"Woke" = Cultural Marxism

One of the things that has frustrated me most in life for many years is the inability of others to recognize the obvious. Like how "ally" is the western version/equivalent of "comrade" but no one else seems to notice.

"Unity is not a given. One of the major obstacles to working class unity is racism, which is promoted by the capitalist class and must be fought by all. Unity depends on substantial numbers of white workers participating in the fight for full equality and against racism, based on an understanding of how racism injures and lowers the wages and living conditions of all workers. [....] White workers have a powerful self-interest in fighting racism—they will gain greater victories to the degree that they unite with nationally and racially oppressed workers. Multiracial unity in the workplace and on the shop floor is key to lifting wages and improving working conditions and honoring the dignity of every worker. [....] Members of the working class who are white must take an initiating and leading role in combating all instances of racism and national oppression wherever and whenever they occur and provide support to people of color who are in leadership of movements and organizations." - Communist Party Platform, The Road to Socialism.

Now compare that to the text at the bottom of this image from an article in Harvard Business Review.

Basically, it's saying white people, white men in particular, need to assist in their own destruction, by putting "POC" and/or women (proletarian subversives) into positions of power. Help us take over your institutions, businesses, organizations, et al., and weaponize them against you, or you're racist. And it's quite overt about it.

"We view allyship as a strategic mechanism used by individuals to become collaborators, accomplices, and coconspirators who fight injustice and promote equity in the workplace." - Harvard Business Review, Be A Better Ally.

Now let's talk about the recent controversy surrounding Black Rifle Coffee Company. I'm not going to go into a protracted explanation of that controversy, as you can do that research on your own, but will merely summarize it thusly. The leadership of BRCC exposed themselves as frauds. Not financial frauds, but philosophical frauds. Although some might argue the former as well being that their business model was one of dissimulation for personal profit. Basically, BRCC marketed themselves as ostensibly right-wing in order to capitalize on the patriotism of Republicans, only to emphatically disavow them in an interview with some leftist rag (NYT) in which they parroted common, fallacious, leftist notions (e.g., that staunch Conservatives are racists). In an attempt to have their cake and eat it too, BRCC tried to pander to both sides of the isle, revealing they have no true loyalty to either and unmasking themselves as the unprincipled, duplicitous, demagogues they are.

BRCC marketing strategy.

Just like politicians, when speaking to one person or group they say one thing, and then another when speaking to someone else they know has contrary ideals. Companies like this should not be supported; they should be driven into oblivion. If you have no political affiliation, fine. That's unlikely, but if you can keep your business and your politics segregated, so be it. You may have my patronage. But that's not the case with BRCC. They'll brandish a rifle and wave an American flag to get your money, and then call you a "racist" and profess they want nothing to do with you to get someone else's. Because they're scumbags.

Now to my main point. I keep seeing people (online) referring to BRCC as "grifters" in response to this. And while that's not untrue, they're something far worse than that. And now I'm going to provide some necessary preliminary context to articulate why.

"The presence of party units has long been a fact of doing business in China, where party organizations exist in nearly 70 percent of some 1.86 million privately owned companies, the official China Daily reported last month. Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization." - Exclusive: In China, the Party’s push for influence inside foreign firms stirs fears.

It's well known that most companies in China have Communist Party members in their ranks, and are basically extensions of the Communist state. As explicitly articulated in the Constitution of the Communist Party of China:

"Primary Party organizations are formed in enterprises, rural areas, government departments, schools, scientific research institutes, communities, mass organizations, intermediaries, companies of the People's Liberation Army and other basic units, where there are at least three full Party members." - Article 29, Primary Organizations of the Party.

Basically wherever three or more commies are gathered together a Marxist cabal is to be established. And what is the purpose of that cabal? To implement the party platform. Even in private enterprises.

"In a non-public (private) economic institution, the primary Party organization carries out the Party's principles and policies, (and) provides guidance to and supervises the enterprise." - Article 32, Ibid. (Parentheses mine.)

These party operatives basically serve as compliance officers (commissars), to ensure your organization is adhering to the Communist platform, and as informers if you're not. Where am I going with this? What does this have to do with BRCC, or anything? This is the part that frustrates me. The obvious thing that people don't see. We have these here in the United States as well. They're simply called something else. Usually something like "diversity officer" or some other specious tripe. (I've expounded upon how Marxists manipulate language before.) They're pretty much invariably members of the U.S. Communist (Democrat) Party. And it will often be a "minority," based upon the absurd supposition that they're "POC" whisperers with some esoteric wisdom regarding how "POC" think, and can "educate" non-"POC" (who suffer from racism induced retardation) on the nuances of such. (So ingrained is racism in the psyche of the left, that only a brown person can truly understand or quantify another brown person.) Similarly with women (only a woman can understand women on any level).

"The Global Office of Culture, Diversity, Equity & Inclusion’s (CDEI) mission is to create a culture where all associates feel included and are engaged to deliver on our purpose of saving people money so they can live better. Hear more about this focus from Ben Hasan, Senior Vice President and Global Chief Culture, Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Officer and view the full 2020 Culture, Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Report here."

"In his role as [...] Chief Diversity Officer, Corey Anthony [...] leads AT&T’s efforts to leverage its leadership in diversity and inclusion to drive innovation and growth – as well as the company’s EEO and affirmative action policies. [....] He is a passionate advocate for diversity and inclusion."

"Elizabeth Nieto is Head of Global Diversity and Inclusion at Amazon and is responsible for implementing Amazon’s comprehensive D&I strategy." 

Before Elizabeth was the Head of Party Compliance, oops, I mean "Head of Diversity and Inclusion" at Amazon, she was the "Global Chief Diversity & Inclusion Officer at MetLife."

"Under her leadership, the company defined and implemented their first global D&I strategy. [...] The strategy focused on the development of women globally and regional initiatives (e.g. emerging talent, LGBTQ+, people with different abilities, veterans) and accountability metrics to achieve the company’s world-class status aspiration."

Basically her role, not unlike her Chinese counterparts, was to implement and execute the "party's principles and policies." And her "strategy" to that end was to reduce traditional elements within the company, and replace them with leftist subversives ("feminists," sexual deviants, etc.) to whatever extent possible. And it's common for these people to hop around from company to company, and/or serve on multiple "boards" or whatnot, for this purpose.

Which brings me back to my comments about BRCC at the beginning of this contribution, and the image shared with me by a friend that catalyzed it.

Why does an ostensibly "right-wing" company have a "VP of People and Culture" (Communist Compliance Officer)? Well, I've been providing the answer to that question. To be fair this may be a facetious query. But in my experience most have only superficial discernment regarding these matters. They may recognize that something is wrong, or non sequitur, but that's pretty much the extent of their recognition. They consistently fail to discern the broader ramifications. So this gentleman has recognized that BRCC is not what it purports to be. But he hasn't (from what I've seen) truly recognized why; it's a Marxist enterprise. (They may not have started as one but they are now. So who cares.) BRCC isn't just trying to make a profit off of you. It's trying to destroy you and profit off of you while doing it. Which is the Communist business model (e.g., China).

And a glaring indicator of that, is the existence of a "Diversity/inclusion officer," which is not a real job. Its true purpose is bringing/keeping a business in conformity with the Communist platform. Nothing more. The existence of such a position means that your employer, or whatever organization it may be, has utterly capitulated to Communist rule. Anyone not a vegetable would immediately recognize this for what it is. The reification of the Cultural Marxist agenda openly declared in the Communist Party's platform. 

"The diversity of the labor movement is growing in composition and leadership. [....] The encouragement of many forms of cultural expression, and the appreciation of the rich diversity of ethnic and multinational cultural celebrations are all part of our struggle for ending racism, prejudice, and negative stereotypes. [....] Developing a vibrant people’s culture, with working-class culture at its core and an appreciation for the cultural expressions of all peoples, is an essential part of building mass struggle against the (capitalist) system." - Communist Party Platform, The Road to Socialism. (Parentheses mine.)

Something that should be obvious even if it wasn't constantly slapping you in the face. The similarities between present day western corporate marketing, and old Soviet brainwashing propaganda for example, are quite striking. Compare these old Soviet images depicting racially/culturally "diverse" subjects.

"Proletariats of all nations, unite! The power of the working class is in its revolutionary unity." (Second from left)

"Peace. Unity. Friendship." (Second from right)

"Strengthen the unity of the proletariat." (Far right)

"For the solidarity of women of the world!" (Second from left)

"Workers from all countries and oppressed colonies raise the banner of Lenin." (Far right)

To these present day images.

Notice anything? A common motif perhaps? I'll give you a hint. It's the same Marxist propaganda. The aesthetic may differ somewhat, but the substance is identical. All of them depict the same, farcical, racially and culturally eclectic imagery. Which always brings an anecdote to mind. Many years ago I read a magazine which featured a section in which you could create your own advertisement (if I remember correctly). It featured numerous images you could cut out and arrange to essentially make a collage for that purpose. The reason I remember it, is because one of the images titled "unrealistically diverse posse," depicted a group of laughably disparate people (e.g., an Eskimo, a cowboy, a ninja, etc.) all standing together. What was a joke then is reality now, and emblematic of essentially all of modern western marketing. And don't forget the extensive compulsory indoctrination of employees that now occurs on the job either.

Actual image of recurring mandatory employee training.

Or the "diverse" ads for Facebook groups, one of which features a group of racially/culturally eclectic basketball players, all of which are also disabled.

Virtually every advertisement I see now features a ridiculous, unrealistic clique of people, depicted as friends or having the time of their lives together. And it's easy to see why, when AT&T for example, uses some form of the word "diverse" six times in the above image and twenty two times on the page from which that image was taken. 

"At AT&T, inclusion is how we unleash the power of diversity. We strive each day to foster a sense of belonging and empowerment in our diverse workplace, create relevant marketing for our diverse customers, listen before engaging in our diverse communities and work as a team alongside our diverse suppliers. We innovate with the community in mind and focus our Diversity, Equity & Inclusion practices on five pillars: our people, our communities, our customers, our content and our suppliers."

At AT&T we make a diverse assortment of products, that we use a diverse system of transportation, to get to a diverse chain of retailers, that sell them to a diverse spectrum of consumers, with diverse lifestyles, and diverse families, and diverse interests, in diverse things, to be used in diverse ways, for diverse purposes, in diverse locations, diverse, diverse diverse diverse, diverse diverse, diversity, diverse diverse diverse, diversity diversity, diverse diverse diversity diverse diverse.....

We get it. AT&T supports diversity in all things (except vocabulary). And as if that weren't enough, we see other conspicuous commie terminology, like "equity" and "inclusion." Just in case you had any doubts about their dedication to Marxist theory. Only Marxists care about such garbage, and thus only Marxists speak in such a manner. When Corey Anthony's bio says "he is a passionate advocate for diversity and inclusion," it's tantamount to declaring he is a passionate advocate for Marxist theory. If it's still not clear enough, let me be as explicit as possible. Modern "corporate culture" is Cultural Marxism. It is Marxists in high level business positions openly practicing Cultural Marxism, imposing it on their employees, and promoting it to society at large. (Frankly, if you haven't figured that out by now...)

That's why all of these corporations, purportedly crusading to end "discrimination," broadcast and brag about their demographic restructuring; i.e., their progress in achieving the Marxist multi-racial/multi-national "unity of the proletariat." As seen on the website of AT&T and numerous others.

Why are people purporting to want a color and gender "blind" society essentially boasting about how many brown people and women they hire? Why are people purporting to want the end of "discrimination" literally providing graphs of how many "POC" and women they hire? How does one implement such a "strategy," and acquire and collate such data, without engaging in widescale discrimination? And what is the purpose of broadcasting such, if not appealing exclusively to "POC," women, and leftists (i.e., discriminatory marketing)? Look at the fine print below each graph. "Excludes employees whose race is unknown or undeclared." If the goal is no "discrimination" then shouldn't the race/gender/orientation of 100% of AT&T's employees be "unknown or undeclared?" That would be a much simpler graph to make wouldn't it? It would also be a graph that didn't convey your conformity with the party platform and garner clout with other Marxists however. So instead these people, supposedly against "discrimination" and seeing color, gender, "orientation," etc., literally count and keep track of who has brown skin and white skin, phalluses and vaginas, what people do with their genitalia in their free time, etc., in order to prove they don't "discriminate" or care about race, gender, or "orientation."

Anyway, here in the real world it simply doesn't work the way it's depicted in Marxist adverts. People form bonds based upon common beliefs, values, interests, etc. (Not idiotic crap like "diversity.") These things typically don't exist, or at least not to the extent necessary, among disparate racial or cultural groups; the former generally also meaning the latter. People of different races will also usually have different cultures, and therefore different values, and therefore, the proclivity of all peoples being to favor their own culture and values over that of others, diminished common ground upon which to establish strong interpersonal bonds. Not always, but usually. And despite what the Marxist left claims, there's nothing wrong with that. And despite what the Marxist left claims, "diversity" will not, and is not designed, to build a better society. The purpose of "diversity" is to dissolve the extant homogenous cultural and ethical bonds that hold it together. It erodes the intangible mortar of society, causing cultural and moral disintegration, allowing them to substitute Marxism in its place. Their objective is to get you to destroy meaningful connection, based upon substantive things (e.g., a shared religion and history), through the futile pursuit of delusional nonsense.

The left incessantly speaks of "unity." Yet to any rational person putting two groups with disparate, and often incompatible beliefs, cultures, and interests together in the same space, would not produce "unity." Nor would it result in a "stronger" society. It produces weakness by fomenting social fragmentation and strife, which in turn undermines organized resistance, and thus enervates as opposed to strengthens a society. That's the true objective of "diversity." And that's not my opinion, and I didn't need Yuri to tell me, either. They openly state as much in their platform (above), which contains the word "struggle" two hundred twenty five times. "Developing" multiculturalism "is an essential part of building mass struggle against the system." One need simply turn on a TV to see this agenda manifest. Our society is now plagued with disunity and conflict, all of which are incessantly stoked (by the left though movies, television, news, corporations, schools, riots, protests, etc.) under the farcical pretext of eliminating disunity and conflict.

The assiduous promotion of androgyny and gender "equality" (as mentioned in a prior contribution) is likewise a flagrant Communist derivative.

"Down with kitchen slavery. Long live a new mode of life!" (Left)

"Glory to the heroic Soviet woman." (Center)

"Every lady cook should learn how to govern the country." (Right)

"There are more women than men amongst the workers. It is obvious that the struggle of the proletariat must be greatly hindered by the lack of equality between the two halves of which it is composed. Without the aid of the women of the proletariat, it is idle to dream of a general victory. [...] For this reason, it is greatly to the interest of the working class that there should be complete fighting comradeship between the female and the male portions of the proletariat, and that this comradeship should be strengthened by equality. The Soviet Power is the first to have realized such equality in all departments of life: in marriage, in the family, in political affairs, etc. In all things, throughout Soviet Russia, women are the equals of men." - The ABC of Communism, The Equality of the Workers, irrespective of Sex, Creed, and Race, 1920.

So it's no coincidence you're constantly seeing things like this now.

It's just another slightly modified veneer on the same old commie rhetoric. The unification of all people, "irrespective of sex, creed, and race," into the proletariat. "Unity" of all in the crusade for Socialism.

I often see some on the right lamenting that western women have gone crazy (which they have), but expressing no understanding as to why. Isn't it obvious? If you destroy a society's women you destroy that society. If you turn a people/culture/society's women into psychotic misandrist termagants, that refuse to marry or bear children, you will within the span of a generation or two see social anarchy and the obliteration of that people/culture/society. 

"From all that I had read of history and government, of human life and manners, I had drawn this conclusion, that the manners of women were the most infallible barometer, to ascertain the degree of morality and virtue in a nation. All that I have since read and all the observations I have made in different nations, have confirmed me in this opinion. The manners of women, are the surest criterion by which to determine whether a republican government is practicable, in a nation or not. The Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, the Swiss, the Dutch, all lost their public spirit, their republican principles and habits, and their republican forms of government, when they lost the modesty and domestic virtues of their women. What havoc said I to myself, would these manners make in America? Our governors, our judges, our senators, or representatives and even our ministers would be appointed by harlots for money, and their judgments, decrees and decisions be sold to repay themselves, or perhaps to procure the smiles and embraces of profligate females. The foundations of national morality must be laid in private families. In vain are schools, academies and universities instituted, if loose principles and licentious habits are impressed upon children in their earliest years. The mothers are the earliest and most important instructors of youth.... The vices and examples of the parents cannot be concealed from the children. How is it possible that children can have any just sense of the sacred obligations of morality or religion if, from their earliest Infancy, they learn that their mothers live in habitual Infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their mothers." - John Adams, June 2, 1778.

"There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is so much respected as in America, or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated. In Europe almost all the disturbances of society arise from the irregularities of domestic life. To despise the natural bonds and legitimate pleasures of home, is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart, and the evil of fluctuating desires. Agitated by the tumultuous passions which frequently disturb his dwelling, the European is galled by the obedience which the legislative powers of the State exact. But when the American retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace. There his pleasures are simple and natural, his joys are innocent and calm; and as he finds that an orderly life is the surest path to happiness, he accustoms himself without difficulty to moderate his opinions as well as his tastes. Whilst the European endeavors to forget his domestic troubles by agitating society, the American derives from his own home that love of order which he afterwards carries with him into public affairs." - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Principal Causes Maintaining The Democratic Republic, 1835.

The pernicious consequences of women forsaking their natural and ethical duty to be wives and mothers is manifest in every aspect of western life. It's one of the many facets of Marxist subversion to which the dimwitted are oblivious. The forgotten truth is that many women, most even, didn't want "equality." It was thrust upon them, and "modern" women simply cling to it, because they've always been told they should by the leftist hegemony; because that belief behooves the advancement of Marxism.

"The suffragists ask for the ballot upon the ground that they are 'human beings.' (We) constantly emphasize the equally undeniable fact of sex differentiation with its many limitations. What will do for a man 'human being' will not necessarily do for a woman 'human being.' There is no neuter gender in our thought. We hold that sex is a dominant factor in this question of duties and of abilities. [....] By doubling the electorate, and therefore, according to the law of averages, coming out with conditions very little changed, can we hope to do anything more than make more difficult an already difficult task? [....] There is no such thing as a 'natural right' to the ballot. Natural rights are rights to life, property, etc.; the ballot is a man devised instrument for the peaceful expression of the popular will in government. It is conferred as a serious responsibility upon men who have fulfilled certain well-known conditions. Women are made exempt from the exercise of political responsibility in view of the duties toward home and family which they are performing for the benefit of the state. The ballot is not a right denied; it is a burden removed." - Grace Goodwin, Anti-suffrage: Ten Good Reasons, 1912. (Parentheses mine.)

The movement "had its origin among noble and brilliant people for great moral ends" (as always), but had degraded into "solely a question of politics" at the time of her account; i.e. a new demographic to cajole for the purpose of augmenting personal or partisan power; something which Grace laments was already inducing conspicuous election fraud in her time. It's also worth noting that a "neuter gender," which Grace denounces as fantasy, is precisely in what modern leftists believe. That human beings are born gender neutral, and effectively blank slates to which (a) gender (of one's preference) is assigned.

For all their bluster women are subservient by nature. There is no one more inclined to submit in the face of adversity or force. In the past they looked to their husbands to provide protection. In the absence of a husband, they will merely seek another entity for that role, and that entity has proven overwhelmingly to be the state. There's a reason women, especially single leftist women, so consistently and ardently support more social programs and bigger government. The specious leftist "liberation" of women was never really about freeing them, but rather the political advantage that would be provided to whomever wooed this new contingent of the electorate. (A practice still on display with "homosexuals," illegal immigrants," etc.) They found willing patsies in naive women ("feminists") clutching at any semblance of parity, culminating in the redistribution of their subservience, dependency, and fealty from one thing (the husband & family) to another (the state). The left always knew, if they could sunder the traditional bond between men and women, it would drive women en masse into the arms (and augment the power) of government.

The enmity between men and women instigated and perpetuated by the left, benefits neither, harms both, and has been the ruin of our society. Women adopting the role of men has, as it only ever could, resulted in the abandonment (to a significant degree) of their own, producing a cascading moral degradation, that's reticulated throughout society via the proliferation of morally stunted and neglected children, born to profligate and absent mothers. "Sluts" don't raise good children. They raise self-affirming children. 

But back to "diversity." The Marxist left doesn't want to increase "diversity." It wants to obliterate it. Under the pretext of pursuing multiculturalism it seeks to establish monoculturalism, or at least an uncontested cultural hegemony to which all others are utterly prostrated. If they prevail, there will be only one established, legally recognized "culture;" Marxism. And any other will be permitted only to the extent it doesn't challenge that hegemony, or serves the interests of the state and those that administer it. And it needs to be understood that most of our major corporations (and even smaller ones like BBRC) are all in. They've sold out and are voluntarily, if not ardently, aiding and abetting this agenda in order to procure political equity in, and a future for, their brand, their business, and their personal wealth under the new system, in which (much like China) their continued existence will require being in ideological good standing with the Communist party/state. 

The current harassment/discrimination lawsuit against video game juggernaut Blizzard provides a prime example of this. Blizzard President J. Allen Brack apparently sent out an email to all Blizzard employees in response. 

Allow me to provide context and translate this for you, as the significance of the most important portion of the response in the image above (highlighted in red), will likely not be readily apparent to most. Basically, information has come to light and/or accusations have been made, that Blizzard is in disparity with the Communist party/platform. So ensconced within this meandering, useless, emotional drivel, is an overt declaration to the contrary.

"Stepping back - when I talked with Bobby about taking this job, one of the first things I mentioned was a revered saint of the Brack household - Gloria Steinem. Growing up, the value of women as equals, understanding the work that had been done for equal treatment, and the fact that there was still much to do, were common themes. This is just one of the reasons why the fight for equality is incredibly important to me. People with different backgrounds, views, and experiences are essential for Blizzard, our teams, and our player community. I disdain 'bro culture,' and have spent my career fighting it."

This is Brack saying I'm a good ally (comrade); i.e., Marxist. What red blooded, heterosexual American male, would care enough about Gloria Steinem to mention her during a job interview? He expresses his adoration of a prominent "feminist" (Marxist) figure, purely to further emphasize his ideological conformity, and hopefully placate the Marxist establishment of which he's run afoul. Not unlike a Marxist on trial or run afoul of the party in the east might express their adoration for Lenin or Mao to that end. "Equality" is a Marxist notion that has no basis in reality. The notion there is "still much to do," despite the fact women now have all the same rights as men in this country, is likewise a Marxist notion that has no basis in reality. He then parrots the party line on diversity (which is laughable), before stating he hates the patriarchy, and has been "fighting" (adhering to the Marxist platform on) it his whole life.

(I say the part about diversity is laughable, because this is the same company that literally sided with the fascist CCP, against Hong Kong native Ng Wai Chung. So Blizzard believes "people with different backgrounds, views, and experiences are essential," unless those backgrounds, views, and experiences threaten their lucrative relationship with a genocidal Socialist state, that is eradicating liberty in Hong Kong, has millions in concentration camps, and harvests human organs for profit.)

Brack's response is laden with idioms and concepts inherent to Marxism.

Brack's statement:

"People with different backgrounds, views, and experiences are essential for Blizzard, our teams, and our player community."

Communist Party Platform:

"Developing a vibrant people’s culture, with  [...] an appreciation for the cultural expressions of all peoples, is an essential part of building mass struggle against the (capitalist) system."

Notice anything? He's mirroring the Communist platform almost verbatim. He's saying don't ruin my company because we're good Marxists. Yet most can't see it. I can even provide you with an example of such.

That's a clueless millennial "gamer" reading another Blizzard statement, in which they yet again specifically mention they're efforts to impose a "culture" of "diversity" (Cultural Marxism), within their place of business. And not only does he not recognize its significance, he thinks the most important part of the statement is the least important. These sentiments are akin to a priest, who's church has evoked the ire of the Vatican saying, "Look, we're good Catholics," in the hopes it reaches the ears of those higher up in the hierarchy of the church (and hopefully results in clemency). This is the management of Blizzard broadcasting their ideological disposition and fealty to potential "allies" (comrades) in the state, courts, etc., for the same purpose. And it's something I've seen countless times over the course of my life. When a leftist gets in trouble, or feels threatened, they will issue a coded statement identifying themselves as an "ally," in order to elicit aid from other leftists (who will often rush to their defense) or garner favor (and hopefully leniency) from leftists in positions of power.

I see this sort of thing all the time and yet few others seem to recognize it. Instead I consistently see leftist morons all over social media blaming the avarice of these companies, most (if not all) of which are run by ostentatious leftists who've conspicuously adopted the CCP business model, on "capitalism." 

But here in reality it's secular Socialists behind the genocidal organ harvesting in China, and it's secular Socialists behind the genocidal organ harvesting in the U.S.

And yet western leftists blame capitalism, and claim we're the "fascists." Why can't they recognize the ostentatiously inherent flaws in their reasoning?

Because their perception of reality and ability to engage in deductive reasoning has been destroyed. And this is something I've experienced countless times over the course of my life when speaking with leftists. You can deluge them with information/facts that contravene their position, and they will dismiss that information and retain their position, which is usually just rote regurgitation of the Marxist platform.

The rhetoric, propaganda, arguments, criticisms, strawmen, and lies of the western left (e.g., Democrats) are consistently the same as the old Soviet, and even current Chinese Communist rhetoric, propaganda, arguments, criticisms, strawmen, and lies. 

I don't think a single day in my adult life has passed in which I haven't been subjected, either by academia, the film industry, the press, or some "liberal" on social media, et al., to some minor variant of the rhetoric conveyed in the cartoon above published in China Daily; a media outlet owned by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party.

As I have long said the rhetoric is the same because they subscribe to the same ideology as Russian/Chinese Communists. They're the same thing. And yet few discern much less acknowledge it. Not only are leftists (Democrats/Libertarians) I encounter consistently oblivious to the machinations of the Cultural Marxist agenda, but they will regularly argue it doesn't exist and assertions to that effect are hyperbolic or baseless "conspiracy theories," even as they regurgitate Marxist rhetoric by rote in service to that agenda. Proving there is no limit to the depths of human ignorance and stupidity.

The most frustrating thing about all of this, as stated at the outset of this contribution, is how few people recognize it. The Marxists openly say what they want, and how they're achieving it, and yet virtually no one discerns it to any meaningful degree. The repugnant reality is our enemies don't need to invade us. They don't need to spend fortunes on wars with jets, and tanks, and bombs. Because they've gotten us to destroy ourselves, through subversive ideological warfare, at essentially no personal risk and for a fraction of the cost of traditional physical warfare. And, as evinced by the (Marxist) propaganda above being now ubiquitous here and parroted by tens of millions of oblivious lemmings, we've already lost that war.

I could go on but perhaps in a future contribution. This one is already long enough to preclude consumption by 99.9% of my fellow man.