Maybe we should all agree one a single term for this enemy confronting us, now that it’s showing its face more clearly.
Even with bastards, it’s sometimes important to know where they were born, and by whom.
“Marxist” isn’t enough. Not even “communist”. And “socialist” makes them look as if they’d just taken on the parson’s collar of the Church of England.
In 1918 they were “the Bolsheviks” when they sprung onto the stage, identifying themselves by “who they were not”, namely the Mensheviks, who were by far the larger communist party in Russia, but who also felt they could work within the new legislative system the Russians had dreamed up to limit the power of the tsar back in 1905. But the change wasn’t fast enough or drastic enough to suit the spoiled intellectuals, who’d read books, especially with all the millions who’d never read books just waiting to be led…which is the key formula for just about every “ism” that has come down the pike.
Only those millions of Russian illiterates were being wasted away on the Eastern Front, 1.8 million dead, 2.8 million wounded and 1.2 million in POW camps, Russia having lost more than even France, and even France’s allies who died defending France, mostly England and America, who lost 126,000 men in just 12 months of fighting. (Woodrow Wilson’s doing, btw.)
World War I (and inbreeding) had taken the king-system of Europe to the brink, and the western press wrote mostly of the Western Front, which America had finally joined in October 1917. The Bolsheviks lit their fuse in Russia just 2-3 weeks later at St Petersburg on November 7th.
So it would take awhile for the meaning of the Bolshevik Revolution to even play out in the Western press, or if they even liked it or not. In America, reviews were mixed all the way up to 1945 when it was Winston Churchill who had to remind us that “Bolsheviks are bad.”
All you need to know is the desire to be free is not gained by reading a book. It comes from within Man. It is a part of our soul. Nature, not book-learned nurture.
On the other hand, the desire to manipulate and rule comes almost entirely from that sense of superiority of the intellectual lettered, feeding their need to control those who do not.
Bolsheviks, then, are not unlike the Uruk-hai, the super-orcs created at Isengard by Saruman, a great wizard who turned to the dark side. (Might be a good time to reread Tolkein’s books or watch the three films.)
Even when I was in college in the 60s, being instructed by Marxist professors, the Bolsheviks were still portrayed more for their ugliness than for their intellectual ardor.
When you see this, think Russian.
And boy, are they sensitive about it!, only I didn’t bring it up. The American Left of the 60s did, because the biggest “intellectual” argument I recall against the Soviets was that they were Russian. When the young (spoiled elitist brat from Chicago) Hillary Rodham first fell under the spell of Saul Alinsky, before she first tasted the real fruits of organized crime, she was taught to believe that Marxism would work if they could only replace the hideous face and pedestrian tastes and habits of Russian peasants and replace them with the smart and urbane cosmopolitans of America’s finest, such as herself and the fair debutante from Baltimore.
(I’m being kind here.)
On its best day, Bolshevism may not show hate on its face, but rather indifference. But it is ugly just the same.
It can only smile with a sneer, as if part of an inside joke.
Or disdain, condescension.
Trust me, the Russians looked much better.
These are the faces of the (old) new-American Bolshevism.
I favor calling them “Bolshevik”, instead of “socialists” or “communists” or “Democrats” for they convey a single picture that only “black hearts matter.” For even their children of the damned exhibit the same dark souls.
We’ll speak more of this often in coming weeks, but for portraying their soul’s, I like Tolkien’s depiction best.