2311271500M IT’S “THE WAR ON THE WEST!”

It’s a straw-man ‘war against the west’ by Marxist Socialism that’s at the center of human unrest in this 21st Century. Or should I say that it’s a Marxist Socialism straw-man war against the distorted view of the western capitalism?

The Marxist Socialism that is communism can only dream of the economic productivity of western capitalism. As indicated by the eventual economic collapse of the Soviet Union and the persistent capitalist feathering by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) to keep their economy afloat.

It’s sorrowful to say, but were communism anywhere near as productive as capitalism we’d long since have been communists – to hell with the sanctity of the individual and their human rights

So the question becomes: just what is it that makes capitalism so productive? And the answer is: the inherent individual sanctity and upward mobility provided by the inclusion of a capitalist middle class.

The disgusting truth is that communism needs that there be ONLY TWO contrasting groups for their hate sparking revolution(s) to start – more than two apparently doesn’t work because communist is solely based on covetous envy. That’s all Marxism has to capitalize on.

What I’m trying to point out is that communism isn’t necessarily a campaign against the rich because that’s what they hope to be. Communism is a perpetual revolution against any bourgeois middle class THAT YOU HOPE TO BE! In other words it’s a war against upward mobility that capitalism provides. Please study closely the definition of what the word ‘bourgeois’ really means to understand that it’s the goal of communism to deal you out of your own economy leaving you nothing but a hoped for utopia in the future. HOW THEN IS COMMUNISM ANY DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER RELIGION? Well, it is a religion of hate I suppose?

ALL SOCIALISM'S ARE DICHOTOMIES requiring a limitation on their economic classes (groups) to only two – an affluent class and a minimal subsistence class. The socialist war on the west is a de facto war on the middle classes that spark capitalist productivity. Socialism is rather like expecting an automobile to run without a battery to bring its engine to life.

PS. On a side note, when you hear American southerners say that the American Civil War was fought over state’s rights rather than slavery – well they’re telling the truth with the exception of the wealthy southern elites. As I recall General A.P. Hill was under the impression he was leading southern men into battle for state’s rights right up until his surprise to the contrary. {But that’s another story} At any rate he unfortunately didn’t survive the war to tell the tale. And to this day it’s insisted that the Civil War was over state’s rights rather than slavery. Or do you think for a moment that poor plowmen would go to war to benefit some rich plantation owners slaving? Those poor farmers had nothing to be fighting for if state’s rights hadn’t been used to inspire them. {I bring this up only because it’s brought up to Douglas Murray for some reason in this interview?}

BY THE WAY: The rich plantation owners stayed rich and their slave managers were transported to Brazil free of charge with their families by the Portuguese Emperor who had hopes of starting up a lucrative cotton industry there – only to abolish slavery there 20 years later..

It is a common affliction among the masses that they all sincerely believe that had they lived in this or that time period they’d have been rich plantation owners or royalty allowed to bear arms as Americans are supposed to be entitled to today – ALL OF WHICH IS FALSE HOLLYWOOD INDUCED DELUSION. You and I would more than likely have been peasants and/or holocaust camp guards just like the rest of those time periods.

Posted by: Jordan B Peterson ~ 1 year ago ~ 1.5M views ~ 7.53M subscribers
“The War on the West | Douglas Murray | EP 247”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Di·chot·o·my
/dīˈkädəmē/
noun

1. a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different:

"a rigid dichotomy between science and mysticism"

▪ repeated branching into two equal parts.

Word Origin:
late 16th century: via modern Latin from Greek dikhotomia, from dikho- ‘in two, apart’ + -tomia (see -tomy).

Powered by Oxford Languages

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bour·geois
/bo͝orˈZHwä/
adjective

1. of or characteristic of the middle class, typically with reference to its perceived materialistic values or conventional attitudes:

"a rich, bored, bourgeois family"

Similar: middle-class, property-owning, propertied, shopkeeping, conventional, traditional, conservative, conformist, ordinary, commonplace, provincial, parochial, suburban, small-town, parish-pump.

Opposite: proletarian, unconventional.

▪ (in Marxist contexts) upholding the interests of capitalism; not communist:

"bourgeois society took for granted the sanctity of property"

Similar: capitalistic, materialistic, money-oriented, commercial,

Informal, Derogatory: yuppie.

Opposite: communist.

noun

1. a bourgeois person:

"a self-confessed and proud bourgeois"

Word Origin:
mid 16th century: from French, from late Latin burgus ‘castle’ (in medieval Latin ‘fortified town&rsquo, ultimately of Germanic origin and related to borough. Compare with burgess.

Powered by Oxford Languages