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 21st-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.
