The Coming Global Political Battle. Only One Side Will Win
Posted by Socrates in communism, communism as a weapon against the West, communism-as-Jewish, Marx, Marxism, Marxism and equality, political correctness, political debating, populism, populism as the future of politics, populists versus elites, postMarxism, postmodern baloney, postmodernism, postmodernism and reality denial, postmodernism as a drug, socialism, Western culture, Western decline, Western philosophy, Western preservation ideas, White ideology, White philosophy, White thought at 3:08 pm | 
Permanent Link
Communism keeps coming back under different names: first it was Marxism, then it was Socialism, then it was Cultural Marxism/Critical Theory circa 1937, then Postmodernism circa 1960, then PC circa 1987, and now it’s CRT and Woke. In 20 years it’ll be called something else. It’s all the same thing, only under different names. It’s all Jewish in origin and all about attacking White Western culture.
Why does communism keep changing names? It has to: leftists crave change, and, they also must hide the fact that leftism doesn’t work. So they keep changing the names of their movements, hoping that nobody will notice that it’s all the same failed idea, over and over again. Old wine in a new bottle.
On the surface, Marxists seem to be like retards who are constantly trying to find the best way to nail pudding to a wall, not realizing that you can’t nail pudding to a wall, even though the top Marxist “philosopher” Sam Goldberg says that you can. But in reality I think that leftists fall into two camps: one camp which really believes the “human equality” utopian bullshit, and the other camp, which doesn’t genuinely believe in human equality, but is just using Marxism to attack White Western culture. That camp believes that Western culture is “evil” and those people will use whatever they can as a weapon against it.
As for this Brazilian fellow below (Olavo de Carvalho), I’m not sure I understand what he’s saying: he says “Politics is about people and means. Power. Never about values and ideas.” I’m not sure how you can attack a political opponent without attacking his ideas as well. Just calling your opponent a “thug” or a “tyrant” each time you debate would get old fast, right? It seems too shallow. I must be missing something. I don’t know how you can divorce ideas from politics. They seem very intertwined. (Donald Trump? He’s a whole different thing. He’s one-in-a-million and larger than life). Readers? What do you think? Can you separate ideas from politics? The Brazilian seems to say: “ideas and values are merely window dressing. Avoid them.” Okay. But does that also apply to populism (the next big thing, in my opinion), which is a much-more-honest movement than “traditional conservatism” which really conserves nothing? Indeed, Trumpism killed traditional conservatism in America.
[Article] and [Video, 8 minutes].