Communism, leftism, progressivism, climate communism, all same energy

For a long time Moldbug has made a good point that I am only now getting. His point was: America has a solid communist tradition. As in, all the cool people in the twentieth century were leftists. As in, communist gatherings were hot and happening. And it has been like that for a while. Communism is as American as apple pie, says Moldbug.

It is an excellent point. Really, I think the same goes for Europe. I’m no historician, but I look around and I just plain see people having communist sympathies. Not the majority, but a decent minority. Some people are just naturally into that stuff. Whites are decently communist.

What does it mean to be a leftist, communist or progressive?

The correct definitions are as follows. Communism, like progressivism, is a subset of leftism. Leftism defines itself in mainstream discourse as something like ‘caring a whole lot about everything.’ Reactionaries however correctly define leftism as ‘pretending to care a whole lot about everything.’ A wide range of definitions for leftism is given by various reactionaries, all amounting to the same thing:
Molbug – leftism is rule by scholars; rule through religious scheming and walks through the garden of betrayal.
Spandrell – leftism is psychopathic status maximization; those seeking power for the sake of power, see Hillary Clinton
Jim – leftism is knocking over apple carts as to steal apples; climate commies don’t care about the environment, they care about carbon dioxide taxes.
Me – leftism is cheating by any means necessary. If you say you care a great deal about people far away, you can use that to screw over people nearby.

Like I said, pretty much different definitions of the same thing. Leftism is an ancient phenomenon, a side of humanity we’d rather ignore but can’t because the grander a civilization, the bolder its leftism grows. Leftists are the reducers, the parasites, bacteria and funghi that consume the dead and weak. With the industrial revolution came lots of wealth came lots of opportunities to loot that wealth. What cements Nrx’ place in history is that Nrx was the first internet intellectual fashion that correctly called out and defined this phenomenon.

With leftism defined, it becomes much easier to define two of its subsets, communism and progressivism.

Everybody knows communism. Jim’s definition is excellent: communism is the commie convincing the farmers with one cow to gang up on the farmer with two cows. Naturally, once they kill the farmer with two cows, the commies kill the farmers with one cow, and in the end kill each other. A very typical ending for any form of unchecked leftism.

Everybody nowadays also knows progressivism. Spandrell’s definition is excellent: progressivism is communism based on genetics instead of wealth; biological Leninism.  Instead of hating the bourgoeusie, progs hate white straight men (although being leftists, plenty of hating the bourgeousie).

Progs have not yet killed as many people as commies, but it’s exactly the same energy. The point of central planning was never to plan better, it was to loot and destroy natural production. The point of diversity was never to end racism, it was to loot and destroy Christian society. Just like climate communism never intended to promote nature and beauty, it always intended to loot and destroy civilization.

Call it socialism, central planning, anti-capitalism, equalism, feminism, progressivism warmism, regulationism, bureaucratism, communism, or leftism, whatever you call it, it’s all different faces of the same thing.

Which is why at a certain point we’ve said everything that is to be said on the subject. Leftists of course love being the center of attention; hate ’em or love ’em, just don’t ignore them. I mean, I get it, the West is composed of leftist institutions, the deep state is deeply leftist, so all the talk of the day will inescapably center around the latest progressive madness.

But it gets boring.

That I think is all it boils down to. I myself have been blogging for, what, six years? I get the jest of what is going on. In order for any sense of sanity to return to public debate we have to re-establish what everyone once publicly knew, what they now only privately mutter: that some people are cheaters, rotten apples. If no one calls out the cheaters, the cheaters wreck society. Voila, our current predicament summarized.

Generally it is fairly easy to recognize a cheater. I’m sure you know at least one: he’s the guy who just talks out of his ass. Everyone knows a guy like that. Individually, their scams are perfectly manageable, sometimes even funny, but in groups, in power, they scam society. If Hillary was a suburban mother of one, she’d have told suspicious but harmless stories at parties about how she was under sniper fire during her last holiday. Hillary as a former first wive however…

Same with Dutch ex-minister of foreign affairs Halbe Zijlstra. Were he, I don’t know, a highschool teacher, he’d have told his pupils strange stories of how he shared a Datsja with Putin once where Putin said he intended to conquer the world. Suspicious, but mostly harmless. Make the same guy an important politician, and the stories become suspicious and harmful.

You talk to your neighbors, they agree with that. But turn towards any piece of information that has the state’s seal of approval, be it newspapers, academia, radio, politicians or even controlled opposition, and you will find an absurdly tilted ratio of cheaters telling you a never ending stream of lies.

So, turn it off. It’s repetitious and boring. They hate you and they hate me, and they can come up with a million reasons to justify their hatred. I get it. I will not pull a Moldbug and tell you to bend over backwards for power, but I do not see the use of needlessly provoking power either. Let them stew in their own soup.

We live in an era where cheaters have risen to the top echelons of power, because the generations before us were too busy smelling the roses. I don’t blame ’em: in our forefathers’ place, we’d have done exactly the same. Unfortunately, because there are not so many roses to smell nowadays, we are getting the short end of the stick, and the stick is getting shorter year by year. And that’s our current situation.

So we have to rediscover how to maintain a healthy society, and discover how to pull that off in a post industrial-revolution society. Can’t do the opposite of what the progs do, because the opposite of gobblygook is still gobblygook. So I think (I think!) we have finally reached the end of our leftism analysis.


  1. Hi, I come from Jim’s blog, where a commenter recommended to me your last posts.

    I am a left-leaning person, but always interested in reading rightist stuff. I like being exposed to radical and politically incorrect ideas.

    The way I see it, mainstream leftism is mostly superficial. There are no orthodox Marxists in prime time TV talking, and political parties with chances of winning elections are rather moderate. Feminism, gay rights, and so on, strike me as the logical conclusion of classical liberalism.

    In that sense, Moldbug’s dictum that “America is a communist country” is completely nonsensical to me. American workers have lost purchasing power, inequality has been on the rise for decades, higher ed is not precisely affordable…

    I am Spanish, so I also see things from our perspective, which is that of a country with chronic high unemployment and lower salaries.

    A somewhat unknown thinker in the Anglosphere that I recommend is Michel Clouscard, a French Marxist which coined the concept of “seduction capitalism” to explain current dynamics. He also considers how capitalism weaponizes sex and youth to justify itself:

    1. Well stroke my ego and call me an influencer 🙃

      As you may have read above, my simple take is that a commie is a scammer, hence if you criticize America for not having the utopia commies promise, well… It’s like criticizing the twitter scammers for not doubling your bitcoin.

      America is a communist country in the sense that its ruling apparatus is a scam, that’s all. Now the American (progressive) scam takes a slightly different appearance than, say, the Soviet (communist) scam, but all scams are the same in essence.

      For instance, your friend Clouscard pulls the classic commie scam that producing stuff is supposedly bad, and that we should kill stuff producers and take their stuff. I’d rather you not, I like stuff and I like the people who produce it 🙃

      1. Yes, Clouscard was a Marxist and he spoke to a left-wing audience, but I got to know him through Alain Soral, who is a kind of alt-right French dissident.

        The insight in all this that might interest reactionaries is how capitalism tends towards degeneracy and consumerism. From Jim’s recent takes and answers in his blog, he seems to defend Austrian-school capitalism plus Christian patriarchy and blood & soil nationalism… I think that is hard to square.

        You NRxers say the woke stuff we see pushed on us is all part of a progressive elite “marching through the institutions”, and thus forming the “Cathedral”. To me, the fact that big business is embracing BLM, feminism & LGBT causes is proof that this is a deliberate attempt by capitalists to hijack progressive discourse and make it harmless to their real interests.

        Anyways, I still have a lot to read from NRx. I recently downloaded the NRx cannon, any particular article or post that you consider crucial will be appreciated. Thanks.

        1. Big business is suffering under the boots of scammers. The reason business is jumping on the poz is because progs are holding a gun against their head. Lenin’s who whom.

          Capitalists are the losers in our current predicament — Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and even Mark Zuckerberg have money, but still losers. Women know it, we know it, everyone knows it.

          Naturally any leftist worth his salt will refuse to understand this point, because scamming people with money is his shtick, and he will rationalize his shtick by dehumanizing those he scams, so by nature he is incapable of that kind of nuance. But that’s the way it is.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *