The religious nature of Marxism

why Christopher Hitchens left Marxism

I don't agree with everything Hitchens says, but this is a great speech, he highlights the sort of religious, dogmatic ideas of Marxist thought

youtube.com/watch?v=6FcBeyEWgSM

I am interested so I'm giving it a watch tomorrow

Though from a scientific standpoint there is no reason to think that religion and ideology are that much different, at least the way I see it, the exact same mental faciliaties are being used, so that even in a post-religious world we will have dogmatic ideas and so on and so on, because dogmatism arises from those mental faciliaties

This isn't the kind of board where you post youtube videos of pseuds.

Go back to whatever shithole you came from

Fucking sage. This board sucks today.

And I forgot to Sage haha. Well there you go OP

Go back to your board.

Hitchens never gave up Trotskyism, he just went Neocon

If he left Marxism because he felt it wasn't Marxist enough, then he never left Marxism.

Sage

SAGE SAGE
DON'T TALK ABOUT AUTHORS HERE!

Peter, please. Your brother will always be more famous.

Make threads about literature, not youtube videos. Fucking hell, how new are you to this board?

Sage

I've seen 'em all, user. This is what passes for lit related around here. How new are you?

Hitchens was a trot.Trotskyism is a rape cult/ newspaper racket that has nothing to do with Marxism.

Sage

Look I've been on this sub for five years now too!

Because Marxism is pious atheism.

he didn't want Islam taking over western civilization

that doesn't make him a neocon

"Fire in the Minds of Men - The Origins of the Revolutionary Faith" by US Librarian of Congress James H. Billington documents the religious nature of modern revolutionary movements from the French Revolution to the Bolshevik. Cop it for a scholarly treatment of the subject.

hitchens... easy on the strawmen

If you disable a portion of the brain, one will be more liberal and less religious.

Being a Trotskyite makes him a neocon dude.

he's a neocon and so is Harris. There's nothing wrong with being a neocon except some few details.

If you are a skilled enough surgeon you could probably pull this off

Will check it out thanks.

>there's nothing wrong with being a neocon

other than the fact that it actually doesn't conserve anything and is totally antithetical to its stated aims

>doesn't conserve anything
It conserves the US/NATO global military hegemony

The US/NATO global military hegemony as currently constructed and financed is unsustainable, so nah, it doesn't even really conserve that.

Im sure they'll find a way.

Do you even know what "pseud" means? No, it's not anybody who expressed thoughts on anything.

HOW DARE YOU

It conserves Jewish interests

Yeah, the portion of the brain that controls emotion; especially fear.

Maybe primal emotions such as fear and disgust are all good and natural. Leftist repression is a suicidal mutilation of our natural self preservation impulses.

And the he converted to liberalism.
That's like being Catholic and entering fucking Calvinism. Or being hindu and converting to buddhism. Or leaving de Maistre for Burke.

Bump

This is the whole point of Marxism, though.

Astonished Liberal Capitalists like Hitchens point it out as if it's some surprise or point of criticism, but meanwhile Liberalism itself is unable to defend itself against relativism and identity politics.

Marxism provides a rationalist, materialist doctrine of how the slaves of the modern Liberal Western Roman Empire can gain the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Of course it's religion, it's meant to be, because that it what unites people, and enables them to work together.

But then of course comes Paul and St. Constantine.

Marxism is a disease and Marxists should be killed. Unfortunately, popular "progressivism" is really just a disguised form of communism.

Of course Marxism is ideological. Any authority system which requires the transplantation of a set of Ethical principles that is not native to the mind MUST do so through the grip of ideology. That Marxism requires the individual to act strongly against basic nature, his wants and needs, requires its prophets to expound more and more blatant ideology, to offset the extreme amounts of natural behavior that must be cast aside in conversion.

Comparatively, a meeker Ethical set that requires less self-flagellation, like secular Christianity for example, requires a great deal less proselytizing for the same number of conversions.

Read Stirner and Nietzsche.