Then why would China destroy the West?

“Aw shut up, silly woman, said that reptile with a grin - you knew darn well I was a snake before you took me in!” (”The Snake”)

It’s The Scorpion and the Frog.

It’s the meaning, purpose, and unifying principle of a Marxist regime.

In this song and story, the West is the bourgeois vehicle and obstacle to the eschaton, the stateless final society promised by the ideology - the millenium, in Christian fancy - the Spartacist rampage, in Nietzschean expectation.

It seems to me you’re saying that while the Judeo-Communists are smart enough to see that if China destroys the West it will lead to its own collapse, the Chinese themselves lack this degree of foresight.

To the contrary. The Chinese, as do the Russians, understand that their ultimate goal is global statelessness. Thus the “collapse” of any State, having served its purposes, is a victory, in Marxist terms. The Russian Communists, in shedding the Soviet pseudo-empire in behalf of strategic deception, are even farther along than are the Chinese. For Mao was premature in dismantling China, before it had a chance to compromise the West, and the “technocrats” under Deng had to retrieve the situation and make up time, toward achievement of the global objective.

Also, understand that the “liberalism,” of both the modern Left and Right, in the West, is quasi-anarchist - in the libertarian disposition of the Right and in the anti-establishment sentiment of the Left. Thus the orientation and appeal of Communism, properly understood as crypto-anarchism, is not surprising, and is supposedly an ideological cousin, descended from Enlightenment thought.

But Marxist Communism *is not* properly recognized by adherents of these bourgeois concessions to reality, because, despite sharing with radicals some of the same liberationist sentiments, the moderates are confused as to this convergence by the radical fatuity and brutality in the antithetical (police-statist/megacidal) structure and governance of radical regimes.

Nevertheless, Marx *is* explicit in the promise he makes. But that promise is *unrealizable* amidst the intractable limitations on the administration of human society. And the tragic results of the attempts to overcome those limitations make the Communist goal *unrecognizable* amidst the inhumanity of the means to which the radicals must resort in establishing, maintaining, and advancing the regimes needed toward achieving the promised world-wide liberation.

[P.S. - As reported in the Red Column, to the right, a revival of "Maoism" - the true faith of Chinese Marxism - is underway (and is significant of the superficiality of the technocracy, the only intended function of which is to disarm and disable the West and, derivatively, all ordered existence on the planet).]


  1. NeoNietzsche,

    I see what you are saying about the long term goal of rigorous Marxism.

    However, I think the “withering away of the State” is something Marxists always conceptualize as being carried out by future generations of Marxists.

    I doubt very much that Chinese Marxists will have the clear eyed fanaticism to carry such a scheme out to its final stages.

    Even with the madmen of the Bolsheviks, only the Jew Trotsky actually wanted to move in a meaningful way toward the destruction of all Western Political Entities.

    And guess what? His foreign policy ideas along these lines were shot down, so to speak (!), by Joseph Stalin.

    What reason is there to think that a Chinese Trotsky won’t have his foreign policy ideas shot down by a Chinese Stalin?

  2. It has already happened.

    Just as Trotsky was followed by Stalin, then followed by Kruschev,

    So Mao was followed by Deng, and now Mao is being revived.

    And apostolic Christianity, failing to deliver the promised Advent, was replaced by institutional Catholic Christianity, which was rejected by puritanical Protestantism, in a return to the roots of the faith.

    See the pattern?