Letters from Vienna #82
A Letter to Darwin K. Hoop III
Dear Darwin,
I remember thinking at a Biennale of recent memory, during which an actress recited passages of Das Kapital, that I understood the sentimental appeal of Marxism. I couldn’t help but ask though: why is the Establishment promoting Marxism? The same applied to a movie about the early life of Marx. Knowing how difficult it is to raise money for a film (I could find no funding whatsoever for my documentary about W. H. Auden) I was surprised at the prodigality involved.
Might it be that the Establishment is employing Heidegger’s observation that “one rebels the way one rebels” and is trying to control the form of rebellion? And might it be that the Establishment has ulterior motives for supporting this idea?
Consigning Dead Ideas to the Dustbin of History
Ideas aren’t inherently dangerous but it isn’t always wise or prudent to experiment on entire nation states.
I remember being shocked and appalled when I read an interview with Milton Friedman in the Financial Times; he confessed that he’d “got it wrong”. The entire British economy was destroyed, countless lives extinguished and all that came out of it was not even an apology but a plaintive, pathetic admission of failure; his brainchild: “monetarism” had been tested and found wanting.
Would Marx have admitted the same after the fall of the Soviet Union? Or would he have claimed, as so many have that the Bolshevik Revolution (which we now know was financed by Wall Street) and Communism had nothing whatsoever to do with him? That he had no blame in the crimes involved?
Of course, there are those who lack historical awareness, who live in ivory towers and who are enamoured with the “ideal” of Marxism. For them: Marxism has never been truly applied and remains unsullied by the millions of tormented and dead.
One can argue that. One can argue that the Bolsheviks and the Communists used and abused the ideas of Marx for their own criminal and bestial ends but at the same time one has to ask: were not the ideas themselves at fault and was it not criminally insane to apply them in the first place? Perhaps Marx always did belong in a museum of ideas of the nineteenth century. So why are his ideas being revived and promoted now? Have the millions of victims of Lenin, Stalin and Mao been forgotten?
On Zionism
You write:
“Zionism is a very different matter and yes, it is quite clear the both the British aristocracy and the Rothschild family were firmly behind it. Zionism and Marxism, however, are radically different things. Most Marxian and socialist doctrines would be adamantly opposed to Zionism, which is a form of identity politics. Despite extremely ignorant arguments to the contrary, Marxian and socialist doctrine oppose underclass division into races, religions, gender, etc., where Zionism is very explicitly about privilege for one group and retention of class division despite the existence of kibbutzim.”
“I would go so far as to opine that Zionism was created to destroy the labor movement altogether where so many labor leaders and anti-capitalist theorists were Jewish. Zionism swept many of these people and their followers away to Israel and the promise of a utopian life of privilege in a foreign land.
It was brilliant and it worked for the most part.”
Marxism and Zionism, I personally believe, emerged from the same Deep State stable as two forms of materialist malware with complementary purposes.
Marxism, I would argue, was designed to divide the left. At the time: Anarchists were extremely influential and were extremely critical of the banks. Instead of attacking financial interests, which were very real, Marxism leads the Quixotic charge against ephemeral and elusive (perhaps non-existent?) “capitalists”. It also represents a frontal assault against religion and the nation state. What better to serve the Satanist Illuminati agenda?
Zionism on the other hand represents a direct attack on Judaism. Instead of being members of a religion Jews are now told that they are members of a “nation” and that they have a “homeland” they need to defend; God Jews are told, no longer exists, while millennial old Jewish morality can comfortably be thrown out the window.
The Dangers of Collectivism
I shall use an everyday definition of collectivism: “collectivism, any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with individualism (q.v.), in which the rights and interests of the individual are emphasized.”
You write: “It’s truly absurd to think of the Rockefellers as “collectivists”. Ibid the Rothschilds. Do they share their trillions of dollars in holdings with the American people? No. Do they share their medical file? No. Tyrants and plutocrats aren’t “collectivists”. This is profoundly corrupted reasoning.”
I fear that you have become confused in your thinking. Of course, oligarchs and tyrants are collectivists and of course tyrannical ideologies are collectivist too. The one thing holding up the WEF/NWO/Agenda 21 Satanist project are individual rights. If there is one thing the last two years should have taught us: it is the danger of collectivism. Individual rights are sacred. Period.
You continue: “I can think of no reason whatsoever that people who wish to live collectively should be denied the opportunity. You have further conflated collectivism with authoritarianism where there is no natural connection whatsoever. That Bolshevism became authoritarian or that the PRC, a fascist state that wraps itself in a communist flag is authoritarian means something different yet.”
Sadly, the experience of the last two years has shown, once more, how collectivism leads almost inevitably to tyranny, and how one of its bi-products is genocide. “Good”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “collectivist” Democrats all of a sudden became snarling, vicious, evil-minded fascists who demanded concentration camps for those refusing to take the murderous jab. How can one account for this psychological phenomenon? Must not a primitive, irrational, tribal form of “collectivism” be partly to blame? Must not this have been the same form of collectivist mass psychosis, which led to the Holocaust?
To your statement: “there are no non-collectivist solutions to our problems” I can only reply: there are ONLY non-collectivist ones. The needs of the majority must ALWAYS be balanced with those of the individual. What was the argument for the concentration camps? That they were “necessary” to “protect the majority”. What is the argument for the jab now? That the individual has to sacrifice their life in a scientific experiment for the “good of the majority.”
Of course, we are by nature social animals: we need social interaction and without it we die, which is why the lockdowns killed so many.
In a paradoxical fashion, much as light is a wave and a particle, we need BOTH society and individual liberty. It is time to reread Mill:
“Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compels all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.”
I think I agree with you regarding libertarianism. Democracy has its limits when stupidity can be mandated, which is the case for decades now. And then, the new phenomenon that has emerged — the mass psychosis wed fear…well, not completely new, but never so unexpectedly overwhelming. The Cult of the Sacred Needlecraft.
Well said!!!!