Socialists: How To Make A Monster

“Well, ‘free’ is just another word for ‘socialist’.” – Watchmen

There are social drinkers and socialist drinkers.  Socialist drinkers only drink when someone else pays.

TIK History is a YouTube® channel that focuses on, well, history.  Mainly his channel has focused on World War II battles, and mainly battles involving lots of tanks.  He did one series on Stalingrad that (I believe) totaled over 3,000,000 words of script by the time he was finished.  Obviously, that took him years to put together.  That’s more than enough work to earn him a doctorate, which I guess would make him a Stalingraduate Student.

When not doing battle documentaries, he also does some on political philosophy.  Where I do listen to all of his battle recreations, his political philosophy videos are hit or miss.  One that I did listen to (LINK) is one on the similarities of the lives of socialist leaders who had no particular problem with the idea of killing millions to achieve their paradise.

Which socialist leaders?  Well, all of them:

Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, Engels, Stalin, Mao, and (and, to a lesser extent) Pol Pot.  TIK included Mussolini and Hitler, and, on reviewing, in my opinion they don’t quite fit the mold, so I’ve omitted them here.

Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao walk into a bar.  There are no survivors.

TIK noted that each of these had the same sort of pattern:

  • Horrible relationship with their father or an absent father.

This doesn’t really surprise me.  Mothers and fathers have utterly different roles in raising a child – mothers teach love and empathy and altruism, while fathers teach discipline and honor and courage.  These are very different tasks, but this might be incomprehensible to someone who cannot define what a woman is.

This is directly from Mao’s Wikipedia® entry:  ”During the 1930s, Mao would claim that he resented his father, viewing him as stingy and unaffectionate. He contrasted this with the affection he received from his mother, thus adopting a Marxist dialectical perspective by dividing the family into two camps: his mother and himself on one side, his father on another.”

This leads us directly to:

  • Very strong relationships with “sainted” mothers.

Again, mothers are different than fathers.  Looking at what mothers teach, these socialist leaders were taught that they needed to fix the world, but never told to fix themselves.

What did Freud use as an insult?  “Your mother is so unpleasant that even your own subconscious isn’t attracted to her.  What, no, this is just a cigar.”

  • Very religious youth, followed by atheism later in life.

Religion, when done right, provides both a goal and a means to achieve that goal.  In Christianity, you’re supposed to help people, but those people should also be striving to be worthy, and there are limits based on the religion of exactly how one should help people:  altruism, but with limits.  Remove the religion, remove the limits but keep the misplaced altruism.

This is crucial, because it means that all power is in the hands of man, and there isn’t any space for a higher power.  Man has no limits, and thus there is no meaning to any of this, so everything is justified as long as it brings about the desired end result.

Socialism doesn’t even work on paper, if history books count.

  • Prosperous or stable middle class upbringing with no particular hardship.

Mao, for instance had a hardworking father that bought up several acres and employed several farm workers – this was substantial wealth for where he grew up – Mao as a child had his own room, which was amazingly rare.

  • Relationship with real jobs was spotty, at best.

I think Marx did some occasional writing for papers, but mostly he lived based on begging money from friends and family.  Yet, he had a maid, drank like a fish, and smoked enough cigars to bankroll Cuba.  So, no job, his wife constantly giving birth, his maid once giving birth (likely to Marx’s kid) and he lived in an eight-room house.  No wonder communism was a failure: listening to the advice of a pauper on the way to get to economic prosperity is like taking the advice of Boeing in 2024 on how to make spaceships.

These people either hated or feared the idea of economic independence.  Lenin worked for two years before becoming a bum.  Ditto with Trotsky.  Stalin’s only job, ever, was as a cobbler as a child working for his father for a very short time when he was a kid.

A GloboLeftist said that if we had to kill our own food, we wouldn’t eat meat.  But I say if he had to make his own computer, he wouldn’t whine on Reddit®.

I think the poor economic conditions that each of these people had filled them with envy.  It’s not that they wanted everyone to prosper, it is that they wanted (especially with Marx and Lenin) other people to work harder so they didn’t have to.

Each of them is slightly different, yet those same patterns appear to remain.  Additionally, I think the family structures (I wrote about this at the links below) of their countries allowed them to come to power in a way that wouldn’t have worked in England or the United States.

Another Key To Understanding It All: Family Structure

Family Structure, Part II: Orphans Still Not Required

When I look to the modern politician that most models this family structure and early life, it is clearly Barrack Hussein Obama – each of the points that would lead to a socialist or communist dictator were and are there.  I think this explains, at least partly, his current engagement to try to steer and control the Democratic party and to “fundamentally transform” a nation that he hates.

Which brings us to the other candidate that fits the pattern:  Kamala Harris.  Although she never won a primary, she fits the pattern as well:  her father was absent from her life after their parents divorced, her mother was her sainted figure, raised as a Hindu, she is more than likely not at all Christian, since her father is a rabid communist and commies hate Christianity.

Makes me wonder if her quest for power has left a bad taste in Kamala’s mouth.

That leaves Kamala as filled with altruism as someone guided by religion, but without the constraints that the belief in God.  Or whatever gods Hindus believe in, since I don’t believe anyone actually understands the religion.

Regardless, these two people are dangerous.  And they are potentially working together.  If you look at the intense desire to bring in hordes of illegal and legal immigrants used to either socialist or chaotic government, look no further for the reason:  they hate America.  They hate you.  And they want to replace you because, in the end, they hate themselves as well.

Here’s hoping that Kamala can’t keep away from the vodka during the campaign.  Perhaps we can convince her to start a vodka diet if we tell her she can lose three days in just one week.

Author: John

Nobel-Prize Winning, MacArthur Genius Grant Near Recipient writing to you regularly about Fitness, Wealth, and Wisdom - How to be happy and how to be healthy. Oh, and rich.

31 thoughts on “Socialists: How To Make A Monster”

  2. Identity Politics is king. Heels-up Harris has the female vote, as well as the Black one.

    Hope for the best but expect the worst.

  3. I agree that Obama is a very deliberate unseen hand with a specific agenda in what has happened since he left office, and that Kamala would be a disaster. But I think of her as just a laughing puppet doing the bidding of those holding the financial strings. IMHO she is just too much of an airhead to be a conniving monster. Which makes her no less dangerous.

    To be honest, Trump fits your profile as well as or even better than Kamala. Distant dad. Sainted mom. Prosperous upbringing. First job at age 25 was running dad’s company overseeing 15,000+ rental apartments and receiving an effective salary of over $1M per year. His church pastor was Norman Vincent Peale of “Power of Positive Thinking” fame who officiated his first marriage. While Trump may have Found God whizzing by his ear a few weeks ago, the late Peale’s Marble Collegiate Church now claims that Trump was “never an active member”. As for Trump’s level of ambition, I need say nothing.

    Millions of Trump supporters, including me, quote Donald Rumsfeld to qualify their support. “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” Trump is not a nice guy but he’s the right wrecking ball at the right time to stand up to those holding Kamala’s strings.

    2. I wish he were a wrecking ball. So far, he’s been a nerf ball. He had his chance and he . . . surrounded himself with swamp-creatures and placed his prog daughters over the WH. Not exactly Hulk material.

      How can you give hard knocks, when you’ve never had to take them?

      Only thing has been wrecked since his inauguration has been his ear and my nation. If he has any warrior in him he best show it quick.

  6. The rulers in Communism are selfish, mentally disturbed individuals without a moral compass. Kamala fits the description, is more dangerous than Obama, and the pawn of those with so much wealth, the game of manipulating countries satisfies their boredom with life.

      1. I can’t think of anyone that relates to Harris, or is willing to emulate her career. According to the media, there are millions of fawning supporters that can hardly wait to elect her as President. I doubt this is true, but if her faking a southern accent, like Hillary, is a selling point, she’s doing the right thing.

  8. From coffee and covid today a possible segment on Bombs & Bants:

    “A fun party game is to let friends listen to her [Kamala Harris’s] answer and make them guess what the question was.”

  10. Difficult and contentious relationship with the ultimate Father figure (JHVH)?

    Resentment over a long, long list of persons, societies, cultures, ALL of which have treated them poorly, for No Reason At All. (Never any reason. Stuff just happens one day.)

    Not lazy at all (super industrious, in fact), but effort spent on intellectual /theoretical constructs (or vice) rather than work that creates infrastructure or physical things?

    Identity is theoretically religious, but in practice associated with, and promoting, atheism, collectivism, nihilism, destruction of traditional values and mores in other peoples’ societies?

    I couldn’t possibly imagine anyone who would fit the above list. But if someone did, they probably shouldn’t be trusted, much less allowed to hold nearly all the levers of power.

    Okay. Enough sarcasm. Actual serious remark: Can a culture embody most of the signs and symptoms of Cluster B personality disorders? Apparently yes.

  11. Interesting thoughts, John. I guess my question would be how much the times serve to make them what they are as well. Without being in the right era, they would have been at best minor characters that disappear into the ash heap of history without a trace.

  12. “Where I do listen to all of his battle recreations, his political philosophy videos are hit or miss.” That is my experience as well, when he is doing his deep dives on battles it is without peer but he lets modern sensibilities creep into his political videos. I assume that is driven by his fear of being labelled a LITERAL NAHTZEE.

Comments are closed.