AntiFa Are The Descendants of Karl Marx’s Revolution

Editors Note: This is an old post that was re-posted with updated analysis for the current day in light of increasing violence and unrest in the streets, rallies, and protests by AntiFa.

Today Marx’s sympathizers and his actual modern day acolytes like to make distinctions between words like communist, socialist, marxist, etc. Considering the  history of Communism in the 20th century, I guess for good reason.  What many people haven’t considered is the violence that Marx himself advocated in order to achieve system overhaul and his proletariat revolution.

“I am a revolutionist. I want to march in the shadow of the great Robespierre. Let blood drip from my hands. Let blood flow through the streets and victory shall be ours. Here is what virtuous citizens would say to you if he, our great lord and master, Robespierre were still alive today.

 

When an overcrowded vessel is caught at sea in a violent storm, a part of the crew is thrown overboard to save the rest, and so we must kill those citizens who stand against us in order that righteousness may prevail. So let us kill. Let us exterminate the bourgeois in order to save society from catastrophe. We will save them, or we will kill them and save them. It is their choice.”

Marx had entered Paris in February of 1848 and on March 4th he gave this speech to one of the revolutionary cells there.  Most people have never heard of this speech called the “I am a revolutionist speech.”   To be fair, nether did I. Marx’s speech was his endorsement of what would become the foundation of this new revolutionary religion that would engulf much of Europe during the revolutions of 1848.

Continue reading “AntiFa Are The Descendants of Karl Marx’s Revolution”

Doubting The Faith, But Demanding A Purpose

For those of you who don’t know, I was raised as a Christian.  In fact, I still retain many elements of a Christian worldview.  However, it would be disingenuous to call myself one considering I am not practicing nor embracing key parts of the faith.  I am still highly sympathetic to the overall Christian community

To be honest, I’m not completely sure what I believe.   Most of those who leave the faith usually do for reasons of outright rebellion. It is fair to say that I am in a rebellion of sorts, but I still don’t see it as a enough of a reason to completely throw out my worldview.

My “deviation” from the faith has taken place within the last year or so and has been for mostly carnal reasons – engaging in pre-marital sex and a kind of enjoyable narcissism – yet I remain very conflicted.    I enjoy my current life of sinful pleasure, to the point of willful rebellion, but I am fully aware of it.

My father raised me with a Christian worldview, specifically one that deals.  heavily with presuppositional thinking – something that I filter every idea through.   It has caused me to become somewhat of a philosopher at heart.   I’ve looked for alternatives to the faith, but I have not found any viable ones.  I know I am not alone in this predicament.

Most of my friends who became Atheists, Agnostics, or whatever else did so for the reason as to be absolved of responsibility to a specific moral authority.   They are essentially advocates of a moral relativism that allows them to do whatever they wish at this particular time.   I see why they do this and it is an easy route.  I however feel that is shallow.

At my core, I am desperate for a worldview that isn’t dependent on human reason for it’s moral standards, its tenants, and its suggested purpose of life.  Because of this, I find the concept of appealing to human reason through human reason to be circular logic and foolish.

The problem for me is that if I ditch religion, science can’t actually provide me with answers to the major questions of reality, not to mention that science is totally useless on moral questions.  One person pointed this idea out on a comment thread:

“Science, properly defined and understood, explicitly refuses to even get involved in the most important questions. Life, the Universe, Everything. Science stops with a firm thud at the Big Bang, saying nothing at all about what came before or even if that question is even a meaningful one. Science can’t come to grips with Why.

Currently I am at this odd crossroads of depressing philosophical thought:  If there is no absolute truth of any kind – might makes right.  Influence, power, and money make right.  The implication is too scary for me to accept.   Instead I suggest like the X-Files says, “The Truth Is Out There.”  I really hope it is.

I have come to ponder upon the idea that life is short.  I could die tomorrow.  Any of us could.

I am not daft however.


What To Do?

I don’t want to live as a hedonistic narcissist because of this acknowledgment, but I also want to enjoy every last second I have – while still planning and anticipating the future.  Yes, I feel as if I am consumed by cognitive dissonance.

In the Bible, the first chapter of Ecclesiastes covers the concept of vanity, something that has created in me a philosophical mood and outlook that is seriously and worryingly quite pessimistic.

16 I said in my heart, “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.

18 For in much wisdom is much vexation,
    and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

Hate the Bible or not, this is a valid and important point.  The more “knowledge” we acquire, the more despondent and pessimistic we become.    Getting that college degree, large house with a white picket fence, a family and children, ect seems almost useless and vain.  What’s the point? Shouldn’t I just become a complete hedonist and live every moment like it’s my last?

We all die at some point. Nothing can go with us, and we have no idea if there is any kind of afterlife or not.

This disturbs me because the idea of an afterlife is often the only thing that inspires people to be “good” – and I shudder at how relative the idea of what is “good” has become in modern society.   In the modern world, “good” is simply determined by who has the biggest megaphone on social media and who is driving the current accepted cultural narrative of “good.”   That is comforting, and yes, anyone with a brain can see that the assertion I just made is correct.

People mention we are progressing in concern to humanity and what is “good”, but no one seems to have a destination in mind as to exactly where we are progressing.   I.E. -” Like in art when a work is described as ‘significant’ – Significant of what?”  

If good is as relative as everyone these days insist it is – because absolute truth is such a dangerous concept – then what is there to stop us from evil besides the threat of punishment from a government for whatever is accepted as “evil” in our current time?

Quintus Curtius from the manosphere brings up an important point about this:

Man cannot be exhorted to do good by words alone; he must be held in the grip of terror by a religion that promises damnation if he misbehaves. Religion provides the backing to a moral code that rises above man; the myths, fables , and stories of religion are there for a purpose, and that purpose is to impart a moral code that can keep man’s baser instincts in check.

Curtius, Quintus (2014-09-05). Thirty Seven: Essays On Life, Wisdom, And Masculinity (p. 27).

“He also needs myths to sustain him, to console him in his bereavements, to provide a code to anchor his life, and to impart a sense of meaning to this mortal existence. Snatch away his mythos, rob him of his ideal, and you banish his spirit to a rudderless drifting in life’s drama. It is a cruel fate, and one that is far too common. But for some men, the myth is strong. And it is the last thing to die.”

– Curtius, Quintus (2014-09-05). Thirty Seven: Essays On Life, Wisdom, And Masculinity (p. 25).

As the great Christian thinker and philosopher Francis Schaeffer would say, “How then should we live?” Like Shaeffer, I desire an absolute of some kind – in his case the Bible – as to which I can conduct my life and evaluate society.    There is an interesting point about Schaeffer’s interpretation of the moral quandary impacting modern society in his, “How Then Should We Live” series:

“When we base society on humanism, which he defines as “a value system rooted in the belief that man is his own measure, that man is autonomous, totally independent”,[6] all values are relative and we have no way to distinguish right from wrong except for utilitarianism.[7] Because we disagree on what is best for which group, this leads to fragmentation of thought,[8] which has led us to the despair and alienation so prevalent in society today.

I am feeling this despair.  I don’t know honestly know how to solve it, but I fear that the longer I go without an answer, the more worried I become about my future.   I want to retain the Christian faith that I had, but the “faith” part is lacking.

I am eagerly exploring “alternatives”, but there seems to be no worldview out there which doesn’t require a fundamental leap of faith at its core to begin it’s particular journey.   Yes, science can give us facts, but it can’t answer metaphysical issues nor these two questions which pop into my head every day:

What is my purpose in this life? How should I live my life knowing that tomorrow isn’t guaranteed?

In fact, where do I go from here? What do I do?  How should I live?   Is there any conclusion whatsoever that isn’t fallible and based on the assumption of humanity? I have become stuck in a circular spacial vacuum of uncertainty and I don’t like it.

Warning! Trigger Warning! Warning About That Trigger…

A Bad Joke

The internet used to be a rough and tumble place filled with danger, memes, and shocking images.  AIM chatrooms and IRC chats were uncharted digital waters; it might be a fellow teenager or someone your grandpa’s ages trying to get in touch with the youth culture. 4Chan and Reddit could still be used as a pleasant shock to confirm to your parents snooping on your browser history that you were indeed being corrupted by contemptible basement dwelling peers.

Since then some have sought to brought order to that Wild West of devious trolling minds.  In the last decade we have embraced this odd new idea of “safe spots” in not just where our home page lies, but where we surf, the social media feeds we receive.

Just recently I was appropriately – or inappropriately – given a firm tongue lashing on Facebook for a status remarking my enjoyment of the humor behind a recent Bill Burr standup in which he mentioned a joke he had seen at a restaurant, “We like our beer like our violence; domestic.”  Considering the kind of humor I enjoy, I thought this was rather tame.    (On that subject, be careful. Even being a Muslim and poking fun at “Trigger Warnings” might not save you from the wrath of SJWs.)

I had just committed one those terrible internet sins of offending someone.  Well fuck me, I don’t know how I’ll cope. Now apparently, anything offensive – that could literally be anything these days  – needs a trigger warning less the innocent childlike minds of passive observers suffer a PTSD like reaction to the content. But I wouldn’t have given this subject as much thought had a big deal not been made. All good conversations and provoking thought processes start through humor – apparently at someone’s expense.

Invading The Campus

This wouldn’t be as big a deal if were just simply limited to social media.  However, it’s started to make its way into our universities – the places where we are supposed to branch out from our sheltered existences on the rural farm and realize how the real world works at a place at an institution of higher learning. Examine Oberlin University, which in a shocking turn of event’s and mass criticism threw the below wisdom out the window. 

So what advice did Oberlin have for professors whose course material might contain potential “triggers”? In a section entitled “Understand triggers, avoid unnecessary triggers, and provide trigger warnings” (authors’ emphasis), the guide asked professors to “remove triggering material when it does not contribute directly to the course learning goals” and to “[i]ssue a trigger warning” when such material could not be eliminated altogether.

Notice that the professors were asked to remove trigger material. Think of the implications. Are we not going to talk about murder, rape, and genocide in history classes because they could be triggering?   How far will/can we go?  I guess we should ignore the Armenian genocide and not talk about it because the topic could make students feel uncomfortable or adhering to certain Holocaust deniers in which the subject might make them feel uncomfortable.  Got to be tolerant to everyone right?

Oberlin would go farther to indicate what else could could be considered “triggering.

Amazingly, Oberlin also noted that “[a]nything could be a trigger—a smell, song, scene, phrase, place, person, and so on.”

That essentially means that almost every possible space on campus could be considered triggering.  The smell of fresh vegetables at the cafeteria could be triggering.   What happens when it’s applied to serious topics?

Harvard for example has many students actually request that professors avoid teaching about the law regarding topics like rape.  Yea, that’s right – Harvard.   

Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.

We could have an entire generation of lawyers who aren’t versed in certain fields of law because of just how triggering the topics are.   Apply that to other uncomfortable topics and the implications are troubling.  Since when did college – or any place of “higher” learning become a center for universities to treat students like children instead of adults? Disgusting.  Colleges need to ignore students who call for things like this, Trigger warnings should always be implemented, and force students to investigate all uncomfortable subjects thoroughly.  It’s called learning in the real world.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Let’s get some actual perspective on the concept of trigger warnings.  The whole idea of “trigger warnings” was at first was to warn people who ACTUALLY had PTSD of content that could make them relapse.  An entire new generation of sniveling writers and media however has decided to use trigger warnings for virtually every last damn thing that could possibly be considered, “offensive.”   Suprisingly …shudder … Buzzfeed did a  thorough and thoughtful expose on the history and current use of the Trigger Warning.

It’s spread to academia into classrooms and Syllabi.  Suggestions have been made to give the Bible a trigger warning. What’s next? Huckleberry Finn? Halo? Shakespeare?  Will everything at some point have a trigger warning? Finally, some journalists have realized that the abuse of the concept is destroying its validity.

A recent article in The Guardian of all places detailed the overuse of phrase. That right there – the overuse – is the real tragedy here.  This “Crying Wolf” via Trigger Warnings is turning the idea into a technique so common that it LOSES its meaning. It is destroying the the actual impact that needed – rarely employed -Trigger Warnings should have.

Of course there is plenty of blame to go around, but fingers can be pointed at the SJW crowd and whatever-the-hell-kind-of-feminist-faction on places like Tumblr, Reddit, ect.  Feminist publications such as Ms. Magazine, the appropriately named Bitch Magazine, and Feministe, were among the first to utilize the Trigger Warning (TW).   Fun fact: Abusing and marginalizing the idea through the overuse of TWs makes you a bitch. 

What this entails is a damning embarrassment to people with actual PTSD, not people who have uncomfortable experiences being cat-called in public.  Besides the hypocritical ignorance of “multiculturalism” think of the horror!  This nonsense trivializes people who have actual PTSD.  What does real PTSD look like? Let’s take a look through the annals of history which most of our population have forgotten existed – and we keep wondering why history keeps repeating itself.  We shall start with shell-shock the ancestor and real first example of PTSD after combat.

Let’s look at another video on the subject and pay close attention to 2:11-2:25.  That reaction to just an officer’s red hat is real and actual PTSD.

Imagine knowing someone who reacts to nothing, except the word “bomb.” Or a friend who develops a facial muscle tick after having stabbed/bayoneted someone in the face.  A French soldier in World War 1 wrote about the brutal environment of the battle of Verdun and what he describes is what gives cause to real PTSD

“At Verdun the ones who have suffered the most are the wounded and, along with them, the stretcher-bearers who transport them. Some of the bearers carry them from the front lines all the way to our post (1.5 kilometers); other ones take them in order to carry them off to Fleury and, having arrived there, the wounded have almost another 2 kilometers to go by stretcher before they can be transported by car. Imagine such a trip under the shells which hardly ever stop, through a landscape full of shell holes, tree trunks, and wrecked wire, through deep mud and, in certain areas, through clay where the stretcher-bearers sink down all the way to their waists, being forced to call for help to get themselves out of difficulty…”

Or this part of a letter from a soldier in 1916:

    “Anyone who has not seen these fields of carnage will never be able to imagine it. When one arrives here the shells are raining down everywhere with each step one takes but in spite of this it is necessary for everyone to go forward. One has to go out of one’s way not to pass over a corpse lying at the bottom of the communication trench. Farther on, there are many wounded to tend, others who are carried back on stretchers to the rear. Some are screaming, others are pleading. One sees some who don’t have legs, others without any heads, who have been left for several weeks on the ground…”

Real PTSD isn’t something we should trivialize. Note I’ve just scraped the bottom of the barrel by bringing up examples from World War.  I didn’t even bring up soldiers coming back from Overseas back to the States from Afghanistan and Iraq in particular.

These souls with real PTSD actually go out of their way to overcome it.  They work with professionals and their fellow soldiers to cope and deal with the PTSD instead of hiding from it and demanding a trigger warning at every street corner and website they encounter. Ignore the Description of the video, but observe again what actual PTSD is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5miBVm3B6tM

Even if you have PTSD from something such as rape, demanding a trigger warning and avoiding conversation about the subject won’t heal you.  It will simply let the experience continue to dramatically effect your life.  All the excuses in the world – no matter how damn valid – won’t change the situation you are in.  Get up from your slumber, seek to overcome your problem, and enjoy the life you have!   Life is short. You never know how much time you have. Don’t waste it.

P:S:  Also gentlemen, we’ve switched our top-secret patriarchy meeting to the underground volcano lair this week which is off the coast of Saudi Arabia.  

Bring cigars, fine scotch, and your male privilege cards.