Dialectically Assessing Religious History! (16.7.2023)

An intuitive (collective) grasp does not constitute a material consensus. Of course, the work of Marx and that of the Bourgeois intellectuals featured above does intersect. Marx, however, must be ‘ignored’ because his method (if pursued to its logical conclusion) – not only exposes the inverted nature of religion – but also the inverted nature of the entirety of Bourgeois society (including those intellectuals who expose religion – but do not expose the predatory capitalism it creates and they rely on) because such an admittance would effectively end Bourgeois existence and see it subsumed within a Socialist Revolution!

What Was Victor Lewis Smith Doing? (16.2.2023)

My report would state that I believe Mr Victor Lewis Smith is a ‘Marxist-Leninist’ (and therefore a ‘supporter’ of Stalin) – but that he uses the ‘Bourgeois’ view of Stalin in his humour to convey the ‘inverted’ and ‘illogical’ view the Bourgeoisie maintain and perpetuate toward one of the most effective working-class leaders the USSR ever produced. This view of Stalin is ‘funny’ because it is ‘ahistorical’ as such a person never existed. This ‘Stalin’ is the Judeo-Christian ‘devil’ which always lurks in the deepest recesses of the ‘inverted’ Bourgeois mind. It is the Bourgeois devil who also ‘juggles’ for the delight of the capacity crowd! A sort of John Wayne Gacy (a ‘slippery Pole’ no less) – who somehow manipulated his way to ‘elected’ power (custard pie in the face) in the USSR (hoot on a car horn)! What Victor Lewis Smith produced is a superb master-class of how to adapt Marxist-Leninist ‘dialectical’ critique and make it work in the mainstream of capitalist society! Everything he says means exactly what it is intended to mean at the point of its expression – whilst its structure becomes redundant (and therefore obsolete) the moment after it is uttered. The meaning is therefore both ‘precise’ and yet transforms in an ‘amorphous’ and therefore ‘universal’ interpretive format. Every sentence expresses exactly what the author intends it to mean – whilst every sentence once uttered becomes whatever the receiving mind wants it to mean – with no ‘contradiction’ manifesting in this unfolding, dialectical process. I believe we are seeing Hegel’s thesis, antithesis and synthesis turned upon its head and functioning the right way around. With the tightening of US hegemony and US anti-intellectualism stalking our land – it may be a very long time before we see the likes of Victor Lewis Smith again in the UK!

1 2