The Root Of Communism Is Self-Hatred

I have an intolerable grievance with communists. In truth, my situation has passed far beyond any form of gentleman’s disagreement or matter of diverging political opinion. I no longer debate communism as if it held any merit whatsoever, and not even as a frivolous, impersonal abstraction, or a joke. Instead, I see it for the insidious, consequential, and very personal attack on my freedom that it is, and I will not humor its supporters any longer—for parasites deserve no standing.

One of the fundamental evils of communism is that its organizers don’t allow people to opt-out. Instead, they force a person to either submit or fight; there is no neutral ground where a pacifist can escape from their sickly and destructive creed of corruption. This leaves a proud man only one course.

In short, I am now in open warfare with anyone who would support limiting my freedoms or stealing my wealth, and my current weapon of choice, though primitive, is powerful: my ability to craft thoughts and sentences. Let it be known, though, that when at war, I do not play nicely, nor do I adhere to the ineffectual principle of proportional force. Therefore, if a proud Obama-lover finds me at a cocktail party, she can expect to receive only shame added to mockery multiplied by contempt to the power of disgust. Our dictators are protected and untouchable, but their supporters are not, and it’s high time that these worthless rats suffer for the mess they have made (and, in fact, always wanted).

Defining “communism”

It’s a foolish waste of calories to discuss insignificant distinctions between many flavors of the same evil, and I’d prefer to not even know about terms such as socialism, Marxism, leftism, liberalism, progressivism, and the Democratic and Republican parties. Therefore, I lump these, and any ideology that sanctions theft for the purpose of allowing (or encouraging) its demanding supplicants to consume more than they produce, into the most derisive and convenient of similar terms: communism.

Let it be noted, however, that there is a huge divide between a citizenry collaborating on common infrastructure (and its natural safety nets in the forms of the family unit and voluntary [faith] groups) and having its wealth forcibly redistributed. The former is a fair, healthy, and productive pursuit, while the later is a wretched thing that kills incentive, steals men’s pride, and forces an “all against all” mindset before collapsing any hope for greatness toward the humiliating standards set by the weakest and most botched members of society.

True Motives

So why does this plague upon mankind even exist? Why should one man break his back every day on this harsh rock, only to have a gun be stuck in his face and an ever-increasing portion of his work-product seized to pay for another man, who, cannot (or will not) fend for himself? Does every loser on the planet have a right to the working man’s yield? As more and more parasites become reliant upon his output, what becomes of his “fair share”? Is taxing him at 50% about right? Or in times of national crisis (perhaps when a country’s treasury has been purposely bankrupt by engaging in endless military exercise, or when a tidal wave of third-world immigrants are, for nefarious reasons, welcomed in), could this be raised to 70% or 80%? Where does it end? Why should a capable man get to keep anything at all?

The slick hucksters of communism will claim that it’s a system designed to maximize the common good; that it’s a safety net for society’s unfortunate or infirmed, and that it provides the most equitable comfort to the most people—but they are lying. They advertise purely noble intent, and, without spending the energy to mentally play out the chess game, their false promises easily appeal to billions of tired and frightened zombies.

In truth, the communist’s motivation has very little to do with altruism. Instead, it stems from intense jealousy, self-loathing, and a lust for revenge against nature. In short, they hate themselves for being irredeemably unfit and impotent, and thus, they want to see all reflectors of their failures burn. They want to destroy any standard of measurement and make winning impossible, because, if there are no winners, then there are no losers, and maybe then, they won’t feel quite as bad about themselves. A large fraction of the world hates success in any form, and it was these suicidal miscreants who chose to raise arms first, but they don’t get to have their way, not without receiving, at least, some harsh derision for it.

The Birth Of A Communist

Communists are born, not made. In any population, math demands that some members will rank above the mean, and some below. This happens—it is a part of nature. But normally, nature has a way of maintaining a healthy equilibrium by not letting the diseased infect the herd. Abandoning natural law has led our society to fall out of balance and be overrun by parasites.

The future communist is the timid, sickly kid who stumbled to a last-place finish during his kindergarten class’ field day; this was his first taste of failure, and he didn’t like how it felt. But be it an early disappointment in sports, academics, employment, relationship or any other constructive human endeavor, the communist-to-be is hard-wired to disengage from competition, fold under the natural pressure to produce, and sulk. As his pattern of laziness, fear, and jealousy is repeated through to adulthood, he forms his politics and seeks a utopia where everyone is exactly equal, and nobody loses—and he votes for that.

He should consider himself fortunate, though, that our society grants him the unearned luxury of consuming more than he produces (a temporary condition, given the inescapable Laws of Thermodynamics), yet he still remains restless and bitter. This gnawing unease initially perplexes him, until he realizes that it’s not protection or security that he actually seeks—instead, the deepest part of his soul craves only the destruction of his betters. So long as the accomplished exist, and he has to approach them (not even so humbly) for handouts, he will be tormented by his shameful inadequacy (as he should be).

And so, only when he eliminates the positive half of the bell curve will he find peace. The irony of that pursuit, however, is that it’ll ensure his own physical destruction; society will crumble, and he’ll starve, but he won’t care, for he’ll now be as accomplished as anyone.

The Evidence

Some may argue that the goal of communists (discounting their obvious lie about helping the downtrodden) is to have power over their betters, but, though necessary to their plot, that is not the full extent of their hunger. Instead, the defective person’s greatest secret desire is for everyone to be as ugly and dependent as he is, and so, with millions of like-minded impotent losers, he votes to impose handicaps and penalties as a means to destroy the healthy.

If the communists’ end goal was simply power, well, they have that already. They could run a fairly prosperous and powerful country from the safety of their elected offices, and smirk as they collect tax revenue and distribute it to their chosen supporters.

But this is not enough, and they continue their craven pursuit of all-encompassing destruction. Why continue to bankrupt the country when you already control it? Why flood it with third-worlders when you know that it’ll create a lower standard of living for even your own children? Why destroy our educational system when it will only crush our power and standing in the world? Why increase the hamstringing of productive industries when you already seize a large fraction of their output? The answer is that it’s all about revenge, and burning it all down.

Reinforcing Their Shame

Communists outnumber legitimate, freedom-loving producers, maybe a thousand to one, so any direct battle against them is futile, if not dangerous. In the U.S., recent numbers show something like 90 million people of working age do not work. This is 28% of the country’s 320 million persons. Add in children, retirees, and the vast number of people who work for the government itself, or work “non-jobs” where there is no actual production, and the thousand-to-one ratio might be pretty accurate. In short, there are a lot of desperate, dependent losers who don’t take kindly to anyone asking them to pull their own weight. Nevertheless, why should parasites keep feeding without penalty? What do they bring to the table? Why shouldn’t they at least have to beg for their handouts?

Producers have almost no way to escape this sinking ship, but so long as our diminishing freedom of speech still exists, I’m not going down without heaping a shit-load of shame onto a few communists along the way.

One night while drinking at a bar, one of my smug, self-righteous communist “buddies” stepped forward and boldly explained to me why it was a good thing that my health insurance premiums doubled under Obamacare, and that I was too stupid to know what’s best for me or the nation. In a nutshell, I let him have it with both barrels:

“What kind of man accepts a bailout, much less demands one? This sort of parasite should scurry day and night without imagining that he has a shred of dignity or pride, because he deserves none. Do you have any pride, knowing that your whole existence was made possible by others? I know what you desperate thieves are, and that it’s self-hatred and jealousy that drives you. I know, that you know, that deep down you are a defective, frightened, evil little bitch who’s incapable of surviving on this planet without aid from your betters. I know that you yearn to see those more capable and successful than you fail; I know that is the root motivation for your every vote, policy, and action. But just so you know, I am onto your pathetic scam, and I take it personally. I think those who support stealing my wealth and limiting my freedoms are the lowest scum imaginable, and better off dead… just so you know.”

Obviously, he was not pleased, but he had no right to be in the first place. Communists will have their cake, but we should not allow them to eat it too.

Read More: Communists Are Successfully Destroying America

194 thoughts on “The Root Of Communism Is Self-Hatred”

  1. One of the fundamental evils of communism is that its organizers don’t allow people to opt-out.
    Can you opt out from paying taxes in the capitalist system?

    1. Yes, don’t make enough money, or find a living system that requires little or no money and only make that much.
      This is not possible in a communist system, because you have to work for the State, where the State assigns you.

      1. What if I want to make as much money as I want to, not use any public infrastructure and pay no taxes?

        1. The fundamental problem with your response is that it does not address the inevitable corruption that results from the state’s appropriation and usage of money it has not earned, the wages of the individual. Additionally, this access to the wages of the individual (taxes) promotes government growth which requires additional taxation which not only diminishes the amount of labor a person is entitled to (an erosion of property rights) it reduces the amount of freedom an individual has.

    2. The more relevant rhetorical question is: Can you opt out of having to conform to private property rights in a capitalist system? My uneducated guess is no, otherwise someone would have opted out of Bill Gates’s property rights and helped himself to his moniez.

    3. Actually, in an actual capitalist system, there are no taxes, at least at an income tax type of manner.

  2. Well, that was a very eloquent article, I enjoyed reading it. But remember, communism is a political ideology,that’s specifically about empowering workers. Marx said “working men of the world unite (to take back the means of production)” he didn’t say “homeless bums people of the world, unite to become government welfare recipients.” The idea was that those who work should get a stake in what they’re making; he didn’t idolize lazy bums, he even said that everybody should be equally liable to work.
    So doctrinal communism is definitely not the same as this thing you are using the word ‘communism’ to describe. If you think modern progressive leftism doesn’t give a shit about workers, and that its ‘redistribution’ policies are just about giving patronage to favored supporters, I completely agree. I also agree with your psychoanalysis regarding the motives that inspire this. But this isn’t communism, this is what Nietzsche called “ressentiment.”

    1. He is lumping all re-distributionist under the communist banner, as they all stem from the same emotional process. The definition of each individual type of system is not as important as the root cause for their existence.

      1. Communism is not just redistributionist; it’s collectivist.
        Nationalism is also collectivist and is therefore communistic. N’est-ce pas?

        1. Turkish kebabs are not only turkish, they have meat in them.
          Meat pies also have meat in them and are therefore turkish kebabs. Omelette au fromage?

        2. Are you arguing that collectivism is NOT communistic? If so, you are disagreeing with the premise of this article and your argument is with the author, not “Guest.”

        3. Said the Communist trying to cloud the issue.
          Are you an Internationalist and not a Communist?
          Of course not. Go back to Huffpo. They like men who whine like women there.

      2. They all function the same way with a ruling elite and slaves that are told they are getting a fair share.

    2. Communism was (and is) simply a Trojan Horse for Jewish supremacism -nothing more and nothing less.
      Oh no! Another ROK user posting about jooz. Sorry, especially to our Jewish brothers here on ROK, but the truth is a bitter pill to swallow. If it’s any consolation, “Jewish supremacism” only refers to the 1% of the 1% of rabbinical Judaism. The vast majority of Jews, just like the rest of humanity, are merely tools, useful brainwashed idiots, in the hands of the Elites. In other words, the vast majority of Jews are innocent of any Machiavellian plotting – in the same way that the majority of Americans are innocent (or let’s say irresponsibly ignorant) of all the wars waged in their name.
      I’m not even Christian but the history of its modern demolition by overt and covert “communist” forces makes my blood boil, especially since this entire operation is linked with the concomitant dissolution of western civilization.
      How many of you (or anyone in the West for that matter) where aware of historical incidents like this:
      “In a speech, Trotsky announced the unveiling of the first statue in the world of Judas Iscariot, a man, the Communist leader said, who understood that Christianity was a phony religion and had the courage to break the bonds that bound him to it. Similar statues appeared in other cities. The people, however, could not protest because of the laws against anti-Semitism.”
      Yes, that’s right. In the very heartland of Orthodox Christianity in Eurasia in the early 20th century, “communists” were erecting statues of Judas frickin’ Iscariot while simultaneously dismantling Christian churches and sending millions of Christians into the gulag. But you would be hard pressed to learn about that in any college in the USA.
      Btw, truth-teller Henry Makow is himself Jewish, hardly an “anti-semite”.
      David Duke, on the other hand, is of course an anti-semite and a bloody bigot. But he also wrote one of the most objective books on the origins of communism:

      1. Correct, modern progressives care only about themselves… they’re just better at B.S. than most.

      2. This was dead on. WWII [and to a certain extent, WWI] was a struggle between Jewish-sponsored Bolshevism and Western christendom in which Bolshevism was the victor.
        To quote the article you just referenced:

        The destruction of Christian civilization was high on Lenin and Trotsky’s hit list. All displays of Christian belief were outlawed. Churches were first looted of their art treasures and then converted into warehouses, theaters, recreation centers, and worse. Priests, nuns, and all other officers of the Church were either murdered or sent to the Gulag.
        Celebrations of Christmas, Easter, and Holy Days were forbidden. The icon corner in most Russian homes was banned. Because Jews were prominent among the new rulers and enforcers, all acts of anti-Semitism were made punishable by death.

      3. Excellent comment, its good to see someone on this site that knows their history. When you realize their true goal of destroying Western civilization, it makes this liberal feminism all the more evil. Reversing gender roles and convincing people to fight against their true biological nature is a key tool in their master plan. Communist societies lower its people’s consciousness to the level of animals, while denying them of their true biological nature. Really gross stuff and to walk around here in America seeing the seeds being planted for Communism bothers me more and more every day.

        1. Alert! Alert! Ad hominem attack detected!
          Sorry dude, he’s not a racist moron. He was just laying out the facts. If you can’t handle the facts, that’s your problem.
          Communism was indeed a Jewish-run, Jewish backed invention. It was NOT Russian in its origin. It was imposed on Russia from the outside and financed by the same AngloZionist bankers that currently control much of the western hemisphere.
          During WWII, the communists were supposedly our greatest friends, with Roosevelt referring to Stalin as “Uncle Joe.” Under Lend-Lease, the US supplied much of the Soviet’s industrial and military build-up. America apparently loved its communists.
          It was only in the post WWII years, when Stalin completely purged the Jews from the corridors of power, that the west suddenly flip-flopped on the Soviets and then labelled them public enemy number 1.
          Dems da facts. Pick up some books and read.

        2. These “dats rayciss” faggots who recoil in horror over facts should be banned in my opinion. Lame attempt at enticing emotion to win a non-argument is a womanly tactic and should have no place here.

        3. That would be ironic given that is exactly what they would want unto others.

      4. U speak against the joos hur hurr u Think u klever? U ever herd of da holocaust? Thought not. Why u joo haets? U resentfull of dem joos, u jelly.
        U jst jelly of their welf, good look and manners.
        Seriously, the jews where not only allowed to live in early 20th centhury europe and USA, they where thriving.
        They enjoyed more freedoms and where more secure than the jews of the ancient testament where.
        Take Lise Meitner, physicist who worked on radioactivity and nuclear physics.
        In ancient judea she would have been cleaning latrines with her bare hands or pimped by her own father if she was lucky or hardy enough to survive to age 6 or 11.

    3. If you think modern progressive leftism doesn’t give a shit about workers, and that its ‘redistribution’ policies are just about giving patronage to favored supporters, I completely agree.

      Yes sir. The biggest misconception people have about socialism, is that it is a economic system based on ‘sharing the wealth’ which couldn’t be further from the truth.
      Anyone with a low-level understanding how socialism actually works, knows wealth ‘redistribution’ is actually wealth ‘consolidation’ that only benefits the plutocrats.

      1. yes, and that consolidation involves massive wastage, useless bureaucracy, complex and time consuming ‘jobs for the boys’ and by the time a little benefit trickles back to the public at large, it’s less than what it would be with zero taxes and wealthy business people voluntarily contributing to their communities… which is what all wealthy people naturally do anyway…
        the whole concept of tax the rich becomes moribund once you see how many interesting and productive jobs and products they create AND how much money they plain give away.
        not only that, smart business people qualified by their own success are in a far more valid position to control capital and allocate resources to real, immediate and beneficial projects, than social worker baboons like Obama who never had to earn a dime, satisfy customers or deal with real life issues.
        the only people who want to strip wealth and keep it for themselves and or their white elephant projects are politicians.. aka. communists…. all wealthy people want other people to be successful and wealthy because they have an abundant mindset… AND the more wealthy people there are, the more customers wealthy people have… the biggest lie is the politicians appealing to voters with tax the rich, redistribution ideals… the only one that benefits is the politician….. he is just like a mafia.
        the whole premise of companies like Microsoft, Apple, Standard Oil etc.. .is to enrich people’s lives by providing harmonized products at affordable prices, that everyone can use and that have a quality guarantee… that feeds around in a circle….
        robbing wealth through taxes, which amounts to nothing more than a gangster’s protection racket, is completely negative. politicans are worse than gangsters, because their intent is not to get rich, rather to ruin it for everyone -deep down these people that put their hand up to do good for everyone are dark sociopaths, while those that produce useful products to get rich, are by and large doing it because they want to enrich people’s lives… if they sell shit products they are out of business.
        the only business where you can sell a thoroughly shit product, consistently get into more and more debt and have zero performance incentive, whilst not accepting any criticism is politics, and the joke is that these are the very people telling you they have your best interests at heart and are there for you.
        mircosoft, apple, exxon, etc. etc. are there for you, because they need customers…. government is never there for you, it’s only there for itself. government doesn’t need customers it targets voters, it taxes the population and if necessary it locks you up and takes your possessions at gunpoint. Did Rockefeller ever do that ?

    4. Great article…. the point he is trying to bring out is perfectly valid… any form of collectivism that robs taxes (at gun point if necessary) and that you cannot opt out of is communism….
      These pontificating politicians that sit in ivory towers controlling enormous populations that they cannot possibly ever have any real contact with is communism.
      Spending vast sums of money on military, healthcare and whatever white elephant project of the day gets the clown in office more votes, all in the name of some lofty ideal and national pride is communism.
      The writing is flawless the ideology perfect and the message as pure as the driven snow…
      Drop me a line Sir Fry… I might have something we can work on together…
      my name at gmail

    5. Just because people are supposed to yield to pedestrians, doesn’t combat the reality of becoming a stain on someones bumper if you haphazardly cross the road. Communism punishes success and rewards mediocrity. It is a a zero sum game for the human spirit that brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator, and proceeds to kill its host society. Your “My perfect, ideological form of communism” argument does not atone for the countless souls that have died under its regime.

    6. Marx never worked an honest day in his life. He was so averse to work that he even let his children die of want.

  3. From my experience, anyone that talks about fairness, re-distribution, or any other communist principles believes in their deepest heart that they will be the ones making the decisions, be in charge, and have near absolute power. Anyone that says “for your own good” would happily watch you writhe on the rack until you obeyed their will absolutely.
    The unpleasant joke is that 90% of those who espouse communism will never be allowed to exercise power, but will meekly obey and submit to the worst excesses of those who have taken advantage of them. They will imagine that one day the State will recognize them and loft them into power.
    The TL;DR version is that there is a fundamental denial of reality in those who desire the communism continuum, and they will brook no challenge that might be a reality redpill.

    1. Good observation. Mikey Spillane noted that exact thing back in the 1950’s.

    2. When the Revolution is complete, the useful idiots find themselves to be useless idiots. Every trip of the train.

  4. Isn’t the root of communism religions like Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam? I’m not being an internet atheist troll by saying this, and I respect religion and Christian values. But isn’t a lot of what the socialists say also what Christ said, like feed the people, love your neighbor?

    1. The difference between the two is the difference between voluntary and forced participation.

    2. Christ also mentioned that the project of eradicating poverty was a hopeless one (Matt 26:11, Mark 14:7 John 12:8), and the Apostle Paul also famously said that a man who does not work should not eat (II Thess 3:10), and that a man too lazy to work for his family is worse than an infidel (1 Tim 5:8).

    3. Judaism is the root of communism. Socialism = Utilitarianism. Communism = totalitarianism.

    4. The absence of religion is known as materialism, and under materialism there are no rules of morality. Therefore the outcome often ends up worse than anything that’s ever happened in religious societies. The 20th century alone has more materialist blood on its hands than almost all of prior religious history combined.

    5. Communism doesn’t ask that you love your neighbor. And Christianity says feed the poor, but as an individual taking the act as a work of compassion, a virtue, specifically an individual virtue. Nowhere does Christ mention putting Rome into the business of feeding everybody.

      1. Ah, the classical “Jesus didn’t explicitly say that the government should do X, therefore it is unbiblical that the government does so”. One might call it the Religious Conservative’s Razor: Unless there is a direct, explicit, sufficiently situationally precise Bible quote saying otherwise, Jesus agrees with the Republican platform.
        What Jesus did say, though, was to pay your fucking taxes to Rome. Rome, which was as big-government as an ancient state could be, had high taxes, and where politicians had made an art form out of handing out free stuff at public expense to buy votes.

  5. Truth is, communism has never been tried in practise, and nor has the free market. And the funniest thing is that there’s a lot of common between communism and the free market. For example, in theory during full communism the government ceases to exist.
    Capitalism and the free market have little in common. The former is closer to state socialism.
    There is a strong parallel between the idea of ​​the abundance of goods and services in a free market and the Marxist vision of communism. This parallel is already apparent in the movement Open Source. The communist mode of production is already practiced by companies such as Linux.
    On the other hand, capitalism needs the state to imposes artificial scarcity and barriers to competition that allows the capitalist to accumulate capital and monopolise the market. Only under conditions of capitalism, a company like Nike can pay a few dollars to produce a pair of sneakers and then selling them for $200.

    1. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and the means of production are land (resources), labor (persons using their effort), capital (items used to produce goods and services), and entrepreneurs (talented persons who employ the factors of production to create goods and services for sale and their own profit). Scarcity is a problem created by finite quantity of productive resources (the factors of production). If government imposes artificial scarcity barriers then it controls the factors of production, and the control of something is also ownership, therefore government imposition of scarcity barriers negates the private ownership of the means of production and that is not capitalism.

      1. Technological capacity to produce enough to satisfy everyone’s needs already exists globally and has done so for many decades. Yet needs continue to remain unmet on a massive scale. Why? Quite simply because scarcity is a functional requirement of capitalism itself.

        1. Capitalism only really works in a non-free market. Capitalism requires a restricted market where only one or two people are allowed to open a shop selling that product, so they can inflate prices.
          In the west they restrict the markets by regulations and fees and in the far east they do it by political corruption.

        2. You couldn’t be more wrong. Restrictions on markets create high prices and monopolies. For example, the war on drugs is one such example of restrictions creating both high prices and monopolies. One of the reasons why drugs like marijuana and cocaine is expensive is due to the legal prohibition. The combination of manufacturing drugs in secret and the legal risk of selling them raises production costs thus raising their retail prices. The high costs then restricts entry into the drug market making it difficult for small dealers to have success and allowing cartels, who are already established and have the wealth to negotiate the risks of prohibition, to thrive.

        3. No it’s not! De Beers and the South African government and world bankers are so closely linked. The S. African government kills anybody who tries to nationalise or get wage increases.

        4. And if that is the case then that is not capitalism. Capitalism is individual use of his private property in a manner of his choosing. It is not an individual seeking the assistance of a collective of individuals under the name of government to manipulate or influence the way other individuals use and make decisions about who to use their property.

        5. The problem of scarcity is best addressed by individuals. If government has the ability to address the problem of scarcity then it controls resources. If government controls resources then it controls private property. Communism is a command economy and a command economy is a system where government, not individuals, addresses the problem of scarcity. Communism is a system where there is no private property and private property is the basis of all individual freedom.

    2. You’re not talking about capitalism, you’re talking about mercantilism. Adam Smith said the same thing about Mercantilism, and he’s the inventor of capitalism as a socio-economic theory.
      Second, Linux isn’t a company. Never was one, never will be one. It’s a collaborative coding effort with no central authority. Equating it to communism is absurd, as that would make any collaborative effort taken for fun instead of profit into “communism”. That’s patently absurd.

    3. What you are describing is what I call crony capitalism. Capitalism is the free market, but in a free market the current top 1% is always afraid of someone coming up with a better, cheaper product that replaces theirs. This is why regulations exist. They serve as a barrier to entry that keeps things like Vasalgel and helminthic therapy from cutting into the profits of existing pharmaceutical companies.
      There is a problem with all sites that talk about politics. Everyone on them has a different idea of what terms like socialism, communism, capitalism, and regulations actually mean. To one person regulations mean banning leaded gasoline. To another person they may mean washing off tables at a restaurant after the people who just ate there left. To another they could mean the FDA forcing people with autoimmune diseases to go to Mexico for helminthic therapy treatment.
      Words like regulations and communism have different meanings to different people so when debating them most of the problem is that each debater is actually talking about something completely different without realizing it.

  6. I think it’s a little sad in a lot of ways that the best system to provide freedom, wealth and opportunity for the majority is through opening the floodgates of greed and serving oneself. Communism is a miserable failure and similar to hard line Muslim regimes across the planet, in a better world they wouldn’t exist. Unfortunately this is not a better world though and there are still millions of people living under this communist lie.

  7. Good article. I’ll throw something out there though…
    Is communism really just female entitlement?
    Stefan Molyneaux from Freedomain radio did an excellent analysis of a recent article entitled “Why Women are not Happy.” His argument was that they are less happy because they are now forced to work more. Their growing freedom has allowed them to vote their personal interests into law (child care, medical services for the children, free education). This has, in turn, caused the growth of a socialist welfare state. This welfare state, with its expansion of social services, cannot financially sustain itself, and it eventually leads to women being required to work in order to support it. So women lose the ability to stay at home, and they are forced to work more, which causes them to be less happy. So, in summary, women feel entitled to a myriad of services that require funding from somewhere – kind of like how an ex-wife feels entitled to all her husband’s current assets.
    Viewed through this lens, communism, or socialism, critiques the breadwinner (often the male) and allows the worker (usually the female) to decide on how the wealth will be distributed. It imposes restrictions on how the breadwinner (often the male) can do business, and allows the woker (usually the female) to receive the benefit of his labor.
    This might not have been what Marx was suggesting in the Communist Manifesto, when he critiqued capitalist abuse. However, it might be how his theories have been applied in a world that has witnessed the growing power of women in politics.

    1. Women are more miserable than ever because they’re fighting against their own feminine instincts. When you point this out the denials immediately come pouring out. It’s like talking to a socialist. Same thing. This horseshit will continue until people get out of their little bubbles of denial.

    2. yeah, brilliant….. it doesn’t matter what you call it, or what the original theoretical doctrine is….. any time you are stripping wealth without the possibility to opt out…. you are communist….. i don’t know why people give Marx any credence, he never ran a village never mind a nation of 300 million…..
      the ideals of everyone taking care of everyone, ONLY works if everyone WANTS to do that…. if people don’t want to do that, then trying to impose any form of it – is communism.
      we can split hairs and say that US or UK or EU is a feminist socialist nationalist model bla, bla, bla, but it’s all communism in the end.
      the biggest danger is thinking that only the hard left, communist, marxist, north korea / cuba / ussr is communist and dangerous…… in truth there is barely a non communist state in existence, outside a few tax haven Caribbean islands.
      if people don’t give a shit and are happy to live in shit… fine…. let them live in shit… build a fence and make a gated community… if they want to join they can contribute… but you cannot do that on a vast scale….you cannot force it at gun point
      anyone who says they want to make your life better will soon be putting you in chains if you try to opt out…
      the vehicle used today, is nation state, feminism, socialism, welfare, equality etc. and corporations are given ‘some’ free reign, while other insiders are allowed monopolies…. but it’s communism just the same… ok it’s not like ussr or red china, gulags and chain gangs, secret police, political prisoners, etc. – but it’s not far off. That stuff only comes into play as those in power get more desperate to hold onto it.

      1. There’s nothing more collectivist than the nation state. Nationalism is collectivism. Collectivism is communism. Nationalism is the enemy of freedom.

        1. Try to live in Mexico or in an area overrune by arabs and black africans immigrants, moron.

        2. fascism sure i can get that but nationalism or love of ones race and country is not bad at all (and no i only fuck non white hoes if your about to call me something retarded like racist)

        3. “Collectivism is any philosophic, political, economic or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals. Collectivists usually focus on community, society or nation. Collectivism has been widely used to refer to a number of different political and economic philosophies, ranging from communalism and democracy to totalitarian nationalism.”

        4. “Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom argues that while socialism in theory may be internationalist, in practice it is highly, sometimes violently, nationalist.
          As the activities of government under socialism grow, he said, it becomes harder to make policy decisions democratically. Beyond a relatively short list of agenda items on which most can agree – national defense, for instance – the elected representatives who tax and spend will find it increasingly difficult to rationally prioritize a growing list of contentious objectives.”

        5. Conditional love of country is good. Loving a country that does not deserve it is just stupid.

        6. Said the Communist who was trying to cloud the issue.
          Tell me you’re an Internationalist, but not a Communist.
          I dare ya.

        7. good point the question is when did america stop deserving it (and how can it be fixed or should we just not try to white knight america and gtfo)

        8. And freedom is nothing more than libetine excess. Nations evolved to give us culture and tradition that feel at home to us. Thats a beautiful thing.

      2. And that is why, while communism is completely unworkable as a political system, pure anarchism still holds some merit. Communism requires a bureaucratic hammer to be hung over the heads of citizens to enforce equality. Anarchism allows the talented and hard working to produce more and earn more, but encourages them to turn their efforts towards supporting their community. Of course they are not compelled to do so, since there is no hierarchy to enforce such behaviour. It is simply the necessary recognition that without providing some degree of assistance to the poor, there are no consumers for the goods and services produced by the wealthy.

        1. just look at what happens in a crisis situation, which is basically anarchy… people will band together, share resources, help each other, help the sick, allocate tasks to the most proficient etc. etc. etc.
          if govt. disappeared 2moro, do you think the roads would turn to shit, or trucking companies and local citizens would band together and start fixing them ?

        2. It depends on the neighborhood. The lights go out for a min in some and windows are being broken with big screen TVs being stolen. Compare Japan where they turned in envelopes of money found on the beach to Katrina raping underage girls in the dome.

      3. All of what he defines as leftism has never existed as it has defined itself. It has always been an elite with slaves thinking they are getting a good deal.

    3. It is very simple, with 10% inflation, they are less and less able to buy.
      There are less and less men making a lot of bucks and those who do are more carefull than ever.

  8. Master and Slave morality.
    It’s easier to explain the master morality first.
    The master morality looks at itself and says “I’m good!” and then sees
    something different out the corner of its eye and says, “they’re bad.”
    The slave morality on the other hand, looks first at something not like
    itself and says, “They’re bad… no… not just bad but EVIL! Therefore I
    am good.”
    A master morality can be good on its own terms
    because it is sure of itself for itself. A slave morality must first
    call something else bad before it deems itself good.
    Slave morality springs from resentment. Let’s imagine a poor, washed out
    person or group of people looking enviously at a rich, strong person or
    group of people.
    The envy turns to resentment (resentment of
    both the rich and strong people and resentment against themselves for
    not being like that.) The resentment is turned into slave morality
    before it eats the poor washed-out people alive. They decide that the
    rich and strong people are evil so they can at least feel morally
    This describes virtually all losers of life in
    general(MRA’s,Feminist,Social Justices
    Warriors,Leftist,Socialist,Communist,Egalitarians ect)

    1. I think it’s very important to note that even MRAs still play into the victim-perpetrator-savior model that drives almost all human political and social interaction. While their actions may have some marginal effect at slowing the bone crushing juggernaut which is millennial feminism, it still plays by the rules that they play. Millennial feminists see themselves and all of woman kind as victims and that men are their historical and modern day oppressors. The solution (i.e. savior) being more laws and more control via the forceful state apparatus.
      One thing I always tryto reinforce in the minds of men, and everyone for that matter, is that if you are able to blame anyone for your existing circumstances, then you are giving yourself an excuse and license to fail. MRAs continue to be victims and blame women rather than adjusting themselves accordingly. They are the reverse side of the self-pity coin.

      1. Good thoughts, and thank you for saying them.
        Things that need to be said. No harm taken.

      2. I eventually found my way to ROK after passing through the MRM. I heard something about some website run by a pick up artist being put on the SPLC’s hate speech list along with AVFM and looked into it. That is how I found ROK. I probably would never have found my way here if I hadn’t stumbled onto AVFM first. While they may have a different way of doing things they still bring people into the manosphere and from there people will find the place they belong.

  9. I find it very telling that the liberals in this country are fighting hardest for universal healthcare. Isn’t that the most obvious portent of their rejection nature? They are literally not strong enough and not genetically blessed to succeed and stay healthy, so they want the whole country to pay for their lack of bodily and immunological strength. The result is that communists really can reject nature, as long as the money doesn’t run out. Unlike with money or material goods, there is no hedonistic treadmill with health (there is a point of optimal health beyond which you can’t get even more healthy), so healthcare is an arena where communists really can achieve a clean victory.
    Except obviously they can’t, since such an endeavor will always be limited by the money. The bitterest irony is that we’ve already seen what happens to a species when we artificially select its evolutionary path; the pedigree dogs and cats that we bred for a certain look or temperament are frequently afflicted by congenital diseases, since natural selection is no longer able to cull those defects from the herd. It’s not so large a problem with pets, since their numbers and needs both pale in comparison with humans, but the gradual genetic degradation of 300 million people will absolutely bankrupt and destroy society as more and more people end up on the wrong side of the genetic lottery and require thousands upon thousands of dollars in medical care. This doesn’t even take into account the lack of productivity and sense of entitlement that would naturally accompany such a society in which being too incompetent to work is a valid excuse for not working.
    Is it surprising that geneticists in Stalinist Russia were branded as class enemies? Genetics as a field completely debunks communism to the point that it isn’t even useful discussing it anymore. Communism is predicated on the basic premise that the majority of people can produce a roughly equal output of work, a condition that must be satisfied even before issues about motivation and corruption are addressed. Genetics unequivocally states that this is not and will never be the case. As a species, we are far too diverse to ever be even remotely similar in skill or action, and communism as an ideology seeks to punish that diversity.

  10. Communism never works in the long run because the undeserving get what they don’t deserve. It’s different if you’re handicapped or sick, that’s when communism works. But some people pretend to be that.
    And communism eventually takes away the drive to do something in life. Because the state pays for everything. It looks good for far, but what it eventually does is breed laziness and inaction.
    For e.g. in Soviet Union, the state used to provide free toilet papers to people. The idea of a gift to your girlfriend if your income was low, was extra toilet papers. No kidding, there was even a Russian movie which had that scene.
    When communism collapses, the result is unbridled capitalism, which is not good even. The women become whores, and the men become exploitative pimps. Ideally, capitalism should be only be introduced first in a nation, because the first few generations live in exploitation, greed but progress. Later on, the negative effects of capitalism die off. But communism never works.
    America is now heading towards communism. Once the economy collapses, then you’ll have the same situation in Soviet Union soon replicated here in 20 years now. And later on, you’ll have American women behaving like the present day FSU women they call names like gold diggers. And some of them are already behaving like that.
    Communism was created for men, but exploited by women.

    1. “It’s different if you’re handicapped or sick, that’s when communism works.”
      It doesn’t even work then either. People just like to pretend it does.

    2. I forget who it was who said that over time Russia would become more democratic and the United States would acquire more and more of the negative aspects of socialism over time.

      1. Michael Savage once hilariously said that the U.S. is finally making all the Soviet communist dreams come true.

  11. You’ve hit the nail on the head, and now self-hatred is so integrated into US culture that it’s going to be hard to get rid of it as an institution. Science writing is laced with it; instead of seeing living relationships as amazing and useful they mean we’re “nothing but” fish or lizards, for example. Every new discovery is a “blow to mankind’s ego” — except, I suppose, mine because I simply find things interesting. We’re always reminded how white people, Americans especially, owned slaves 200 years ago, with no reference to abolishing the institution or it’s continued existence in Africa and Moslem countries, and we must hate ourselves for past things over which we have no control. Yaddayaddayadda. Of course psychology reduces everything to “nothing but” a repressed desire to crap your pants. And so on. I’m amazed anyone else has noticed the basis of communism-liberalism in self-hatred.

    1. Lol. Unfortunately, yes. It’s schadenfreude at it’s absolute best [or worst depending on how you look at it.]

  12. “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” –Winston Churchill

  13. The worst of all was milnton friedman. True defender sof freedom were mises, rothbard, and today, hoppe. Great article.

  14. “When the socialist says ‘Fair Shares for All,’ what he really means is equal shares for all. Equal shares for those who toil and those that shirk. Equal shares for those that save and those that squander. No reward offered for the skilled. No incentive for the industrious or experienced. No reward for ingenuity, thrift or good housekeeping. What the socialist means is EQUAL shares for all.” –Winston Churchill

    1. Don´t quote Churchill if you ever travel to Britain, you might be arrested for hate-speech.

      1. They do seem to have a complete loathing of this great man, don’t they? I’ve noticed this as well, also see it with Australians. Ingrates, all of them.

        1. Churchill wasn’t as great as you think. He lost the English Empire so Germany wouldn’t get Danzig.
          As an Englishman, I disapprove

        2. They would have got a hell of a lot more than Danzig, and did, for a while. With a little help from his friends Churchill put a stop to that. As an Englishman, I approve.

        3. I hope you’re right in your assessment of British public opinion of Churchill. He’s one of the most overrated persons of the 20th century. Ingrates, you say. What’s there to be grateful for? Oh yes, a number of badass speeches during war that kept up morale at the home front. Apart from that, his strategic decision-making was so-so and his diplomacy was a disaster, leading to debacles such as France going Vichy. And when he resumed power during his second term in the 50s, he wasted it brutalizing colonial subjects on the lost cause of trying to keep the Empire intact.

        4. They loath what he said but worship him for stopping Hitler, thought.
          Not from conquering Britain or even Poland (Britain and its empire had nearly a quarter of all emerged lands in 39) but indeed to stop national-socialism within Germany itself.

  15. Fry, the sickly kid who tasted what it is to be a loser for the first time during Kindergarten didn’t invent communism. To him it is merely an opportunity in life, it is appealing to him because it puts him above all those other kids who are stronger, more intelligent, more sociable and who will be laid by more and better-looking girls that he ever would, if it wasn’t for communism and the creepy organizations it creates where the cretins who recite the ideology by rote come to the top and get to steal from everybody and rape the girls he’d otherwise never get, now “legally”.
    Communism was “invented” first by Karl Marx, a schizoid jew, who was paid to do this by the Rothschilds, that jewish family which has been reaping profit from all the wars of the last 250 years. After Marx there were others – all of them jews – who “perfectioned” the ideology: Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Che Guevara, Mao, Pol Pot …
    Communism is a weapon of the jews against us goyim which is used to destroy societies by putting the inept, the unfit, the dolts, the lazy, the ugly, the perverts, the sickly, the tares … at the head of the society in question and destroy those who would even think of doing anything creative or aimed at bettering the lot of anybody.
    One version of communism or cultural marxism is feminism. Just look what that one has wrought in the lands where it has been deployed.
    Last but not least thanks for the reasoned article.

    1. if you think into it logically, one of the best ways to sell communism to the world, is to install a terrible version of it first… eg. USSR… and then install a less bad version of it USA / EU…. it’s all communism, i don’t care what you call it…. add up all the taxes you pay, income tax, sales tax, fuel, tobacco, alcohol tax, road tax, licenses, business registration tax etc. etc. etc. when you add it all up and include the legal and accountancy fees for managing all this… 80-90% of your gross income goes back into the system. That’s communism, where they throw you a bone…. and leave you liable to clean up your own shit….
      at least in NK and USSR, they had to find you a house, a job, some food etc…. it might be shit, but it’s zero responsibility shit – in the new version if you don’t comply you wind up in jail or sleeping on the streets.
      it’s two versions of the same thing… USSR you keep your mouth shut you get something…. USA you can blab all you like and resist the system, but then you sleep in a cardboard box.
      You can actually argue and many ex soviets and east germans will agree that the soviet system had its advantages. If you build any wealth in the US or EU and stick your neck out, nice little men will find a way to chop it off…. it’s not so different to the USSR, it’s just that (for the time being) the man in the street is more comfortable and distracted…. but that can always change, especially when you have so many inefficiencies.

      1. I live in the EU. Of the total tab of my employer for the “privilege” of hiring me, I get to keep about one half, and I’m not even in the top income bracket. What they do with “their” half? They import niggers and mooslims and pay them to shit stupid kids all over the place who then hate Europeans for whatever – and they pay the salary of that haggard cunt we have for “wymin ministress” who seriously stated on TV that 1/3 of all wymin in this country have been raped.
        And you call this the “better” version? Seriously man, get a clue … the world has not become a better place only cuz it ain’t as fucked up as the USA.

        1. and then on your half you pay 20% VAT on most things, plus extra taxes for fuel, alcohol etc. you keep 25% at best. if that ain’t communism – what is ?
          US is no better, while australia and new zealand push a good 40% basic tax rate.

  16. Whatever happened to this blog? Too much seriousness is pathological. Wear the world like a loose coat

    1. The world is tightening around us, like a straightjacket. And soon it may well be a noose.

  17. The root of communism is the Talmud. Equality for the people (goyim), supremacy fo r the state.
    Marx, most of the early communists and the financiers were Jewish – as are many of the people running the USA today.

  18. Where does all this nerd rage come from? Our ancestors all practiced wasn’t an option…it was the only way. That way was succesful for 2 million years at least. Thats why the socialistic instinct is so strong in people even today. Capitalism is the Johnny Come Lately.

    1. Yes, the past was controlled by the state, the church, and the guilds. Ever since the guilds lost their grip humanity flourished at an unprecedented rate. Then along come these commies that want to return control to the state, minus the church, but replacing the guilds with their own politburo style gangs. (Common ownership always ends up being stewarded by a political elite or technocracy of some kind, i.e. the politburo.)
      So the rage comes from having tasted freedom, having known freedom, and seeing it taken away intentionally and without a fight. For me it is difficult because I blame myself for not being able to preserve freedom. Essentially, I had it, but I lost it, and it will be gone forever or at least a very long time.
      (I am a theonomist)

    2. And it was only when they stopped being outright collectivists that human society advanced. So yeah, 2 million years as hunter-gathering cavemen, that’s great. Individualism hits and boom, we’re on the moon and inventing CPU’s. I’ll take the “johnny come lately” any day of the week.

    3. you do know capitalism’s beginnings came about during a period of history called “the enlightenment”… i wonder why they called it that?

  19. Some tenets of communism are : 1) radical equalism/egalitarianism — the state can make all things level and “fair”. Can’t happen cause humans are all different.
    2) Envy—
    3)Utopia— commies believe that it is actually possible for the state to create “heaven on earth”…..
    4 ) Denial of human nature—some people are lazy or dumb or were dropped on their head. All people do things for self interest at some level. I think Ayn Rand got this right and the term “constructive self interest ” is apt and is operable with capitalism and other voluntary economic systems…
    5) Power/Compulsion— Commies MAKE you do stuff. Always end up totalitarian. You must do this and that. I like the libertarian idea of volunteerism . If you wanna be a big socialist knock yourself out and start that business that pays everyone 80 bucks /hr with 3 months off a year but knock it off with the “one size fits all” approach to governance.
    Democracy isn’t perfect either. I like Churchill’s quote ( paraphrasing) “Democracy is the least worst system”

  20. I’m absolutely no fan of Obama nor left leaning politics but Obama, in practice is very very from from even remotely being a communist.
    What he is is a charlatan and front man for the corporate state. He will support the feel good causes of the masses (i.e. gay rights, women’s rights, minority rights, trans rights) in order to appease them. He will indulge the useful idiots with memes and their respective pet slogans and operational propaganda. These causes are of utmost importance to the new intelligentsia and the “rights” industrial complex.
    The corporate state actually needs lot’s of taxes to get government subsidies. Most people would not be willing to have tax dollars be used to line the pockets of big agri-business and defense contractors. In order to gain “legitimate” access to the tax-payer’s bank account, it needs to have politicians that can create laws so that it can raise taxes. It get’s political legitimacy to do this through a politician like Obama who says that the taxes are being used to “right past wrongs” and ensure a “level playing field.” The fact is is that the tax dollars don’t really even end up going to the people the are purporting to help.

    1. Government subsidy is communism. And a distortion of the free market by unseating the customer as king.

      1. I was hinting towards corporate communism/socialism where the ultimate end recipient of tax payer dollars are the shareholders of companies that depend on government subsidies and contracts to fill their coffers. Whether it’s going to the unproductive masses directly or the huge companies that have become very comfortable with the status quo, it’s still communism/corporate socialism so long as you are using the state to seize money from those that produce to those that don’t.
        I wouldn’t say Obama is an actual communist in the Marxist/Soviet sense, although he does abide by the victim-perpetrator-savior model which is the basis for communism and it’s false justifications for the use of force.
        The reason I even bring Obama up is because of the picture up top implies that Obama is a communist.
        Regardless of labels, it is important to align with universal values which ARE in the US Constitution. So long as that document is protected and keeps the State in check, the labels are meaningless and of no value.

        1. Hinting?
          You can divest from a corporate entity. You can stop buying what they have to sell you.
          Try that with a government with far-reaching powers.

    2. I’m absolutely no fan of Obama nor left leaning politics but Obama, in practice is not remotely communist.
      He’s a Cultural Marxist — i.e., he supports ripping off straight white men and giving to everybody else — which is the dominant form of communist nowadays.

    3. The communist revolutionaries were and are charlatans. The entire ideology is intended to be a self-perpetuating promise of free sh*t / something for nothing, for merely feeling put upon by life.
      The idea is identical: give others’ resources away, tell people that you are being generous, use that giveaway to purchase power from enough people to give you a way to affix a means of having slightly more power over them than last year.
      All for the party. Party about society. Party above nations. Party above the citizenry.
      It took from 1946 to 1963 to really make east Germany a flunky regime on the lines of the Soviet Union.
      The contemporary leftists are no different. They will take your resources to buy the fealty of your neighbor, and institute a little more power over your lives, and “lather rinse, repeat” – and call it an effort for the good of man/ the poor/ the beaten hausfrau / whatever or whoever is aggrieved and can be appealed to.
      They hate people, which is why they have such a wide sales pitch. People, by nature and reason, don’t want what they want, so they need to tell you that there’s cash and prizes behind the red curtain, if you’ll only go along with the plan.
      They throw you a little something… some foodstamps you don’t REALLY need, a cellphone that you could probably afford otherwise… the first one is always free, and they start with the simplest thinkers, the most covetous, and least capable of questioning what’s going on.
      Remember, it’s “for the children” or “for the good of humanity… it ALWAYS is.
      But in the end, all you are to them is a production unit.

  21. Communism isn’t the cause, it’s a SYMPTOM. So the question is, what is the CAUSE?
    There was a physicist, David Bohm. He advocated an alternate interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which was Wholism in Physics. The idea is that the universe and everything in it is fundamentally connected in obvious and also in very subtle ways. He even admitted that isn’t a new idea, as this was the worldview of Classical Physics in the past, he was just revisiting this viewpoint and adding on to it with the insight and scientific advancements we had gained in the time since then.
    Anyways, one thing he locked in on was that everything was fundamentally connected, so taking that in a practical approach, what is the one thing that most fundamentally effects society and the person at the most fundamental level?
    It is FINANCIAL. People say that we live in a capitalistic society (in the West), but we don’t. Most of us were raised to be EMPLOYEES. This was sustaining for a while due to economic and population growth. The result was that we had a system of going to school, going out and getting a job for 20-30 years and then retiring off of social security. That of course is no longer possible today due to the financial situation deteriorating everywhere in the West. Politicians (as worthless as they are) understand the importance of financial literacy and that is why you see them try to prop up this bloated and unsustainable economic beast because as long as it stands, they still have power. Once the beast finally dies, their power dies with it.
    However everybody–especially the middle class–is the feeling the burn of all this. The result of decades of prosperity was that most of us are FINANCIALLY ILLITERATE. We are raised to be employees, but unfortunately we are learning that employees are expendable/replaceable. What this economic contraction is showing a new generation is that it is time for ALL OF US TO STOP BEING EMPLOYEES AND START BEING ENTREPRENEURS. We are only worthless because the political class wants to keep us that way. The moment we wake up and realize how worthless they are and how to start becoming our own employers in some capacity (or learning to do jobs that gives us freedom in employment opportunities) is the moment their backs break as their illusion of control over us dies. The more this happens the less you will see people embrace socialism or positive law as a way to solve social issues and you will see people push more on personal responsibility and accountability.
    There are a few people out there trying to help out in doing this. Clayton Christensen’s theory of Disruption is all about start up companies being able to destroy Goliath businesses and industries. Another such person is how I inadvertently came upon Roosh and the Manosphere, which gives me an insight on these subjects that others on here might not have. The more people become financially literate in the world and understand the importance of creating wealth, investing, multiplying ones value/worth, making their money work for them, and valuing their time investment more than money, the more power and control people gain over their own lives and the more they realize that politicians are worthless and will have no control over them once they are financially free.
    Such people who are unable to find opportunities in the West ARE of course expating out to find such opportunities. Even the handling of women ultimately falls under financial literacy (is she an asset or liability, is she adding or subtracting from your life?).
    “Communism” isn’t the cause, it’s the symptom of the employee class being destroyed by the economic contraction/immigration/political bullshit and being financially literate. The sooner people awaken to the importance of financial literacy the sooner things will get straightened out in this country (and abroad).
    The political upsets in Britain, France and other EU countries are showing that people are beginning to wake up to this. But they are worse off than we are. Once we get to that point you’ll see similar upsets here (might already be seeing them).

    1. Covetousness, and an inability of many people to understand human nature and function with other people.

  22. Don’t forget those self loathing communists because they are successful and feel pity on them yet dint realise they perpetuate the problem e.g Hollywood stars, business elite, political elite and much of the western media. The most successful group in the US votes nearly 90% Democrat.

  23. One of the best if not THE best articles I’ve ever seen on ROK. The “red pill lite” shit was starting to become a concern.
    Good job ROK.

  24. What is most striking in all this is the (astonishingly growing) outright arrogance and gall on behalf of the “leisure” class as they seem more and more unabashedly entitled to the wealth of the productive class. This is expressed by way of less and less discretion and subterfuge regarding the outright theft that they are in fact perpetrating. Instead of hiding behind feel-good sloganeering and shaming propaganda, they are now coming at you directly with hat in hand and practically helping themselves to your pockets all on their own so that they may drop their contents in with the rest of the loot. What this indicates is a profound level of complacency and delusion on their part regarding their true position in society as non-productive consumers wholly dependent on the producers, together with a profound misunderstanding of the message that they are sending out. After all, if they will boldly take more and more from us as we produce it, then we will simply keep cutting back more and more until we finally reach bare subsistence levels. And if they still try going after that well… why not then go all Gandhi on their asses and simply sit down and refuse to work en masse. What are they gonna do? Shoot us? That won’t solve the problem (as long as it’s the classes essential to keeping society going that do it). Whip us into going back to work? Sure, go ahead pal. Love the S&M angle there. Oh, by the way, that nuclear reactor needs expert supervision to keep things running smoothly – though I’m sure your degree in sociology can guide you quite nicely in the proper use of the control room (that is, of course, if you really want to maintain electricity around these parts. And I did hear that electric lights help to keep the marauding gangs away at night). Your call pal.
    Simple fact is, if they don’t back off sooner or later it’s either the USSR all over again for (all of) us or possibly even the stone age. Their current hubris is their ultimate mistake. May it also come to be their painful undoing.

  25. “One night while drinking at a bar, one of my smug, self-righteous communist “buddies” stepped forward and boldly explained to me why it was a good thing that my health insurance premiums doubled under Obamacare, and that I was too stupid to know what’s best for me or the nation. In a nutshell, I let him have it with both barrels:”
    Your diatribe was too long-winded and gives them too much room to jump in. I have devised a much simpler response that captures the same spirit of seething hatred for commies. This comment is helped if you are a veteran and your commie friend knows it. I simply say, “I miss the days when it was just good policy to send our troops around the world to kill people for being communist.”

    1. Cool poster…would love to air drop a million of these on some lib university say Vasser or Berkley

  26. I am a monarchist, and I would have fought against communism in the Russian Civil War.

        1. Nothing wrong with calling out communism and other forms of force wielding collectivism.

        2. Pretending that Stalinism and contemporary Progressivism can be relevantly lumped together as minute, irrelevant variations of the same thing is as disingenious, dishonest and plain stupid as pretending that Capitalism and Fascism can.

        3. Actually, you can. the marxist-Leninists of yore and the newly renamed contemporary “progressives” make the same kinds of arguments, and use the same divisive methods.
          If you had any personal experience with “real, living Socialism,” you would see the similarity biting you on the ass.
          Barack Obama and his coterie wold have felt right at home at the Palast Der Republik in 1980.

    1. How would you know?
      Here’s a hint – no-one on earth owes you anything for nothing, no matter what ideology you rationalize. You’ve done nothing to earn it.

  27. I think that safety nets are useful… play pens are not. Both of the bosses I’ve had went on government assistance programs when their businesses failed due to investment schemes. I’m from the construction world and both of these men HATED being paid to not work and got off the nipple as soon as they could. They’ve both now recovered and run successful businesses once more. There’s something to be said for helping a brother up when he falls flat on his face and it is another to carry him on your shoulders until you’re both on the ground.
    Also, as a side note, I failed my first physical fitness test in grade school. When I saw my shit numbers, I made a vow to myself that by my last test I’d pass the challenge category in every section. At this last test I can proudly say that I accomplished my goal. I started off as a loser and made myself into a winner. Red pills are born with the itch… when pop’s manly seed burrows into the penultimate of the feminine: the egg.

  28. Actually, communism has always appealed mostly to middle class intellectuals many of which were the children of rich parents or ambitious middle class parents, much more than the poor and the wretched. In fact, it the poor and the wretched people like Eric Hoffer who have defended capitalism far better than any of the people who have primarily benefited from it or even the economists who study it on a regular basis.
    Communism, is really just a desire to reach the vision of Thomas More’s utopia, which is basically a Christian Utopia without religion, but all the moral virtues of Christ; unfortunately, it goes against human nature. It’s kind of ironic that such a book doesn’t garner the attention it deserves.
    What such people have always hated about capitalism, isn’t the mere money, but that it empowers the mass society and gives them the confidence that they should run and rule things. It promotes vulgarity in popular culture and reduces the artist and the writer to nothing more than a means of entertainment, rather than the other past forms of government than gave the men of the arts and intellect, positions of power and prestige, like the priests of medieval times. Communism aims for a society where he with the most wealth doesn’t get to exercise power and leverage, but he who knows how to use words to mystify and manage mass society is in charge. That is what communism has always been, a desire to “teach” human beings how to attain a perfect society.
    Which of course, will never exist. But hey, if you’re detached from reality, who cares about what is possible or impossible.

    1. You’re right about it’s appeal to middle class young people. They kinda think it’s just “fair” in the absence of any real life experience.
      In fact, it does require a level of material comfort to convince oneself of its’ virtues. All of it seems motivated by feeling bad that one has something that someone else doesn’t, despite the fact that Communism is motivated by taking from others that which you don’t have the will and intelligence to achieve for oneself.
      Leftist is inherently covetous. The ideological mantle draped over it is a method of giving nobility to theft.

  29. “In the U.S., recent numbers show something like 90 million people of
    working age do not work. This is 28% of the country’s 320 million
    persons. Add in children, retirees, and the vast number of people who
    work for the government itself, or work “non-jobs” where there is no
    actual production, and the thousand-to-one ratio might be pretty
    The western world countries lifted currency and trade restrictions and started getting rid of its industrial base in the 80’s. Who or what was responsible for the process of outsourcing?
    “In short, there are a lot of desperate, dependent losers who
    don’t take kindly to anyone asking them to pull their own weight. Nevertheless, why should parasites keep feeding without penalty? What do
    they bring to the table? Why shouldn’t they at least have to beg for
    their handouts?”
    There is an alternative. A protectionist economy has the potential of maintaining a right to work for all citizens. Thereby even the weakest loser can achieve some sense of self worth through doing his duty and bring something to the table according to his ability. Naturally, his reward should be in parity with his contribution.
    Just throwing this out here, maybe playing devil’s advocate a little. Being a staunchly anti-leftist, anti-communist conservative and nationalist who favours hierarchy and individual distinction, no attempt to paint me an egalitarian commie would rub on me.

    1. “The western world countries lifted currency and trade restrictions and
      started getting rid of its industrial base in the 80’s. Who or what was
      responsible for the process of outsourcing?”
      That’s easy. The leftist government heavily taxing local production, taxing companies for hiring workers, demanding insurance and Fica, fees and overregulation. This created an environment where it was easier to shift productivity overseas and simply pay for shipping costs instead of the prohibitive price of American workers.
      “There is an alternative. A protectionist economy has the potential of
      maintaining a right to work for all citizens. Thereby even the weakest
      loser can achieve some sense of self worth through doing his duty and
      bring something to the table according to his ability. Naturally, his
      reward should be in parity with his contribution.”
      Sure, as long as the rulers are perfect. Free market does the exact same thing without the waste and without trust in government honesty. The only regulation you really need is to prevent trust and monopolies… That is what the interstate trade provision of the constitution was for… and it still had too much faith in honest government, and has been used to justify millions of government abuses of monetary power. Protectionist economies simply reach that state much faster.
      I know you are playing devil’s advocate here… try something harder 🙂
      Then again, I am usually over on neoreactionary sites…. while they share a common ground, here it might not be such low hanging fruit. Not to disparage ROK, but it’s more about fucking hotties than critical analysis.

  30. one of the biggest problems with communists is that they not only overwork the producer, but they also, through craving social acceptance, destroy as many producers as they possibly can to turn them into dependents as well.
    In many part of the US, it is impossible for even a motivated man to get a job. Many of those that DO have a job basically pay for the privilege of working. All non-slavery methods of working, such as doing yardwork, running a taco stand, or being a private handyman, have been one by one shut down by the communists through litigation, lawsuits, mandatory insurance, or licensing and extraordinary fees that hardworking but shut-out producer cannot meet.
    Freedom will not resume until all of the armed men supporting communism are dead.

  31. I always wondered how come it was that when my mates and I started bettering ourselves as teens we went away from Marxism ito fascism or anarchy…

  32. The 6000 or so people who run plantation earth love “centralized control”.
    Why do you think this “climate change” scam is in the mass media constantly. So
    they can get a “global tax” on the tax slaves and consolidate even more centralized control. Instead of bragging about how many dumb broads you are banging, men need to understand how the world really works and change it one man at a time.
    Here is a snippet from Rothkopf’s book Super Class:
    Each of them is one in a million. They number six thousand on a planet of six billion. They run our governments, our largest corporations, the powerhouses of international finance, the media, world religions, and, from the shadows, the world’s most dangerous criminal and terrorist organizations. They are the global superclass, and they are shaping the history of our time.

  33. “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill

  34. What an absolute bullshit article. The author is wrong in every way. And I’m not going to tell him why, because he made it abudnantly clear that he won’t debate anyone he disagrees with.

      1. Okay then, since you know how to ask at least semi-nicely.
        The whole article is nothing but an allegation of what the underlying motivations of communists are, what drives their actions. More precisely, that they are losers who resent everyone who manages better than them and want to bring everyone down to their level. It acts as if the classical anti-Communist talking point “everyone is equally poor” would be the actual goal of Communists, rather than an unfortunate consequence of their struggle for equality.
        An allegation that is utterly impossible to prove either way, not until there exists a way of scientifically measuring motivations.
        The only “evidence” he offers is the way how communists, allegedly, deliberately destroy countries they gain control of, instead of living large on the benefits of being on the top. A position which is based on the assumptions 1) That those policies really are destructive, and 2) The Communists themselves believe the policies are destructive rather than beneficial. Neither of the two is a matter of established fact, and the second point is just as untestable as the very original proposition of the author.
        Yet, there are some points in which the position of the author stretches credulity, and even if not directly testable, causes severe plausibility issues.
        First, if this really is the underlying motivation of all, most or even the average Communist, where are all the testimonies from former Communists? There is no shortage of ex-Communists in the world, both from before and after the fall of the Eastern Bloc. There are some really famous ones, who will tell their story of how they became disillusioned with Communism. Yet, none of them have ever confessed to anything like motivations like those the author imputes on Communists, or of having noticed them in their Communist comrades.
        Second, if Communists really are such pathetic, resentful, inept losers as the author claims, how do they ever manage to seize control of countries in the first place? Inept losers driven by their basest nature don’t win power struggles (be they revolutions, democratic processes or whatever) against those who are smart, capable strong of will, hardworking and persistent. Appealing to other inept, resentful losers won’t work for him, because he doesn’t have any monopoly on that, his more capable rivals would do that much more efficiently than he would. And, they would enjoy their resulting position at the top of the world, not burn it down and kill their golden goose, while throwing the losers on the bottom just enough scraps needed to preserve their position.

        1. The root of communism is Jewish Supremacy, neatly packaged to fool poor, hungry and pissed off peasants.

        2. Those as infested with the idea of having a state rule the small and personal affairs of people’s lives PLAINLY HATE human nature.
          Trust me – I lived in the DDR – I know.

        3. No it isn’t. It lies in the faithless hatred of oneself that gets justified as a hatred of humanity and of human nature.

  35. There is a joke from the Eastern Block: What is the difference between the existing Communism and working Communism? The existing doesn’t work, the working doesn’t exist.

    1. There is also the one about the desert – if the committee had a desert, there would be a shortage of sand.

  36. Article is complete crap on so many levels. Labelling everything Communism is pointless. I suppose the Roman Empire was a collectivist communist state too? lol

    1. No, the Roman Empire was for much of it’s history totalitarian – a slightly different way at the same objective which places far more power of the state over people’s lives than anyone can argue is needed.
      I lived in a communist state. Until you learn something about it, you should probably ask more questions than give answers.

  37. While I am far from sympathetic to socialism/communism/statism, completely unchecked capitalism is, somewhat ironically, just as detrimental to overall economic and social well-being.
    Monopolies in general, whether the result of a state-controlled command economy or capitalistic dominance of the private sector, ALWAYS yield a less than optimal (non-Pareto efficient for the econ buffs) outcome. In the absence of competition, they have virtually no incentive to innovate or improve productive efficiency. Further, their dominance of the market precludes the emergence of any competition, as the barriers to entry are insurmountably high.
    The monopolistic concentration of economic power in the hands of a few, be it the State of communism or the Koch brothers of capitalism, should always be opposed by proponents of true liberty. The best market is a competitive one, not one controlled by either a socialist State or a handful of ultra-rich, ultra-powerful corporations.

    1. The only way to have a monopoly is for a small elite to have access and influence over a government with too many powers.
      “Capitalism” (itself a derogatory term for free action of individuals was ginned up by Carl Marx) – is the antidote to monopolists, not the cause of them.
      I lived in east Germany – the state, even though it pretended to divide production between two holding entities, WAS THE MONOPOLY, and had a monopoly on your life.
      So before you get too carried away with the middle-minded thinking that makes you fee smart, pick the system you want to live in, and we can talk.

      1. Monopolies can and do occur in capitalist societies.Standard Oil during the turn of the 20th century is a good example. Note that it was eventually fragmented into smaller parts by the Sherman Act of 1890, a Congressional anti-trust regulation. Today, we have Microsoft, Apple, and Walmart, to name but a few.
        I already stated that a monopoly can be a massive corporation in the private sector or a bureaucratic arm of the State. So yes, the State can be (and often is) a monopoly, especially in socialist and communist societies.
        That does not invalidate my “middle-minded” argument.

  38. The trick is to choose pursuits in your life that can not be taken from you. The accumulation of money and resources can be taken from you which simply means you should make financial gain a lesser priority in your life. The accumulation of wisdom from reading books can not be redistributed. The gain to your health from working out and spending time cooking and eating good food can not be redistributed. The joy of being in nature can not be redistributed. My kung fu skills that I gain from years of practice can not be redistributed.
    Money is human time. You can spend your human time working and get money in return which can be taken away or you can use your human time to make your own stuff, or do without and spend that time on hobbies or intellectual pursuits which yield rewards that can not be taken away and can be argued are far more efficient at bringing happiness than money can.
    You do need money of course. Food, water, shelter, and beer are human necessities. However, fancy phones, new cars, elegant apartments, these things are not needed and the amount of time you must spend working in order to afford them causes you to both lose time that might be better spent elsewhere and helps to sustain the communism you hate oh so much.

  39. You know, Communism was almost obliterated in 1941 until the US bailed it out.

    1. At the time, it was the majority opinion among Western military experts that the Soviet Union would fall to the Wehrmacht, that Lend-Lease would only delay the inevitable and be a cost-efficient way of bleeding Germany. Because, you know, Communism doesn’t work, so how could the Soviet Union possibly stand against the Wehrmacht when all others had failed?

      1. Yes, that’s all true and Lend-Lease and forcing Germany to fight on two fronts gave Stalin and Communism a lifeline. If the Soviets had been defeated in 1941 or even later, it’s likely that none of the other communist regimes like China or North Korea would have never come to power either. There was probably about 75 million or more people that died at the hands of Communism in the post-war period.

  40. Whether you believe it was written by God or man, the Tenth Commandment may be the most important. “Thou shall not convent…”
    In other words, stop being a jealous asshole and earn your own way.

  41. If this is true, why did so many noble, intelligent and brave men become communists?

    1. Who? i would say it’s because they’re not intelligent and even less noble… as to braveness, focused in the wrong direction and with the wrong aims, braveness is not only bad but dangerous

  42. Communism is the way the powerful elite concentrates even more power in their hands. The useful idiots who endorse it are deceived.

  43. I’m not a big fan of the discourse that ‘self esteem’ is good and that ‘self hatred’ is something bad. Self hatred motivates us to improve ourselves by any means necessary, satisfaction with the self causes complacency and narcissism.
    Traditional cultures and religions have never seen ego as positive, although they have espoused charity. I feel that communism and socialism, things like that are kind of related to a politics of envy. Rather than working on what is wrong with oneself, a high sense of self esteem leads people to believe that they ‘deserve more’ than they’ve contributed to society.
    Mixing this with a religious idea of helping the poor, causes a lot of socialist type policies to arise because rather than believing that one is rich and needs to help the poor, people who support this believe that others are rich and that they are poor, and need help.

  44. “Communists are born, not made. In any population, math demands that some
    members will rank above the mean, and some below. This happens—it is a
    part of nature. But normally, nature has a way of maintaining a healthy
    equilibrium by not letting the diseased infect the herd. Abandoning
    natural law has led our society to fall out of balance and be overrun by
    Adolf Hitler would have agreed….Well done ROK you have become a breeding ground for fascists…

    1. Perhaps. Perhaps nationalism will supply the immune system needed to become healthy again.

    2. Your position is a false, disingenouous, and founded in a logical fallacy.
      Hitler and the Nazis were leftists of a similar view of people as the Communist. They both have a thing for Fueherprinzip, they see people as nothing more than work-units, and are both fetishists when it comes to authoritarianism and nationalism.

  45. Nature created humans. Humans invented the concept of “natural law”, a set of laws that were set by nature. But humans argue about what natural laws are. Humans try to enforce natural laws. Humans kill other humans over what natural laws are. But nature created us, everything humans are capable of is because nature lets us do it. If humans invented communism, it is because nature lets humans invente communism. That’s natural law, you can’t go against it. Everything that happens in the universe happens within nature laws.
    Now I’m not saying communism is right, but leave natural law out of it.

    1. Since both views are based in an inaccurate and unrealistic view of ones’ own self worth, and each feature magical thinking, I accept that one is not the singular binary option to the other.

  46. “Obviously, he was not pleased, but he had no right to be in the first place. Communists will have their cake, but we should not allow them to eat it too.”
    Let us make sure that they never have an opportunity to appear smug or self-satisfied again. Make sure they know we know they don’t deserve it.

    1. I see no reason to believe that you can ask an author to customize essays to match your obsession.
      Communism in all of it’s forms makes a God of itself. It is inherently without belief in anything higher than its’ shared delusions about human nature, and any figures in it that exhibit an appeal to faith are apostates using it as a veneer to shield them from criticism.
      Remember, it’s “for the good of man” that you must be oppressed and accept the Soviet (committee) as your leader, and the goals are materialist, not philosophical, moral, or matters of faith.

  47. I would like to say that communism isn’t really a bad thing. Technically it’s never existed yet. Pure, unrefined communism is where every man is equal, no one is better or worse. All communistic states of today have two classes, the people and the party, which really is a totalitarian state. Please stop spewing hate, no matter what what it’s about.
    Maybe we should have a hive mind.
    Email me at [email protected] for further discussion.

    1. At the same time, the reason we can’t have pure, unrefined communism is because human beings naturally seek a heirachy, the best you can do is establish rules and guidelines to keep the dominant party in check and looking after the submissive parties, which is what civilization has being doing since it’s creation.
      No hate, but a perfect communist society would require people who have no incentive to outdo one another, or improve themselves, thus maintaining their equality. Realistically, you might get equal rights, perhaps, but not equal outcome.

    2. I lived in the “real, living socialism” of East Germany, every time I hear the exercized response you gave, and these strange defenses come out as if from an old dot-matrix printer, my mind shuts off, and I wonder whether or not it is even a reasonable use of my time to say “how the hell would you know?”
      … because it felt real to me, and those trying to detract people in the contemporary west of pointing to others and calling them communist are pretty foolish. The contemporary
      western left are proto-communist collectivists willing to lie, hurt, and follow along for what they see as an ideology useful to their own desire to get something-for-nothing from the rest of society.
      The author is indeed right about there being no reason to waste any energy on the minor distinctions between the flavors Marxist-Leninism is offered in – it’s all claptrap meant, within the “thinking community’ over the past century to render an academic veneer to a totalitarian ideology and give reasons to give these knuckleheads a reason to believe that THEY are the supreme scholar.

  48. Man, reading these comments I can see why Nazi Germany was so hell bent on destroying the Soviet Union. This author would have made a great Nazi propagandist, as would the commentators supporting this twisted, survival-of-the-fittest attitude of sociopathy.

  49. Good article. More should be written on the behavioral psychology of the collectivist mentality. I’ve also observed a few traits in passing conversations. The first is those who tend to argue for the many, besides being part of the ‘victim culture,’ always have the perception that people who believe in less government, more personal freedoms, etc, are brainwashed and following some central message in lockstep. They don’t notice that the silent majority who practice living independently, arrive so by their own conclusions. People living above the fray of the MSM and government messages tend to know their own ‘code’ better by trial and error of doing, whether it be through raising a family, running a business, etc than by in-theory idealism. Those who preach this idealism and want to live in the delusion are the ones who parrot the talking points of others the most. The second is that I noticed how much I enjoy elitism. I have an appreciation for the best athletes, writers, investors, military strategists, business owners et al. There is a knee-jerk reaction in the kind of people you describe in the piece when asked to engage about someone great and it usually directly or indirectly involves tearing that accomplishment or person down. I try to remind them without elitism, societies wouldn’t advance. There would be no NASA, no college system, no engineering breakthroughs or anything past a basic nomadic or fragile planned agricultural society. Without competition forging change and the incentive to do so, humanity stands still and sways in reaction to every force around it. I admire and study the elites and anything else only argues for mediocrity.

  50. Great essay! Might as well substitute Democrat, socialist, or progressive. Though I have no love for tyranny with an R or corporate statism.

  51. I have been a producer and taxpayer (in spades) for my entire adult life (small business owner). The thing the communists don’t realize is that the entire system is coasting on the momentum of people like me. Yet all I ever hear is that we don’t pay enough taxes, even though I pay well over 50% between federal state and local. And there are so many useless high paid bureaucrats in my city that they can’t even afford to keep the roads in halfway decent repair.
    It is getting to the point that I am not seeing the point of it anymore. Once people like me cut back on our production, the entire house of cards comes tumbling down.

  52. Brilliant. My thoughts, word for word. I would equate Communism with the general female mindset of inferiority and self-loathing. In the end, it’s essentially a matriarchial “cunt d’etat” of the civilization that was built by patriarchy. The one who built the house, will always value it more than those who simply occupy it. They think they have a right to enter another’s house and rearrange the furniture. The pioneers seek out new frontiers and build it up with courage, and the parasites follow in cowardice, then destroy it once their numbers swell and their psychology of myopia, sloth, envy, irresponsibility, and disregard burn it to the ground. The sad thing is, the majority can’t realize that it’s a slow suicide. Nature punishes inefficiency in the wild with death, but this socialism/communism simply keeps them from facing their consequence. The feedback loop has been disrupted and the sinking ship takes everyone down with it.

  53. You’re a good man, Fry. If everyone did what you do, communists would get their asses up and do something.
    I have written an article about the hatred you mention:
    It’s all the people who feed their illusions that make them even possible. They can’t tell truth from lie, I know it from myself.
    In a way, the lies were what made them what they are, not poverty. Here is a survey showing that inequality and happiness are less related for Americans than for Europeans:
    They are unhappy because they think they must be. They do not demand their fair share because they are idiots – they actually have learned that complaining is the way to get what you want. For example sons of smothering mothers, myself included.
    It’s a sickness of the mind and of the soul and it must be eradicated.

Comments are closed.