https://t.me/MorgothsReview/3859

I think the original poster, No Chance, is on the right track, but we shouldn't just call Left-Wing activist groups "Far-Left extremists," we should also call Western governments "Far-Left extremists."

Globalism is the most extreme ideology in history, and it has all of the calling cards of the Far-Left: Abolition of nation, family, religion, property, tradition, combined with an incessant push for equality and egalitarianism.

Calling everything "Far-Left extremism" has more polemical value than appropriating the Left's favorite boogieman slur, "Neo-Liberal." The term is basically meaningless and was popularized by Left-Wing academics in the 1990s:

"Based on a content analysis of 148 journal articles published from 1990 to 2004, we document three potentially problematic aspects of neoliberalism’s use: the term is often undefined; it is employed unevenly across ideological divides; and it is used to characterize an excessively broad variety of phenomena." (Source)

Initially, Neo-Liberalism meant "new Classical Liberalism." Then, it meant "Pinochet is evil because he turned a Socialist shithole into the most prosperous country in Latin America."

Today, it is nonsensically used to describe our modern economies, which are heavily regulated (more than ever before in America) and mixed with all sorts of Socialist policies; welfare, redistribution, private-public partnerships, etc. — the Mont Pelerin Society would not approve.

Ironically, if the West really was Neo-Liberal (as in "new Classical Liberal"), many of our current problems would not exist. There would be no Affirmative Action, mass Third-World migration, public-private partnerships, or state-backed monopolies, less dysgenics, etc.

Obviously a more effective solution is simply to use the government to ban everything that you don't like, as Left has done with "Civil Rights" laws and, in Europe, "hate speech" laws.

John D. Rockefeller is a great example of why the theory that Left-Wing elites are simply Machiavellian, power hungry wealth hoarders falls short.

Rockefeller was a devout Baptist who was told by a preacher that he needed to become rich so that he could dedicate his life and wealth to philanthropy — and he did exactly that.

He loved Blacks, donating extensively to Black causes, attending Black church ceremonies, and so on. His wife was an abolitionist whose parents were part of the Underground Railroad.

His Rockefeller Foundation didn't bankroll Ellis Island immigrants for cheap labor, but out of a genuine desire to "help his fellow man."

These people weren't trying to trick anyone, they were 100% sincere in their Left-Wing beliefs.

This is not to say that non-elite Leftists are not Machiavellian, power hungry, etc., because they certainly are (or that all elite Leftists are sincere). However, they have a very different psychological profile to people like Rockefeller.

I suspect that many elites today are true believers and not Machiavellians. They go to college and have their brains pumped full of Left-Wing nonsense, just like everyone else.

They're probably more likely to be true believers than average street Leftists (who are definitely Machiavellian psychopaths) because they're completely shielded from the consequences of the insane nonsense that they believe and promote.

The Sexual Revolution's biggest achievement: Spreading disease.

Yes, things are going to get a lot worse in the short term, but their worldview will destroy the very tools and infrastructure they need to maintain power. Demanding Equality among pilots is bad enough, but demanding Equality among nuclear submarines in the Navy will be even worse.

"AI" and "automation" will not save them either, because those things still need a certain amount of social and economic stability to maintain. Equality Inc ensures an eventual increase in instability and incompetence that will undermine the maintenance let alone the progress of those things.

38% of Britons believe that "the world is controlled by a secretive elite."

33% disagree, 30% neither agree nor disagree.

(Source)

Fun fact: Marx and Engels claimed that heterosexual monogamous families are the root cause of societal oppression.

Their bogus theory of "Primitive Communism" claims that the natural state of human familial organization is a "promiscuous horde." Unsurprisingly, Marx was an adulterer and Engels had many mistresses but refused to marry.

In Origin of the Family, Engels writes: "The first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." He claims that the institution of patriarchy and "overthrow of [matrilineality] was the world historical defeat of the female sex" which "reduced women to servitude." They became "the slaves of male lust and mere instruments for the production of children."

Marx adds: "Fourier characterizes epochs of civilization by monogamy and landed private property. The modern family contains in germ not only slavery (servitus), but also serfdom [...] It contains in miniature all the contradictions which later extend throughout society and its state."

wtf i love scott adams now

In all seriousness a boomer like Scott mentally graduating to the appropriate level of conflict escalation on race relations, it's like a miracle, it needs to be studied and replicated.

(clipped the best bits, full video here)