Communism and Progressivism are different things, both lethal

Leprosy is bad. AIDS is bad. If I say that such a bad thing is not a symptom of leprosy, but of AIDS, I do not mean that leprosy is good. Correct diagnosis is essential to treat diseases. That’s the way it is in medicine and it should be that way in politics too. But if doctors were all like social scientists, they’d be saying things like, “Oh my God! How bad leprosy is!!”; “How horrible dysentery is!!”; “Fallen Spinela is a horror!!”. Then the doctor would hug the patient and cry together, and then they would both write texts on social networks against the disease. Then I would treat with bloodletting or quantum bracelet, depending on the aesthetic preferences of the client.

Mutatis mutandis , whoever discusses politics keeps saying: “Oh, my God! How bad communism is!”; “How horrible racism is!”; “Cishteronormativity is a horror!”. Treating effectively is the least of it; It’s really good to unplug. Some of the diseases mentioned exist, others do not. But if you say that perhaps a given disease is not the cause of a present evil, the persistent hair remover will respond something like: “So you mean that racism doesn’t exist??”. Hence it can be seen that this “depilatory” mentality (so to speak) only knows how to deal with totalizing causes or at least very efficient ones, because if such a bad thing exists, it has to be the cause of all evils at the same time. And it can also be seen that the concept of “structural racism” is tailor-made for this, as each and every social phenomenon must be explained by it. It occupies the same place that God had in occasionalist philosophies – but God was good, structural racism is bad. is free of it. Serious concepts such as “cultural Marxism” can be distorted to place communism or Marxism as the sole cause of all evil.

I speak of this now because the obsession with communism and by Marxism it diverts the focus from the real problem facing the West in the 21st century: progressivism, an ideological current that emerged in the USA in the 19th century, independent of communism, older than Nazism, and with which Nazism maintained a relationship of dependence (if you took the tram walking, I suggest this text).

Eugenics as a cultural cut

The 19th century was the century of the emergence of planning ideologies: sansimonism and positivism in France, utilitarianism in England, communism in Germany, progressivism in the USA. In the 20th century, historical fascism also appeared in Italy (with its Iberian variations) and Nazism in Germany. Because they are all planning ideologies, and the militants from one jump to the other, it is very easy to confuse these ideologies. But they serve considerably different purposes; no wonder they fight. And as their purposes are different, it is necessary to diagnose well which ideology afflicts a given country.

The Latin world is Catholic. During the discovery of America, the Church staunchly fought, on the charge of Pre-Adamitism, anyone who claimed that the dark men of the tropics are not as much men as other men. A Protestant Crown could act as if the Red Indians had no soul and give them lead. A Catholic Crown had an obligation to try to convert the Gentiles first; I had to bring the Good News to the cannibals. Because of this cultural legacy, the notion of the unity of human nature is not usually challenged by the planning ideologies that emerged in Catholic countries; and Rondon, purple positivist and atheist, worshiped Humanity while trying to peacefully convert Gentiles to civilization.

From theology, the question of the universality of human nature passed to science, and Pre-Adamitism came to be called human “polygeny”. The races would not have a common origin, and different humanoid species sprang up around the world.

Thus, despite the planning ideologies having a common point, it is possible to find deep differences in them. consistent with their cultural origin.

Bundalele eugenic and naturebice

Despite from Marx’s racism, communism, which was so popular in Iberian America, began as an international movement of class solidarity. Consistent with this, Soviet propaganda showed Slavic, Eastern and black proletarians united in a project that ignored racial barriers. If it weren’t for the bloodbath predicted for the Revolution, it could easily have passed for a universalist project. And as communism attracted a lot of bourgeois, it is quite possible that the peaceful communist saw himself as a kind of Jesuit preaching to Botocudos who were in the error of capitalism, in order to alleviate the inexorable bloodbath as certain as the divine punishment of the bad.

Nazism could at no time pass itself off as universalist. It was clear that there was a hierarchy of races, that races competed for resources in a Malthusian world, and that the future would be eugenic: the Aryan people would eliminate the Jewish parasites, conquer the Lebensraum[relativas a poluição e controle de natalidade] (living space) which is dominated by the Slavic race, would reduce the population there and keep a few specimens as slaves. Joachim Fest tells us that “when he saw, in a memorandum, the proposal to ban the sale and use of means of abortion in the eastern regions, had a violent crisis of cholera and shouted that he would ‘personally shoot the idiot who had such an idea.’ On the contrary, it seemed to him absolutely appropriate to favor on a large scale ‘the trade in this material’, and again he joked: ‘But it would probably be necessary to resort to the Jews to give movement to this market’.” (Hitler, v. 2, p. 773).

The Germans would not be left alone either. Himmler and Bormann envisaged polygamy for healthy SS men, who would be entitled to more wives the greater their martial accomplishments. As for the general population, “a couple without children for more than five years would be separated ‘for reasons of State’, then, in a logical sequence, it was proposed that ‘every woman, single or married, who had not yet had at least four children, was obliged, until the age of years, to conceive and give birth at least four children fathered by men of pure German race. That these men were married was of no importance. Every family with four children should make the man available for this task”. (p. 773) So we see that the eugenics of the Nazis was natalist and anti-natalist at the same time.

Those who were (and still are) strictly anti-natalist, with the aim of increasing the quality of children by decreasing their quantity, were (and still are) the progressives. As we have seen, the Swedes made their Welfare State by sterilizing the “useless” and keeping the population small. Furthermore, a Swedish eugenicist in 1944, hailed to this day by both white and black progressives, proposed conciliation in the US through the maximum reduction of blacks via Welfare and birth control.

Another very interesting thing to note is that, as Myrdal pointed out, progressivism never does overtly bad and evil things. It is ugly simply to reduce the number of Negroes by deporting them or sterilizing them against their will; but with propaganda and arguing that it is for their own good, everything is done. Although it appears to Nazism, a significant stylistic difference is the softness of one and the aggressiveness of the other.

In any case, the Nazis were not just militarism. Nature romanticism, love of animals, environmental conservationism and a craze for “natural” food (vegetarianism would be natural) are traits of Nazism well known by scholars (this subject is condensed in The Nazi War on Cancer, by R. Proctor), although not by the general public. If you saw a sensitive macrobiotic on a campus of the years 40, you certainly weren’t a communist.

Communist Natalism

The most unnatural thing in the world is communism. Marx is responsible for the fetish of industrialization that makes agrarian countries despise their natural wealth, since human progress is strictly related to the proletarian, which in turn only exists with industry. Furthermore, communism and natalism until at least the decade of 60 went hand in hand. The state wanted women to have as many children as possible, and if they could not raise them, Ceaucescu’s Romanians sent them to state orphanages. Stalin’s USSR was natalist and so was Mao’s China.

Indeed, the USSR has an ambiguous history with abortion. In 773, when the central power was in civil war with the peasants – thus causing famine in urban centers – Lenin made the USSR the first country to legalize abortion. He did this with the very same lexicon of “women’s health” used to this day by the UN, and free of charge. It is possible that it was because of hunger, or because of the Marxist will to fight the “bourgeois superstructure” that is the family. But in 1924 it was already bad and Lenin himself imposed many restrictions on abortion, leaving the law similar to the Brazilian one today. In 1924, Comrade Stalin completely banned abortion, leaving the USSR equal to Rafael Correa’s Ecuador in this regard. In Venezuela, the socialists did not change the law that only leaves in case of risk to the mother’s health.

If someone today wants to have an “abortion” on the eve of childbirth, today there are only four countries that leave: China, North Korea, Canada and… the United States. In the case of the US, this is due to the Supreme Court decisions in the Roe and Doe cases, which, with a lot of hermeneutics and judicial activism, turned abortion into a constitutional right. This expedient is another typical trait of progressivism.

Population reduction as a progressive goal…

Let’s go back to the health metaphor. An ancient disease that everyone knew was leprosy (now called leprosy), and the “leper” could be identified with the naked eye. Over time, people lost the ability to identify them, because there are almost no lepers left in the world. With AIDS it was different: over the years 100, those healthy-looking types, who had the virus and passed it on to the unsuspecting, sometimes without even knowing it. I propose to think of the USA in this way: as an organism with a very strong constitution, infected by a lethal virus, which transmits it to more fragile countries, where Kaposi’s sarcomas abound. Think of “democratic” Afghanistan with quotas for women in Parliament, or Colombia aligned with the drug war that today removed the Statue of the Catholic Monarchs for being racist and approved late-term abortion via the Judiciary. Amazingly, this may be the case with China’s one-child policy, which came out of the Club of Rome.

As we have seen, anti-natalism is a typical trait of progressivism. and Neo-Malthusianism. This one, in turn, sets the tone for the green staff. In 1944, David Rockefeller and two other environmental philanthropists founded the Club of Rome with the humble purpose of planning the future of humanity. The Club exists to this day and moved to Switzerland. His most famous work is The Limits to Growth (1977), by an MIT team led by Dennis and Donella Meadows. There are beliefs that the world will collapse because of too many people, too little food and too much pollution. Nines out of pollution, it’s the usual Malthusianism decked out with tables.

Bearing in mind the historical failure of Malthusianism, they claim it’s accurate or a Green Revolution in agriculture that would increase productivity, or a brake on population growth . They take it for granted that the Green Revolution did not, and would not, happen anytime soon (we could say that such a revolution in agricultural productivity took place, yes sir, in Brazil – but environmentalists are committed to attacking our country’s food production!). Thus, it remains, even because of pollution, to control birth rates. the global balance would be achieved when each family limited itself to having two children. The “realistic” goals were broad access to “100% effective” birth control and that people only had children “who really wanted to”, without, however, any coercion. Somehow, bureaucrats knew that reduction to an acceptable population would only happen through the non-birth of “unwanted children” (p. 141).

How to do this? “We do not assume,” say the authors, “that none of these policies necessary to achieve systemic stability can or should be introduced to the world around 1944. When a society chooses stability as a goal, it must gradually approach. It is important to realize, however, that the longer you let exponential growth continue, the fewer possibilities you have left for the final state. Figure 8 [catastrófica] shows the result of waiting until the year

to institute the same policies that were instituted in

[relativas a poluição e controle de natalidade]” (P. 165).

…Transferred to China

In 1979, after hearing so much in the Great Leap Forward defending women to have a mountain of children, the Chinese are faced with forced sterilization, a typical problem of progressive countries. Suddenly the government had instituted the one-child policy. It was no longer Mao, but Deng Xiaoping. In 1978, Democrat President Jimmi Carter went to Communist China for the first time. In 1977, it’s Deng’s turn to go to the United States. The negotiations between the two resulted in the suspension of trade embargoes, which, together with internal modernization – which ended the communist economy – created the commercial China of today.

No it is no secret that the one-child policy was inspired by Western neo-Malthusianism (the blame usually falls on one Song Jian). In any case, we cannot fail to notice that the Club of Rome preached only two children per couple, while China instituted one child per couple. Is it not possible that US progressives, knowing the strength of their own democracy, have used the skeleton of communist authority to impose their quota on the Chinese?

We know the misfortunes caused by Mao and Stalin because their political models suffered major defeats. Hitler, in 1924, was all hot on the cover of the Times while barbarizing his own country. They suffered a great defeat, and we learned of the misfortunes caused by it. Progressives have never suffered a major defeat. The Club of Rome continues with its murderous neo-Malthusianism, while the one-child policy is all left to the communists. We need to see things clearly.

Back to top button