Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "The Lunduke Journal"
channel.
-
15
-
12
-
9
-
All Fascists and Nazis are Leftists. Mussolini was an editor of a leftist paper. Prior to the war Mussolini and FDR, the progressive (which at the time meant socialism plus eugenics plus Jim Crow laws) were exchanging political love letters praising one another and also in the American and Italian press.
Mussolini and his party developed Fascism because Marx's predicted proletarian uprising, long overdue by Communist prediction, never happened. Mussolini noted that despite ideology, people still fought for their country, so he added ardent nationalism to socialism. Unlike the Nazis, there was nothing acutely racial about Mussolini's nationalism (he was not anti-semitic, for example). When he took power he got a congratulatory telegram from Lenin for being a leftist leader who took control of Italy.
Hitler made no bones about being a leftist:
#1. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism” … “as I do not hesitate to admit”
#2. [My task is to] “convert the German volk (people) to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists”
#3. “If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites – and the opposite, in that case, is Materialism and Mammonism, which we seek to oppose.” “How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?”
#4. We must “find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution”.
#5. “Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings.”
#6. “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions” 1927
#7. “What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish we shall be in a position to achieve.”
Select planks from the Nazi party platform:
7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
9. All German Citizens must have equal rights and duties.
10. It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.
We therefore demand:
11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.
Breaking the Servitude of Interest.
12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.
15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.
17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.
18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.
20. In order to make higher education – and thereby entry into leading positions – available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latters’ position or occupation.
21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people.
25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich. Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states.
/ end citation
The early (pre-Holocaust) laws relegating Jews to second-class citizens were copied wholesale from the "Progressive" Jim Crow laws of the American South.
Stalin not only entered into a non-aggression pact with Hitler, he joined him in the conquest of Poland and gave him material and propaganda support until Hitler betrayed him with Operation Barbarossa. Stalin considered the liberal west the greater threat ideologically.
At the time, everybody considered Fascism and Nazism to be part of the left. After the war, when the Nazis had made eugenics unfashionable, the left exerted its propaganda power to attribute Fascism and Nazism to the right. The notion that Fascism is not leftist is historical revisionism.
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
@imacmill "What is woke?"
"Woke" is the successor to "politically correct". "Politically correct" is a translation of a Russian phrase from the Soviet era. It was a recognition of Soviet enforcement of dogmatic "truth". When official non-acceptance of a fact is causing a problem, and your friend is contemplating saying the unsayable in public, you say, "You may be factually correct, but you are politically incorrect." This usage filtered its way into the Western left, and, as leftist authoritarian memes tend to do in a freer society, began to become so noxious that nobody would use it outside of dark sarcasm as a contemptuous term of ridicule. And we all would have lived happily ever after.
This tends to happen to leftist euphemisms once the sane folk figure out what the cryptic terminology means. Hence the restless reinvention of new leftist euphemisms. The waxing leftist power bloc, deprived of "politically correct" needed a new euphemism for their suppression of "wrongthink". Since they were more and more indoctrinating young folk in their causes du jour as a result of the "long march through the institutions" having locked down key institutions of higher learning and the teacher's unions for primary and secondary schools, it was convenient to couch the party line as an awakening to inspire and relate to their new charges/victims. They needed a shibboleth adjective to separate the sheep from the goats, and settled on the stylishly hip-hop sounding "woke".
It was a shortcut for the authoritarian notion that anyone who challenged the establishment position on various issues calculated to divide the society and empower the authorities, such as alphabet "community" dogma, discrimination on the basis of race or sex, certain "environmental" issues, should be slandered, marginalized, cancelled, fired, jailed, or killed. Residual love of freedom in the West resulted in this euphemism sharing the fate of former euphemisms, being used ironically or sarcastically by their intended victims, to the point that they could no longer use the term in public without risking being laughed out of the room.
Since the term is now used almost exclusively by freedom loving folk, some latecomers and youth quite innocently get the impression that the term was coined by conservatives as a derisive term for leftists. No, the leftists coined and defined the term and now that their intended victims are wise to it, will have to devise another (and so on, lather, rinse repeat). In the meantime they will have to make do with calling their victims names, suing them, censoring them, arresting them, and assaulting them.
I hope you found this lesson helpful, and if you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask. It may take me a while to reply. The side which tries to settle a question of fact by the use of force is the obscurantist side, every time. That's how you know who the bad guys are.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Democratic election of representatives and officials in the Federal government and the requirement for the states admitted to have a representative form of government were just one among many, even if the most profound and radical, means of DISPERSING POWER. Often the the system of the US republic is compared unfavorably with a parliamentary system, for instance, on the grounds of efficiency. The parliamentary supposedly more rapidly implements the sense of the majority. Such critics are mistaking a means for an end. The founders of the US constitutional republic were concerned with dissipating power, of keeping it from being concentrated and thus facilitating tyranny. Democracy is just one, even if the most important and radical, of the means to this end. "Checks and balances" were placed throughout the system. Gridlock is a feature, not a bug. Democracy may well be necessary for freedom, but it is certainly INSUFFICIENT.
That being said, it is absurd to berate anybody who refers to the US democracy, or discusses the democratic aspect of our government. Classifying the US and other Western nations under the generalization "democracies" is a useful and, as far as it goes, valid usage. For one thing, no 2 critics who dogmatically insist that the US be referred to exclusively as a "republic" and never as a "democracy" posit the same definition (if they posit any at all) of what "republic" means. Often, they are fuzzy on the definition of "democracy" as well. The term "republic" is better as a description of the US, but in some contexts, particularly when discussing voting, or grouping our closest allies by common values, democracy is an important concept. It is the left who are in the business of banning words.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The left/right dichotomy goes back to Revolutionary France. And the left were the more radical censors from the start. In the early 20th century in US politics Woodrow Wilson's "progressives", recognized by one and all as "left" were advocates of socialism, Jim Crow laws, and eugenics. When Hitler and Mussolini rose in Europe, everybody acknowledged that Fascism and Nazism were phenomena of the left. Until Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet Union was providing the Reich with war material in bulk by rail, and favoring them with their propaganda. It is only after the war, when Hitler "gave eugenics a bad name" that the left started promoting the idea that Nazis and Fascists were on the "right", which used to mean "traditional" and "liberal" and the like.
Protestantism created the modern libertarian west. We (Protestants) ended slavery; implemented religious freedom, political freedom, academic freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press FIRST, and thus caused the academic, scientific, technological, and material progress that followed; and most of the rest of the world hasn't caught up with it yet. John 8:32 "You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
Cancel culture is exactly about trying to settle a point of fact by the use of force. That is always obscurantist, every time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@happygofishing Blanket Bulverism. Your ideas can't compete in rational engagement so you close your eyes, cover ears and scream "there are no such things as arguments". Rather than engage ideas rationally, you posit an irrational or ignoble motive or cause to give yourself and your readers an excuse to dismiss ideas without consideration. You promote ideas with power which won't stand rational scrutiny, and assert "there is no rationality, just power." That's like Marx, "All arguments are a result of class conditioning" (except the argument I make when I say this). All such "proofs" that there are no such things as proofs make tacit and unjustified exception in favor of their own "reasoning". Only authoritarians do this. And they accuse others of doing the same, "Accuse your opponents of doing what you're doing" - Saul Alinsky.
Quote from Bulverism by C. S. Lewis:
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.
In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the natural dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, the pieces are all in place, the ubiquitous surveillance, the Newspeak, the censorship, "refs nonpersons", "mutability of the past", TVs that watch you, the "two minutes hate" at our workplaces (only longer), the Big Lie gaslighting: ‘War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength.’
But they haven't nailed us down yet. In the final stage, they can't depend on deception alone. One can't ultimately be a total despot in secret. They aren't really trying to fool us anymore. They are trying to DEMORALIZE us. They want a situation where all of us betray everybody else. Totalitarianism requires a state of affairs where almost everybody KNOWS they're being oppressed and lied to, but nobody dares SAY it.
Galadriel:
The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true.
Aragorn:
By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Puddlegum:
"One word, Ma'am," he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things – trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."
G, K. Chesterton -
“Truths turn into dogmas the instant that they are disputed. Thus every man who utters a doubt defines a religion. And the skepticism of our time does not really destroy the beliefs, rather it creates them; gives them their limits and their plain and defiant shape. We who are Liberals once held Liberalism lightly as a truism. Now it has been disputed, and we hold it fiercely as a faith. We who believe in patriotism once thought patriotism to be reasonable, and thought little more about it. Now we know it to be unreasonable, and know it to be right. We who are Christians never knew the great philosophic common sense which inheres in that mystery until the anti-Christian writers pointed it out to us. The great march of mental destruction will go on. Everything will be denied. Everything will become a creed. It is a reasonable position to deny the stones in the street; it will be a religious dogma to assert them. It is a rational thesis that we are all in a dream; it will be a mystical sanity to say that we are all awake. Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer. We shall be left defending, not only the incredible virtues and sanities of human life, but something more incredible still, this huge impossible universe which stares us in the face. We shall fight for visible prodigies as if they were invisible. We shall look on the impossible grass and the skies with a strange courage. We shall be of those who have seen and yet have believed.”
1