Clouds

Interesting line of clouds

Comrades of the WIL

To the members of the WIL,

Why do you blindly follow a blatantly pompous man such as Alan Woods who believes he knows there is no such thing as the afterlife, deity or anything remotely divine. How does this man know such things? How can he if he has never experienced anything of the sort? But you people treat him like a disciple of your communist messiah Ted Grant. Amazing even more is how dogmatic you are when it comes to the communist idealology. I understand your altruistic cause, but you communists always tend to neglect that human nature is as significant to the human species as being compassionate for those who are need of a helping hand. Your illogical conclusions that once all things are right in the world, people will abandon their so-called primitive superstitions is based off of what? Nothing, like always. Human beings will always hold in their hearts that higher order exists in the spiritual realm. Just because you all hold to the idea that only the material world exists and nothing else is your opinion and your belief, not everyone elses. While trying not to be narrow-minded in the material world, you tend to be narrow minded in considering the possibility of something else beyond the material world.

As you see those who hold religion to be their truth as strange, so will those of us who hold onto the idea that there is a spiritual world will always see those who don’t believe in anything beyond their 5 senses as illogical and anrrow-minded. These are our differing beliefs. I can not say yours is ridiculous, but somehow you communists can say such. Tolerant? I don’t believe so.

Testing of Mobile Blogger

Me at work.

Anti-Patriarchal and Anti-Matriarchal

The problem with either side is that they both want dominance over the other. Both lead to a sense of supposed superiority, which in reality is an illusion on behalf of both men and women. Now I’m sure feminists that oppose patriarchal values would rather have matriarchal values imposed on society. The question I have to ask, though, would the outcome be any different? My answer? No, human nature tends to get in the way of everything we hold ideal. It’s replacing one form of gender superiority with another. True equality is getting rid of all these stupid human-made barriers and replacing them with the concept of a borderless society. Yes, in anatomy men and women are different, but in social function they aren’t. Men and women, especially married couples, should share equal responsbility for finances, the raising of their child and so on. No one gender should bear the responsibility of certain things or everything. That’s just ridiculous and humanly impossible. Human beings are fragile creatures both physically and mentally. A man or woman bearing too much burden will collapse at one point. So in all fairness, both genders should responsibility equally amongst each other, thought his concept is hard to grasp considering both the bullheadedness of men and women in general. I’m more or less speaking to the wind, but that’s fine. Mother Nature tends to listen more acutely than human beings, the supposed rational species. We could perhaps learn from the examples of animals on the idea of gender equality.

The Marxist Question

Considering that throughout the ages government has been infused with religion, that has neither hastened the exploitation nor the abuses by those in power despite the lingering threat of eternal damnation if such sins of atrocities were committed. What I see in Marxism is atheism and within that atheism no moral bounds that’ll hold them in contempt for the possible brutal actions. They have no safeguards against abuses of Marxist idealology. If we can’t trust religion as being that moral safeguard, what makes Marxists think we can trust them?

Their elitism is obvious to the point where they believe they are the moral absolute due to their supposed altruism, but I’m willing to question their truthfulness on such considering that they are adamantly beligerant towards religion and consider believers of religion to be backward dullards with no education, as expressed in Alan Woods “Marxism and Religion” piece. Of course, throughout the entire work he criticizes religion and acts as if he knows it all without providing hardcore scientific proof against such theories, despite Marxism be purely scientific. Marxism can even be described as a religion in it’s own right. It deifies Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky with Ted Grant (R.I.P.) and Alan Woods being the popes of this religion. It seeks to mass convert billions of religious people into their “religion” of Marxism, but how will they do that if they keep ridiculing the religious as if they were mere peons? So, a movement for the working class insults the working class who happen to be religious. Great recruiting technique, but Alan Woods does go on to say that people need to unite no matter if they are religious or not. That’s admirable, but what happens after the revolution? Yes, they may achieve an illusionary utopia on Earth, but people will always want their religion and since Marxism is admittedly an atheist philosophy, how will the Marxists treat the religious? Oppression and repression will most likely be the modus operandi of the Marxist “religion”, just like all other forms of religious governments.

In the end, a Marxist society will be no different than the repressive regimes propped up by capitalism and operated by theocracies. That human nature quality of power lusting will always prevail, no matter how altruistic the movement is.

Marxist Contempt For Family

Due to it being a supposed capitalist creation, nevermind the fact the idea was held in regard far longer than capitalism has ever been around, the Marxists believe in the primitive thought of polygamy as being the most acceptable form of relationships and having the children raise communally. The problem occurs when we begin to realize:

1: we’re no longer primitives, but advanced creatures in thought and rationality. The Marxists attack the primitive instinct of superstition, but hold the primitive aspect of polygamous relationships and communal child rearing as ideal. So, in Marxian society we’ll have one set of primitive ideal that indulges in selfish desires, while negating spiritual development. Hyprocrisy.

2: Primitive societies were usually small and always threatened by outside forces whether natural or competing, neighboring tribes. It was about survival and the dispersal of needed able bodies to conduct warfare, cultivate the land and/or make needed goods. Today we’re 6 billion and growing. Stability through monogamy and the parents raising the child is needed more than the primitive, backwards ideas of the Marxists. The experiment of child rearing through community in the US has proven disasterous. Schools, DYFUS and daycare can not care for the children. Children need to be raise by their parents. By utilizing the basic greed of human beings, the Marxists can create a tyrannical society. No doubt that those who wish to be in a monogamous relationship and raise their own children would be considered alien and abnormal by the rest of the Marxist society. It is necessary that all fight against the Marxist contingency that threatens the stability of modern life.