Marxists Want to Undo Genesis

On Race, the Nation, and Selfish Stupidity

The [mixed race] of the future will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.

Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi (Practical Idealism, 1925)

I never understood anything about the leftist worldview until I accepted that leftism is a reaction to, and a reversal of, Biblical dogma. Leftism is not in and out of itself an original ideology. The reactionary left represents an anti-ideology that seeks to reverse all developments set in motion since the Old Testament Bible, specifically the Book of Genesis.

If the Bible starts out with God creating an individual, Adam, whose offspring spills over into families, tribes, and nations, then the reactionary left seeks to dismantle these nations back into atomized individuals such as Adam. If the Bible speaks of a holy union between man and woman, and warns of moral corruption, leftists seek to make lgbt-ism the norm and straight marriage an abnormality.

Everything is reversed, even on the metaphysical level. For example, whereas the conservative right believes God created the universe, the intellectual left believe God is something that grows up in the universe (quoting Richard Dawkins). Leftist believe they can use technology in order to create a god. Science-fiction author Isaac Asimov, for example, wrote of the emergence of world-minds. Another author (Philo Judaeus of Alexendria) wrote of a “God-Mind”, unnderstood by some to be a sort of fusion of billions of minds into one collective hive-mind.

The Bible speaks of man’s dominion over the animals and anything else that “creepeth on the earth”. Man is allowed to eat meat, but not the flesh of his fellow men. In the Bible, the first good men (Adam, Seth, Noah, etc.) are all pastoralists who drink milk. But in the modern leftish world, pastoralists are the enemy. Instead, we ought to be vegan agriculturalists. Eating meat should be banned but cannibalizing fellow men is fine. Man snould be made equal to the animals, or perhaps even their subordinate.

The Race, the State, the Nation, the People

Reactionary leftism wants to undo Genesis. Most importantly, the Left wants to undo the emergence of nations, races, states, peoples, societies, etc., and any such social superstructures that they believe are built on top of an authoritarian conspiracy (God), perpetrated by evil authoritarians (white men!). For no other reason than to enslave humanity, of course. Leftists see nothing good about society and wish to deconstruct it, separating human beings into atomized, uprooted, and disconnected individuals without a culture, personality, or even a gender.

Keeping this reversal in mind, I stumbled upon this video by the Academy of Ideas on How the “greater good” is used as tool of social control. In that video, the narrator echoes this reactionary leftish ideal of breaking up nations, states, peoples, societies, and even races into atomized individuals, as though the very existence of these structures always amounted to nothing more than a tool in the hands of ruling classes to oppress the poor. Again, for no other reason than personal gain.

Leftists believe nation-states exist only to trick millions of people into donating their taxes and their labor so that society’s rulers may enrich themselves. Now, we all know governments promise to build roads and schools for our children, and we all know governments often default on such promises, but the belief states and nations solely exist to serve some authoritarian construct to oppress and enslave people, I deem beyond ludicrous.

I find the leftish conspiracy theory (that societies exist only to oppress) so ludicrous because the theory discounts the problem of population size. Without societes and nations, e.g., without any such social superstructures, human beings living as atomized individuals could hardly sustain a population of several thousand human beings roaming the earth. Societies and their hierarchical, meaning unequal ranks between fellow human are what make it possible to sustain billions of people.

The radical reactionary left consistently overlooks the problem of population. Without the organizational supremacy provided by nations and states, the majority of humanity would simply starve to death. And part of the trade-off indeed involves there being a ruling class. Even though a ruling class may unjustly accrue a large portion of global wealth, the wealth of the people is actually stored in their sheer number. It isn’t just so that the %1 rich own 50% or more of the world’s wealth, it’s that the other 99% obivously represent 99% of the human population.

There is wealth in numbers. Without an allegedly “unjust” society, that 99% would never have been born in the first place. There wouldn’t have been an organization for it. Now, leftists, of course, can dream, and they dream of building a utopian future which can sustain billions of human beings as well as make them all equal. I argue that this isn’t possible, simply due to the mathematics that appear to govern our physical universe. The utopia cannot cancel physics yet.

Society: Oppression and Enslavement?

In my view, a degree of oppression and enslavement rather appears to be a necessary cost for something one might, indeed, call the “greater good”, namely: the survival of millions of national citizens through the ages. The 99% are the greater good, and it is for their sake that hierarchical, unjust and inequal social organizations come into being. Without the hierarchy provided by nations and states, cultures and civilization, people and populations, the entire 99% would starve within four weeks.

It is true, of course, that ruling classes exist among nations, and it is true that they do enrich themselves, unjustly, even up to the point of controlling 50% or more of the nation’s wealth, but, since their very existence is derived from the survival of the people under their dominion, the ruling classes have an incentive to keep their populations alive in the first place. One cannot stay rich long without a willing population to tax.

However, it is a leftish falsehood to claim billions of people could exist on earth as perfectly atomized and equal individuals. They cannot. Without nations, states, and races, I argue there wouldn’t be many humans left. Most would have been eaten up and replaced by packs of wolves, for in that very moment that two people decide to work together to defend themselves against hungry predators, there is already one slightly braver man who leads the charge, and another slightly more cowardly man who follows in the other’s footsteps.

And so, there arises an inevitable hierarchy between even two individuals (the smallest group). On top of that, labor specialization dictates that two human beings, perhaps a man and a woman, working together to support one another, are better off specializing in each their own tasks. A woman may become best at knitting clothing for her children while her man may specialize in hunting. The hunt, however, carries the greater physical risk and, therefore, the hunter should ‘earn’ a greater stake in the mini-society (namely, to motivate him for the hunt so long he is still alive).

Over time, these labor specializations must lead to physical differences. Hence, men in Northern Europe are almost 15% larger than their females. But it is even more likely that such physical differences were always there. Meaning to say: There was never a time in our evolutionary history that males and females were actually physically equal. It wasn’t because of the Bible that men and women diverged into unequal roles. We were always unequal. Specialization seems to be the norm, not the exception.

A man, if he his physically stronger, may be expected to face greater physical risks. This is indeed the case. Even today, most casualties of war are men. Most victims of work-place related accidents are men. Men more often commit suicide succesffully. Men are more often victims of violent crime and murder. A woman, then, may be required to pay for a man’s willingness to take on physical risks with her loyalty, or with an inequal position in society.

That doesn’t make things ‘fair’. It just means that ‘fairness’ is and always has been a losing strategy.

The earliest human hierarchies were indeed based on intrinsically different human personalities. The few who were brave ruled the fearful masses, but was it their doing to make the masses fearful? No! Among the brave, we also counted greater casualties. Being brave often involved paying a high price: one’s untimely death. And in exchange for that price, a more fearful people naturally understood it ought to repay its braver leaders with collective subservience.

“Better them than us!” A lot of people think like that, even more today than in the past. There is only equality among the brave, among the risk-takers. There is no equality among the cowardly. Those who shun risks out of cowardice or unwillingness shall not rule.

The Greater Good is the People Itself

A race obviously has no rulers, and races came into being quite naturally through the ten-thousand-year-long evolutionary separation of people around the planet. Yet, leftistst still see the very existence of races as evidence of some kind of authoritarian oppression, “whiteness”. The only thing oppressive about races might be that some races do indeed possess superior qualities unique to their lineages. (Northern European white men, for example, tend to win in strongman competitions, East-African men in long-distance runs, and East-Asian men in mathematics.)

Thre greater good is the race itself. There is no doubt ruling elites can also devise an artificial “greater good” which, in reality, merely serves their own material well-being at the expense of the people. There is also no doubt that without a ruling class’s leadership, there would never have been a ruled people either. One begets the other. If you wish to grow a population of five-thousand free-ranging humans into a world of eight billion, there shall be inequality and there shall be social hierarchy.

If the powerful make up 0.1% of the population and yet control 90% of the wealth, the so-called oppressed still make up 99.9% of the population! For every unit of material wealth there is an equal unit of physical wealth (human biomass) to provide balance.

The wealth of the poor is actually stored in their bodies. Their numerous existence is their wealth and in that wealth, there lies great power, namely the power to revolt against power. And so, ruling classes and the people they rule rather form an equilibrium which, if broken, leads to the genetic erasure of both parties. If the rich wish to cling to their wealth, and if the poor wish to have offspring, rich and poor cannot survive without one another.

There is, and always has been, a great tension between the rulers and the ruled. And this is healthy, and this is normal. It is healthy and normal for there to exist a reactionary left that dreams of undoing the bounds of society. But it is unhealthy and abnormal for the reactionary left to succeed in doing so unless the goal is to undo the very existence of humanity.

The reactionary left, then, is a healthy threat to power that forces the ruling classes to continue to offer brave leadership, lest they become slackers themselves.

Authority and Class

If life in modern societies is becoming increasingly authoritarian, and increasingly ruled by lies, deception, and propaganda, it only means that the people’s struggle with nature has been becoming increasingly harsher, too. For example, if the natural conditions of our planet were to rapidly change (in a negative way), a large portion of the people might need to be sacrificed in wars or famines in order to save the remaining portion, lest the entire species were to collapse into extinction.

It is not at all typical for human beings to dump surplus populations into wars and famines. Dolphins, for example, do it too. When the conditions for survival change for the worse, higher-ranking dolphins will beat up lower-ranking dolphins (with their fins and tails), so much, to the point that the latter will ‘beach’ themselves in an apparent act of collective suicide. Thereby saving the population from starvation.

If dolphins had had tool-making hands, they would have made harpoons to discard the lower ranks. But lacking such hands, they have to bully the lower-ranking members to suicide. This is why there is class and rank among mammals. The lower-ranking animals exist so that they may be purged quickly when needed in order to save the social body.

Survivor Mindset and ‘Obsolete People’

A lot of people find this line of thought so disturbing that they won’t accept it. Why can’t we all just get along and abolish terror? If this is you, you are a lower-ranking animal, and you will someday find yourself among the first to be discarded. Weak minds are not survivors’ minds.

Classes exist in order to ease the inevitable purge. The lower classes go first. They are the members of society that are most easily replaced. Many of them have already rendered themselves obsolete. Why would the United States of America, for example, continue to feed a large cohort of lower-class people who have never done any productive labor whatsoever? These bottomfeeders are necessary in order to have a class of people one may instantly dump in warfare, should the circumstances demand it.

What I’m trying to explain is this: There is an incentive for a complex society to allow a certain portion to live off welfare (just as a certain richer portion lives off dividends). However, this ‘no-good’ portion may someday be asked to repay its parasitism by being sent to the front lines of war.

Case in point: the many white people living off food stamps in the Appalachian mountain region in the USA. Can you guess how they really afford their economically backward lifestyle? Is the USA really a charity? No, it is not. The sons of the poor white people are literal cannon fodder, sent off to the military and then off to war. Their poor but pretty daughters are incentivized to do porn and prostitution because that’s their only ticket out of poverty.

But leftish thinkers don’t understand such unpleasant principles. Their minds are still too childish. They find it offensive to say that certain classes exist only to pre-empt a struggle for the collective’s survival. By pre-programming a large cohort of one’s society to believe they are expendable assets, one has pre-empted the cost of chaos when the time has come for choosing the losers to be sent off to war. In case of a class-based system, the losers are born and bred to believe they are the losers. They have no way of knowing otherwise. And this greatly eases the necessary purge.

In the West, today, however, there can be seen a reversal of racial valuations. If, in the past, blacks were sacrificed to save richer whites, the opposite is becoming truer. The incessant discriminations against white people, including the false accusation of being privileged, actually serve to make white people look obsolete so that more black people can soon survive in the world. Whites who wish to stay alive must seek higher grounds, and risk a life of daring greatness.

The Individual or the Collective?

You see, sometimes, a shepherd may breed a certain number of sheep to feed them to the wolves, deliberately. That way, he keeps the wolves satisfied and the rest of his flock safe. What is the point of treating all sheep equally under such conditions? It would mean to give each sheep an inalieable right to life and pleasure. And then, hungry wolves would, one night, move in and rip them all apart. None would survive.

The greater good is the people itself, not just the material well-being of its ruling classes. But oftentimes, people have to be tricked into supporting their own lives! That is because people are naturally selfish. The ruling classes are just better at robbing others. People are naturally corrupt, and the ruling classes are just slightly more apt at pursuing their corruptions. It is a leftish fiction that people are all good and kind. People are just forgetful.

The greater good is the survival of a people through the ages, accepting that said survival can only come about by occasionally sacrificing a small portion of the people, and by demanding a larger portion sacrifice itself to obediencein the service of said greater good (the continued existence of the people itself). Leftists think this sacrifice only serves to enrich the rich, but in reality, it also serves to keep the remainder of the people alive.

The observation that many people are living in poverty does not in itself disqualify unequal societies. Without inequality, there wouldn’t be societies. And without societies, there wouldn’t be billions of people alive today. There would be none at all, for everyone would have starved.

This is a topic members of the general public prefer not to the think about at all, hence the reason why a ruling elite that does think about matters such as this is able to seize power in the first place. Most people, “individuals”, are not equipped to deal with the requirements of life (namely, death), and must be kept ignorant about death, lest they revolt in an uncontrolled panic and destroy the very infrastructures they need to keep themselves alive.

Leftish Stupidity

Leftish thinkers only illuminate one side of the story (inequality) but ignore the benefit gained by unjust societies (the continued survival of a population). As atomized individuals, humanity wouldn’t even outlast the grain left in storages.

The leftish notion we should, somehow, be able to liberate all individuals from the constraints of their collectives (nations, states, societies, races, etc., even gender) rests on the false assumption that every individual on earth may find within himself the ability, the audacity, and the intelligence to survive in the modern world. But msot peopel do not possess these qualities. A good portion of humanity is barely smart enough to walk their dog (and the dog takes the lead!).

For example, in order for a human being to survive on his own, perfectly cut off from everyone else and with nothing but raw natural resources around him, he might need to have an IQ of at least 140 to be able to invent a succesful mode of subsistence. But in a group of a thousand people, a small clique of just five people with an IQ of 120 might together lead the other 995 people to prosperity. In exchange for a greater cut, of course.

Without a society to bind the dumb masses to the quick leadership, both parties might perish at once, apart from a handful of gifted individuals who can, indeed, survive on their own.

Leftish thinkers have romanticized The Individual to the point of a caricature of a Marvel Comics superhero. The Individual is not a villain either. The Average Individual is a sucker who just spilled his drink all over his lap. The average modern individual no longer possesses the skillset needed for his solitary survival. Modern life has favored the evolution of dumbed-down humans. It is the plot to the movie called Idiocracy. These humans need society to tell them how to live.

Free Men or Socialism

Does the individual exist for the sake of society? Or does society exist for the sake of individuals? Well, the answer is, society exists for the sake of free individuals, but lesser individuals exist for the sake of the society that feeds them. That is because in a modern society, so many more incompetent individuals could be born that wouldn’t have stood a chance under more natural circumstances. I.e., modernity has dumbed many humans down to the point that they have, indeed, ceased to be free individuals.

One author, Nathaniel Branden, a leftish thinker, goes so far to say that “the individual has always been a victim, twisted against him-or-her-self and commanded to be unselfish in sacrificial service to some allegedly higher value called God or pharaoh or emperor or king or society or the state or the race or the proletariat”. Yes, they love seeing themselves as victims. But without that “sacrificial service” to society, however, all of these individuals would have perished. They would have been eaten by wolves and lions, starved in the feezing colds, or died of dehydration in the heat.

Leftish intellectuals forget that, despite their book knowledge, they are in fact highly incompetent people who lack the skills needed to survive in the wild. Without the aforementioned sacrificial service, there wouldn’t have been any such bookfed individuals.

Subservience, to most people, whether gifted in one or the other area or not at all, is the price they must pay for their existence. Only by working together do people manage to increase their numbers beyond the natural carrying capacity of their environment. Because of that multiplication, man and women must carry the burden by obeying the moraility of the land or the laws of the city.

In other words, not “ruling classes” are the cause of oppression, but rather continued reproductive success and growth of the population is the true cause of man’s loss of freedom.

A free man can only be free by making himself independent from the race and the state. But only he who is maximally gifted to survive on his own may do so. And even he cannot do without other specimen of his race if he wishes to pass on his qualities to another generation. It was never the “Christian morality” that justified dictatorship and atrocity. It was the improperly managed surplus of children that required so many of them to be sacrificed in wars.

Besides, a strong individual will succeed in freeing himself from the chains of society. A weak man expects he will be saved. And so, a natural class distinction has arisen. Our societies, today, are ruled by those very strong men, the ones who freed themselves, and they rule over weak men still begging to be freed (leftists).

It isn’t fair, and it isn’t nice. But the socialist fiction that we can all be independent individuals, each gifted with the equal amount of abilities to secure their own survival, shall forever remain a utopian fantasy.