Tweet
Before you call us fascist NAZI reactionaries, READ THIS!
Our story begins at the dawn of the 20th century.
After 200 years of liberalization*, people were sick of it.
Sick of nerd scientists with their confessions of uncertainty, waffling doubts, creepy xenophilia, and cautious calls for more evidence.
Sick of boring politicians and their petty squabbles and cowardly maneuvering.
Sick of inglorious commerce, sick of being the sons of warriors in an economy of shopkeepers.
Sick of vagina-shriveling "live and let live" wimpiness.
A new ideology had to replace liberalism. Something that comes naturally to people, something that stirs the emotions, that provides certitude, purpose, and excuses to fight. Something that lets people live the stone-age dream, that gets us "back to the garden". Something that chicks dig.
That ideology was socialism. Basically, socialism is when you write a bunch of big books that nobody reads, and say a bunch of big words that nobody understands, and then, while everyone is dazzled by your brilliance baffled by your bulldung, you gang up and take other people's stuff.
Socialism is divisive though, because everybody wants to be the looter, and nobody wants to be the looted. So socialists split into many, many factions, almost all of them identical:
Some people think it's strange that there would be so much hatred and strife between identical movements. It makes sense when you think of gangs of criminals or mobs of looters fighting each other - yes, they are identical in terms of ideology, but they do have a strong disagreement over who gets to do the looting and who gets looted.
There is only one real ideological split in the socialist movement, and it's a small one. It's over how to decide who gets to join the gang. Marxist socialists believe that gang membership should be determined by economic and social class.
National Socialists (Also called "fascists" because Italian Socialists led the way, or NAZIs after the German National Socialist Worker's Party) believe that gang membership should be determined by identity group: nationality, race, or other accidents of birth. In the internationalized world of the 21st century, Sectarian Socialist would be a better name for this movement.
Both types of socialists took over nations during the 20th century. Both ran those nations into the ground because they could only pillage wealth but not create it. Knowing this, they both basically declared war on the world, and the world beat them.
Or so we like to think.
Socialists have an advantage over liberals. Liberalism is all about sober-minded adults who mind their own boring business. Politics is the opposite of that in every way. Liberals are like chess grandmasters who showed up for a mud wrestling match.
Thus, without anyone noticing, national socialists have taken over western culture. Like Mussolini, they started as Marxist Socialist, until Soviet misbehavior forced a change:
So, if someone calls True Christians™ "NAZIs" or "Fascists", that's completely false. We are not German or Italian.
Nor are we Reactionary, because we are not fighting against socialism per se. We are fighting rival socialist gangs, just like everyone else. We have our own identity politics, just like all of the other national socialists/sectarian socialists. We are objectively better, because we mostly just pillage the young,
and instead of violent looting, we simply have the government borrow money to give tax cuts to our fellow gang members/"job creators". The young don't care, they're too busy fighting their own socialist infights. And they won't have to pay anyway, because Christ will return and the world will end before the debts have to paid.
So there you have it - from the end of ideological history to the actual end of history.
*Footnote: Liberalism as defined by Francis F***iama:
After 200 years of liberalization*, people were sick of it.
Sick of nerd scientists with their confessions of uncertainty, waffling doubts, creepy xenophilia, and cautious calls for more evidence.
Sick of boring politicians and their petty squabbles and cowardly maneuvering.
Sick of inglorious commerce, sick of being the sons of warriors in an economy of shopkeepers.
Sick of vagina-shriveling "live and let live" wimpiness.
A new ideology had to replace liberalism. Something that comes naturally to people, something that stirs the emotions, that provides certitude, purpose, and excuses to fight. Something that lets people live the stone-age dream, that gets us "back to the garden". Something that chicks dig.
That ideology was socialism. Basically, socialism is when you write a bunch of big books that nobody reads, and say a bunch of big words that nobody understands, and then, while everyone is
Socialism is divisive though, because everybody wants to be the looter, and nobody wants to be the looted. So socialists split into many, many factions, almost all of them identical:
Some people think it's strange that there would be so much hatred and strife between identical movements. It makes sense when you think of gangs of criminals or mobs of looters fighting each other - yes, they are identical in terms of ideology, but they do have a strong disagreement over who gets to do the looting and who gets looted.
There is only one real ideological split in the socialist movement, and it's a small one. It's over how to decide who gets to join the gang. Marxist socialists believe that gang membership should be determined by economic and social class.
National Socialists (Also called "fascists" because Italian Socialists led the way, or NAZIs after the German National Socialist Worker's Party) believe that gang membership should be determined by identity group: nationality, race, or other accidents of birth. In the internationalized world of the 21st century, Sectarian Socialist would be a better name for this movement.
Both types of socialists took over nations during the 20th century. Both ran those nations into the ground because they could only pillage wealth but not create it. Knowing this, they both basically declared war on the world, and the world beat them.
Or so we like to think.
Socialists have an advantage over liberals. Liberalism is all about sober-minded adults who mind their own boring business. Politics is the opposite of that in every way. Liberals are like chess grandmasters who showed up for a mud wrestling match.
Thus, without anyone noticing, national socialists have taken over western culture. Like Mussolini, they started as Marxist Socialist, until Soviet misbehavior forced a change:
So, if someone calls True Christians™ "NAZIs" or "Fascists", that's completely false. We are not German or Italian.
Nor are we Reactionary, because we are not fighting against socialism per se. We are fighting rival socialist gangs, just like everyone else. We have our own identity politics, just like all of the other national socialists/sectarian socialists. We are objectively better, because we mostly just pillage the young,
and instead of violent looting, we simply have the government borrow money to give tax cuts to our fellow gang members/"job creators". The young don't care, they're too busy fighting their own socialist infights. And they won't have to pay anyway, because Christ will return and the world will end before the debts have to paid.
So there you have it - from the end of ideological history to the actual end of history.
*Footnote: Liberalism as defined by Francis F***iama:
Classical liberalism can best be understood as an institutional solution to the problem of governing over diversity. Or to put it in slightly different terms, it is a system for peacefully managing diversity in pluralistic societies. It arose in Europe in the late 17th and 18th centuries in response to the wars of religion that followed the Protestant Reformation, wars that lasted for 150 years and killed major portions of the populations of continental Europe.
While Europe’s religious wars were driven by economic and social factors, they derived their ferocity from the fact that the warring parties represented different Christian sects that wanted to impose their particular interpretation of religious doctrine on their populations. This was a period in which the adherents of forbidden sects were persecuted—heretics were regularly tortured, hanged, or burned at the stake—and their clergy hunted. The founders of modern liberalism like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke sought to lower the aspirations of politics, not to promote a good life as defined by religion, but rather to preserve life itself, since diverse populations could not agree on what the good life was. This was the distant origin of the phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence. The most fundamental principle enshrined in liberalism is one of tolerance: You do not have to agree with your fellow citizens about the most important things, but only that each individual should get to decide what those things are without interference from you or from the state. The limits of tolerance are reached only when the principle of tolerance itself is challenged, or when citizens resort to violence to get their way.
Comment