From the collectivist view a person is simply a thing to be used. A
tool. The fact that a person has a complete life outside of the alleged
goals of the collective is completely blanked out. To the collectivist
the full human life is completely meaningless.
And because a person is seen as simply a tool it does not matter if it
breaks as a result of being misused. The tool can simply be disposed of
and replaced, as were the men in Benghazi.
Hillary Clinton’s open contempt for the people serving under her is
perfectly normal for a collectivist. In
The Mask Of Command, historian John
Keegan recounts an incident where Adolf Hitler was having dinner served
to him in the dining car of his private train when it stopped at a
station. When another train loaded with wounded soldiers returning
from the Eastern Front stops beside Hitler's private train. Hitler had
the stewards in the dining car pull down the shades so he wouldn't have
to see the other train and the wounded passengers.
The battle of Gettysburg is seen by historians as the high water mark of
the Confederate cause. But what was the cause of the Confederacy? In my present view it was Elitism.
The Southern states were politically dominated by the slave holding
class. A group of men who saw themselves as entitled to the labor of
African slaves and the obedience of common white men. With the wealth
and free time taken from the backs of their slaves they came to dominate
the Southern states of the American Republic. The rise of the
Republican party came as a result of the citizens of the North becoming
tired of the abuses inflicted by the Southern Elites. The Southern
Elites saw no alternative to preserve their class privileges but to
leave The Union.
The War of Succession was presented to the common citizens of the South
as a struggle for liberty but the fact was that the actual objective was
to preserve the power of the Elites. When conscription was imposed on
the South the slave holding class was essentially exempt from it. The
true view of the common citizens by the Elites was made clear for the
first time.
With the defeat at Gettysburg the cause of the Confederacy and the Elites who ruled it had no place to go but down.
So why would Barack Obama, someone was generally identified as a
Marxist, decline to participate in the ceremonies at Gettysburg?
Because Marxism is an elitist doctrine. It was created by a
self-appointed elite for the benefit of the self-appointed elite.
Marx, Engels, and their subsequent followers, saw themselves, without
qualification, as the masters of the actually rational and productive
citizens of their nations. Their efforts, as with the Southern Elites,
were to control and use people for their own benefit. Regardless of
their public statements the natural inclination of the Marxists is to
side with their fellow users of humanity.
On this basis it's no surprise that The Big Zero was a no show at
Gettysburg.
Some assholes were celebrating the birthday of Karl Marx.
So what?
Marx was a raving antisemite. Old school Progressives (the ones they
NEVER teach you about in the public schools) had "issues" with those
they saw as the "inferior" races. (Africans, Jews, Asians, etc.) And
eliminating those who don't fit into the collective makes perfect sense
to a collectivist. I've come to the conclusion that anyone who
sees another person as either a tool to be used, or as trash to be
disposed of, is essentially a Leftist. (Which pretty much puts me to the
right of Attila the Hun.)
We must understand that Marxism is
essentially a Master/Slave ideology. If you pardon me for quoting Karl Marx, "from each according to their ability, to each
according to their needs." And for the socialists, as with the
antebellum slaveholders, the needs of the masters will always be much
greater than the needs of the slaves.
The socialist master class,
both here in the United States and abroad, basically see themselves
being dispossessed of what according to their ideology is rightfully
theirs. Control of their slaves and the products of slave labor. What
should not be a surprise to us is that the response of the socialist
master class and their supporters is in many ways similar to the actions
of the antebellum slaveholder class and their supporters.
Those
who reject the chains of the Left are subjected to public ridicule and
slander by the self-styled intellectuals and subject to physical
violence by the goon squad, with the ski-mask replacing the white sheet
as the attire of choice. If you will pardon me for the use of
shocking language, to the master class of the Left, we who reject the
chains of Socialism are (regardless of our actual race) no better than a
bunch of "Uppity Niggers." It should be no surprise to us that they are
treating us as such. If we want to go on the ideological
offensive we should simply point out
the fact that the socialist economic structure is based on SLAVE LABOR. If
you will pardon me for repeating this, "from each according to his
ability -- to each according to his need." Is the literal description of
a slave labor economic system. It is invariably the full
socialist states such as the Soviet Union, the Third Reich, and the
various People's Republics of Whatever that build and depend on
full-service slave labor camps to create the goods that they need to
survive. It is the socialist parties in the otherwise Capitalist
nations of the West that act as if wealth, the product of everyone's
thought and labor, belong not to the individual who created it, but to
some manifestation of the collective (Der Volk, the World Proletariat,
etc.) as a whole, and thus act as if a robbery has occurred when the
true creators of wealth are allowed to keep some of it.
The
socialist is for the most part someone who declines to live the
essentially rational and productive life that is proper to Man, and
instead goes to great lengths (including the total disconnect from
reality) to cook up excuses to grab the wealth created by others. As if
the goods and services created by others were something naturally found
in nature. Instead of living as rational men, socialists choose instead
to exist as less than rational animals. Perhaps we should start
treating them as such.
Killing a Marxist is not an act of murder, it it an act of self defense.
And Free Tommy Robinson. Punishing a man for an act he did not commit is unjust. Imprisoning a
man for speaking the truth is tyrannical. Disarming the citizens -- who
are the sovereign authority of the nation -- is treason.
To say anything more would require the extensive use of barracks language.
