Why Nothing is Anyone’s Fault

Unless you’re a straight white male, that is.

I’m inspired by this, and The Z Man’s essential knowledge series, to spit out a quick primer on the basic assumptions of the Cult of Modern Liberalism.  The linked piece is an article from “manosphere” site Return of Kings, on how feminism is cultural marxism.  Because I spend so much time around academia, I don’t appreciate how esoteric this stuff really is.  All feminism past Susan B. Anthony has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marxism Inc., and everyone in the ivory tower knows it, so there’s no reason to state it… which means that, when you encounter it in a classroom or on the street, you don’t know what’s behind it. (Feminists themselves don’t know it either, for the most part).

And so on down the line with every item on the Cult’s agenda.  They are all consistent, though of course batshit insane, consequences of Marxism.

Karl Marx infected Western thought with two lethal viruses.  The first, that human society is nothing but the clash of eternally antagonistic social classes, has been exhaustively explored elsewhere; you don’t need any more from me.  (That’s what the Return of Kings article is about — feminists consider all women, from the Queen of England on down, to be a special subset of the proletariat.  Just as the capitalists’ only goal is oppressing the proletariat, so men’s only goal is to oppress women.  Seriously — read your Engels).

The second is a logical consequence of the first, though so breathtaking in its implications that most people don’t want to think about it: If society is nothing but the clash of classes, then all of human culture — especially morality — is relative, because it, too, is nothing but a tool in the neverending class war.

Christians, for example, don’t try to follow Christ’s teachings because they’re True.  There is no Truth; there are only the provisional interests of a given social class.  The bourgeoisie preach Christianity because its “morality” — don’t steal, don’t covet, don’t murder — is good for keeping the proles down.  From this it follows that no Christian actually practices what he preaches, let alone actually believes it; anyone who says he does is either a cynical manipulator or suffering from “false consciousness.”

[Atheists, “brights,” and assorted other sperglords, you’re not off the hook — your endless sophomoric spat with the Magic Sky Fairy and his brain-dead minions keeps you docile in your corner of the internet… just where we bourgeois “believers” want you! You’ll never develop revolutionary consciousness while you’re busy being smug about the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Bwahahahaha!!]

With that, we’re already deep in the Marxists’ twilight schizo conspiracy world.  The One Truth….yeah yeah, I know, there is no such thing as Truth, but this One Thing is indisputably True, don’t ask me how, Marx himself didn’t know, just roll with it:

Everything anyone says or does is, consciously or unconsciously, nothing but a product of his “class situation.”

Freud did Marx a solid here.  Freud demonstrated that much — most — of human behavior is at least partially unconscious.  Humans are not the rational animal; we are seething sacks of unresolved neuroses, most of which were imprinted on us in earliest childhood.  Which confirms the commies’ point: What we think of as “morality,” e.g. rules of conduct based on our perception of Truth, is nothing more than superego, “successful identification with the father figure,” i.e. a social construction of the bourgeoisie.  Freudianism plus Marxism gives you the Frankfurt School, which argued that capitalism makes you crazy (and if you think it doesn’t, that’s “false consciousness”).

With that, you have the basic Leninist attitude, which is the SJW attitude, which is at the root of all evil today.  Marx believed that the “contradictions of capitalism” would give rise to a “revolutionary class” which would battle, and of course defeat, the capitalists and their bourgeois lackeys.  Lenin thought he and his merry band of murderers were that revolutionary class, with its brutal instrumentalist view of morality.  If morality is nothing but a weapon in the neverending class struggle, then anything, anything at all, that furthers the Revolution is justified.

Recognizing this is proof of one’s mental superiority.

Training yourself to actually put it into practice — to commit the “necessary murder” — makes one a superior human being, because now one is freed of God, morality, superego, all the chains of mental slavery loaded on you by the bourgeoisie.  “The urge to destroy is also a creative urge,” Bakunin said, and he meant it – one does not make an omelet, after all, without destroying some eggs.

Not that our modern SJWs know any of this, of course — they’re as ignorant of their own history as they are of everything else.  They’ve got the sneering superiority down pat, though, and they’ve never considered that so-called “morality” could be anything but instrumental.  How could they?  It’s just so obviously a sham; all the smart people say so.  Grant that, and everything else the modern Left loves falls into place:

Feminists love abortion, and I do mean love it — search Stacy McCain’s archives for the ravings of Amanda Marcotte to get a taste (hope you have a strong stomach).  Why?  Because Women are the Proletariat, they’re being oppressed by the Patriarchy, and nothing ties a woman down better than 9 months of crippling pregnancy followed by 18 years with the most fiendishly perfect time-suck ever devised.  Abortion gives women the free time to develop the necessary Revolutionary Consciousness.  Oh, and it riles the god-botherers up — you know, the ones who insist that “morality” is actually moral and not a tool of class war.  Dumbasses!

Brown people can do no wrong, even when their actions break every other tenet of the Church of Liberalism’s faith, because Frantz Fanon says imperialism turned all brown people, everywhere, into a revolutionary class.  And hey, if you want to be consistent about it, you have to admit that the CML’s faith is as instrumentalist as any other…. right? Fanon said ” to shoot down a European is to kill two birds with one stone, to destroy an oppressor and the man he oppresses at the same time.”  He believed it, and so, evidently, do they.

Finally, it explains the lack of cognitive dissonance.  Apologies to Gary, the official Rotten Chestnuts Cognitive Dissonance Czar, for putting you out of a job, but there you have it.  To the Vanguard of the Proletariat, anything and everything is a weapon.  There is no hypocrisy in their world, because to be a hypocrite one must betray one’s principles, and they don’t have any.  The superior man, who knows the truth of Marxist doctrine, knows the only Truth that is, was, or ever could be.  Flip-flopping like a fish — the ability to be for anything and everything before one is against it — is, perversely, a mark of superior intellect.  If you don’t see it, go back and say your catechism again: Human culture is nothing but the clash of economic classes…

3 thoughts on “Why Nothing is Anyone’s Fault

  1. Hence, Screwtape – if you can’t keep someone from being a Christian, put him in a faction or a camp. “Christianity AND.” The AND doesn’t even matter – it can even be a good thing itself – so long as the man regards Christ as a path to anything other than Heaven. Eventually and inevitably, the Christianity goes by the board and the AND is all that remains, strident and smug, with none of the redemption, grace, or virtue.

    What Screwtape didn’t add, but any of us will of course realize (thanks to all too many real-life examples), is that the attitude will eventually be more important than the AND, and whatever good thing it was will die on the vine, if it was ever any good to begin with. The attitude is on display everywhere, and is itself seen as the mark of virtue and grace to the True Believers.

  2. I remember reading somewhere a story told by an Victorian British explorer concerning the Dark Continent.

    His bushman guide began firing his weapon.
    When asked why everything in sight had been killed, the guide replied
    “This, because good to eat. That, because not good to eat.”

    There is no dissonance when there is no difference.

    And that is why I believe.

  3. Apologies to Gary, the official Rotten Chestnuts Cognitive Dissonance Czar, for putting you out of a job, but there you have it.

    There is no hypocrisy in their world, because to be a hypocrite one must betray one’s principles, and they don’t have any.

    I see your point and appreciate the apologies, but fear we’re all going to be damned sorry if this psycho-moral blight becomes so widespread that it obliterates what is IMHO an essential feature of a reasonable mind, CD — since one should not feel comfortable holding contradictory beliefs simultaneously.

    And the sort of person who has managed to extirpate this basic warning system from his thought processes becomes a warped, scary inhuman beast. People who, for example, seem to speak with conviction about open-mindedness, equality, fairness and the right to free expression — and then amass in mobs to nullify the speech of anyone whose ideas they dislike, shouting them down and deploying thug tactics of threatening, or actually using, violence (as recently happened to Charles Murray at Middlebury College).

    Are they simply cynical hypocrites who shift their opinions when convenient to maximize tactical advantage? Or are they some kind of brain-damaged hybrid that is incapable of realizing that their currently stated opinion or desire is utterly contradicted by what they sincerely stated just an hour (or minutes) before?

    I’m not sure which is worse, though there is at least some implicit acknowledgement from the rank hypocrite that there actually is a solid reality that absolutely forbids the existence of contradictions, that a horse cannot also be a cow. The other is like a robot with severely mangled programming, a zombie relentlessly trudging forward, demanding that society contort itself to accommodate and foster horse/cows — or else.

    How are we to reason with people whose thinking is inherently unreasonable?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *