Skip to main content

A ranking of social evils

These are the four greatest threats to freedom and the enjoyment of life and liberty, ranked in order of evil:

1. Postmarxism - Postmarxist socialism
2. Communism
3. Fascism
4. Casteism


The perfect society for a liberal and a democrat is a place where there is diversity so that each individual can pursue their own interests, have their own beliefs, pursue their own way of life and say what they wish to say.  A perfect society has a diversity of economies, political opinions and religions that respect each other's right to exist,  Nations are the unit of diversity.

A near perfect society is possible if the people within it are loyal and the laws do not remove the basic freedoms of the individual.

Individual freedoms are threatened from two sides, the first is Fascism (National Socialism)  in which a group within society amends laws and economics to favour the group above all others.  The second is extreme socialism in which a group of people decide that everyone should live according to a common way of life and belief.  Fascism is supported by "captains of industry" and aristocrats, and extreme socialism is nowadays imposed by people who like constrained living, such as, public or social employees and academics.  Public employees control groups of people and extend this to an idea of controlling everyone "for their own good".  Extreme socialism is supported by students and academics who only know institutional structures. (Note however that Fascism is a form of socialism - all modern tyrannies must appeal to the masses).

The greatest threat to modern society is from the latest form of extreme socialism, loosely describable as "Postmarxism".  It is extremely sophisticated and operates by exacerbating differences within society.  This polarisation of society into terrorists/the people, racists/antiracists, working class/capitalists etc. allows them to slowly introduce ever more repressive legislation that removes freedom of speech and action.

The core method of polarisation is "racism" in which the postmarxist extends the definition of "race" to mean any group of people, whether this group is based on ethnicity, nationality, belief or income.  It is then possible to characterise the antagonism of one group for another as "racist" and create a polarised narrative in the media that supports repression.  It is widely supported by journalists who use this narrative as a lazy way of writing articles to excite the ignorant.  Focussing on racism as a method of polarisation and division is the discovery of postmarxism and postmarxists deliberately introduce multiculturalism to perpetually renew discontent and division rather than healing differences.

The postmarxist does not trust any member of society to be "loyal". They do not allow that a person may have a particular belief but perform their social role impartially or for the benefit of a whole nation.  Given the opportunity the postmarxist will jettison the idea of a "loyal opposition" and have a one party socialist state.  They do not understand that freedom is diversity within a nation state and instead construe freedom as a society that behaves like children in a classroom.

See The Political Spectrum
Postmarxism is truly evil because it rejects diversity except as a weapon against itself.  It strives for a uniform, globalised culture where freedom will be but a memory.  Europe is the heart of this new disease although the British Labour Party is fully postmarxist.  The BBC is the main source of international postmarxist propaganda, most of their staff being poststructuralists. (See The BBC Guide to postmodern journalism).

Evil exacerbates difference to create fear, Good reconciles and allows diverse peoples and ideas to co-exist.

See also:

Postmodernism-poststructuralism-postmarxism

Nations are the unit of diversity

Communism and the education system

Labour confirms that multiculturalism is bad

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas

"The Falklands have always been Argentine" is taught to every Argentine child as a matter of faith.  What was Argentina during the time when it "always" possessed Las Malvinas?  In this article I will trace the history of Argentina in the context of its physical and political relationship with "Las Malvinas", the Falkland Islands.  The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands dates from a brief episode in 1831-32 so it is like Canada claiming the USA despite two centuries of separate development. This might sound like ancient history but Argentina has gone to war for this ancient claim so the following article is well worth reading. For a summary of the legal case see: Las Malvinas: The Legal Case Argentina traces its origins to Spanish South America when it was part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata.  The Falklands lay off the Viceroyalty of Peru, controlled by the Captain General of Chile.  In 1810 the Falklands were far from the geographical b
35 comments
Read more

Practical Idealism by Richard Nicolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi

Coudenhove-Kalergi was a pioneer of European integration. He was the founder and President for 49 years of the Paneuropean Union. His parents were Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austro-Hungarian diplomat, and Mitsuko Aoyama, the daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer, and huge landowner family in Tokyo. His "Pan-Europa" was published in 1923 and contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement. Coudenhove-Kalergi's movement held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. In 1927 the French Prime Minister, Aristide Briand was elected honorary president.  Personalities attending included: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann and Sigmund Freud. Figures who later became central to founding the EU, such as Konrad Adenauer became members . His basic idea was that democracy was a transitional stage that leads to rule by a new aristocracy that is largely taken from the Jewish "master race" (Kalergi's terminology). His movement was reviled by Hitler and H
1 comment
Read more

Membership of the EU: pros and cons

5th December 2013, update May 2016 Nigel Lawson, ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer,  recently criticised the UK membership of the EU , the media has covered his mainstream view as if he is a bad boy starting a fight in the school playground, but is he right about the EU? What has changed that makes EU membership a burning issue?  What has changed is that the 19 countries of the Eurozone are now seeking political union to escape their financial problems.   Seven further EU countries have signed up to join the Euro but the British and Danish have opted out.  The EU is rapidly becoming two blocks - the 26 and Britain and Denmark.   Lawson's fear was that if Britain stays in the EU it will be isolated and dominated by a Eurozone bloc that uses "unified representation of the euro area" , so acting like a single country which controls 90% of the vote in the EU with no vetoes available to the UK in most decisions.  The full plans for Eurozone political union ( EMU Stage
15 comments
Read more