The New York Times recently published an “opinion piece” from radical feminist Vivian Gornick where she spoke glowingly of communism, describing it as “inspirational” ideology despite it being responsible for the deaths of 100,000,000+ people. Why does the mainstream media continually publish vapid articles like “When Communism Inspired Americans” which only serve to whitewash the bloody history of a murderous ideology? When Communism Inspired Americanshttps://web-beta.archive.org/web/20170430000438/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/29/opinion/sunday/when-communism-inspired-americans.htmlYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Always struck me as kind of ironic that May Day, international May Day, May 1st, right, this year, 2017, May Day, if you squish the two words together, is also a panic code for a massive disaster about to engulf a group of people, as in, May Day, May Day, we're going down!
Not, I think, entirely accidental.
So we're going to get into a New York Times article about communism in just a moment, but let's do a little bit of background on it first.
It is a great mystery to anybody who's studied history with an even remotely objective eyeball how National Socialism, Nazism, which is an oppositional doctrine to the spread of a Communism, National Socialism is treated with such viciousness and contempt, whereas Communism is still elevated in many circles.
You can wear, as I saw people in my college, you can wear a badge Of Karl Marx, you can't wear a badge of Adolf Hitler.
You can speak positively of socialism and communism in particular, and you will be received as often a benevolent, if perhaps misguided, person.
Whereas, of course, if you speak positively of national socialism or Nazism, well...
You are about the worst person on the planet.
Which tells you, of course, who won the culture wars.
When classical liberalism, when free markets, small governments, and property rights, when that all collapsed in the 19th century, largely as a result of governments taking over the educational systems throughout the Western world, which occurred in sort of mid to late 19th century.
Once you socialize education, you socialize society.
It's a generation or two or three, but it is inevitable.
You can't fight against any kind of socialism with any kind of consistency if you're willing to surrender the tender minds of entrapped and enslaved young minds to socialized or communist sort of environments in government schools.
You can't then fight against it in society as a whole.
Communism is really, really bad.
Socialism is really, really bad, kids.
Well, why are we in a socialist environment when it comes to our education?
Because...
See, you can't really get anywhere.
Once you socialize the minds of children, the socialization of society becomes inevitable, at least until the internet.
So it's a great mystery.
How is communism still a thing?
How is it not viewed as something, an environmental mind toxin even more virulent than National Socialism or Nazism?
How is it not viewed as the greatest intellectual toxic tragedy to fall upon our species?
Its death count is only beaten by statism as a whole.
So statism, the idea that societies must always be centralized around a coercive monopoly called the state.
Well, statism just in the 20th century caused the death of 250 million people.
Governments murdered their own civilian, murdered their own people.
250 million people, a quarter of a billion people.
That's not including wars, right?
That's just direct slaughtering of your own people.
A lot of that had to do with communism, with its 100 million plus dead.
I mean, nobody gets to be positive about the Spanish Inquisition, right?
The Inquisition.
And the Inquisition killed between 3,000 to 10,000 people directly.
You could argue maybe 100,000 more died in prisons as a result of being in prison for things.
Not directly killed, but killed indirectly.
So you could sort of say maybe 100,000.
Well, even if we take the lower estimates of how many people communism killed, communism was a thousand times worse than the Spanish Inquisition.
And if you speak positively about the Spanish Inquisition, well, you're not considered to be a very pleasant person, but you can still be very positive about communism.
And you could have very sympathetic hymns to communism published in the New York Times.
And this tells you all you need to know.
The question is, how is it a thing?
To me, it's not that complicated because it's nothing to do with ideology.
We are not designed to be rational.
We are not designed to be empirical.
We are designed to reproduce.
And communism can help less able people reproduce.
What are all animals about, right?
Eating and screwing.
That's what we do.
So, communism shifts resources from the most able to the least able through the agency of ideology.
Ideology is a form of pickpocketing of a rich person to give resources to a less rich person.
And as a very powerful reproductive strategy for baiters and failures and losers and manipulators and so on, it's enormously powerful and enormously popular.
There are genes for intelligence and there are genes for non-intelligence and they're at war in society.
In a free market, genes for intelligence are favored because children cost money and therefore the more intelligent you are, the more money you are likely to make and therefore the more children you can have.
One of the great disasters in Western history was the Catholic Church locking up the most intelligent in the largely So smart genes and dumb genes are at war with each other.
In a free market environment, the smart genes get the most resources, have the most children, and the less intelligent genes have fewer children.
And what happens then is the genetic intelligence of the species tends to go ahead.
There's nothing to do with eugenics.
This is just freedom.
You understand.
This has nothing to do with controlling anyone's reproduction.
It's just that in a free market environment, the smartest people have the most children.
And...
So the free market is viewed as a predator by less intelligent genetics, right?
I mean, because it benefits the rich.
Now, of course, in the long run, even the less intelligent genes end up doing very well.
The free market since the 19th century in the West, and it's not even been a remotely totally free market, become less so over time.
There's been a 40 times increase in the standard of living across the board.
40 times increase.
Completely unprecedented.
In human history.
But in the short run, our genes don't care about the standard of living 100 years from now.
Our genes care about how many times can I replicate at the moment.
And I did a video recently called This is Important!
I don't often use the exclamation marks, but in this case I did, about the Pareto distribution, which is that the square root of a productive group in a free market, the square root of Of that group produce half the wealth.
In a company of 10,000 people, it's 100 people who produce half the wealth.
So they get a lot more resources.
So they can, again, according to evolution, they can have a lot more children.
So the free market is viewed as a predator by less intelligent genes and so less able people.
What they want to do is they want to invent an ideology that triggers the empathy of the more intelligent and IQ is associated with empathy.
So more intelligent people are more susceptible to being manipulated on the grounds of empathy and And so the less competent gene sets, instead of trying to compete in the free market, which they can't do relative to the more able and more competent and more intelligent, what they do is they invent ideologies that provoke the sympathies, the pathological altruism of the more intelligent into transferring resources.
Now, this very quickly doesn't work, which is why charity is always limited.
But if you can get it enshrined in state power, right?
In other words, if you can have the state control resources and shift them from the more able to the less able, then the less able are able to have more children, and the more able end up having fewer children.
And that's great for the gene set called less able, less intelligent, less capable, and so on, which wants to survive just as much as any other organism does.
So that's why it's still a thing.
It's that there are still people who cannot compete in the free market, who can't gain the same amount of resources in the free market as the more intelligent and the more able can, and their genes demand resources, right?
Because gaining the attention and attraction of women is essential in, you know, the sort of free market of mating and reproducing.
And so if you're a less able person, if you're less intelligent, if you're less competent, or maybe if you just have personal failings, like you're lazy or distracted or you waste time doing things that don't add to your market value, you know, I mean, if People who complain about, oh, we need a minimum wage.
Well, if people took like one-tenth the amount of time they spend playing video games and used it to increase their human capital, right?
Learned particular skills or attributes, you know, reasonable thinking, better writing, math skills and so on, business skills, market skills.
If people spend like one-tenth the amount of time that they spend playing video games, actually...
Improving and increasing their marketability in the business world, well, you wouldn't need any such thing as minimum wage because people would be worth that much more.
But people want to do fun, distracting, nonsense stuff, you know, watch fail videos all day, and then they're not worth that much in the free market.
And so they want the government to make up for either their lack of ability, their bad choices, or a combination.
of the two.
So communism is a way of transferring sexual market value resources from the more able to the less able so that the less able Can compete in the sexual arena with the more able.
And that's kind of how...
I mean, look at single moms, right?
Single moms would have a negative, highly negative sexual market value.
But with the welfare state, they come with resources rather than with expenses.
Therefore, it's much easier for them to enter into, you know, usually fairly trashy short-term relationships, but at least compete to some degree.
So communism is a way for the less able to enshrine resource transfers from the more able to the less able.
Through the power of the state.
And you'll see this all the time.
We'll see this in this article, which we'll talk about in a second.
And it relies on this sort of pathological altruism and sense of guilt, right?
So what you do is you set up the system wherein the rich are rich because they've exploited the poor.
The rich have resources because they've stolen or exploited or taken unjustly the resources from everyone else.
It's not true.
It's not true.
But it feels true if you're incompetent.
Because if you're incompetent, you can either look and say, well, I'm kind of low on the ladder of abilities.
Or what you can do is say, I really better make more intelligent decisions about how to spend my time.
People don't generally like to do that.
They don't like to be that self-reflective.
And so if you can...
Invent an ideology that allows the less competent or less wealthy people to blame others for their lack of resources.
Well, it's very tempting.
In a sense, the socialization of responsibility in return for the bribery of resources is a very tempting deal for a lot of people.
And of course, if you're less able as a whole, you don't miss freedom as much.
If you're not that smart, not that ambitious, if you make bad decisions, then materially you benefit more from redistribution of states like the welfare state, socialism, communism.
You benefit more because you gain more resources through those systems than you would in the free market, at least in the short run.
So it's the idea like, okay, so let's put a 90% tax on people making a quarter million dollars or more.
Well, most people don't make a quarter million dollars, so they feel like it's just free money, right?
And with the top 1% paying a third of the taxes, well, you understand.
Maybe it's...
If freedoms are restricted and you don't have the ability to take much advantage of those freedoms, but in trading in the freedoms you couldn't really take advantage of, you trade those in for resources.
Well, it's like having a lottery ticket, right?
If you keep the lottery ticket that's worth a million dollars and you never cash it in, it's not really worth a million dollars.
It's worth nothing.
And this is like freedom.
Freedom is like a lottery ticket for less competent people.
Doesn't do much good for them on its own, but if they can trade in this freedom that they can't really benefit from anyway in return for resources from those who are able to benefit from a free market, it's a pretty good deal.
And this is, of course, one of the great corruptions, and this is why Communism remains a thing.
And particularly in a situation where physical labor is the key to wealth, which prior to the Industrial Revolution was kind of, you know, either through war or through, you know, the brutal physical labor of largely technology-free farming.
It was like physical strength.
That was your ticket to, you know, the jocks, the freaks and geeks stuff, the jocks versus the nerds.
The physically attractive and strong and healthy and big-boned oxen of human beings, the males in particular, well, they would get a lot of resources.
Because physical strength was the key.
If you were kind of small and scrawny and had a bigger brain, if you were smarter, then you couldn't compete physically with the jocks.
But what you could do is invent a system wherein those who had more resources had to give to the poor through you and you could take your portion, right?
Which explains sort of priesthood and communism and bureaucracy and HR departments, to some degree.
So this is why it's a thing.
It serves evolutionary niches and it's an evolutionary strategy for gaining resources without having to compete.
And this is just something we need to understand.
So, New York Times wrote an article, When Communism Inspired Americans.
It's quite an astonishing, quite an astonishing piece.
And we're going to have I look at it in just a little tiny bit more detail because it is important to understand this kind of stuff.
So, communism, again, it can tell you that it's not you to blame, it's a system that needs to be changed for you to get more resources.
So the article starts this way.
At a rally in New York City in 1962, the famously liberal journalist Murray Kempton said to an audience full of old reds, I have known many communists in my life.
I have not known them as criminals.
I knew them once as activists.
And we had our quarrels, but while this country has not been kind to you, it has been fortunate in having you.
You have been arrested.
You have been followed.
You have had your phones bugged.
You have had your children fired.
Throughout this, I can think of numbers of you I have known who have remained gallant and pleasant and unbroken, he added.
I salute you, and I hope for times to be better.
You understand this is all adjective non-argument.
Just a bunch of adjectives.
Positive adjectives.
Noble, heroic, unbroken.
No content.
You see, this is an appeal to emotion.
And when you're less intelligent, emotions tend to rule your responses, right?
Which is why the left has consistently relied on spreading vicious and negative rumors all the way from the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution to Ferguson and the hands up, don't shoot stuff.
They spread these vicious rumors which are accepted in a confirmation bias, prejudicial way by less able people.
And that's why they rely on it.
Because just feelings, feelings, feelings.
And feelings are like the dog whistle for the less competent to gather with that pitchforks and axes and torches and so on, right?
So just feel, feel, feel.
And appeal to emotion.
If you have...
You know, I'm fairly functioning neofrontal cortex.
I sort of see the reasoning stuff, prefrontal cortex.
If you have this kind of intelligence, or intelligence, then you feel this as these sort of foggy, greasy, jello-y squid tentacles trying to wrap themselves around your brain and strangle you of objectivity.
I find this stuff creepy.
It's horrible.
It's manipulative.
It literally gives me like the spine-tingle creepy crawlies, like ice centipedes up and down.
The bone marrow.
But for a lot of people, it's like, this is like a call out to, are you not able to reason?
Would you like to resent someone?
Do you feel, because of your lack of abilities, that violence is a great way for you to get resources, but are you not particularly willing to perform that violence yourself?
Well, have I got a system for you.
All you have to do is give up the freedom, which is a lottery ticket you can't win without cashing it in anyway.
The article goes on to say, my mother was in the audience that night and said, when she came home, America was fortunate to have had the communists here.
They, more than most, prodded the country into becoming the democracy it always said it was.
Now, you can check out my video called The Truth About McCarthyism for more on just how lucky Americans were to have communists infesting the government and, um, well, tossing China into the ever-hungry Dragon Ball of Chairman Mao, responsible for tens of millions of deaths under the communist regime, in China, which was the result of communist infiltration straight from Moscow through the State Department to people in China.
And, um, Also, the Rosenbergs handed over bomb secrets to the Russians, thus arming the enemy of the West with nuclear weapons.
Anyway, the whole thing.
So this is how lucky Americans were to have communists all over the place.
The writer goes on to say, My parents were working-class socialists.
I grew up in the late 1940s and early 50s thinking of them and their friends as what they themselves called progressives.
The sociology of the progressive world was complex.
At its center were full-time organizers for the Communist Party.
At the periphery, left-wing sympathizers and, at various points in between, everything from rank-and-file party cardholders to respected fellow travelers.
Fuck.
Hmm.
I gotta tell you, again, this is all goopy.
This is a female writer.
She's in her 80s, I think, Jewish woman.
And she's, it's all this sort of goopy, you know, when it comes to an ideology that caused the deaths of 100 million people, I don't give a crap about the org chart.
Ooh, it was concentric circles of organization.
I don't care.
I don't care.
How about looking down?
At the 200 million hands reaching through the earth of being buried, alive, tortured and slaughtered under communism.
I don't care about your goddamn org chart.
She goes on to say, in my childhood these distinctions did not exist for me.
The people who came to our Bronx apartment, all were present at the fundraising parties we attended, the rallies we went to and the May Day parades we marched in, were all simply progressives.
At the kitchen table they drank tea, ate black bread and herring.
Oh, wait a minute.
Black bread and herring.
I was born in Ireland.
I grew up in England.
Spent a little bit of time in Africa.
Live in Canada.
I've never been offered tea and black bread and herring all at the same time.
Because I would consider that not a very hospitable gesture.
So this must be a sort of non...
European culture that this comes from.
Non-European culture.
You can Google black bread and herring.
Just see where it ends up because yay immigration, right?
Okay.
So she talks about this black bread and herring, goes on to say, and talked issues.
I understood nothing of what they said, but I was always excited by the richness of their rhetoric, the intensity of their arguments, the urgency and longing behind that hot river of words that came pouring ceaselessly from them.
So apparently, political discourse in these circles is just a kind of Disco vomit that just comes out.
It's like coughing up a furball of determinism and class resentment.
Again, have we heard anything about communism at the moment?
No.
It's syrupy, flaming, burning, hallmark, sentimental nostalgia for something with no emotional content whatsoever.
This is all propaganda, you understand.
Propaganda.
She goes on to say, they were voyagers on that river.
Because I'm not ashamed to mix my metaphors at all.
She goes, they were voyagers on that river, these plumbers, pressers, and sewing machine operators.
And they took with them on their journey, not only their own narrow, impoverished experience, but also a set of abstractions with transformative powers.
Can a brother get a syllogism once in a while?
Can we get any content whatsoever?
Ideas that have transformative powers?
Listen, honey, class resentment is not magic.
Communism is a worldwide slaughterhouse.
It's not goddamn Hogwarts.
She goes on to say, when these people sat down to talk, politics sat down with them, ideas sat down with them, above all, history sat down with them.
Not an argument!
Oh, I'm going to go to my grave.
A hand's going to come out like a horror movie, but after I'm dead, not an argument!
It's going to be on my gravestone.
It's going to be tattooed on the back of my neck.
History walked with them.
Yes, take abstractions and anthropomorphize them, because that's how you stoke the resentment of fools.
Anyway, she goes on to say, they spoke and thought within a context that lifted them out of the nameless, faceless obscurity into which they had been born.
Ah, here we are starting to see what is really going on.
Nameless, faceless obscurity into which they had been born.
Remember I said it was incompetence and low ability, the resentment of recognizing where you stand in the pecking order and the pyramid of value to society, at least from an economic standpoint?
See, they were just born into this nameless, faceless obscurity.
There was no way for them to lift themselves out of it, apparently, because they bought into this idea of class determinism.
Nonsense.
Absolute nonsense.
Listen, I was born single mom, Incredibly poor household eviction notices.
I've been paying my own bills since I was 15 years old.
With some help, right?
But basically responsible for putting bread in my own mouth since I was 15 years old.
You know, if you don't like where you were born, stand up, brush off the giant sticky cobwebs of class-based and economic determinism, climb the stairs, hard, trembling legs one at a time, deal with the anxiety of a fundamental change in your station, and get the hell to where you want to be, if you're able.
But just saying, well, I was just born here, and the only way I can change my circumstances, the only way I can get some money, the only way I can be successful, is if a lot of people die, and I surrender the freedoms, which is the only way I can become successful, I surrender those freedoms to a small cadre of pointy-bearded sociopaths.
I gotta tell you, I'd like to see your Plan B. Because your Plan C, i.e.
Communism, Anyway, this nameless, faceless obscurity, and that's a trigger.
That's a trigger for guilt, right?
For successful people to say, but look, there are all these people born into this nameless, faceless obscurity.
They can't get out.
They're stuck.
They're sad.
Keep the money.
So, into which they'd be born, and gave them, she says, the conviction that they had rights as well as obligations.
You do have rights.
Do you know what they're called?
They're called property rights, which means you get to keep what you make, you get to keep what you earn, you get to keep what you create.
It also means stop stealing from other people.
You do have rights.
Rights of contract, rights of liberty, rights of free speech, rights of property.
Stop complaining!
What you are talking about is you want a right to other people's stuff by force.
Thou shalt not steal.
But rights means rights to other people's stuff in the communist world.
Because that's, you know, I want a right to resources that I can't otherwise earn or refuse to otherwise earn so that I can have as many babies as rich people.
And anyway, she goes on to say, they were not simply the disinterested, sorry, they were not simply the disinherited of the earth.
They were the proletarians with a founding myth of their own, the Russian Revolution, and a civilizing worldview, Marxism.
So here she's saying it's a religion, which of course it is.
Marxism has to elbow aside Christianity because it wishes to make the world not the potential for heaven, but the reality of hell.
They have to replace the church with the state, and the Christian church largely converts by the word.
The Marxist state converts by the sword, like a couple of other ideologies still cooking around the world these days.
But dear God in heaven, Marxism is a civilizing worldview.
Marxism is a system wherein the government controls all the property.
A small number of people have universal property rights over everyone else's property.
They get to choose what you have, what you don't have.
They get to choose where you live, what you do for an occupation.
You are worse than a serf.
You are barely better than a slave.
In fact, you're worse off than a slave.
Because a slave, back in the days of slave ownership, used to cost about as much as a small car, which meant the slave owner had...
A, an incentive to keep you healthy, right?
In the same way that, you know, if you have a car, you don't usually just never change the oil and drive it until the engine block is a molten brick of dysfunction.
But in communism, you are completely disposable to the powers that be.
Because once you have the power of universal property rights, which is, of course, not property rights, as we would know it, because rights should be universal, and only the People at the top who have their nice dachas on the Black Sea, only the people at the top, the inner party, they have control over everyone.
Once you have control over property and you have control over prices, you have the power of life and death.
People disagree with you.
They have no right to their income.
They have no right to their home.
They have no right to their food.
They have no right to their clothing.
You can take all of that away.
Once you give only some people the right to control property and deny it to everyone else, those people you give that right to control property to have the power of life and death over the entire society in which they live.
If you have no property, you have no rights.
You have no right for free speech if you can't own a computer, if you can't own pen and paper, if you can't own the capacity to produce a sign.
If you don't have any place to do your protest, you have no right of free speech.
You have no right to life.
If the government can control whether you get food or not, let's look at Venezuela.
Property is the same as human rights.
Wherever you see property rights dissolved, you see human rights dissolved.
There is no distance between these two concepts.
All rights are founded on property rights.
If you don't have the right to own what you create, to own what you trade, to own what is given to you, you have no right to exist.
She goes on to say, but this is what she calls a humanizing principle.
She goes on to say, while it is true that thousands of people joined the Communist Party in those years because they were members of the hardscrabble working class, garment district Jews, West Virginia minors, California fruit pickers.
It was even truer that many more thousands in the educated middle class, teachers, scientists, writers joined because for them, too, the party was possessed of a moral authority.
That lent shape and substance through its passion for structure and the eloquence of its rhetoric to an urgent sense of social injustice.
I mean, barnyard animals being randomly hit by cattle prods make more coherent sets of syllables.
Dear God, this means nothing!
It is a dog whistle to failure and resentment, to rise up and steal from others.
You don't want to be a minor.
Read a whole bunch of books.
Train yourself into becoming something different.
Don't want to be a fruit picker.
Read a bunch of books.
Learn some math.
Train yourself into something different.
Now, maybe, just maybe, you don't have the capacity.
Maybe you've got an IQ of 80 or 70.
In which case, you won't understand this, but it's much better if resources accumulate to the rich who can then create a whole bunch of wealth, which can then...
Raise your standard of living.
But you don't expect people with low IQs to understand that, which is one of the reasons they're so susceptible to all of this.
Hey, you don't have to wait for the free market to slowly raise your standard of living.
What you can do, what I will do on your behalf, is go and steal money from the rich who've stolen it from you and give it back to you.
And then we all get to starve.
You know what's great too?
Is that as automation increases, we would actually, in general, prefer that smarter people have more kids because there's less and less place for the less and less intelligent and more and more technological society.
So how's it going to work when we have giant welfare states that take money from the competent and give it to the less competent, causing them to have even more kids at a time when those less competent jobs or jobs for less competent people are vanishing because of automation?
See, the government programming, the welfare state is a eugenics program.
It's a eugenics program.
It is using government force to alter breeding patterns in society.
Absolutely, completely and totally.
It is a eugenics program, the welfare state.
And it's really working at cross-purposes with what the remnants of the free market are doing.
And this is where one of the great challenges is going to happen in this world.
Hey, more and more jobs are being automated.
Do you know what would be a great plan?
When there's less and less need for less able workers.
Hey, let's bring a bunch of people in from the third world.
Excellent.
I guess there'll be lawyers too.
Oh, and look at all the people she's talking about.
Teachers.
Hey, who do teachers work for?
The state.
Scientists.
Well, the majority of scientists these days work for the state or are dependent on state grants.
Writers.
Well, after the communists took over the media in the 1920s and the 1930s and the 1940s, sure, writers preferred to be communists because that's how you got jobs, at least until...
Joseph McCarthy came and flipped the light on so that everyone could see what was eating the fridge spill of the future.
And sure, those people, those groups all want free stuff.
It lent shape and substance.
To an urgent message of social injustice.
See, and if you want to understand what the phrase social justice means, it's actually pretty simple.
Justice means equality of opportunity.
Social justice means equality of outcome.
Justice means freedom.
Social justice means compulsion.
It's really not that complicated.
She goes on to say, And sometimes died with miners in Appalachia, farm workers in California, steel workers in Pittsburgh.
What made it all real were the organizations the party built, the International Workers Order, the National Negro Congress, the Unemployment Councils.
Whenever some new world catastrophe announced itself throughout the Depression in World War II, the daily workers sold out in minutes.
And, yeah, I mean, there is this idea, of course, that the communists were very sympathetic to the plight of blacks in the United States.
However, this was, and I've talked about this on the show before, this was adopted in the early 1920s by the Comintern, the International Communist Organization, that they wished to provoke class conflict and race conflict, in particular in the United States, as a way of destabilizing freedom.
And we can see that that, you know, they play a long card.
We're coming up to the 100-year anniversary, and sadly, their plan is coming along immediately.
Very, very well.
She goes on to say, No reward of life,
no love, nor fame, nor wealth could compete with the experience.
It was this all-in-allness of world and self that all too often made of the communists, true believers, who could not face up to the police state corruption at the heart of their faith, even when a three-year-old could see that it was eating itself alive.
The hell?
What the hell?
Who writes this?
Who reads it?
Who thinks this is anything worth publishing?
They were addicted to this all-in-allness of world and self?
Are you the true believers?
It's not a belief system.
It's a goddamn cult.
It's all this feel-good bullshit.
Make me one with everything, said the skeptic to the Buddhist hot dog stand.
And this idea that communism was eating itself alive?
No, no, no, no.
You know, communism was eating everyone else alive.
She goes on to say, People on the left.
Triggered by facts.
Emotionally hyper-reactive to basic facts.
Management of one's own emotions.
Self-control.
Not, you know, total, you know, flatline spot system, but knowing that you have passions and knowing how to shape and focus them in the right direction.
I have a passion for music.
I'm going to do scales.
I have a passion for the truth.
I'm going to study philosophy and build my principles from the ground up.
Blank slate!
Principles from the ground up.
I have a passion for dance, so I'm going to do lots of stretching and do lots of practice and do lots of strength exercises.
It's being able to shape your passions into something productive.
But less able, less competent people.
Their passions overwhelm them and take them over, which is what makes them so dangerous.
Nazi!
Punch!
Boom!
Bricks at people who want free speech.
It's going on in Paris right now, today, May 1st, 2017.
Emotional hyper-reactivity is a sign of low intelligence.
It's a sign of low ability.
And it's what's triggered.
It's why these people have these incredibly enraging myths like, you're poor because other people are rich.
They've exploited and stolen from you.
This doesn't just happen within third world countries.
It happened between the first and the third world countries.
It's the third world countries.
You're poor because the first world stole all your resources.
Yeah, right.
Because oil was so valuable in Saudi Arabia before the internal combustion engine was invented by Europeans.
She says, I was beside myself with youthful rage.
Lies!
I screamed at them.
Lies and treachery and murder and all in the name of socialism, in the name of socialism!
Yeah, that's pretty much St.
Thomas of Aquinas back and forth right there.
You guys are like Rand heroes.
I'm actually just getting stereotypical Rand villains.
But this is lies, screaming, crying, raging, staring off into space.
This is what happens when cultists meet basic reality.
When you have built your personality on a set of exploitive lies.
Anyway, she goes on to say, confused and heartbroken, they pleaded with me to wait and see.
This couldn't be the whole truth.
It simply couldn't be.
But it was.
So this is when Khrushchev was talking about the cult of personality that Stalin had engendered.
And this was the beginning of the end for leftist ideas, right?
The biological imperatives of wanting resources when you have low ability, that is still going on, of course, right?
I mean...
And so it didn't end the ideology, it ended the legitimacy of the ideology and this is what happened after this was The leftists stopped trying to convince people intellectually, and what they did was they just started importing third world people en masse into the West so that they could gain votes from third world people.
And they also provoked feminism, which drove women into the workforce and splintered and broke up the family, and they promoted family-destroying policies, no-fault divorce and all that kind of stuff.
And they created a massive imbalance in the family court system to favor women, because if you make women more mannish, you make men more feminine, which means that your society...
It's not able to protect itself, which is kind of what's going on in Europe at the moment and other places as well, Canada.
So they just did a whole bunch of stuff.
They brought in the welfare state.
There's the welfare state again.
Low is the value of masculinity in a society.
It makes women more managed, makes men more feminine.
And again, we have this nobody's out there patrolling the perimeters to defend the society anymore.
So they ended up just importing votes and buying votes because they couldn't win intellectually after the horrors of communism were revealed.
So she goes on to say the 20th Congress report brought with it political devastation for the organized left around the world.
Within weeks of its publication, 30,000 people in this country quit the party.
Within the year, it was as it had been in its 1919 beginnings.
A small sect on the American political map.
To be on the left is to have no...
Compassion, no empathy.
In my opinion, this has been my experience over these many decades of dealing with the left.
Because look, she's talking about the fact that Joseph Stalin, not even Russia, he's from Georgia.
Joseph Stalin...
Caused the deaths of tens of millions of people in Russia.
I mean, there was the holodomor, the starvation in Ukraine, the usual Cambodian-style Khmer Rouge horror show where you take all the land from the productive peasants.
Remember, Pareto principle, right?
Out of the 10,000 farmers in Ukraine, 100 were producing half the food, and that's why they had more land, because they were more competent.
Because they could get more money out of the land, they could afford to pay more for the land, right?
This is the price allocation system that works in the free market.
It makes sure that people best able to maximize resources get those resources.
But of course, what happens is the communists come in, and they say, oh, those people are rich because you're poor, they're stealing from you, and then they take all their land and give it to you, and everyone starves to death.
You know, if you clone Danny DeVito and replace all the NBA players with Danny DeVito's, the NBA would be destroyed.
But enough about ESPN. So here, this is my point, the basic cold-heartedness of the left.
They don't care.
They're greedy.
They want resources.
They don't have basic human empathy because here...
It has been revealed that that system which these people praised and tried to spread and worked to spread and successfully spread by the time of the 20th Congress, communism was close to taking over a third of the planet.
Hundreds of millions of people have been surrendered to totalitarian dictatorships that killed people, that raped women, that destroyed families, that slaughtered and starved and murdered and caused wars.
The amount of human suffering in even one of the people In the hundreds of millions trapped in the communist abattoir of human disassembly, even one of those people to think of that person's suffering is almost beyond imagination.
So when they had unleashed this satanic system on the world where it consumed the lies, Of tens and tens and tens of millions of people.
Helpless people.
Not even in a war where you can fight back.
Trapped, cornered, pulled from their beds.
At four o'clock in the morning by jackbooted thugs with stony faces.
That they had unleashed this hell on the world.
That they had praised a system that slaughtered people by the tens of millions.
And what is she upset about?
What is she upset about?
Well, you see, it brought about political devastation of the Communist Party in America.
Forget the tens of millions of people murdered by communists.
The big problem was, you see, 30,000 Americans quit the Communist Party after they found out it was stone evil.
That's the big problem, you see.
We lost membership.
Fuck all the people slaughtered by communism.
Our membership rolls, you see, went down.
That's the problem.
Do you understand?
Do you understand how insane This type of thinking is.
She says the effective life of the Communist Party in the United States was approximately 40 years in length.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans were communists at one time or another during those 40 years.
Many of these people endured social isolation, financial and professional ruin, and even imprisonment.
It was at least two and a half times worse than Nazism.
And I don't think people on the left are saying, well, it's really, really bad that open Nazis in society endure social isolation, financial, professional ruin, and even imprisonment.
Are you kidding me?
Leftists continually attack people's reputations, go after their source of income, try to get conservative hosts off the air all the time.
All the time.
They cry out in pain as they strike you, these leftists, right?
But you see, if you genuinely are on the side of evil, if you are a total communist, then it's suddenly bad that you might, into your social isolation, financial and professional ruin it, even imprisonment.
Again, only empathy for those on the side of evil, not empathy for the victims of that evil, the 100 million plus killed.
Estimates go way higher from some people up to 150 million.
She says, they were two generations of Americans whose lives were formed by political history, as were no other American lives save those of the original revolutionists.
History is in them and they are in history.
Oh boy, wouldn't that be nice if they were just in history.
This sentimentality, these blood-soaked hallmark cards of narcissistic whining are just absolutely astonishing and horrifying to hear.
We must wake up to the evils of communism.
They're not dead.
Governments continue to spread.
Governments continue to control prices.
You can never have efficient allocation of resources, which sounds like a very abstract phrase, but is literally the foundation upon which billions of human lives rely on the moment.
They rely on the efficient allocation of resources.
The best farmers must have The best farmland.
If they don't, hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.
Do you understand?
The lives of billions hang on.
Competent people getting the resources they need to keep hundreds of millions of people alive.
And you can keep clawing at and undermining the 1% who pay most of the taxes.
We are an inverse pyramid of survival.
We rest on such a tiny number of highly competent people.
That you can continue to shred and create resentment, create hatred for the competent people who keep all of us alive.
Maybe that's how they plan to get to this radically reduced human population.
It sure as hell seems to be happening.
In Venezuela, Brazil seems to be heading that way.
Africa seems to be heading that way.
Maybe this is how they achieve their radical depopulation.
Maybe this hatred We never hate people fundamentally.
We only hate reality.
In reality, we shoot the messenger of people who bring reality to us.
But we hate reality when we're that pathological, if we are.
And maybe this hatred of competence and hatred of the rewards of competence, the additional resources.
They look at rich people and they don't see rich people have, in the free market, usually generated their wealth.
By serving the masses, by creating value, by creating efficiency, by pleasing people in a voluntary environment.
