then re-distribute their loot amongst each other - rarely the poor. And if you think this happens "only" to the upper-class former ruling elite i.e. that the middle-class is spared of this large-scale theft - think again.

91. Marxists are all hypocrites, by definition (at least those who don't share all of their possessions, which I have to logically assume is about 99.9% of them). I don’t see the dyslexic Steven Spielberg joining a run-down, modestly non-renovated hippie commune any time soon. And there is certainly very little evidence of Bernardo Bertolucci living in humble squalor because he had given away all his possessions to the poor. Ben Affleck and George Clooney are hardly humble. All these phony do-gooders live the jet-set lifestyle, villas/yachts/jets/caviar included, and yet they propagate an ideology that is directly opposed to accumulation of personal wealth - a hobby they happen to be obsessed with. It takes a large measure of stupidity, blind narcissism, and vileness in order for a person to become such a self-deluded egomaniac.

Charlie Chaplin's estate. Not bad for a wealth-distributing Marxist.

Robert Redford's den. Or ONE of them. Obviously, Bob had to squeeze his budget to afford this modest little dump, right after he'd given away most of his assets to the poor.

Warren Beatty's estate. Proof that you can do the impossible: be a bleedin'-heart liberal with-the-heart-of-gold and actually HAVE gold at the same time, and lots of it.

92. People who listen to and take the political opinions of actors, directors and other show-biz clowns seriously are by-and-large cretins. Every generation in every society has a large population of cretins, and this is the essence of how and why left-wing propaganda works. Very few public show-biz figures have anything relevant or intelligent to say. One cannot expect an educated opinion from someone who lacks education - and morals.

93. Marxism isn't imperfect. It is anti-perfect. It is perfect only in ruining the human psyche, destroying the moral fibre of a society, decimating a population, and annihilating entire economies.

94. The only thing Marxism is perfect for is a convenient means with which psychopaths can come to power. It is the ideal ideology with which a criminal can fool the masses into thinking he is there to improve their lives, while distracting them from his real plans which are purely money- and power- related.

95. The difference between an Islamic, a National-Socialist, and a Marxist dictator is essentially non-existent. All three of these creatures are sociopaths who use empty populist rhetoric in order to gain power and expand their own wealth. The only difference is which bullshit ideology they opt to use: a real religion such as Islam, a hate-mongering non-ideology such as Nazism, or a quasi-religion such as Marxism.

96. Marxism is a religion of sorts. This had already been observed by Bertrand Russell half a century ago.

Marxism is a religion partly because Marx had borrowed most of his key ideas from Christianity, i.e. religion. Some people even consider Jesus Christ to be the original communist.

a) Utopia is merely a substitute for Heaven, i.e. promise the masses a blissful existence and gain their affections that way. The fact that Utopia is supposed to be a place located on Earth rather than some imaginary cloud is irrelevant, because Marxist Utopia is as far away from our cosmic reality as Christian, Jewish or Moslem heavens are.

b) The Bible had been merely replaced by Das Kapital. Just like no Christian is allowed to cast any doubt on the truthfulness or the usefulness of a single word in the Holy Book, so does no true Marxist ever question anything that Marx had ever written. Das Kapital is to be blindly believed in and never questioned, just like the Bible, the Koran, or any other holy text.

c) The focus in Marxism is on the poor, renamed into the "proletariat". Just like the Bible drones on and on about how much God loves the poor and how God's wrath awaits the rich, pretty much in the same vein does Marx go on and on about how key the poor/proletariat are to the speedy evolution of mankind from flawed to perfect, and how evil wealthy capitalists are.

d)  The need to defend wholesale hardship as a means toward an ultimate end-goal. Communist tyrants, just like Christian radicals/leaders from the past, require of their population to sacrifice themselves for a distant future reward. In other words, they ask of them to not complain but endure a lifetime of a bare-bones existence, sometimes starvation included, with the tyrants justifying these stringent economic measures as being the only means with which to receive the ultimate award, i.e. light at the end of the tunnel, i.e. Heaven and Utopia. This transparent tactic is/was just used as an excuse/cover to exploit, ransack, pillage and bleed dry the nation's wealth and its people. It is a simple but effective tactic when those who apply it only have a lowly educated and very gullible population to contend with.

e) The idealization of man. I mention this in facts no.42-43.

f) The Garden of Eden was replaced by a Rousseau-inspired vision of primitive man. In this laughably incorrect perception of early man, Marx sees the caveman at harmony with nature, of him existing outside of society, blissful, happy, and worry-free. (This absolutely retarded aspect of Marxism is what environmentalists cherish the most about their beloved ideology, especially the most extreme ones who seek to have mankind return to the caves.) Never mind the hunting, the diseases, and the shabby shelter - after all, Marx himself wrote this drivel in the comfy coziness of a warmed house, not really thinking through what early man had to actually contend with just to survive through to the next day. 

This is probably a close estimation of how Marx envisioned early man. A happy, well-fed, pro-peace cartoon character.

97. I have often wondered why Western Marxists, U.S. liberals and others like them only scratch the surface when "thinking" about an important political, social or economic issue. It is as though they resist delving deeper into an issue, which is why their views are so incomplete and superficial, i.e. marred with bad logic and contradictions. But here is where the crux might be: are their views really their own?

Hardcore Marxists in particular have a tendency to rely solely on everything that Marx wrote, i.e. only the concepts he had green-lighted or created. It is as though they have bartered their brains i.e. their intellectual freedom in exchange for blind obedience to Marxist dogma. What this means is that the typical Marxist has convinced himself that Marx must be a perfect thinker - much like a god - whose views hence never need be questioned. If you've already decided that your master is a god hence has thought everything through perfectly - then why question anything? So they don't. At least that makes sense.

So in a way, Marxists are just like Christian, Jewish or Islamic fundamentalists who have robbed themselves of the freedom to question, pry, and think. They have simply accepted that their holy book of choice contains all the truths. The acceptance that a solitary source of information (i.e. one holy book) contains all essential knowledge renders one incapable of criticism of oneself and eliminates the need for any deeper analysis - which is often a sign of intellectual laziness. In effect, selling yourself body and soul to a single ideology (that presents itself as flawless), renders one a useless cretin - intellectually/academically speaking. 

It is for this reason, perhaps, that it is almost impossible to reason with a brainwashed Marxist, just as it is with a religious fanatic. A closed mind does not suck in the opposition's argument for further analysis, but rigidly and stubbornly (like a child) ignores it from the outset.

I do not for a second doubt that the above will be quoted by these same extremist Marxist morons and thrown at me as "proof of (your) own hypocrisy", because anyone who has an anti-Marxist stance is automatically discarded as a possible provider of reliable information. Rather than try to think about my arguments, they get angry - like the religulous zealots that they are (thanks, Bill Maher) - and lash out with broad strokes, refusing to deal with specific facts they're faced with.

98. The poor are the focus of Marxism precisely because the lower classes are generally uneducated and less intelligent than the middle classes, hence more easily lulled into following an ideology as cretinous as Marxism, which promises them a quick way out of their real or imagined misery. (Educated, upper-middle-class Western Marxists are exceptions; they are the obese delta male misfits.) Plus the fact that focusing on the poor is a politically correct tool that shuts up many opponents, as they won't dare attack an ideology of that kind, fearing they might lose popularity among the poor and even the middle-class.

99. If you are a deviant sociopath seeking support from the masses which you might need in order to overthrow the government and gain power (regardless of whether a Nazi, an Islamist, or a communist), always try to gain support amongst the poorest, because they are the easiest ones to dupe. That is precisely why the Church and communist parties always first go to the poor, proclaiming their undying love and support for them. The other reason of course is that the poor hold no power in any institutions, hence aren't direct opponents in the ensuing power struggle. The middle and especially upper class are the real enemy since they hold all the power, so obviously neither the Church nor any communist Party will suck up to them - because they are far more aware whom they're dealing with, and don't want to be overthrown by these new evil kids on the block.

100. American liberals are an extension of socialist ideology. The Democrats have degenerated from a democratic movement to a socialist one, in the past 50 years or so, which is why a change of name would be in order. In a few decades, watch them become a full-fledged Marxist outfit.

101. Statistics show that the lower-class, most minorities, the less educated, and women are more likely to vote for the Democrats. The better educated, men, and the more intelligent tend to vote for the Republicans. This shouldn't surprise anyone, and makes perfect sense.
But why do young people, the 18-29 demographic, generally steer toward left-wing bullshit more than older demographic groups?
There is a world-wide saying, at least half-a-century old, that says:

"If you're not a Communist when you're 20, you have no heart. If you're still a Communist when you're 35, you have no brain." 

This wonderful maxim humorously captures the essence of youthful idealism and naivety - the core reason why many young people vote Left, but then switch to Right later on when they get a "little" smarter, gain more life experience, i.e. when they find out that reality isn't something that you can change at will with a simple snap of your fingers, but something you adapt to as best you can. 
Young people generally have an air of immortality about them; many of them don't think they can die at a young age, a feeling that often brings an unrealistic sense of power with it. This delusional (though sometimes useful) sense of "I can achieve anything" can easily lead the more gullible young mind to Marxism or American liberalism, i.e. ideologies that subscribe to the "quick change - quick fix" motto. It is for this reason that 60s hippies weren't pensioners but youth. The aging hippies, who still clung/cling to their flawed ideals several decades later, are the incurable idiots that "have no brain". They are beyond help, and should be treated like children, intellectually speaking.

If your finger is slightly injured, do you apply a band-aid, or do you amputate the entire arm? 

A Marxist's idea of a quick-fix is similar to his idea of an overkill-fix. 
Western leftist extremists blame every single problem, whether economic or social, on capitalism, and they greatly exaggerate that problem, making it seem insurmountable. So instead of suggesting practical solutions to solvable problems, they demand an entire overhaul, a change of the whole political and economic system. Talkin' 'bout a revolution! Drastic measures are the only measures political extremists ever consider.
Instead of helping society find the right band-aid for a problem, they suggest an immediate amputation. Moderate socialists "merely" want to amputate the hand. Center-leftists want to cut off the finger.

102. The point of this text is not to present Republicans as a flawless, perfect entity. I simply use them as a measuring stick, because democracy isn't always about having a clear-cut choice between good and bad. As flawed as the Elephant Party is, what with their Christian fundamentalists, creationism, and a fanatical obsession with abortion, they nevertheless present themselves as a far better alternative to the Democrats and their closet-Marxist brethren. Choosing between capitalism and socialism should be a no-brainer. It is like choosing between a large reward that will come in a year, as opposed to a very small award that you will get straight away for no effort. Would you rather take the free $100 now, or would you prefer to work for a year for $100,000?

Democrat supporters prefer to have the one free carrot straight away rather than a whole bucket-load of carrots a little later. 
This "short-term over long-term" mentality is what the Left is all about; their populist politicians use cheesy platitudes promising to appease their prospective voters with quick "fixes" and gifts, instead of offering them well thought-out plans that work long-term. Of course, this is just a general rule, as some Republican and other right-wing administrations have committed this sin also.

103. U.S. Marxists and liberals, who so vehemently oppose Christianity and detest Christians, also offer a lot of support to Moslems, especially those residing in the U.S. This of course makes no sense; either you are an atheist movement against all major religions or you’re not. What are the reasons behind this blatant ideological contradiction? Why the pro-Islamic favouritism? Besides being pro-terrorist, liberals support Moslems because they are traditional/historical enemies of Christians, and because by supporting such a decadent, destructive and extremist part of the population liberals yet again manage to undermine America’s democracy and its fairly stable society.
Communist regimes, once they get into power, treat all religions pretty much the same i.e. with an iron fist. If Western Marxists ever got into power (and by that I mean gaining full control of all institutions - God forbid), they'd reverse their pro-Islamic stance 180 degrees. Again, liberals' opportunism rears its very ugly head.

Translation of Professor Bullshit's bullshit:  

"The U.S. and its NATO allies are the real terrorists and murderers, whereas Islamic extremists/losers with bombs strapped to their bodies are only good-natured benevolent freedom-fighters who have no choice but to kill thousands of innocent civilians - most of whom are fortunately white westerners - as they fight against western capitalist corporate oppression which seeks to preserve Christianity, democracy and civilization all three of which of course suck."
The pot calling the kettle black - a reverse-accusation tactic as old as politics itself. Noam Chomsky willfully places himself on the side of all the Bin Ladens of this world with comments such as this. Professor Bullshit not only defends terrorists with this sly but blatantly misanthropic statement, but also encourages and promotes it, thereby removing the last speck of doubt anybody might still have had that he is indeed a raging, flaming, and angry psychopath. (Remember: psychopaths don't always look like overweight, round-headed barflies. They come in many shapes, sizes, and disguises. Sometimes they disguise themselves as soft-spoken, frail-looking, "well-meaning" intellectuals.)

104. Liberals have seen what problems and damage a large Moslem minority can do, in countries such as France and the UK, and have realized the great potential in Moslems creating that same kind of social, economic, and political instability in the States as well. Remember: U.S. Marxists have only one basic goal, and that is to destroy Western democracy from within. They are not fussy about the means with which they will accomplish their goals. They have been waiting for very long now, hence their growing impatience has been breeding increasingly extremist measures and tactics.

105. Many Western Marxists are nerds. The delta male weaklings of this world are thick on the ground in the United States, which is experiencing a boom in the numbers of the obese (*) and the useless; they are the un-athletic kids (*) nobody wanted to play with and no girl wanted to have anything to do with. Such children often grow up to be self-loathing loners, and some of those eventually "progress" towards society-hating misfits such as Michael Moore, who are naturally and logically drawn towards Marxism's misanthropy (cleverly masked as people-loving). First comes self-hate and then hatred of everyone around you; in this order, always. Disillusionment in oneself often breeds hatred of society as a whole.

* I am not suggesting obese people are all useless or dumb, or that all un-athletic kids eventually become political extremists; those kinds of sweeping statements I'll leave to the Left.

106. Misfits, malcontents and outcasts are usually drawn toward religious or political extremism, whether left-wing or right-wing. (Obviously, morons as well.) Nazi and Marxist sympathizers are to a large extent people with serious mental issues. Go to any rally of any extremist political party or loony religious movement - in any society - and you will find this to be more than obvious.

An attention-seeking misfit shits on the U.S. flag during Occupy Wall Street, cheered on by other misfits. 
Defecating on a flag - any flag - or on any other object in a public place isn't just a matter of political orientation, it is a matter for psychiatry. Political extremism by its very nature attracts people with mental illnesses far more than well-adjusted, balanced individuals. Politics is just one way a lunatic can vent off frustration. It has little to nothing to do with ideology.
There is no doubt at all that if a braindead skinhead had performed this brownish act at a Nazi rally, the Left would have been critical of it. Remember: no extremist movement follows any ideals, despite vehemently claiming they do. They are always opportunistic and hypocritical.

107. The only practical difference between national-socialism and communism is that Nazis are very open about their hatred, i.e. whom they hate and whom they want to eradicate and why, whereas communists hide their hatred well, promising bliss for everyone. So, in a sense, communists are even more dangerous than Nazis because the threat they pose is less obvious, more hidden. It is perhaps for this reason that there have been far more communist regimes than Nazi-like ones in the past century.

108. The victims of Nazism run in their tens of millions. Victims of communism are far more numerous. In the Soviet Union alone, it is estimated that anywhere between 20-60 million people had died as a result of forced starvation, imprisonment, torture, murder, or extreme poverty. In China, under psychopath Mao Tse-Tung, there are similar figures. Western Marxists don't care about these numbers. To them, they're just meaningless statistics that they can choose to spin-doctor or completely ignore.

"Stalin only killed 3 million people, and they were all useless anti-Communist peasants anyway, and Mao killed no more than 5 million chinks, you ignorant Fascist, racist moron!"  

Sorry, Noam, my bad. Have it your way.

109. Nazism barely had 15 years in which to annihilate and destroy. communism has been at it continuously for nearly a century. And yet the symbol of evil in the western media and Hollywood movies is always the swastika and very rarely the hammer and sickle. Once again, proof that the Left hold the media, and that their protection of their beloved ideology is never far from their intentions.

Left-wing extremists love their simplistic, cheesy equations, but ironically fail to acknowledge the most obvious - and very accurate - political equation of them all. For all practical (not theoretical) purposes these two symbols represent the same thing: death and destruction.

If you're 20, and still don't know this equation, you can be forgiven.
If you're 35, but still don't know this equation, then you're an ignorant fool.

110. Some former communist European countries have passed legislation to ban the public display of the hammer-and-sickle and any other communist symbols, because they represent "a totalitarian and criminal ideology", and to do so is considered a criminal offense.

Furthermore, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Romania have called for a EU-wide ban of communist symbols, with the aim "to criminalize the approval, denial or belittling of communist crimes" and that "the denial of such crimes should be treated the same way as the denial of the Holocaust." After all, what is the difference between a Nazi concentration camp and a Soviet gulag?

Nevertheless, the EU being essentially a left-wing entity, recently forced Hungary to reverse its ban because it "violates the freedom of expression". By that logic Germany should reverse its swastika ban too. But then again, the EU is a decadent, centralized, left-wing union. (As for Germany, it essentially calls the shots in the EU, hence can allow itself to disobey the occasional EU regulation.)

Attempts to enforce a EU-wide ban of the Nazi swastika was met with problems too. The main issue was that the symbol is originally Hindu in origin and has been around for several thousand years.
So the swastika couldn't be banned due to the fact that it represents many other cultures and ideologies other than fairly recent Nazism. But what excuse is there for not banning the hammer-and-sickle? It is not an ancient symbol in the slightest; it is a symbol that was created during the Russian Revolution, an event that resulted directly or indirectly, in the death of 100 million people. I can't think of a better justification to ban anything.

111. The most successful brainwashing propaganda objective that Hollywood's liberals ever concocted is the notion that Nazism is the most vile ideology on the planet, second to none. But as I said, Nazism was a threat to freedom and democracy for a relatively brief period of time, whereas communism is still going strong. There are several communist regimes at present, plus a plethora of Marxist guerrilla movements all across the globe. And yet, the word "Fascist" is still the main adjective/noun that comes to people's minds when describing tyranny or a person who is a political extremist.

We have accepted this, but only because we have all been brainwashed into accepting it by the left-wing media. Their attempts to make us all forget the horrors of communism is actually working. This is a dire cultural development that spells trouble for future generations of even more brainwashed morons.

112. Anything the Nazis had, communists topped. Nazi concentration camps succeeded in destroying around 6 million innocent lives. Communist gulags and prison camps in China and the Soviet Union destroyed many more. Does Hollywood make movies about Soviet and Chinese labour camps? Very rarely.

No, no, you little Western Marxist, you. Don't look away. Denial isn't allowed in this text. 

Theory and practice. Different.

Not a Nazi prison-camp photo, nor a depiction of the results of a 19th-century starvation. This is a Soviet gulag photograph. There were HUNDREDS of such labour camps in the U.S.S.R.

Just because Hollywood and Jon Stewart don't care, does it mean you shouldn't either?

113. During the 20s and 30s, both Lenin and Stalin organized mass starvation as reprisals toward their enemies, and their opponents from the extremely bloody Civil War that ensued right after the October Revolution. In the Ukraine alone, the death toll was in millions.

Before any of you cold-hearted left-wing extremists start pointing fingers at this being western propaganda - because your pathological denial prevents you from recognizing any ugly truths - let me remind you that the West was largely indifferent to what was going on in the Soviet Union at the time. The U.S. was engulfed in The Great Depression - but even that was peanuts next to the death, destruction, depravity, and sadism that were going on in many of U.S.S.R.'s republics i.e. colonies. 

Should I also include photos of Ukrainian peasants being forced to cannibalize children? 
 Widespread cannibalism was a result of Kremlin's genocidal policies; a major sub-topic of the 30s Ukrainian famines, and one so horrifying I prefer not to delve into it in detail.

These events are all well-documented, there are literally thousands of witnesses and pieces of evidence. In other words, these things are NOT a matter of opinion (such as whether Obama is a good President or not). 
And remember, these were FORCED, planned starvations, not natural disasters.

114. There is a myth circulating amongst Marxists - both western and elsewhere - that it was Joseph Stalin who perverted Vladimir Lenin's initial reforms, that the U.S.S.R. wasn't able to develop into a Utopian society simply because Lenin died too early (*). These ignorant fanatics actually believe that the first gulags, the first forced starvations, and the first political persecutions of innocent civilians all started with Stalin!

This couldn't be more false. It is a naive, denial-based belief which completely ignores Soviet history in the 1917-1924 period, years during which Lenin ruled supreme. Lenin, in fact, was almost as vicious as Stalin. We are not talking about an essential difference between these two monsters - the "good guy" and the "bad guy", as Marxist historians would deceive you into believing - we are talking only about degrees of evil. Stalin merely took over Lenin's legacy and kicked it into overdrive mode.

This is what Lenin was about, in a nutshell. A blood-thirsty mobster hell-bent on transforming the country into his personal sadistic playground.

In fact, this extremely violent mission statement basically sums up the essence of communist rulers.

Who gets to decide who becomes the "enemy of the people"? 
Lenin does. 
Who gets to decide who is too rich? 
Lenin does. 
Who gets to decide what constitutes a "hanger-on", an "idler", or a "rowdie"? 
Lenin does.
What means does he use to realize all these goals? 
He said it himself: extreme violence.

Handing all power into the hands of a sociopathic megalomaniac is pretty much the worst scenario that can befall any society. (Yet this is exactly what Noam Chomsky advocates.) Naturally, intellectuals i.e. educated people who oppose the junta, are the first on the new communist tyrant's Kill List. (No fear, Noam, you'd be safe. Your first reward would be a villa overlooking the sea.)

 
Historians like to cite the fact that Lenin disliked Stalin - as proof that Stalin took a political/economic course far different from what Vladimir had envisioned. While this may be true, it obscures one vital fact that these biased "historians" prefer to omit.

In fact, ironically and perversely enough, the rest of the world (especially U.S.S.R.'s neighbours) should be in a sense thankful that Stalin took over instead of a certain Leon Trotsky - Lenin's heir apparent. Trotsky is the man Lenin more-or-less chose to continue his work. (**) Unlike Trotsky, Stalin didn't rush to export the Red Revolution, but focused first on cementing the revolution (i.e. consolidating his own power) in the U.S.S.R. itself. Trotsky, on the other hand, sought immediate plans to turn the rest of the world communist, a strategy that would have destabilized Europe even sooner. 
Lenin didn't dislike Stalin for his psychopathy. After all, Lenin himself was afflicted with this mental condition. His distaste for Stalin had other reasons.

* in fact, he couldn't have croaked early enough, as far as I am concerned

** the fact that Trotsky was Jewish was the main thing that stood in the way of his rise to power; so much for left-wing tolerance and non-racism! Antisemitism and racism were in fact extreme during communist rule in Russia


115. The 1917 Red Revolution, so glamourized and loved by Hollywood, Jon Stewart, Tim Robbins, Noam Chomsky, and other misanthropes and fools was anything but romantic or noble, nor is it even remotely understood by modern (western) Marxists. Aside from bringing even more misery to Russia and its soon-to-be 14 colonies, it brought no change (*) to the masses.

One type of sociopathic tyrant - the tsar - was merely replaced by a new type of sociopathic tyrant - the communist dictator. They are one and the same. The same type of individual existing in different eras.

Russian serfs became the Soviet proletariat. Just a different term for a very similar type of political/economic/social oppression and misery, that's all. As if this poor guy could care less whether a tsar or a communist leader made his life a living hell.

* that magic word, CHANGE, the favourite of all extremists (before they cement their power) 


116. During monarchic rule most serfs lived in large COMMUNES, in which MATERIAL POSSESSIONS weren't encouraged. Sounds familiar? The way kings, nobles and other land/slave-owners conducted their business was essentially the same as the way Russian communists had, once they grabbed power. The notion of the serfs/slaves being "freed from the Tsar" by communist revolutionaries is absurd. Communists aren't in the business if freeing anyone. They enslave. Period.

117. There is a major fallacy still quite prevalent throughout the world that it was the Bolsheviks who overthrew the Tsar. This is a myth. The actual Revolution occurred in February 1917. The October Revolution was nothing more than the Bolshevik junta taking power by force from the provisional government! Lenin wasn't even IN the country when the events in February unfolded.

In other words, Russians never had a proper chance to try out democracy; the moment they had gained their freedom by taking the Tsar down, they were already overwhelmed by a new menace - Lenin and his ruthless, power-hungry band of thugs.

Lenin and his followers, because they were the victors in the mess that ensued after the Tsar's dethronement, re-wrote history: "The October Revolution freed the masses from tyranny". A flat-out lie. 

Lenin, and then Stalin, simply continued the enslavement of the masses which countless tsars and nobles had practiced for centuries before them.  

A propaganda "documentary" released 11 years after communists took power, "documenting" the "events" that took place in 1917. If you want a bullshit version of events, be my guest and enjoy this skillfully-constructed fantasy. Probably Michael Moore's personal Gone With The Wind. There are more historical facts in Disney's Fantasia than there are here.

  
118. To Hollywood liberals, a life lost to communism is a death ignored, whereas a life lost to Nazism is worthy of 1000 movies and countless Oscars and Golden Globes. This is the kind of mind-blowing misanthropy exhibited only by the most devious and selfish of hypocrites, idiots, and psychopaths.

A scene from Charlie Chaplin's classic comedy/satire, Modern Times (1936).
  
Charlie Chaplin, a brilliant film-maker but ever the Marxist hypocrite, was one of the first outright pro-communist Hollywood propagandists, and showed how clever but fact-bending political propaganda can be. 
This particular movie is a thinly-veiled critique of modern industrialization, which Chaplin very stupidly blamed for being the cause of The Great Depression (during which the movie was made). 
He didn't, however, deem it necessary to include the U.S.S.R. in this selective criticism of industrialization, but pretended (or was actually dumb/naive enough to believe) that millions of Stalin's workers didn't also work on back-breaking assembly-lines. Didn't Stalin set the country on a mission to industrialize at all cost? 

To sum up Chaplin's blatant hypocrisy: when a free capitalist democracy is industrialized, with some of its factory workers forced to labour in rather uncomfortable conditions, this is considered inhumane. But when a communist tyranny does the same - it is OK. Fucking hell... 

No wonder Chaplin was a pedophile and well-known for his enormous narcissism and egomania. He was a true asshole.

Charlie Chaplin spoofing Adolf Hitler in The Great Dictator (1940). 

A well-made, funny comedy - so why do I find it so difficult to watch? Because Chaplin was a Marxist hypocrite who condemned one type of mass-murderer, while condoning another (in this case Soviet Union's Joseph Stalin). 

At the very same time when Chaplin was making this movie, while dining on caviar and drinking champagne at his cozy "little" Hollywood villa (fact no. 91), there were literally millions of people starving, persecuted, or exiled by the Soviet regime. 
Did Chaplin know that many Jews were sent to and perished in Soviet gulags during the 20s, 30s, 40s? Did he even give a shit? Did he only want to draw attention to Jews persecuted by Nazis? Wouldn't this indicate that he actually didn't give a toss about Jews? I would like an answer to these questions. 
By sympathizing with one of the worst regimes in human history, Chaplin had lost the moral right to do any political lampooning, even that of Hitler, one of the world's most notorious genocidal maniacs. You either condemn ALL types of tyrannies, or you don't condemn any at all. This kind of selective moralizing is totally unacceptable.

 
119. The abbreviation "Nazi" is not just used because it is short and easy to say. Its use is convenient for Western Marxists for another reason: the full name of Hitler's Party was "National-Socialists". Communists don't want people to know (or be reminded of) the fact that Nazis were socialists too. A centralized economy run by one Party and one dictator was exactly what the Nazis were about - just like their main foes, the communists.

The fearful, the naive - and the stupid.

120. The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy is cretinous. In other words, just because communists were fierce opponents of the Nazis during WW2 doesn't mean that communists were good. This kind of simplistic, child-like “logic” is precisely the type of malarkey Western propagandists want to instill into people, and have tried to do in countless WW2-related movies, in which this mantra is propagated. "Because communists fought the Nazis, and we fought the Nazis too, communists must be great and are our friends, hence we must at least consider becoming communists too". Very retarded. But that is the exact aim.

121. Communists and Nazis in the 20s, 30s and 40s were rival factions, like two rival mobs fighting over territory. To actually pick sides in such a conflict would be as asinine as to pick sides between Al Capone and a rival gang. Only idiots feel compelled to always choose sides.

122. The reason I keep referring to (most) Marxist sympathizers in the West as "misanthropes" is simple: only a true sadist and hater of mankind would choose to FREELY AND TOTALLY IGNORE the deaths of nearly 100 million people just so they can align themselves with a theoretical model that had failed time and time again in practice. Anybody who ignores such numbers is a sociopath and a misfit. To show such blatant disregard for 100 million corpses reveals a disturbing mental structure in such empty, angry, self-loathing, mankind-hating heads.

123. Michael Moore is a Marxist who cynically (ab)uses America’s free democratic capitalist system to explain to America how un-free a capitalist democracy is. The contradiction is as blatant as it is comical. 
Michael Moore promotes an ideology which does not allow people like himself to rebel in Marxist nations, i.e. he represents an ideology that prohibits freedom of speech, and yet he lambastes a free society that does allow misfits like himself to openly express all of his cretinous views!

For the sake of argument, let’s suppose Michael Moore lived under a communist regime (*).  Now let’s make a truly huge leap of the imagination and accept the impossible absurdity that he was actually allowed to make movies as critical of that regime as he usually makes them in America, in a free capitalist democracy. What would happen?

After the release of the first movie, he would be tried for treason, and soon thereafter he’d be shot, hanged, or fried. Perhaps all three. (**) 

In communist countries, doing what Michael Moore does is considered high treason and is usually punishable by death. Make no mistake about it.

The greatest irony – which this manipulative degenerate is fully aware of but pretends doesn’t exist – is that he subscribes to and promotes a radical ideology which, if implemented, would lead to a government which would ban the kind of freedom he is enjoying right now. I.e. the freedom to make political-propaganda films.

Speaking of which, anybody who refers to his extremely biased spoofs as “documentaries” is absolutely clueless, and probably fully brainwashed already, without the possibility of a “reverse lobotomy”. His movies are merely extremely biased propaganda comedies. He isn’t interested in the truth – just laughs.

Propaganda film. Documentary. There are worlds between these two. Even a chimp should be able to sniff out the difference. And yet millions of uncritical western sheep got conned by this Marxist charlatan.

* For one thing, he'd be much thinner (unless he was a Party member)

** The same fate would await Jane Fonda for her friendly propaganda-purpose visit of North Vietnam's military i.e. America's enemy at the time


124. Michael Moore is a Marxist who abuses the free American capitalist system to get extremely wealthy. Has he given all his millions away to the poor, in order to make society more equal? Of course not. Moore is a typical Marxist hypocrite, a bullshit-promoting propagandist whose only aim is to get increasingly richer and more famous, while undermining a system that has turned America into the most successful democracy in the world.

Michael Moore's modest little abode, with just enough space to accommodate his big fat McDonalds-hamburger-fattened ass. Apparently, the airplane used to make this aerial had to go up a few kilometers higher than usual in order to take a snapshot of the entire estate.

125. Amoral Oscar-winning frauds such as Michael Moore who willfully abuse the free media in order to dumben-down the population thereby trying to decrease the quality of life are essentially criminal in character. They may not physically kill anyone or steal anything from anybody, but the damage this kind of frivolous propaganda can cause in a society is probably much bigger than any common felon can inflict. I am convinced that he is fully aware of what damage he is doing, but calmly keeps counting his dollars in the bank. He is, for all practical purposes, a true sociopath.

126. People who believe in Michael Moore’s far-fetched, logic-and-fact-bending claims are easily manipulated cretins. He loves his idiot fans, because they made him rich beyond his wildest misfit-propagandist dreams. If he had lived in the 19^th century, he probably would have made a living selling fake bottles of medicine to the sick. It is that sort of psychological profile.

127. Marxists occasionally criticize a Democrat White House. They always criticize a Republican White House.
If a Republican President were to say that snow is white, Marxists might jump to dispute that. Being brainwashed and wired to hate leads to behaviour that can be found amongst well-trained monkeys. It is hard for a monkey to know when he should make an exception and not react. Ditto Western Marxists and liberals.

128. Marxists hate America's foreign policy because it is pro-democratic. Marxists would prefer it were pro-Marxist.

129. Marxists hate all American governments because each one is a result of the democratic process. Democracy is precisely what keeps the Marxists out of power, and that makes them hate it even more.
Only a nation of easily-led fools elects a communist into power. A mistake with grave consequences.

130. Marxists do not believe in either democracy or elections. Except when an "election" has just one candidate: the ruling Party leader. That's what I refer to as "a wide range of options of one".

131. Marxists glamourize terrorists and terrorism because Marxism itself is firmly entrenched in the philosophy of extreme violence, especially senseless random violence against civilians: this is their favourite.

The second-most used pop-culture Marxist image, taken from a pro-terrorist Hollywood hit written-directed by a couple of Marxists nerds. 
Who's this supposed to be, D'Artagnan's mentally-challenged little brother?

132. Liberals are pro-Palestinian for several reasons: 

a) the Left had always carefully nurtured its image of siding with the underdog (in spite of the fact that Israel is the real underdog in that conflict, considering that 3 million Jews are surrounded by tens of millions of mostly hostile Arabs), b) because Palestinians are terrorists, and all terrorists (except for right-wing ones, of course) are considered "freedom-fighters", c) because Russia, China and other dictatorships also support the Palestinians, and liberals prefer to be on the side of America's enemies, and d) antisemitism.

133. The reason why Hollywood tends to romanticize the I.R.A., Nelson Mandela, Yassir Arafat, and other terrorists and terrorist organizations is because Hollywood is very much dominated and ruled by closet Marxists and liberals. V for Vendetta is just one of many pro-terrorist Hollywood movies with a blatantly Marxist message.

Freedom-fighting.
Scenes strangely absent from V For Vendetta.

134. The Annual Oscar Awards are dominated by Marxists, and nearly always only they and their liberal brethren are allowed to win awards there. The Oscars are primarily a commercial and political event, in that order, designed to sell tickets and promote left-wing ideals.

135. Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, and George Clooney are some of the more recent, prominent (and loud) closet Marxists. These barely educated, misinformed/uninformed egomaniacs, all three of whom are products of Hollywood’s decadent nepotistic network, actually believe that they have something useful to teach us all, rather than realize that they are just bird-brained thespians who’d be better advised to listen and learn from those much smarter than themselves. (Robert Redford once even tried to out-argue the scientific community, back in the 70s, regarding solar energy!) Allowing stardom to cloud one's judgment into believing that one is all-knowing is a trap into which many Hollywood celebrities fall, especially the particularly dim-witted ones. 
It takes a whole lot of megalomania, delusion, arrogance, and narcissism in order for a Tinseltown knucklehead born with a silver spoon in his mouth to start believing that he can start solving the world's problems, especially using socialist drivel as the basis. Give a monkey a brain and he'll think he is the center of the universe. But I insult monkeys; they already have brains.

136. The great irony about Hollywood's supposed do-gooders is that they are total elitists at heart. Almost nowhere is nepotism as prominent as it is among Hollywood's richest and most powerful. On the one hand they claim they want to create an equal society in which those less fortunate have the same opportunities as the rich have, but when it comes to pushing the careers of their family and friends - at the expense of those less fortunate who try to get into show-biz from the outskirts - they are world champions. Half of all of today’s Hollywood stars stem from either very rich, powerful families or from acting dynasties. In Hollywood there is little or no room for the poor – whose "best interests" these decadent libtards supposedly have. Once again, blatant hypocrisy.

For my "Nepotism: Hollywood's Dirty Secret" list, go to link:

http://www.imdb.com/list/baoaOR7ATX0/

137. It is quite interesting to note that a Hollywood star who has nepotism to thank for his career is statistically much more likely to become an elitist left-wing “do-gooder” than a Hollywood star who made it from outside the nepotistic network.

138. Hollywood's Marxists and liberals are some of the most prominent hypocrites, phonies, liars, and morons in the world. What they preach and what they actually do very often contradict one another. 
They are fame-hungry narcissists and egotists who often use the inherent political correctness of left-wing politics to further strengthen their image and popularity - hence make even more money. Left-wing ideology is populist by definition, hence is far more suitable in making oneself seem like a nice guy.

Diversity - that much-used not to mention abused new word in the Liberal's Dictionary of Political Correctness. Hollywood certainly preaches diversity, as do nearly all U.S. colleges these days, but where is the political diversity in Tinseltown's own ranks? Would George Clooney even tolerate a right-wing gaffer on the set of a movie he is working on, let alone an actor who doesn't agree fully with all his Marxist views? 
Yet another example of the U.S. liberal's double-standard, and his cold opportunism: they advocate diversity, but a diversity with a different dictionary meaning than the one in Webster's Dictionary. The liberal definition is different:

 diversity: n. the displaying of tolerance and respect for liberal and Marxist ideas, while blacklisting and shutting down the opinions of the capitalist-pig Right.

139. Not all film-makers, producers and actors are left-wing. There is a movie-making minority that strays from this rule. Perhaps the most prominent example is Stanley Kubrick, arguably the best director of all time, whose unique non-popcorn movies reveal a cynicism about the human race (A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, Full Metal Jacket) that all-too-obviously goes against romantic ideas brought forth by socialists and other left-wing loons. He was one of the very few public figures who openly discussed and regarded war as natural and not something to be regarded purely in black-and-white terms.

"Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble savage. He is irrational, brutal, weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his own interests are involved - that about sums it up. I'm interested in the brutal and violent nature of man because it's a true picture of him. And any attempt to create social institutions on a false view of the nature of man is probably doomed to failure... The idea that social restraints are all bad is based on a utopian and unrealistic vision of man...  
... in order to avoid fascism, does one have to view man as a noble savage rather than an ignoble one? Being a pessimist is not yet enough to qualify one to be regarded as a tyrant (I hope)... The age of the alibi, in which we find ourselves, began with the opening sentence of Rousseau's Emile: 'Nature made me happy and good, and if I am otherwise, it is society's fault.' (More on this in the fact no.157 cartoon.) It is based on two misconceptions: that man in his natural state was happy and good, and that primal man had no society... Rousseau's romantic fallacy that it is society which corrupts man, not man who corrupts society, places a flattering gauze between ourselves and reality."

Would you be surprised if I told you he was labeled a Fascist by some left-wing morons? The truth hurts, and nobody knows this better than truth-hating denial-happy libtards.

I am not the type to quote celebrities (unless they say something daft hence comical), but I felt I should make an exception with Kubrick, who anyway had never been your run-of-the-mill Hollywood knucklehead, but a well-educated, intelligent man, hence not a "celebrity" in the usual, almost denigrating sense of the word. What Kubrick stated here pretty much covers and sums up most of the essential points I am trying to make about the inherent confusion and delusion in Marxist non-thought.

For a list of show-biz celebs who aren't left-wing, go to my IMDb page:

http://www.imdb.com/list/PzVkAFWBr0k/

140. It is at once both hilarious and disturbing that American liberals, so deeply entrenched in Marxist doctrines, are against the death penalty. On one hand, they refuse to take the life of a serial killer, serial rapist or child-murderer on the basis of “inhumanity”, and yet on the other hand they willfully ignore mass genocide in communist countries, or the fact that capital punishment is applied in most communist dictatorships.

141. Liberals are for abortion, but against capital punishment. Anyone who doesn’t see a blatantly moronic logic problem here needs an expert shrink.

142. According to “liberal logic”, it is from an ethical standpoint perfectly acceptable to abort a fetus, but it is utterly unacceptable to take the life of a cold-blooded sadistic psychopath (a former fetus, I might add) who has displayed zero regard for the lives of others. This is the essence of the staggering illogic and deep-seated confusion that permeates nearly all of the ideology of American liberals. Nothing ever adds up, and contradictions are as abundant as they are in The Bible or any other comical religious text.

Option 1: Being for abortion and for capital punishment: makes sense.

Option 2: Being against abortion and against capital punishment: very stupid, but makes logical sense.  

Option 3: Being against abortion but for capital punishment: makes sense.

Option 4: Being for abortion but against capital punishment: does not make any sense at all. This is by far the most illogical combination of the four. This absurd combination is what U.S. liberals chose, and it says a lot about both their lack of intelligence and confusion.

Btw, in case you missed it, option 1 represents my own views.

Left: Ted Bundy, age 3 months. Right: Ted Bundy, age 38.

143. The conclusion that we are forced to make from the liberal resistance to execute a serial-killer yet allow fetuses to be destroyed, is that fetuses actually GAIN their right to live once they grow into adults that start killing people. In other words, liberal logic tells us that “aging destructive ex-fetuses” have somehow earned the right to live after they’d shown how sadistic and insane they can be. Please don’t laugh, it isn’t funny. It’s pathetic. Liberals are deranged.

144. Executing somebody who has no regard for other people’s lives and is ready and willing to take more lives in the future: this amazingly simple concept is actually illogical, mysterious and shocking to the inferior, confused liberal mind.

145. The liberal talks about “life being precious” when he needs to defend a child-rapist from the electric chair, but when it comes to fetuses – who are also alive – that “precious life” principle does not apply. In other words, I offer you here yet another example of how liberals and Marxists apply different principles and sets of standards to different issues; this tells us how opportunistic, flawed, hypocritical and confused their intellectually hollow ideology is.

146. One of the many great examples of left-wing confusion is their perception of the police force. Rabid U.S. Marxists are convinced that the existence of a police force constitutes the practical application of socialism. The "logic" they use is that because the police force is government-controlled - it must hence be socialism! I.e., explained through a typically simplistic left-wing equation:

GOVERNMENT CONTROL = SOCIALISM

Using this puerile logic, capitalism doesn't even exist! There is no capitalist democracy in the world without a government and a certain amount of government control i.e. a certain number of governmental institutions. Some U.S. socialists seem to believe that capitalism operates without a government, and that the capitalists themselves control everything (*). This is a typical example of how absolutist their thinking is. Everything is black-and-white, and nothing in this world belongs to a gray area in-between any two extremes. 

* This is completely in line with their pathological obsession with conspiracy theories.

A scene that warms Noam Chomsky's heart. Typical Marxist misfits doing what they do best: provoking brawls with the "pigs". But if the police force is socialism, then why fight them? The real pigs in this pointless situation are the brainless, tattooed slackers.

147. But the story doesn't end there. The subject of the police force doesn't only reveal their intellectual ineptness, but also their self-contradictory nature and blatant hypocrisy (*).

U.S. liberals, and especially their brothers, the Marxists, have an open distaste for the police. It is hippies and their Marxist professors who have coined the name "pigs" for them, not conservatives and devout Christians. The anti-authority mentality which so dominates many politically-charged Hollywood movies and rock music makes no sense in light of the fact that the police force is supposedly a product and application of socialism! This isn't even so much a case of a rebel without a cause, but of a rebel without a brain.

Speaking of rebels without brains (and without shame), perhaps nobody fits the bill better - at least in pop music - than the extremely popular baby-punk band Green Day, fronted by a pompous little communist midget called Billie Joe Armstrong. 
This band are the poster children for a whole array of corporate-made pop outfits with a phony-baloney "punk rebel" image which is all show and no muscle. Their predictable and awfully derivative albums can best be described as lame collections of kindergarten tunes that even toddlers and grannies can hum to. 
Green Day toy around with communist imagery and ideas - and yet they are sponsored, managed, and paid handsomely by a powerful capitalist entity. The hypocrisy (*) is startling. These three clowns live in multi-million-dollar villas (none of which have an open-door policy for communal inclusion of the poor and the oppressed), and write soundtracks for multi-million-dollar commercial turds such as the Twilight Saga, which is also a money-grabbing product of powerful entertainment conglomerates. And yet, these semi-literate buffoons, of all people, advertise the Red Revolution to the tone-deaf, fad-happy masses of MTV-brainwashed sheep who actually listen to this three-chord drivel, and actually believe that the band's "message" actually has credibility and depth. 

This is just one of many great examples of how watered-down and commercialized the idea of the Communist Uprising has become by Marxism's arch-enemies - capitalist corporations. The mass-manufacture and profits that stem from the sales of Che Guevara tea cups and T-shirts falls into the same category.  
Communist Revolution as just a hip symbol of rebellion for young people to wear, but which they neither understand not truly care about? Yes, this might just be it, in a nutshell.

* I realize that this word has been used numerous times in the text, but it is simply unavoidable when discussing the Left.

148. One of the defining characteristics of the left-winger’s thought process is to disregard and ignore obvious stare-you-in-the-face truths, opting instead to search for truth in the most bizarre places. Anything that a sane person considers a no-brainer, a left-winger’s inferior brain won’t even detect, let alone understand.

149. It is the hallmark of all pretentious idiots to believe that truth is never obvious, and that it always must be hidden under thickets and layers of unfathomable complexity (which only they are able to unravel). The hallmark of every pretentious fool is to be suspicious of facts that are self-evident. The fool thinks that he will impress people by over-complicating issues that are essentially simple - or at least not nearly as complex as the naïve fool wants us to believe. These are the same cretins who oversimplify complex issues. Sometimes truth is obvious, sometimes it isn’t; common sense is required to differentiate. Marxists and liberals see no appeal in the common-sense approach. (This is closely related to what I discuss in fact 76.)

150. There is a case to be made that (some) liberals oppose the death penalty only because elimination of murderers could only benefit the country hence benefit the much-hated capitalist democracy. (This is similar to why they oppose nuclear power-plants.) Liberals - at least the opportunistic non-idealistic devious ones - do not have the nation’s benefit in mind. Many of them are closet Marxists looking to undermine a democratic society, destroy it from within until conditions are ripe for a Red Revolution. Other liberals oppose the death penalty so vehemently, using the most braindead arguments they can think of, because they want to appear as Gandhi-like peaceniks, which is in line with the image they have worked hard at creating of their movement being do-gooder-like and Politically Correct.

Speaking of politically correct (and how are we not to when discussing the Left), Bill Maher - a Socialist - actually had the balls to name his TV show Politically Incorrect. 
It's as if Ted Bundy had been given free reign to make a movie, and chose to make one titled Rape & Murder Are The Diseases Of Our Age. It's akin to Adolf Hitler writing a story-book for young Jewish toddlers. It would be as if Ellen DeGeneres wrote the foreword for Kama sutra.  

Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too. What a charlatan.

This show is anything but politically incorrect. It is, in fact, the exact opposite: a platform in which his Socialist Highness can let his Ego loose, snidely blasting the American Right and their beliefs with flawed argumentation, carefully selected guests, and fact-manipulation. 
Even his anti-religious rants aren't what they seem because most of his animosity toward believers is centered around Christians, and very rarely, if ever, against Islamic fundamentalists. This fact implies - or proves even - that his motivations aren't as pure as he'd like you to believe: his intention is not to educate or initiate a free and open discussion, but to serve as yet another propagandist wheel in America's well-oiled left-wing-controlled media machinery. This makes him an amoral bastard of the worst kind, because he is too intelligent not to be aware of what he's doing.

151. Any charlatan can pretend to be a do-gooder, and any idiot can fall for the scam that most "do-gooders" actually do good. Quite to the contrary, the vast majority of "do-gooders" are either manipulative charlatans or destructive, naïve, misguided morons who fail to see the big picture and end up doing the wrong things for the right reasons. In essence, a liberal do-gooder is a do-wronger, whether for the right or the wrong reasons.

152. Che Guevara is a mass-murderer. His order to execute 600 prisoners has largely gone unnoticed by both the liberal media and the cretins who produce and buy Che Guevara T-shirts, mugs, and toilet paper.

For more Che Guevara T-Shirts, go to:

http://vjetropev.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-motorcycle-diaries.html

153. Che Guevara was a psychopath, there is absolutely no question about it. In fact, nearly all Marxist leaders have to exhibit highly sociopath tendencies in order to reach the top in a Marxist hierarchy. Would a New York mafia let a kindly, modest, benevolent person rise to the top of its organization? Of course not. 

154. Every Marxist Party that is or has been in power operates very much like the mob. In fact, communist tyrannies are little more than crime syndicates whose only goal is to bleed the nation dry while they accumulate exorbitant amounts of wealth. Just as many mob organizations use a cover for their illegal activities, the communist mafia uses politics and the "welfare of its people" as its pretext for existing and operating. I would even go so far as to place an educated guess that the average level of psychopathy in a typically well-organized gang is lower than in the typical ruling Communist Party, deduced simply from the fact that the average communist regime wreaks far more havoc and destruction than even the most malicious crime outfit. 
The same goes for Far Right i.e. Nazi-like regimes, of course.

155. Any policy America pursues and any decision it makes regarding foreign or domestic policy is considered bad. Marxists will automatically lambaste anything America's government does, except when its decisions are detrimental to the country, which is why they are far more kind toward a White House Democrat.

156. Noel Chomsky, a flaming Marxist, criticizes American policy at every opportunity, regardless of who is in power (obviously, criticizing Republican administrations far more). Every single thing he says about the U.S. government is either a lie, a semi-truth or a spin-doctoring fact-bender. From his body language, behavior and comments I have to assume that he does not sincerely believe in what he is saying, but blatantly and willfully supports a psychopath ideology because he is first-and-foremost a mentally-deranged misanthrope himself. He is far too intelligent to really believe in all that red-stained hooey. He is not so much an "intellectual idiot" as he is an "intellectual fraud"; there's a difference.

A perfect example of what I am referring to. 

Translation of Professor Bullshit's Bullshit:

Here Professor Chumpsky more-or-less pretends to criticize the American education system - which is basically in the hands of the Left, what with most major universities being a breeding ground for new generations of left-leaning morons, daily brainwashed by their liberal and Marxist professors. What Doctor Bullshit very conveniently omits to tell us is that it is precisely liberal propaganda and their main weapon of choice - Political Correctness - that are weeding out individualists i.e. young people who show a propensity for questioning established "truths", i.e. kids who dare to oppose their professors' political views. 
This quote is also an ideal example of how Marxists operate: they create a mess themselves and then pin blame on the Right for supposedly making that mess! The goal? Undermine the intellectually superior opposition yet again. It is an offense-is-the-best-defense type of a liar's tactic that is perhaps as old as civilization itself. The Left cannot beat the Right with logical argumentation, so they prefer to use lies and baseball bats.

157. We do not know what kind of childhood traumas misfits like Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore had had, but perhaps their hatred for their fellow man doesn’t just stem from being butt-raped by their overweight, pedophilic uncles when they were four-and- a-half. Or perhaps it is genetic; after all, if the uncles were deviants than odds are their nephews could have some deeply-ingrained genetic flaws as well. 

Obviously, the part about treason is exaggerated, but Patton makes a crucial point about misfits and other losers who fail to succeed and then automatically blame the entire system for their own shortcomings instead of working on themselves or at least accepting responsibility for failure. Losers such as Michael Moore, or at least those who adore his every word and thought.

 

A great example of the above i.e. of projecting one's own personal frustrations and problems onto society.
"I feel like a loser hence the society I live in must be totally flawed, because they are to blame."
The success stories of other people are ignored, because this type of misfit/loser is an egotistical bastard who uses only personal experience as a basis for defining reality. The flawed assumption is that nature makes only perfect people - never losers - and that any failures must henceforth be a direct result of society's decadence. This fits in neatly with the Left's anti-scientific approach, as it blatantly disregard the science of genetics.

158. Responsibility. The Left takes it away from the individual and dumps it all (especially the blame) on its perennial scapegoat, society. It is a vague scapegoat, because the term "society" is very broad, almost like pinning blame for something on the Universe or "the world". We all make up society, so are we all to blame then? Sounds a lot like Catholic guilt to me.

"The society is at fault!" What does this even mean? It essentially means nothing. It is merely a way of shoving problems under the rug because no specific individual or institution gets blamed, and as a result of nobody being held accountable - nobody gets punished.

Society is ALL of us, and ALL of our institutions. So whenever somebody blames "society" for his own problems, real or imaginary, they are acting like a young child or even a cowardly criminal, using the Left's conveniently "identified" scapegoat as the ideal yet invisible garbage bin into which to dumb all responsibility and blame.
It shouldn't take an Einstein to realize that a society in which personal accountability has been withdrawn cannot function, at least not in the long-run.
It is this American-liberal notion (rooted deeply in Marxist theory) of the individual's moral flawlessness and blamelessness that has lead to such astoundingly anti-humanist acts like their heart-felt defense of pedophiles, rapists, and even serial-killers in court i.e. their "right to live". The notion that the parents of all these convicted psychopaths and misfits are to blame for their criminal mental states is just a slightly different way of dumping responsibility into that Marxist garbage-dump called society. Who is to blame, society or your parents? Take your pick. Either will do. Or both - that's even better. Or you can always pin everything on corporations. That works too.

159. The Right demands of every individual to "man up" and assume full responsibility for their actions. This, of course, is a two-edged sword because this common-sense system of thought also rewards an individual when he succeeds. And that is exactly how nature works too.

In the crazed-liberal's confused mind you are blameless when guilty, but blamed when you succeed i.e. make money. The U.S. liberal has adopted a reverse-logic ideology in which criminals are society's victims, while the bringers of prosperity (i.e. entrepreneurs who create jobs) are derided for being "selfish" hence a burden on society. I don't refer to U.S. liberals as insane and cretinous for nothing, as you can see.

160. Noel Chomsky's books are best-sellers in many anti-American countries (the few where its citizens can afford to buy books), all of which are either dictatorships or quasi-democracies. He is a hero to Islamic militants, Marxists, failed nerds, drug-addicted rock stars, lunatics, drug-pushers, and all the left-wing idiots of this world.

Translation of Professor Bullshit's "modest" bullshit:  

"There is no need to look for heroes, since you all already have ME! I am to be your only hero and idol, the icon you pray to instead of Jesus. I, the Chumpsky, am your Lord, and you shall not have any idols besides me. Luckily for you, I also have ALL the great ideas as well, so I'm nothing if not the perfect package. 
But if you find me too ugly, annoying, or just plain boring, you can always make Karl your idol and God. He is a dead German so you don't have to listen to him give lengthy, dull, confusing lectures. His written bullshit almost rivals mine, so he is a worthy second choice, IF you make the wrong decision of not picking me as your new spiritual and political leader."

161. But don't think corrupt "intellectuals" who promote evil systems of government, such as Noel Chumpsky, are a purely modern occurrence. Meet Bernie, Nobel-Prize-winning hypocrite, Oscar-winning narcissist.
 

George Bernard Shaw, famed author and co-founder of the London School of Economics(!!!) became a staunch
Stalin supporter after he'd visited the U.S.S.R. in the early 30s. When accusations and proofs of Soviet concentration camps and mass starvation started becoming increasingly frequent in Britain, Shaw - the generous humanist and lover of mankind and facts - dismissed them as slanderous and swore that Stalin's Russia was in tip-top shape, treating its citizens wonderfully. 

These kinds of misanthropic public figures hiding behind the veneer of the "likable ol' intellectual geezer" are more dangerous than anything. The fact that this demented clown commanded a huge amount of respect in his time shows that every Era has its false idols.

"Yup... Leaning smugly in my comfy rocking chair, while millions in the U.S.S.R. starve. It's so nice for them to sacrifice their lives for my dreams. I truly appreciate their sweat and toil, and they can be proud that an intellectual giant such as myself even acknowledges their efforts."

A simple "I'm sorry I was so incredibly stupid" would have done just as well, Bernie! 
But do you actually think that this decrepit, senile old communist ever intended for this oh-so wise quote to ever apply to him? Of course not. In spite of having reached the ripe old age of 94, he never recognized let alone admitted his own mistakes. Sociopathic egomaniacs sometimes excel at spewing well-worded "wisdom" - a sort of public cover for their misanthropic activities. 

Besides, this "very wise noble thought" is flawed. If applied to his hero Stalin, this quote suggests that it's better that he went into politics, as he did, and killed tens of millions of people rather than becoming a shoe-maker or something.

162. One of the main reasons every communist country struggled to build up a strong a economy is the lack of incentive to work. Most people receive(d) very similar salaries (namely very low) in such countries, so regardless of whether you are educated or not or whether you work hard or are just plain lazy, you get pretty much the same "reward". Naturally, this kills the employee’s incentive to be productive, and cripples his ambition and drive - if any were there to begin with. 
Additionally, because it is very rare for anybody to get fired in a communist country, the fear of losing one’s job as a result of incompetence or complacency is gone. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out how this new low-ambition/low-incentive mentality can cripple a society and its economy in a record amount of time.

163. In Serbia, which was communist/Marxist/socialist for over half-a-century, there is a popular saying: “In communism, everybody is equal – equally poor.” Of course, this wise saying doesn't tell the whole story: there is always the small ruling Communist Elite who are very wealthy indeed. They hold all the power and the vast majority of the wealth. Just like in a monarchy.

164. Because communism is so staunchly anti-intellectual, and because it persecutes highly educated people first-and-foremost (unless they comply and join the Party), it shouldn't surprise anybody that it's often the uneducated primitives who run the show in such countries, i.e. the formerly lowest rungs of the so-called "proletariat".
In Yugoslavia, it was typical for a well-educated employee to have to tolerate a boss who had no higher education at all, having "worked" up the (company) ladder solely on the basis of his political affiliations, i.e. being a Party member.
Can you imagine what it must be like being told what to do by somebody fairly clueless about your job and who has half the I.Q. that you have?
80% of all company directors in Communist Yugoslavia had only a grade-school education. They were all Party members.

165. In former Yugoslavia, companies/firms had "workers meetings" during which any menial-job putz could stand up in front of the assembled downtrodden and tell the management how they should do their job.
There were LITERALLY situations in which a hospital cleaning-lady would stand up and berate a SURGEON on how to do his job, what he should do, and what mistakes he'd made.

Fun, huh? Certainly a lot of fun for the cleaning-lady.

166. The notion of total social/economic equality is absolute baloney because it simply doesn't work - because there is no such thing, either in nature or in human society. The Universe hadn't been constructed by a sentient being that created the world in such a way that it could please everyone at the same time, which is why its only unwritten law is survival of the fittest. 
The rules of this cosmic game are such that the game always spits out winners, losers and those in-between, and this outcome cannot be circumvented by any artificial means. The notion of a cleaning-lady's views on how to run a hospital having the SAME importance as that of a trained medical professional is hence idiotic.

It is for this reason why idiots hurl toward socialism and communism. They actually believe in total equality. A fantasy.

And it is for this reason that people abandon traditional religion only to be duped by yet another religion, a quasi-religion called Marxism that is just as high on promises and low on delivery as any formal Church. A Catholic cardinal and a communist official are the same person dressed differently.

167. Long lines for toilet-paper: a right-wing myth or hard reality? 
Definitely the latter. In former Yugoslavia we had toilet-paper lines (even though we were far better off than the long-suffering Russians/Soviets, mainly due to the fact that Yugoslavia didn't belong to the Soviet Bloc), and we had weekly/daily lines for other essentials such as coffee, bread, sugar, and oil. As a young kid I remember having to stand in such lines often, for as long as a half-hour sometimes, and occasionally several times that long.
A great way to spend one's time on this planet, huh? What a splendid gift this socialist experiment is, and what great fun it is being a tortured guinea-pig in it. 
I would gladly provide you with photos of myself standing in long lines, but unfortunately I have none. Besides, Marxist readers would probably claim they were photo-shopped anyway. Their propensity for denial is not to be ever underestimated.

Utopia? Nevertheless, at least there is no "alienation" here, with everyone huddled together like cattle, waiting to see what their masters are willing to offer them for chow. 
Not being able to wipe your butt until you're done standing in a line for hours is communism's greatest gift to mankind.

And by the time you finally get the damn bread, you realize you've aged a few years. 

I'd like to see Noam Chomsky stand in the line she's been in. Would Michael Moore lose weight the way this woman has? It's safe to say he would: perhaps he needs communism, but the rest of us certainly don't.

168. Do you know what else was a lot of fun in Communist Yugoslavia? Power shortages. Spending hours and hours in the dark, not being able to utilize any kitchen appliances, and certainly not being to switch on the TV to cheer oneself up from the socialist misery - a regular occurrence which Noam Chomsky never had to go through. And one he doesn't give a shit about, nor mentions in his exalted anti-capitalist speeches to braindead/brainwashed college students.

169. Eco-activists such as Greens don't care about the planet. Their only aim is to sabotage capitalist democracies from within. True eco-activists would have to be, logically, from both sides of the political fence hence non-partisan. The fact that they are ALL Marxists should tell you something. It should tell you that Greenpeace is just another extended arm of Western Marxism. Their goals are purely political, the "environmentalist cause" being just a cover.

170. The fact that eco-activists are totally clueless about science and develop theories that are utterly outside of science tells us that they are not interested in what scientists have to say. This, in turn, tells us that their interests cannot be environmental but purely political. A truly environmental movement would have to be deeply entrenched in serious science.

171. The fact that Greens are far more concerned with pollution in the West than in China (and the former U.S.S.R.) tells us that they are a political movement i.e. communist hence totally biased hence they are liars. Pollution in communist tyrannies and underdeveloped countries is larger than in most Western countries.

Translation of Professor Bullshit's bullshit: 

Three things I want you to focus your attention on in this anti-capitalist mini-rant.

One, the romantic idealization of tribal existence, which is at the core of Karl Marx's idiotic and naive vision of pre-society man. One would assume that Noam is suggesting we all go back to the caves - much as the extremist Greens fantasize about.

Two, notice how he avoids mentioning the mega-polluters China and Russia; two huge economies (hardly tribal societies!) whose anti-pollution laws are still in the Stone Age (forgive the ironical pun). China is communist, Russia is anti-American, and hence both are under protection by His American Royal Marxist Highness. They are free to pollute as much as they want to, as far as Noam is concerned.

Three, notice the bombastic language he uses, almost like a crazed, radical street-corner preacher: "full-speed ahead... to destroy... as quickly as possible". He stopped just short of claiming that western democracies are doing this intentionally, that their aim is to destroy the environment! It is an accusation that is both preposterous and utterly illogical.

Make no mistake: this is not a pro-environmental statement, it's an anti-capitalist rant. This selective blame-pinning once again goes to show that Noam is not an idealist, but an opportunist and a charlatan. He picks and chooses which innocent corpses he will "care" about (he doesn't give a shit about any), and he picks and chooses which tyrannies he will decry as evil (he generally decries democracies as evil). He uses inflammatory exaggerations, which is what all lunatics do. 
He couldn't care less about the environment, but merely uses it as an additional tool to undermine the success of capitalism and to spread falsehoods about societies that practice it. In short, he is a flaming hypocrite and one of the biggest - hence most dangerous - public liars in the West.

172. Western feminist organizations, very similar to Greens, aren't what they appear to be. They are more interested in promoting socialist ideology than advancing the rights of women. The vast majority of hardcore feminists are left-leaning or communist. Why? The main reason might be because they believe that the (perceived) inequality between the sexes is to be found only in free democracies in which they reside, blissfully unaware that this phenomenon is global. Marxist feminism, spearheaded by none other than Marx's sidekick Friedrich Engels, argued that gender inequality had nothing to do with biology but was the result of capitalism which favours men - which implies that inequality should exist only in capitalist societies and that sexism never even existed before feudalism!

Quite to the contrary, women's rights violations are far more frequent in communist - not to mention Islamic - regimes (i.e. dictatorships) than in the West, where women have by far the biggest freedoms and financial opportunities in recorded history. 
Western feminists/communists will exaggerate any perceived injustice in the West, while often ignoring the plight of Islamic women, for example. Very often, the same American militant feminists who lambaste Republicans or Christians for imagined or real reasons are the same women that ignore oppression of Muslim women in their own country and abroad, even defending the rights of Moslem men to treat their women like shit. Left-wing opportunism and hypocrisy - yet again.

Susan Sontag, former communist radical and notorious man-hater:
  
"The white race is the cancer of human history." 

Sound familiar? It's the same race-based politically-correct drivel you've already heard from the likes of Malcolm X and Michael Moore. However, do you think they are/were referring to the white people in the Soviet Union or Cuba? Of course not. Do you think she was referring to white women? Of course not. She was talking primarily about white capitalists.

Susan and Michael Moore both enjoy the fruits of scientific progress that had been handed to them by their white ancestors; they use their science (computers, transportation, medicine etc), read their books, and enjoy art and music created by white composers - but "the white race is a cancer". Only imbeciles can take these kinds of venom-spewing fanatics seriously. 

She is a typical deranged malcontent whose personal frustrations possibly brought on by inborn genetic mental afflictions (and sexual abuse?) are the first, middle, last and ONLY causes of her hatred toward not just white people, but all of mankind. Don't ever make the mistake of thinking that these misfit fact-manipulators actually have any love for blacks, gays or any other minority whose rights they supposedly defend. Some of these people have the mental structure of a concentration camp SS officer.

On the positive side, Susan Sunday was one of very few hardcore Western Leftists who had actually learned a lesson from the anti-Communist 80s resurgence in the Soviet Bloc, when she recanted and publicly questioned her own past political beliefs. That is certainly far more than can be said for the likes of Moore, who wouldn't admit to bullshitting his viewers if he were given 1000 years to do it.

173. It was only natural that a movement (U.S. liberals) so heavily orientated toward minorities would try - and unfortunately succeed - in placing such a stigma on white people, and specifically, white Americans. The irony is that liberal ideology is predominantly fleshed out by (self-loathing?) white people. (Recall what I wrote earlier about society's misfits.) 

To be white in America today has become almost something to be ashamed of, and something to even apologize for, all thanks to liberal propaganda which has placed all the blame for everything squarely on the shoulders of their new scapegoat, the white man. Not woman. Man. Because women are considered oppressed and victims of men. This is why we now have a pathetic phenomenon called the white guilt syndrome.

One can see it everywhere in popular culture. Comedians, mostly left-wing, make jokes about whites but weigh every word fifty times over before joking about blacks, for example. MTV's The Real World 3 featured a dumb, brainwashed 19 year-old blond who sobbed her butt off, saying how she was ashamed to be white because "the white race is responsible for so much evil". Jokes about white presidents can be as extreme as one wants them to be, but when mocking Obama extreme caution is advised - only "cute" safe jokes are allowed. Michael Moore even published a book simply and plainly called Stupid White Men. You can bet that anything Moore says is the opposite of the truth, and for him to call white people stupid -  when his own followers are mostly white morons of the highest order - makes this "Socialist Weasel" (thanks, South Park makers) a bullshit-artist at his prime.

Liberals are supposed to be the party that will bring the races closer together, remember? Totally false. Their obsession and open distaste for white people is apparent for all to see. Here's a political party that supposedly advocates racial equality and tolerance, yet eggs on blacks to resent white people even more, telling them that whites are to blame for all of the problems in the black community. Once again, an example of liberals taking away responsibility from a group of people that they want to "protect", while pinning all the blame on another demographic. This dirty strategy is very dangerous because it divides society into good guys and bad guys, into victims and oppressors. To the liberal mind everything is black-and-white - literally even, as in this case.

Sounds familiar? Karl Marx's class struggle theory. Except that liberals had added an ugly racial slant to this alleged class struggle. This is just one of many parallels between liberal and Marxist ideology. Don't be fooled when a liberal tells you that communism has nothing to do with their politics, because U.S. liberalism is nothing more than an off-shoot of Marxist ideology. 

Here is a typical example of white guilt. These are the lyrics of a song by a pop-punk band called NOFX:

"Don't Call Me White"

Don't call me white, Don't call me white
Don't call me white, Don't call me white

The connotations wearing my nerves thin
Could it be semantics generating the mess we're in?
I understand that language breeds stereotype
But what's the explanation for the malice, for the spite?

Don't call me white, Don't call me white
Don't call me white, Don't call me white

I wasn't brought here, I was born
Circumsized, categorized, allegiance sworn,
Does this mean I have to take such shit
For being fairskinned? No!
I ain't a part of no conspiracy,
I'm just you're average Joe.

Don't call me white, Don't call me white
Don't call me white, Don't call me white

Represents everything I hate,
The soap shoved in your mouth to cleanse the mind
The vast majority of sheep
A buttoned collar, starched and bleached
Constricting veins, the blood flow to the brain slows
They're so fuckin' ordinary white

Don't call me white, Don't call me white
Don't call me white, Don't call me white

We're better off this way
Say what you're gonna say
So go ahead and label me
An asshole cause I can
Accept responsibility, for what I've done
But not for who I am

So successfully brainwashed is this band's confused, luckless and dumb singer that his white guilt actually goes all the way into shame and even self-loathing. And then liberals want to tell us that the concept of the liberal media is a myth. That man didn't get his self-loathing from reading history books; he got it from them.


174. White liberals are responsible for most cases in which the so-called Race Card gets used and abused. The very existence of this fairly new phrase, Race Card, is proof of liberal hostility toward white people (i.e. their self-loathing) and their immoral attempts to increase the racial rift in society even further - not to bring the races closer, as they claim to be doing. 

The term "white trash" has become extremely widespread and popular in recent decades, and it's one I am fine with - but would be more comfortable with if the word trash could be apply to all races. But can anybody say "black trash" without losing their job or being practically shunned? What exactly is the difference between the two? Why can Michael Moore publish a book called Stupid White Men and get away with it? What if somebody decided to write a book called Stupid Black Men? Would the Politically Correct Fascist Censorship Police (i.e. liberals) allow even a black man to publish a book by that title?

The difference is that blacks are considered "untouchable", but what is much worse is the underlying racism toward blacks that this publicly as-yet undeclared "protection" of blacks suggests: i.e. "you cannot call blacks that way because they are trash". This is not my opinion of blacks - but how liberals latently think of them! Once again, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Consider the fact that it's socially acceptable in the U.S. to mock Orientals, especially the Japanese. There are many jokes made about them that border on racist - and sometimes even cross that border. So why aren't liberals making a stink and a fuss when a Korean or a Japanese American gets joked about in such a manner? Because Orientals aren't taking benefits, because they are generally rarely poor, because Orientals aren't voting Democrat in droves, and most importantly - because liberals latently consider them superior to everybody else. The unwritten, undeclared, hidden liberal logic is this: "Orientals seem to be intellectually superior to us, so they are fair game for racist mockery." This is quite twisted logic, not to mention exposes a blatant double-standard.

This is an extremely taboo subject which you will very rarely hear being addressed publicly in America these days. I don't get paid by anybody to write this blog, nor do I get a dime for it, hence I am not afraid to discuss what many people are thinking but are afraid to say. This strong fear of addressing important - taboo - issues is precisely what political correctness has given us.

Not discussing racial issues and racism openly - as I am doing here - will only exacerbate this problem further. Political correctness essentially sweeps all uncomfortable problems under the carpet, hoping they will go away. But they don't. On the contrary.

The George Zimmerman case was a typical example of the liberal media jumping like sharks on a case that suits their propaganda goals. 

Zimmerman killed a black youth in controversial circumstances, and he may or may not be guilty of the crime. This is not the issue here, since I am using this unfortunate event purely as an example of a media trend, not as a forum to defend or attack him.
Liberals hand-picked this case, and then exploited this fairly isolated type of incident to very slyly imply that America is experiencing massive white-on-black violence, which couldn't be further from the truth. That is really ALL this case was about - i.e. the left-wing media singling out this one murder case as the one to hype - while pretty much ignoring thousands of others murder-trials that had been in the courts at the time.

Do blacks really need to fear whites killing them off randomly in the streets? Let us look at the facts.

2007 U.S. federal statistics show that blacks committed 433,934 violent crimes against whites, while whites committed 55,685 violent crimes against blacks. So the likelihood of a black person killing a white person is eight times higher - i.e. the opposite of what liberals are implying.

Interracial rape is almost solely black-on-white — with around 14,000 assaults on white women by black men that same year. White men raping black women is practically non-existent as an occurrence. 
Where are the Susan Sontags and the Gloria Steinems of America when it comes to statistics such as these? They are strangely quiet - proving that most modern feminists do not care about women's rights or their well-being but only focus on left-wing ideology.

Left-wingers are free to decry these statistics as "Fascist propaganda invented by capitalist oppressors and their stooges" or some such nonsense. I wouldn't expect anything else from them. Denial is a political disease.

One cannot expect to hear these statistics from national U.S. broadcasters. These facts aren't politically correct, i.e. may be construed as racist - as indeed many readers of this text will assume that I am racist merely because I am stating facts.

Political correctness is a green card to ignore truths that are "unacceptable" i.e. ugly. I already talked about this at length. It is very sad that I had to find out about these facts from a lunatic such as Pat Buchanan - because the media keep quiet about them. 
The reason I chose to share those numbers with you is not to defend Zimmerman, not to advertise Buchanan (who is an extremist), nor to portray blacks in a negative light. I simply wanted to show you how much the liberal media LIE, twisting and bending facts every step of the way, because they don't have either truth or logic on their side.

175. A liberal "success story" in the past few decades has been not only to portray whites as the only racists in the country - but to also make the Republicans seem like the racist party, whereas they, the bleedin'-heart human-loving Democrats, love all creeds and colours. While it is true that liberals focus far more on minorities than the majority (in every respect, not just race-wise), this is not at all accurate.

Take Affirmative Action as an example. Now you might be thinking "that's the worst possible example you could think of!". But you'd be wrong.
What is the essence of this astoundingly flawed and greatly unjust concept? A.A. is nothing more than a modern version of "the noble superior white master" and his "inferior protégé", with the difference that Bwana has benevolent plans for his favourite pet. A.A. is patronization of the worst kind, a latent belief of the liberal bwana that his former slave is too stupid to take care of himself, and that as a result of the black man's incompetence the merciful Bwana needs to bend and twist laws to ease the black man's integration into society. 
It is blatantly obvious that liberals treat blacks and some other minorities like hopeless little children who need to be guided by hand, every step of the way, through life. If THAT isn't racism, I really don't know what is!

176. Not only is Affirmative Action patronizing and racist at its very core, it is also one of the most destructive (f)laws brought about by the Left's Political Correctness, and a measure that benefits nobody. For the whites it is a reverse-racism burden and injustice which for example allows for bright students to be overlooked just because they are of the wrong colour. (Sound familiar?) For blacks, it is - or should be - an embarrassment, a law that almost spells out "you are a dumb fool needy of our help". Not to mention that blacks are given a signal that different rules apply to them, which is very dangerous in the long-run. A.A. is a measure that can only serve to deepen the growing racial divide in America, as opposed to lessen it - as was perhaps its original intention.

I've always said that "there is no racist like the racist that blames everyone else of racism". For those of you who don't recognize this manic street preacher: Reverend Al Sharpton, the poster-boy for reverse-racism.
And yet, according to Marxist college professors who are conducting whole-sale brainwashing across America, black are incapable of being racist toward whites: certainly a statement so idiotic and laced with pro-black white-guilt bias that it should serve as proof of the liberals' insanity and fanaticism. 

177. Single-parent households are far more likely to produce criminals than intact families. This fact, not only supported by data but also by common sense, is something liberals do not want to acknowledge and fight against at every opportunity. Why? Because according to spin-doctoring liberals this is an attack on single mothers, an attack on female "independence", an attack on their precious feminism - which is of course utter nonsense. Saying that an absence of a father is much more likely to turn little girls into whores and little boys into gang-members is simply a fact which has basis in psychology and biology. However, science isn't something left-wingers want to deal with except in those cases when it suits their agenda.

What really lurks behind the liberals' denial of this fact is the following: 1) American Marxists want to destroy the traditional family structure, and one of the ways of doing that is to glorify single-parent households using quasi-feminist falsehoods/propaganda, 2) They want to steer the discussion away from the taboo subject of the American black male not assuming responsibility for raising his children. One report states that 72% of all black kids are raised without the influence of their fathers. Other studies show similar results. In most media outlets, just attempting to open up this discussion brings accusations of racism with it.

Cultural Marxism, or political correctness as its known, is the most basic and strongest tool of the American Left in keeping their version of "truth" as the dominant version in mainstream media and schools. A number of other "sensitive" but crucial issues are avoided, banned even, from public discourse as a result of the Race Card tactic.

 
178. You might have noticed that I don't use the term African-American. That's because it is idiotic. I do not allow myself to be brainwashed by the current flood of politically-correct dumbing-down horseshit. By logic and by definition, the term African-American should also include any Arab man from Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, or Egypt. Or have those North-African countries miraculously eloped from the African continent in the last few decades? Perhaps the north of a continent doesn't count to a brain-dead liberal's mind; I simply do not know.

Furthermore, what if a 4th-generation black Brazilian person moves to the States? Is he African-American too? Does the "American" in African-American refer to Latin America too?
Not to mention how overly long that terms is, and every-day language should be practical and easy to use, if anything.

179. The need to change the language, which is an integral part of what political correctness is about, stems from pure denial and a desire to curb freedom. (Just like the need to change the world stems from denial.) Change - at all cost, even if the changes are moronic or destructive. Karl Marx's theory, at its core, is about changing everything by starting from scratch - a total negation of all previous accomplishments and achievements.

When a politician shouts "change!" five times per minute, be sure he is either a Far Right populist or a Far Left populist: both of them use the essentially same strategy. The practical differences between them barely exist, only their moronic ideologies i.e. theories differ.

The unwillingness of the romantic/idealistic liberal's mind to come to grips reality, i.e. with the fact that blacks and whites look different and even have cultural differences, is something they try to "correct" by pretending the physical differences don't even exist! 
Why does a liberal get offended by "black" but not by "white"? Those are two basic colours, so why is one an insult and not the other, i.e. why is one colour offensive and the other not? 
Because the liberal is latently racist; he believes that blacks are inferior hence the word black becomes an unacceptable "label" in his mind. Realizing this fact, it is only a matter of time before even African-American starts sounding like a "bad word" to liberals - and then they will seek to change their own damn term.

That's what this whole African-American/Caucasian bullshit is really all about. I will have no part in it, and if you are wise, neither will you.

180. Liberals can't stop talking about the need for diversity, and yet their politically-correct ideology doesn't truly allow for diversity! Any observation that has to do with any kind of racial difference is immediately dismissed as false. But how can there be diversity if we are all the same all across the board? Surely, even a semi-moron should be able to see the self-contradiction and the blatant hypocrisy.

181. Gun-control is a tricky subject. It isn't the kind of "no-brainer issue" that both liberals and conservatives would like you to believe. The problem with the liberal stance is two-fold:

a) Their end-goal is a total ban of guns. In other words, much stricter gun-control laws is only the first part of the plan. An outright ban is their long-term goal.

b) Given that their aim is to completely ban weapons, one has to ask: what is the real reason liberals want guns off the streets completely? Well, to reduce crime. Right...?

Not necessarily. I have already shown you in a number of examples how often their policies contradict their own ideology. Might they not have an ulterior motive to banning the ownership of deadly weapons? 

Fact: the American populace is overflowing with guns. Fact: with so many armed civilians, any kind of dictatorship is far more difficult to establish (by either the Far Right or the Far Left).

I have already explained how little real interest and will liberals have shown in reducing crime. They are against the death-penalty, they are for "more humane" prisons, they tend to favour shorter jail-terms, they tend to favour the criminal over the victim, they tolerate the glorification of violence and crime by rap bands, and the more extremist liberals even glorify serial-killers such as Che Guevara. How does that fit in with a passion for reducing crime? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

I suspect that liberals push the issue of gun-control with such aggression not because of their phony "concern for the reduction of violent crime", but because they want to increase the power of the government over its citizens. It might just be that simple. I used to be suspicious of this argumentation (brought forth by conservatives), but have gradually started to believe that there is at least a measure of truth in that line of thinking. Why? Because everything liberals do is either related to: a) increasing the power and/or size of the government, b) undermining the stability and success of the capitalist democracy they inhabit, or c) limiting or banning freedoms of citizens.

Is this just exaggerated right-wing propaganda, or do conservatives and other gun-lobbyists actually have a point? There is no denying that Chinese citizens weren't able to ever revolt against a powerful regime, armed only with sticks and stones. 

(The 1989 Tienanmen Square Massacre of 5,000 anti-communist students - which was "peanuts" next to the millions slaughtered or starved in the 50s and 60s - proved if anything that a non-violent overthrow of such an unwavering, powerful regime is highly improbable, at least in that part of the world; Oriental nations China and North Korea have the world's longest-lasting communist regimes.) 

Judging from the past and present behaviour of liberals, i.e. taking into account their opportunism, their selective justice, their populist rhetoric, their lies, their politically-correct anti-freedom attitude, and the rising number of left-wing extremists in their ranks, I am inclined to think that conservatives aren't far off the mark with this argument. It's simply hard to trust liberals on anything these days.
Even if this argument were used by conservatives just as a means to get their way, it still holds a valid point that is firmly entrenched in reality, facts and common sense.

182. Liberals very conveniently omit the statistics that show how many American citizens avoid being mugged, murdered, or raped because they had a weapon on them when confronted with their potential attackers. They also very conveniently omit the fact that taking guns "off the streets" would not particularly affect high-end criminals, especially gangs i.e. organized crime; career criminals and the most dangerous felons can easily obtain weapons and ammunition whenever they require it - and this is the case in almost any European country, as well.

The argument that "guns are dangerous and cause accidents" doesn't quite work, simply because cars are also dangerous, and so are airplanes, trains, and even roller-blades, all of which cause accidents. Should they be banned too?

An ideal world would be one without any dangerous weapons lying around in people's homes. But we do not live in such a world, nor will we ever. In spite of all the valid points that gun-control lobbyists make, the political risk of disarming U.S. civilians - just so a band of revolutionary psychopaths lead by the likes of Noam Chomsky or Sean Penn might one day take over power and have nobody be able to resist them - is too huge.

Even the increased frequency of spree-killings in the States (and elsewhere) is still not sufficient grounds for a total reversal of gun laws. The whole gun-control issue is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils, not a matter of making the perfect choice. Only morons and Marxists believe in perfectly black-and-white choices. But compromise has never been a skill Marxists possess.

183. U.S. liberals and European left-wing elitists do not support gay marriage because they are truly concerned with rights of gays. They support it because it weakens and annoys the religious Right - their main ideological/political opposition group(s). Gay marriage has become a clever instrument, a weapon of choice in the political game against the Right.

Nowadays, anyone who speaks out against gay marriage risks losing their job if they work in a church, in a school, in a university, in the media, or in any government institution. Gay marriage is allegedly a move to increase freedom in society, but has achieved the opposite: it is now used as a tool to repress anybody who so much as opens their mouth against these measures that are undoubtedly taking gay rights to their absurd extreme.

The LGBT - so vehemently supported by the Left in all its reasonable and questionable policies - is an extremist left-wing organization that doesn't represent all gay people and which has an obvious distaste for the heterosexual society it exists in; its goal is to increase gay rights as much as it is too sweep the rug under society's feet. This is why liberals and the LGBT are so cozy with each other.

Gay marriage and gay adoption are nothing more than additional power-tools that the Left uses to implement its "cultural Marxism" i.e. political correctness on the civilized world, its rigid world-view which must not be questioned or criticized. They have succeeded in their quest to turn a whole bunch of social topics into taboo subjects.

The question is: how long are the drowsy, apathetic western sheep going to put up with this cultural dumbing-down and steady decrease of their freedoms (perpetrated allegedly in the name of freedom). Long enough to let themselves be destroyed from within by their own inaction and stupidity? Or will they shake themselves out of this intellectual stupor, this state of brainwashing just in time to fight against the increasingly radical/brazen Left in order to reverse the enormous psychological and cultural damage that is being inflicted? 

I believe it is the former. The Left has essentially already won. And with this "victory", democracy is doomed, and that means western civilization as we know it, along with it.

https://morepoliticalrants.blogspot.com/2020/09/equality-racism-honest-analysis.html