The power struggle of states is not guided by blind destiny; rather, it lays bare the reason of the world.
Eric Voegelin [i]
Destiny is linked to truth and falsehood in the following way: If we adopt truth, we tend to prosper. If our creed is a lie, we are going to suffer. If we adopt the lies of socialism and communism, which exist everywhere today under various guises (environmentalist, antiracist, feminist, etc.), there is going to be great suffering. It is a fateful choice – because those who are leading us into socialism and communism are blind; and those who fail to see this fateful choice are also blind. Therefore, if history has taken a wrong turn, it is not because destiny is blind. It is because men are blind.
Marxism-Leninism has been advancing, adapting, and reformatting itself for the past 106 years. In fact, Marxism-Leninism has artfully shapeshifted so that most people do not even recognize its continuance. Despite the legacy of Stalin and the Gulag, despite the “stagnation” under Brezhnev, despite the collapse of Soviet communism, Marxism-Leninism continues to be a power in the world. The Communist Party continues to rule China. It animates Putin’s inner circle. It is spreading across Africa and Latin America. It dominates the elite universities of the West. A disguised Marxist ethic has permeated Western culture and politics.[ii] Why? Perhaps it is, as Eric Voegelin suggested, that Marxism appeals to the self-divinizing impulses of alienated intellectuals even as it feeds the warped bloodlust of psychopaths who want to “kill for fun.”
At its base, Marxism has always lived on theoretical fallacies. Yet, it always survives the catastrophic consequences of those fallacies. It does so through Machiavellian cunning and a readiness to retreat into more organic forms of social organization. Always the Marxist-Leninists have disguised themselves under false labels – as liberals and progressives, environmentalists and feminists, nationalists and even Christians. Whatever causes they hide behind, their special form of mischief has always been to depreciate the order of being; in other words, their mischief is to murder God by exchanging places with him. “Like the Promethean hatred of the Gods,” noted Eric Voegelin, “the murder of God is a general possibility in … response to God.”[iii]
In his memoirs, Voegelin asked why people are drawn to totalitarian ideologies. Having spent many years studying “revolutionary consciousness,” Voegelin said that ideology offers a “pseudo-identity that serves as a substitute for the human self that has been lost.”[iv] Caught in the doldrums of attenuated affect, Marxist revolutionaries find satisfaction in grandiose schemes to reorder society by robbing and killing. Marxism-Leninism amplifies this satisfaction by pretending to liberate a downtrodden multitude. About this Voegelin wrote, “In my uncivilized manner as a man who does not like to murder people for the purpose of supplying intellectuals with fun, I flatly state that Marx was consciously an intellectual swindler for the purpose of maintaining an ideology that would permit him to support violent action against human beings with a show of moral indignation.”[v]
The entire left suffers from this illness to one degree or another. They embrace a victim group, like the Palestinians, and with a show of moral indignation they egg on a greater victimization, a more gruesome violence. As they like to say, “No justice, no peace.” The world is not fair, of course. Yet every mature mind accepts the facts of life without making war on that fragile thing we call order, or civilization. Wars of this kind only extend suffering. And once you have destroyed an existing system of order, you are in the dark ages with many centuries of toil to work your way back. In life, everyone is dealt a different hand. Everyone suffers some kind of misfortune and then dies. Revolutionary action cannot change this.
One might ask: Are the tall guilty before the short? Is intelligence guilty before stupidity? Are the rich guilty before the poor? If it is criminal to be tall, intelligent, and rich, then what punishment should we impose? Richard Weaver once observed that any attempt to redress such grievances is harmful, and “is found most often in the mouths of those engaged in artful self-promotion.” This is a clever form of self-advancement, noted Weaver, but it is “fatal to the harmony of the world.”[vi]
This is what Marxism is, in fact: A creed fatal to the harmony of the world. Only, it is not a creed. It is a call to action and a plan of action and an organization for action. If it were only a creed, who would care? But it is much more than that. It is a global movement that took over the world’s largest country (Russia) in 1917; and then it took over the world’s most populous country (China) in 1949.
It was a mistake on the part of our pundits, during the Cold War, to think of communism as an economic alternative to capitalism. Marxism-Leninism is best understood as a Machiavellian system of doing. As such it can evolve and adapt. Because it considers itself a science, and science is constantly revising its theories, Marxism has been updated and reformatted many times. Unfortunately, the non-communist world either does not notice or does not properly understand communism’s flexibility. The non-communist world thinks that communism is “going away.” We have said to ourselves that if communism is changing, then it is evolving into democracy or capitalism. Communists have been happy to play along with these more optimistic expectations of Western liberals and conservatives. Non-communists do not realize that changes in communist systems can be deceptive in that so-called “communist systems” (which never were communist in an economic sense) may “change” into capitalism or even feudalism[vii] while secret communist structures continue to operate under the surface, ready to retake society during a future crisis.
Communism is complicated, and there are no shortcuts for understanding it. People in democratic countries often dismiss communists because communist parties are not generally good at winning elections. But then, the communists infiltrate and appropriate popular movements and non-communist parties – without parading their unpopular core ideas before the public. You can tell which parties have been taken over by communists if you study the favored catchphrases and themes used to disguise their control. Communists gravitate toward formerly oppressed groups, or people with grievances. Their stealth approach to victory leads them to campaign for things that seem quite odd (i.e., like homosexual marriage). Through these campaigns they can change our way of life, our way of thinking, and the way we use words. For example: They have turned the word “racism” into a weapon of intimidation. They have also weaponized the word “sexism.” This sort of appropriation goes on, every day, in plain sight. Yet almost nobody sees the how or why of it.[viii]
Inventing new lifestyles, or new roles for people, is another approach to advancing Marxism. You can offer people choices like gender reassignment or putting women in combat. The key idea is to break down a society’s boundaries, norms, and customs. Since politics is downstream from culture, an attack on culture is an attack on the political system. This form of attack has been credited to Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist. Although he is not the only person to have developed such ideas, Gramsci is said to have revitalized Marxist theory by “returning to the spirit of Marx himself.”[ix] Gramsci noticed that Lenin’s form of Marxism was truer. Gramsci also notice that most Marxists did not understand Marx at all. Their approach was wooden and pedantic. Lenin’s boldness of conception suggested an even more creative approach to Marxism; for Lenin realized that Marxism had become too pedantic and fatalistic. Therefore, Lenin set out to overturn what he called “legal” or “textbook” Marxism. Let those who never understood Marx argue in circles while real revolutionaries develop principles of action and organizations to overthrow capitalism. Taking this approach, Lenin achieved what bookish Marxists could have never achieved.
Gramsci saw Lenin as an apostle of “living Marxism” as opposed to “abstract Marxism.” In this spirit, Gramsci said that the strict “reflectionist” ideas of the “abstract Marxists” were wrong. Reflectionist autonomism was antithetical to the spirit of Marx. Thus, “abstract Marxism” stood in direct contradiction to the ebb and flow of Marx’s dialectic. “Nor did Marx ever systematically advance a model of socio-political development based upon a set of scientific laws,” noted Carl Boggs; “in fact, his analysis of the passage from feudalism to capitalism was very loosely-outlined, and he never really got around to specifying the nature of the transition from capitalism to socialism.”[x] The idea that Marx had solved the real problems of human emancipation was therefore mistaken. Much work, then, had to be done. And much had to be reconsidered, since Marx’s ideas had fallen into the hands of positivists whose “scientism and economic determinism” were as unimaginative as they were demotivating. This demotivation coincided with a “decline of revolutionary prospects in Western Europe,” noted Carl Boggs, especially as Marxists became reformists. Unlike Lenin, whose voluntarism called for professional revolutionaries with effective organizations, the “abstract” Marxists doted on Marx’s half-finished work. In doing this, they missed the heart of Marx’s project; namely, to replace the old Word of God with the new word of man.
In doing this, the revolutionary’s main enemy has always been religious belief. The number of religious people must be reduced so that the Revolution does not entail killing more people than is workable. To this end, culture must become more and more secular. “Not only must the old meanings and norms of everyday life be destroyed,” wrote Boggs, “but new ones must be constructed in their place. Hence the struggle for ideological hegemony has two phases: to penetrate the false world of established appearances rooted in the dominant belief systems and to create an entirely new universe of ideas and values that would provide the basis for human liberation.”[xi] Waging a struggle for ideological hegemony was one of Gramsci’s central concepts. Religion, nationalism, the family, the individual, had to be culturally smashed or deconstructed. Gramsci realized that religion was a great obstacle for communism. People who believe in God are not likely to join a violent revolution to overthrow the existing system. His insight was that “Religious ideology performed a concrete political function in containing and distorting popular rebellion … by stressing the ‘natural’ (God-given) character of existing structures such as private property and the family….”[xii]
Marxism denies that given economic or political structures are natural or derived from God. This goes to the root of what communism is, and what it seeks to do. Consequently, whenever we see Marxists joining churches, or expressing theological interpretations, we are witnessing an infiltration/sabotage operation in progress. According to Boggs, “Gramsci was the first to insist that religion as a hegemonic ideology would have to be confronted within the context of transforming popular consciousness as both the pre-condition to abolishing capitalism and a central aspect of liberation itself.”[xiii] Like Max Weber, who wrote The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Gramsci saw American Protestantism as integral to successful capitalism. “Gramsci observed that the Protestant ethic was more universally assimilated by the popular masses in the United States than elsewhere, owing to the absence of feudal remnants (such as an established Church) and to the more advanced levels of industrial development.” In his Prison Notebooks, Gramsci said that Puritanism was the key to American industrialization and productivity. He condemned Protestantism for creating the perfect industrial animal – the “trained gorilla” who is submerged in a self-negating soup of guilt. This “gorilla” is not to seek pleasure or to cultivate critical thinking. He is to demonstrate his salvation with a willingness to work and suffer. Gramsci thus concluded that you could destroy American capitalism by destroying Protestantism.[xiv]
Here is an interesting sidenote: Marxism thinks religion has made men into monkeys, and the Marxists want to change these monkeys into gods! Here is the key to Marx and his followers. It is safe to say that their regard for man, and for themselves, fluctuates between extremes; that is, extremes of ego deflation and inflation, characteristic of narcissistic personality disorder. Marxist grandiosity refuses to accept the humiliations of mortal existence. They refuse to accept that suffering is an inescapable part of life. Through all their convoluted ideas, their underlying thought is to make heaven on earth. Then they can inflate themselves into gods. Except, the Marxists did not make the world and, therefore, they cannot remake it. This ultimate and humbling insight was epitomized by the fictional police detective “Dirty Harry” Callahan after a criminal mastermind blew himself up. Callahan said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.”[xv] Those who trespass the given order, however clever they might be, are ultimately destroyed. They do not know their limitations. Marxism involves hubris because it defies the God-given. It goes against what is foreordained, leading to nemesis – which is the agent of inevitable downfall.
In The New Science of Politics, Eric Voegelin characterized modern Gnostic thought (i.e., Marxism, National Socialism, positivism, etc.) as committing the fallacy of seeking Christian transcendental fulfillment by an “immanentist hypostasis of the eschaton.”[xvi] To put this in plain terms: Heaven is not on Google Maps. You are not going to find it on a star chart. Who has the bulldozers and the other machines needed to build heaven on a little blue ball, 93 million miles from a main sequence star on an outer spiral arm of the Milky Way Galaxy? Yet Marxists believe it can be done.
Here is an important point: Communists believe that man’s salvation and ultimate meaning comes through the material perfection of creaturely existence – that man’s salvation is found in things. It is found in a historical process. Yet the meaning of history, so conceived by Marxists, is an illusion. It is an illusion, said Voegelin, “created by treating a symbol of faith as if it were a proposition concerning an object of immanent experience.”[xvii] According to Voegelin, this process of immanentization began with the Florentine attempt to “regain an understanding of the divine order through a revival of neo- Platonism” in the late fifteenth century. This attempt “miscarried” because “a revival of the divine order in the cosmos in the ancient sense would have required a revival of the pagan gods; and that did not work. What was left of the intracosmic divine order … was an immanent order of reality – an immanentism which had to become secularist when, following the pagan gods, the Christian god had to be thrown out too.”[xviii]
Once you dispense with divinity what is left? Angry little thinking pygmies who want to be God. Under the heading “Machiavelli and Marx,” Gramsci explained that Machiavelli had proposed a political science that was “an autonomous activity, with its own principles and laws distinct from those of morality and religion….”[xix] Yet, how could there be “principles” and “laws” in a godless universe? Who, then, would the lawgiver be? One must break entirely with principles and laws if we are to embrace the atheistic materialism of Marx. This brings us to Ivan Karamzov’s statement in Dostoevsky’s novel, The Brothers Karamazov: “If there is no immortality, there is no virtue” – with the unstated corollary being, “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.” And that is what we find in Gramsci’s Machiavellian “political science.” In historical terms, this takes us to Stalin’s Gulag and Hitler’s death camps. The irony has always been, with these people, that their “science” and their “philosophy,” in all its instrumentalist glory, leads us directly to prison and death.
Such is the nature of the people and philosophy that has plagued mankind during the past century. The whole thing was described by Voegelin in terms of an “egophanic revolt.” Here, the epiphany of the ego is the “fundamental experience that eclipses the epiphany of God in the structure of Classic and Christian consciousness.”[xx] This egoism is best glimpsed through the lens of Nietzsche’s madness, which was clearly in evidence in his autobiography, Ecce Homo. Under the heading “Why I am a Destiny,” Nietzsche wrote, “I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous – a crisis without equal on earth….” Nietzsche feared that he would be pronounced holy. He said that he was “the first decent human being” standing in opposition to “the mendaciousness of millennia.” He further explained,
For when truth enters into a fight with the lies of millennia, we shall have upheavals, a convulsion of earthquakes, a moving of mountains and valleys, the like of which has never been dreamt of. The concept of politics will have merged entirely with a war of spirits: all power structures of the old society will have been exploded – all of them are based on lies: there will be wars the like of which have never yet been seen on earth. It is only beginning with me that the earth knows great politics. [xxi]
As Nietzsche was mentally disintegrating, he suffered the ego inflation of the schizophrenic.[xxii] Nietzsche’s burning hatred of Christianity and Socialism (i.e., the Old Religion and the New Religion) signified an attitude best characterized as “a curse on both your houses.” Nietzsche’s curse was that of the ultimate immoralist – which made him an “annihilator par excellence.” And so, he wrote, “I am no man, I am dynamite.” Here is the same destructive impulse that animated Karl Marx, except that Nietzsche’s egomania stopped short. Despite apologizing for the weather, or calling himself “the crucified one,” Nietzsche did not want to be holy. He did not want to be God. Karl Marx and his movement is all about becoming God.
Communist regimes, when not pretending to be progressive or liberal, arrest and imprison whomever they please. They behave like God at the Last Judgment. These regimes have murdered tens of millions of people. Their contempt for justice, at the same time, is intrinsic. A former Czechoslovak communist official, Jan Sejna, wrote, “I saw the cream of the Czech intelligentsia in the prisons at Jachymov, where they excavated uranium for the Soviet Union, and at Pankrac.” These people were usually charged with “crimes against the Republic.” According to Sejna, “this charge produced sentences varying from fifteen to twenty-five years for such misdemeanors as possessing an anti-Communist pamphlet – usually planted in the victim’s pocket by the Secret Police….” Sejna’s sources said that most of those arrested had either made careless remarks the regime did not like, or they were charged with economic sabotage – “scapegoats for Party officials who had failed to reach their targets.”[xxiii]
As noted at the beginning of this essay, Marxism-Leninism has been advancing, adapting, and reformatting itself for the past 106 years. In fact, Marxism-Leninism has artfully shapeshifted so that most people do not even recognize its continuance. They have been diverted into conspiracy narratives (which are discussed and analyzed in the videos below). Few realize the extent to which the communists have played a long game. Many of our “top analysts” see no communist game at all. In 1982 Jan Sejna wrote, “One of the basic problems of the West is its frequent failure to recognize the existence of any Soviet ‘grand design’ at all.”[xxiv] In terms of Moscow’s ultimate objectives, Sejna explained, “Soviet ambitions toward the United States were aimed at the extinction of Capitalism and the ‘socialization’ of America, which they believed would be the last surviving dinosaur of the Capitalist system.” The intermediate goals of the communists included “the withdrawal of the U.S.A. from Europe and Asia; the removal of Latin America from the United States’ sphere of influence and its incorporation into the Socialist bloc; the destruction of the United States influence in the developing world; the reduction of American military power to a state of strategic inferiority; the advent to power in Washington of a transitional liberal and progressive government; and the collapse of the American economy.”[xxv]
Does any of this sound familiar? Of course, this is exactly what we are contending with today. The communists are still working for these objectives. Those who do not understand what is meant by “the advent to power in Washington of a transitional liberal and progressive government,” need to look more closely at the Biden administration. The Biden team is the thing itself. And yes, the collapse of the American economy appears to be coming.
Communism is real. The communist bloc is real. The communist movement is real. Communist subversion is real. It is not some vague thing, like “the Illuminati” or an unnamed group of Satan-worshipping cabalists. It is the biggest enemy humanity has ever had. The communists, of course, are not ten feet tall. They have problems, which will be discussed in Part III; and we need to exploit those problems. All the same, the communists have infiltrated our government, our churches, our schools and our major corporations. The World Economic Forum is almost certainly a communist front organization. The communists also have nuclear weapons. They have biological weapons. The threat of communism is not theoretical. It is existential.
On The Nature of Conspiracies
Fake Conspiracy Theories, With Alex Benesch
Notes and Links
[i] Eric Voegelin, The Collected Works, Vol. V, Modernity Without Restraint (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2000), p. 30.
[ii] Most analysts will dispute statement. They ought to consider the situation more carefully, however. China is openly and unapologetically a Marxist-Leninist state. Look, then, at China’s allies. Russia is led by a former KGB officer who thinks the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century was the fall of the Soviet Union. Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, South Africa, Congo, Nepal – to name a few – are also under Marxists and aligned with Beijing as well as Moscow. Refusing to see this is willful blindness. Such refusal is not even intelligent.
[iii] Eric Voegelin, Science, Politics and Gnosticism (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1997), p. 37.
[iv] Eric Voegelin, Autobiographical Reflections (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press), p. 46-7.
[v] Ibid, p. 48.
[vi] Richard Weaver, Ideas have Consequences (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1962), p. 41.
[vii] Many communist states have capitalist and semi-feudal structures imbedded in their so-called “market socialism.”
[viii] See Tim Groseclose, Left Turn: How Liberal media Bias Distorts the American Mind (Kindle).
[ix] Carl Boggs, Gramsci’s Marxism (London: Pluto Press, 1976), p. 23.
[x] Ibid, pp. 23-24.
[xi] Ibid, p. 42.
[xii] Ibid, p. 43.
[xiv] Ibid, p. 44.
[xvi] Eric Voegelin, The Collected Works, Vol. V, Modernity Without Restraint, page 185
[xvii] Ibid, pp. 185-86.
[xviii] Eric Voegelin, Autobiographical Reflections, p. 67.
[xix] Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks (New York: International Publishers, 1991), p. 134.
[xx] Eric Voegelin, Autobiographical Reflections, p. 67.
[xxi] All quotations from Ecce Homo are taken from, F. Nietzsche, trans. Walter Kaufmann, Basic Writings of Nietzsche (New York: Modern Library, 1968), pp. 782-783.
[xxii] “In schizophrenia, the assimilation and inflation of the Ego can be caused by the weakness of the Ego or the increase in the pressure from non-integrated complexes in the unconscious.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924933813763429#:~:text=In%20schizophrenia%2C%20the%20assimilation%20and,integrated%20complexes%20in%20the%20unconscious.
[xxiii] Jan Sejna, We Will Bury You, p. 163.
[xxiv] Sejna, pp. 101-02. Special note: Sejna apparently knew nothing about the Sino-Soviet split being part of the long-range Plan. As I told Sejna’s friend, Joe Douglass, from the Kremlin’s standpoint Sejna had no need to know. In fact, the CIA’s chief of counterintelligence staff, James Angleton, was suspicious of Sejna on this score.
[xxv] Sejna, pp. 153-54.
Quartlery Subscription (to support the website)