Neo-Bolshevism: Examinations and Criticisms of the Political Left in the 21st Century

Author’s note: All of the topics focused upon in this essay are only covered briefly in the form of an overview, an examination of the danger they represent, and a demonstration of the correlation that exists between them and the Bolshevist agenda. More in-depth essays may be produced in the future in order to expound upon particular topics, depending on the reception of this piece.

This piece intends to examine the nature of left-wing politics in the western world, post-2000, in order to draw out and elaborate upon the grossly destructive components of its ideological process. These examinations will focus primarily upon the socio-political attitudes of modern leftism (as opposed to its economic propositions). Note well that this work is intended to be read by those unfamiliar with the far-right (or traditionalist/reactionary) interpretation of left-wing politics, and is intended to be used as a means of ‘enlightening’ those whose sympathies lie either in the centre, or to the left-of-centre, as to the destructiveness of modern leftist politics.

Firstly, it is necessary to examine the history and meaning behind the terms ‘Bolshevism’ and ‘Bolshevist’ (alternatively, ‘Bolshevik’), and to examine how they are used with regard to the leftist of the modern era. ‘Bolshevism’ refers to the ideas propagated by the revolutionary Bolshevik faction in Russia, during and after the era of the First World War. The Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin and Alexander Bogdanov, were the primary instigators of the [unfortunately successful] October Revolution, which took place in 1917. The October Revolution was preceded by the February Revolution of the same year, which had resulted in the dissolution of the Tsarist system within Russia, and which had replaced the monarchist state with a republican government. Eight months later, however, the October Revolution led to the destruction of this short-lived republic, thus bringing into existence the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, which would later go on to form the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the USSR, led by Vladimir Lenin himself. ‘Bolshevism’, ‘Russian communism’ (the form of communism practiced in the USSR from 1922 to 1991) and ‘Leninism’ are all interchangeable in this regard, as the ideology of the revolutionary Bolshevik faction evolved into the state policies of the USSR, which thus legitimized it as communism put into practice.

The use of the term ‘Bolshevist’ as a label for the modern leftist is inspired by the fact that the varying motivations and agendas of the political left constitute, either in part or in full, the various components which the ideology of Bolshevism consists of. Whether deliberately or accidentally, leftists of the modern era who claim to struggle for the fulfillment of a number of different agendas are propagating the ideas of Bolshevism, and would surely see the western world plunged into a communist utopia (in all of its self-destructiveness and lack of essence), were such a thing within their capacity. For a more in-depth explanation as to the motivations and reasoning behind the use of ‘Bolshevist’ in reference to the 21^st-century leftist, see The Modern Bolshevist - and How to Defeat Him!, by FuhrerPrinzip [P.N.]. The rest of this piece will attempt to unpack and examine a number of typical agendas which fall under the protective umbrella of the political left, and will aim to contrast these agendas with the ideas of 20th-century Bolshevism.

>> Anti-Racism & Cultural Relativism

The label of a [typically self-professed] ‘anti-racist’ is attributed to any sort of individual who chooses to fervently oppose the recognition or acknowledgement of the inherent differences that exist between the various races of the human species within the realms of both science and sociology. The predispositions which lead to the development of this position are often of the same sort which leads one to embrace the ideas of cultural relativism. Indeed, the two typically go hand-in-hand with one-another. Cultural relativism is the evolution of the academic understanding of the fact that one’s behavior, values and ideas are reflective of the environment of their culture. It is an idea which propagates the claim that no given national culture is inherently superior (or of greater value to humanity) than any other. Indeed, so deep does the feeling of guilt amongst the modern White man run that he will lie to himself and disgrace his own heritage in the name of tolerance and political correctness.

Together, rabid anti-racism and cultural relativism are extremely destructive to the societies which they are allowed to permeate (read: the entirety of European civilization). Anti-racism, with its rejection of the very existence (let alone significance) of race, deprives the premise of national identity of its most fundamental component: blood-ties. On the other hand, cultural relativism preaches the abolition of any and all pride derived from one’s own national identity. Together, anti-racism and cultural relativism prove themselves to be powerful mechanisms in the destruction of the nation, which is a fundamental component of Bolshevist stratagem in the Bolshevist's mission to see all things of value undone.

The correlation that the mentality of anti-nationalism (found here in the form of anti-racism and cultural relativism) draws with Bolshevism is found within the methods by which Bolsheviks have deliberately attempted to destroy the idea of the nation. This is made a primary goal in order to pave the way for the overarching identity of mankind. By erasing the bond of nationality between the people of a folk, the communist agenda aims to force men into positions of subjugation, where the only thing they can ever share in common with each other is their obligation to work. Through this abolition of nationality and the trivialization of human relationships, communism hopes to succeed in reducing all persons down to mere statistics – husks without essence, emotion or identity, devoid of all forms of personal merit or uniqueness, either as a group or on the level of the individual.

>> Homosexuality, Transgenderism and the Pervert Agenda

The debate as to whether or not homosexuality in men and women arises out of social or biological (psychological or physical) circumstances is irrelevant to the subject of this piece, and thus, will not be discussed. The significance of the differentiation between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior, however, cannot be overstated. Recognizing that, regardless of the cause, [the majority] of homosexual individuals are seemingly unable to reverse their own sense of gender attraction. Therefore, it is necessary for there to be a certain degree of acceptance [read: tolerance] of the reality of homosexual orientation. The same generosity ought not to be extended towards the notion of homosexual behavior, however. Behavior which is to be considered effeminate (in the case of men) and ‘butch’ (in the case of women) – behavior which flies directly in the face of an individual’s predetermined biological identity – deserves absolutely no room for tolerance. The difference lies in the fact that the former does not affect the individual’s fellow folk, while the latter has the potential to cause a tremendous degree of damage to the society which the individual concerned is a part of.

The reason for this is that, in their efforts to mold the world to their liking, those whose abnormal sexual orientation develops into outright mental illness will stop at little to promote the normalization of degeneracy in the form of sexual perversion within western society, culture and law. This is because doing so would allow these individuals (and groups) to behave as erratically and in as self-destructive a manner as they may wish without any sort of recourse. The same principle applies for those whom consciously support the idea of transgenderism (that is to say, the acceptance of the idea that gender confusion – or the dilution of gender identity – is anything other than a psychological illness). The socio-political right-wing recognizes ‘transgenderism’ as a direct and deliberate assault on the traditional (and absolutely necessary) societal & cultural roles and identities of men and women alike. Also falling into this group are those whom support the production, distribution and consumption of pornography. The devastating effects that the continuous consumption of pornography has upon the minds of young men (primarily, but also upon some young women) is astounding, alarming and horrifying, all in one. Pornography is a mechanism employed by those whom propagate the pervert agenda to expose ordinary persons to the growing degeneracy within the ‘culture’ of ‘alternative’ sexuality. That degenerate, mind-warping perversions might come to be considered not only normal, but exciting, for the ordinary man or woman within western society is an ideal outcome for the supporters of the pervert agenda. Finally, and probably most horrifically, there is the pedophiliac lobby; individuals who seek to hitch a ride upon the coattails of this new movement of sexual liberalism (for want of a better expression) in order to see their hellish, abhorrent illnesses and perverted orientations to be normalized alongside all the rest. While one would presume that the left would not go so far as to allow this, those on the far-right whom are aware of this phenomenon are horrified to see that these people are not only being tolerated within the realm of the sexual-liberal movement of the left-wing, but are being outright embraced. This is the reality of the left’s self-destructiveness; the result of political correctness and a desire for moral gratification on a personal level, but on a massive scale, gone absolutely wild. Together, militant homosexuals, transgenders, pornophiles and the paedophilic lobby embody a gigantic danger to the normality, strength and decency of European civilization.

The attempts aimed at the normalization of these various forms of perversion (most of which are clearly inspired by various forms of psychological illness) are direct attacks upon the foundational institutions and traditions of European civilization, and are a propagation of absolute social (in this case, sexual) liberalism, an ideology which is destructive in the absolute to both the individual and his society. The means through which the pervert agenda is advanced is by influencing popular culture to attack traditional (read: true) forms of masculinity and femininity. By causing men to become emasculated, and women to reject the cultural roles toward which they possess an innate, organic affinity, the normalization of these various perversions within society becomes a far easier process to see fulfilled.

The correlation between the motivations of the numerous lobbies of which the pervert agenda consists and the Bolshevist ideology, which occurs in two distinct ways, is this: Firstly, that in order to undo the intrinsic strength and fortitude of a society built on tradition & a dignified culture, the Bolshevist must first attack the tenants of masculinity and femininity. By destroying the will of a nation’s men to strive in the interest of development, growth and prosperity through the destruction of their sense of masculinity, the Bolshevist has rendered a nation ripe for dismantling and, subsequently, subjugation beneath the hammer and sickle. Secondly, simply that the normalization of these sorts of perversions are a means by which the Bolshevist may present to the world his desire for absolute liberalism, in all of its destructiveness, for all individuals.

>> Feminism

Feminism began as a social movement on behalf of women which, in the eyes of its proponents, was dedicated to the ‘liberation’ of women. The movement’s ‘intellectuals’ presumed to achieve this by gaining for women equality in the realms of politics (particularly with regard to the political representation of women’s issues by women themselves), economic opportunities (through a broader increase in the work roles made available to women), and social rights. This, the original embodiment of feminism, arose out of an era which saw a rampant degree of decadence; an era in which the youth grew into adulthood without any understanding of duty or obligation, except to one’s own selfish interests, determined by that individual’s taste in personal gratification. In of itself, feminism may strike its target as a perfectly rational, just and morally dignified movement. Upon closer examination, however, the extent to which the feminist movement is overall devastating to the integrity, strength and basic continuity of the nation becomes increasingly, and frighteningly, apparent.

By its very nature, the feminist movement is a body which aims to challenge – and eventually destroy in absolution – the traditional perspective of the societal and cultural roles shared between men and women. Inspired by the corruption of today’s world – a world in which one is taught that their only value is in the wealth of their personal property – the modern woman has, ever increasingly, proceeded to reject and ignore (whether consciously or subconsciously) the inherent value in bearing, raising and caring for a family. The modern woman has been indoctrinated into believing that to accept this vital cultural role – one which her maternal forebears gleefully saw fulfilled to their own delight – is a form of submission and self-degradation. She has been told to believe that in place of this role, her new duty (to herself) is to imitate the lifestyle of men; to get a well-paying job so as to acquire a greater amount of material wealth in order to increase her value in the eyes of those who are equally as shallow as she is. She is told that in doing so, she will have freed herself from the danger of what the feminist intellectual perceives as an outdated expectation of society that a woman ought to exchange her own opportunities and sense of self-determination for a role of submission beneath the social and financial authority of her father and husband. The woman who deliberately defies this new-age sentiment will find herself in a most precarious position, one in which she has painted a target on herself for her feminist counterparts. The woman whom manages to escape the corruption of rampant sexualisation and the lust for selfish gratification which is propagated so strongly by the pro-feminist media is making herself a target of the feminist. She will be shamed and vilified; jeered and made an example out of for being ‘weak’, ‘submissive’ or simply ‘old-fashioned’. This, in itself, is a demonstration of the totalitarian, absolutist position of the Bolshevist in regards to the propagation of liberalism and anti-traditionalism; either you are with the feminist agenda, or you are a part of ‘the problem’.

Though, the feminist intellectual does not only bear her claws toward the image of the pure, traditional woman, but also at the image of the strong, traditional male. As a means of encouraging her fellow women to assume, within society, the role of the superior, the feminist will propagate, as best she can, the idea that the traditional interpretation of masculinity is outdated and unnecessary. The feminist does this by attacking the traditional roles of men; those of the leader, the worker, the child-rearer and the defender. The feminist seeks to break down the social obligation of men to assume these roles, towards which males certainly possess a natural affinity, so that women may be able to assume these roles, which the feminist envisions will embody the woman with the capacity for social dominion over her male counterparts. As mentioned, the feminist actively propagates the increased sexualisation of western society through mainstream media. This is done in order to encourage women to reject femininity as an attractive trait, and to instead place the entirety of one’s sense of beauty upon her physical self. In doing so, the feminist observes that weaker men will become more and more subservient to women who (for want of a better term) whore their own bodies away in the interest of achieving gratification through the garnering of attention from men whose masculinity has been destroyed, and with it all confidence in their ability to attract a genuine, feminine woman. In examining this facet of feminist thinking, it is easy to understand why, then, the feminist places such a significant emphasis in attacking the traditionalist value of modesty in women, as it shields them from the harmfulness of sexuality in popular media. By stripping it away, the feminist exposes these other women to moral and physical corruption, thereby furthering her agenda.

The nationalist recognizes that these, the various components of feminist sentiment, are destructive in the absolute. They are destructive to the individual in that they actively seek to deprive her of the will to fulfill within her life the greatest and most spiritually fulfilling thing a woman can achieve (that is to raise and nurture a family, either out of duty to her forebears and to her nation, or for her own sense of achievement). And they are destructive to the body of the nation; in reducing the nation’s birth-rate, in propagating ideas of fluidity in the innate cultural roles of either gender, and in their attacks on the principle of femininity being inherently beautiful and desirable in a woman – that is to say, the agenda to stop women from being what women ought to strive to be.

A point needs to be made concerning the often misunderstood perspective of the role of women in the fascist or national-socialist society. This [disappointingly common] misconception is that the state would be presumed to lawfully restrict females from having access to certain degrees of education, opportunities for work, and capacity for property ownership, so that the only role available to her would be to produce children out of lawful obligation, in order to support the population of the nation. Contrary to this, the far-right does not seek to force women into begrudgingly accepting their role as the cultivators and nurturers of the homeland, but instead to offer women the chance to see for themselves the sincere degree of value there is in the fulfillment of the motherly cultural role. Indeed, the nationalist does not seek to force upon the woman any sort of duty as a life-giver any more than he would seek to force another man to reject all forms of emotional weakness in the place of masculine fortitude. The nationalist would prefer that the woman – like the man – come to recognize of her own accord the inherent value that lies within the fulfillment of that cultural role. In fact, the nationalist recognizes that the role can only be truly fulfilled if the woman desires to see it fulfilled of her own accord, and that the duty to one’s nation can only be upheld if she desires to see it done. The same principle does, of course, apply for her male counterpart, in his responsibility to reject all forms of weakness within and without himself.

Another point must also be made with regard to the presumed sense of superiority of men within society – something which will typically arise out of the conclusions of a liberal/leftist interpretation of far-right socio-political ideology. The truth is that in the eyes of the nationalist, neither men nor women are superior to one another, but that they are, in fact, different. The nationalist recognizes that men and women are different in the way in which they can hope to best serve their national community (again: out of a sincere desire to serve, rather than lawful obligation). This comparison of contrasting capacities between the two sexes would best be described as a series of mutually complementary proficiencies, where the weaknesses of one gender are complemented by the strengths of the other. What is meant by this is that while a man may exceed relative to a woman in some facets of performance, a woman can be expected to far exceed a man in others, and that the two can be reasonably expected to fulfill the roles which the other cannot. For example, while a man will be more suited (due to his biological predisposition, in both the physical and psychological sense) to serve in a combat role in his nation-state’s military, a woman will likewise be more suited towards the role of a nurse or teacher, as her biological predisposition leans less towards the desire to conquer and defend, but instead towards the desire to preserve, to care for and to cultivate.

The Bolshevist will be glad at the success of the feminist’s agenda as he and she possess the same aim: to propagate these ideas of self-destructive liberalism, selfish individualism and anti-traditionalism. In removing the naturally occurring role of the woman within a cultured society, and by destroying the notion of femininity in the image of the modern woman, feminism proves itself to be a beast which threatens to gut out from within the nation its most vital component – the heart of its essence – the thing which makes it worth fighting for in the eyes of its men. This thing is the nation’s life-giving mothers and daughters, whose role it is to temper the flames of passion that rage within the fiercely protective nationalist man, and to breathe life into that which he fights to defend – until his last breath – in her name.

>> Anti-Meritocracy & Absolute Egalitarianism

The anti-meritocratic sentiment is one of the core principles of Bolshevist ideology. As an idea, it embodies deliberate and absolute opposition towards any system which is founded upon the principle of rewarding an individual based upon their contribution to the betterment of society. The presumed justification for such a sentiment is this: That in rewarding an individual based on his contribution to society, the Bolshevist is capitulating the point of the world being permeated by an innate degree of inequality, and the falsehood that is the very notion of egalitarianism (which is, of course, fundamental to his entire worldview). In his hatred towards the idea of individuality, the Bolshevist employs the principle of anti-meritocracy as a means by which he hopes to achieve a society of absolute egalitarianism; that each and every individual, regardless of their differences in capacity to achieve, is made to be the same in the eyes of the state, themselves and each other.

Anti-meritocratic sentiment represents a tremendously destructive force towards both the individual and his greater society. At the individual level, absolute egalitarianism represents the impedance of one’s capacity – nay, one’s right – to aspire to his greatest degree of potential, in the interest of accomplishing, in his lifetime, something which satisfies and pleases him; an idea which the republican (or constitutionalist) American might refer to as ‘the pursuit of happiness’. In accordance with his dream of a world populated not by human beings, but by monotonous, gray-slate statistical bodies, the Bolshevist means to deny each and every individual their right to discover – and achieve – their own potential, and to harness this potential in aiding their community. Indeed, it is preferable to the psychotic Bolshevist that his utopian society remain stagnant, self-destructive and regressive, than to allow an individual to demonstrate to his fellows that the notion of egalitarianism is nothing more than an unfounded myth. This is the danger that anti-meritocracy represents in the realm of the greater society; that the individuals whom possess the ability to create great and wonderful things – civilisation’s builders, thinkers, writers, artists, scientists and leaders – would never be permitted (by the overarching state, nor by his zealous Bolshevist peers) to pursue such careers. This notion – that those with the potential to excel ought to be shackled down to the same level as their peers – ought to be considered abhorrent to any decent human being whom might consider the idea of an individual working to better the lives of others to be a good and righteous thing. The utopian Bolshevist envisions a world dominated by a state which crushes its citizenry beneath the iron boot of exploitative industrialization; a world of absolute stagnation, devoid of all sense of vibrancy, essence, excitement and emotion.

>> Cultural Marxism

Encompassing all of the agendas that have been mentioned before this point, Cultural Marxism (or ‘Social Marxism’) refers to the application of Marxist principles in the socio-political realm, influencing the discourses of morality, social attitudes and the role of traditionalism in modern culture. It is an agenda which seeks to structure society as a reflection of the Marxist ideal of the ‘worker’s struggle’ by propagating absolute equality in all facets of society through the annihilation of moral absolution and traditionalism.

In the eyes of the Cultural Marxist, this is to be achieved through the propagation of all political and social agendas which seek to harm the prevalence of traditionalism in all of its forms within society. The Cultural Marxist seeks to glorify all elements of anti-racism, cultural relativism, sexual perversion, feminism and absolute egalitarianism in order to advance his own agenda through the vessels of these movements.

By its very name, the label of ‘Cultural Marxist’ stands for one who wishes to shape society into the image of the Bolshevist utopia: A society which rejects all form of identity, pride, uniqueness or emotion. To say it in simpler terms is to say that the Cultural Marxist seeks to manipulate society in such a way that the common man and woman will be taught to stomp out their own sense of humanity, and to reduce themselves to the level of a numeral, and to then fall in line.

>> The inspiration for Bolshevist ideas

The thoughtful individual would wonder what it is that could possibly inspire these sorts of ideas in a human mind; to attempt to understand what sort of psychotic dissonance might open the door for such an abhorrent strain of political ideology. The correct response is simple: nihilism, inspired by the tragedy of a rootless existence.

Nihilism, in short, is the absence of any sort of belief system which establishes a framework for an individual’s sense of morality. It is the absolute rejection of the notion that the experience of human life has any sort of purpose, whether that purpose is inherent, or is meant to be found by the individual themselves. With this mindset, the individual finds no reason in associating himself with the organism that is his nation, along with its sense of identity in all of its various forms. This is what is appropriately described as a rootless existence – where an individual, either deliberately or by unfortunate circumstance, becomes disassociated with that which ought to act as the most basic foundation for their sense of identity – that of their nation, race and culture. Without that foundation – without an inherent sense of belonging within any given folk or community (which may be the case if the group happens to be a marginalized religious group, for example) – the individual is forced, by their own nature, to seek out an alternative body to which they feel they may belong. To many youth, the political left, and any one of its various agenda bodies, becomes very attractive for this reason. As the ‘rootless youth’ is inherently afflicted with the mindset of nihilism, [therefore] has leanings towards liberalism, and is desperate for an opportunity to feel as though he has some sort of code to enforce, the political left offers him all of this and more in its overarching goal of destroying all forms of morality & dignity in European civilization.

To the less disenfranchised individual (the authentic Marxist ideologue, who is now truly far and in-between), the development of Marx’s economic and political theorem – from Das Kapital to what we now recognize as Bolshevism – has occurred as a result of the recognition of the fact that Marx’s ideas of political and [more centrally] economic equality between all individuals can only come about through the establishment of absolute liberalism as a universal norm. The traditional Marxist theorist has since come to recognize that social egalitarianism must be propagated in order for political and economic equality to come to fruition. Therefore, the agendas of the aforementioned lots are not only tolerable, but applaudable, in the eyes of the Marxist. Upon the crossing of this threshold of Marxist ideological evolution is born the Bolshevist as we know him now, in every ounce of his detestable abhorrence.