On an Opinion of the Coming Great Purge of the 21st Century
In today’s world of fake news, extreme identity politics, and social incivility, people often confuse the International Communist Movement with a fabricated prevarication that suggests the imposition of a “New World Order” is the machination of a Cabal of Oligarchs who have “set up” Communism (and Socialism) as a front for their devious exploitation of humanity. They make this assumption based on the western account of the rise of the Communist Party under V. I. Lenin. It is true that Western bankers helped finance the Bolsheviks as they seized power in Tsarist Russia. But, in this scenario of human history to which many refer, the Communist Movement is exonerated as the chief culprit in the civil unrest and social violence of our post-modern era because there was, once upon a time, a savage internal struggle between V. I. Lenin and Leon Trotsky. Historians often cite the success of the Bolshevik Revolution as proof that Communism didn’t spread because of a revolutionary fervor within the minds of the Communist Party Planners; that these adherents had specific objectives in mind and the proselytization of the foreign folk into the new, modern-day religion of Marxist ideology was not one of them. After all, Lenin remained in Russia facilitating the emergence of a Super State once called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Yet, the ideation of Communism, which came after the October Revolution of 1917 taking years to establish as an economic and political paradigm, was largely spread through the Universities of the West.
What we think of as the Communist regime of Russia was the invention of Vladimir I. Lenin and not Karl Marx or Frederic Engels. Before he began tinkering with the idealism of Marxist Ideology, the original philosophical paradigm (rule of the proletariat) was actually known as “The Socialist means of production.” Karl Marx and Frederic Engels did not believe in the subservience of the body politic to a common interest such as Rousseau’s universal notion of egalitarianism. Instead they proclaimed, within the context of their philosophical assertions, that political progress could only be achieved through the creation of social and political circumstances allowing the individual citizen to pursue genuine benefits permitting them to achieve important needs as human beings. Marx’s contention, therefore, described a governance model that was radically individualistic and not “communistic,” despite what he and Engels wrote into their philosophical dissertation, The Communist Manifesto.
We can understand the context of political conflict in the early 20th Century if we ask the question: What is the difference between Communism, and Socialism? Well, first of all, they are philosophies of the “Left” which advance the notion that Government (modeled as a “Technocracy”) should be making all of the decisions in our lives—all the way down to how we should dress, what we should eat, and what we might do to earn a living. There are no “individuals,” only the labor force represented through philosophical abstraction as “manpower” and referred to as a commune. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed an “advanced” stage of social development that could become classless, stateless, moneyless, and humane would eventually impose itself upon the human condition through a common ownership of the means of production. In the 20th and 21st Centuries, neither Socialism nor Communism has ever demonstrated—to any degree—that it could become classless, stateless, moneyless, and humane. Communism, in the modern sense of the conceptualization, is a technocracy and technocracies are an ideological system of governance (think: out of thin air). In such regimes, decision-makers or others representing the governing “class” are appointed by a committee on the basis of their expertise in a given area of responsibility. Down through long epochs of human development, these governance models have often been expressed as hierarchical and militaristic regimes that are very dependent upon the public acquiescence to the “rank” and assigned authority of a ruling elite rather than any meritorious values associated with their technical acumen. And, these governance regimes are responsible for over 200 million deaths during the 20th Century alone!
The difference between Socialism and Communism is not their philosophical underpinnings expressed as social paradigms. It is in the way that their regimes are “managed.” Socialism is a governance model that is dependent upon the rise and subsequent empowerment of a “Supreme Leader” who then controls a legislative body of ministers. These ministers do not represent the people. They are bureaucrats and technocrats that represent the interests of the controlling party of demagogues who advance the interests of “the State” on behalf of their imperious leader. Under Socialism, the political elements of any society do not necessarily own the means of production. The elite still own the means of production and control the velocity of the nation state’s money supply. Socialistic states eventually become militaristic because they need the military to impose their governance model as it seldom works. Spain, Germany, and Italy are examples of the Socialist governance model during the 20th Century.
Communism is a governance model that is actually imposed and managed by a “Soviet” (a Russian word). A Soviet is a “Governing Council or committee. Examples of this are the “Central Committee” of many of the world’s communist parties and the Politburo of the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This model of governance was practically invented by V. I. Lenin and consequently imposed upon the Russian people by Leon Trotsky through the imposition of a ferocious police state. There was a dispute between Lenin and Trotsky in the latter revolutionary period. Lenin wanted the actual Communist Party to be small, almost elitist in its nature and composition—restricting membership—while, at the same time, imposing transitional changes through legislation and militaristic agencies of brutal enforcement; this resulted in successive revolutionary purges in which millions were executed. Trotsky wanted to remain more “faithful” to the Communist Manifesto allowing anyone who wanted to join the Communist Party to be accepted and saw an open political system as a means to enable a “classless” society and underwrite the social dominance of the proletariat. At first, Lenin started his adversarial putsch toward exclusivism and the imposition of an elitist governing establishment through political means. He was a clever politician and won the “debate.” Trotsky later organized his followers against Lenin and an armed rebellion ensued lasting quite some time. The communist adherents of the early Russian Communist Party broke off into two factions: the Bolsheviks (the original revolutionaries who represented Lenin’s leadership) and the Mensheviks (who supported the communist ideology of Leon Trotsky)[1]
Through the Menshevik Movement—controlled by Leon Trotsky, a prominent Communist adherent and Lenin’s right-hand man—the roots of radicalism were established throughout Western Civilization by luring youthful inexperience into the fold of such alternative thinking, This implies that the spread of Marxist and Leninist ideology was, in fact, a “thought flow” shared by an elite community of revolutionaries and liberal activists formalized in a sociological and political way to submit their will to the hidden agenda of their intellectual leadership. It’s why they’re called “fellow travelers”—people who sympathize with and often further the ideology and agenda of an organized group such as the Communist party but who might not have membership or the support of those they favor. Theirs is a journey undertaken as a struggle of the human will and that struggle is marked by its anarchistic nature and almost inhuman, other-worldly ferocity. This “intelligentsia” wanted to change history through a violent kinetic campaign of brutal savagery leveled against those who seemed content with their own lives (the bourgeoisie being just one segment of society destined for the execution cellars of a Chekist-like regime of police brutality).
You see, Communists don’t advocate the “violent overthrow” of government; they’re very much against that in that they know the remnant of any transitional government becomes a useful infrastructure from which they can, more effectively, launch their purges—the purge being the single most important tool of the Communist apparatchik in the quest to impose their deterministic ideology and social engineering. Lenin used the existing political and governmental infrastructure of Tsarist Russia as a springboard from which he could incite riots, armed conflict, and the eventual assimilation of Russia’s military (Yeah…resistance was futile). Once the military was consolidated into their burgeoning organizational society of Marxist disciples, their much-hoped-for regime change was complete.
Lenin created a “Central Committee” avoiding the mistakes of European Socialist regimes. Exclusive, elite central committees produce political momentum. They strengthen the authority and power of their ideological leadership (we often refer to as an “intelligentsia”) through consensus and they insulate “the State” from its objectified citizenry making it easier for the technocrats and bureaucrats to exploit them. All the effort of the Communist Party was focused upon the primary task of seizing undisputed control over the Heartland and they did it by launching a murderous campaign of violence against the very people they claimed to have cared about. Communism is a paradigm for power and privilege. It is “elitist” and is not a blueprint for egalitarianism as some would have us all believe.
Trotsky had a more “egalitarian” plan for Communist Party dominance. He wanted the party to be open and accessible to anyone who wanted to join the movement. Lenin insisted upon a more “elitist” regime in which a small, closely supervised Communist Party would be managed by a Soviet—a ruling committee (sovjét, Russian pronunciation: [sɐˈvʲet], literally "council" in English) The original Soviet “Politburo” is an example of this conceptualization. The common folk would be ruled by this “council,” the latter Supreme Soviet (a type of parliament managed by the Politburo) being the outward manifestation of such elitism obsessed with controlling political power and social influence.
Lenin won politically. Militarily, The Bolsheviks over-powered Trotsky’s Menshevik movement and Trotsky was tried for rebellion against the State which, of course, can be considered Treason by any other name but, curiously he was sentenced to life in Siberia instead of being shot in the back of the head by the Cheka as had so many other of his fellow countrymen and women during the Bolshevik Revolution. He, somehow, escaped from his Cheka overseers and, mystifyingly, made it to—of all places—Great Britain where, magically, he was given access to finances that allowed him to start a Menshevik world movement deployed through the West’s Universities. Interestingly, today the “White, Blue, and Red” National Flag of Russia is the “Russian Empire Flag” of a bygone era—the flag used by the “White Army” in their struggle against the “Red Army” whose flag we know. Think on these elements of our post-modern history for a moment.
Lenin went on to create a Super State which the Communist Party called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This “new country” lay within the boundaries of something academicians called “The World Island.” The World Island was a theory advanced by Sir Halford John Mackinder in which he asserted that, because the greater part of the planet’s natural resources lay within the boundaries of this imaginary “political state,” he who controls the World Island controls the world (Mackinder’s “Heartland Theory”). He also developed the modern-day understanding of “manpower” as it is applied to economics as an element of industrial growth. Have any of you ever noticed how Communist and Socialist regimes are always preoccupied with managing “manpower” through the domination and control of the human workforce? It was something that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels elaborated on in their work “The Communist Manifesto, and they called that segment of the human condition, The Proletariat.
The “World Island” functions as a “geographical pivot” lending socio-political momentum to anyone who effectively controls it. The World Island is made up of the continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa (Afro-Eurasia). During this period of our modern history, Soviet planners worked tirelessly to gain control of this region. It was the reason they became the dominant political influencers in North Africa (Egypt in particular) and India and the reason why they “invaded” South East Asia and Afghanistan. They were consolidating their control over “The World Island.” Study the map of the old Soviet Union and compare it to the map of Mackinder’s “Heartland.” The similarities are not a coincidence.
They still have influence in these regions today—reasserting their control over the Middle East through Russia’s combat role in saving the Government of Syria. People actually believe that the Islamic State was an invention of clandestine communist interlopers. In actuality, it was the West’s bad idea and it didn’t work very well to break up the monopoly of International Communism over that part of the World Island; after all, he who controls the World Island…well, you get the picture—now worth a thousand words.
In the early 1960s, a fellow by the name of Anatoliy Golitsyn—a high-ranking officer in the KGB—defected to the West. He asserted that the West was being taken over, gradually, by an International Communist Insurgency that wanted to control the planet’s governance. He claimed that they would “stage” the collapse of the Soviet Union without giving up the control of its previous boundaries. They would do this as a supreme act of subterfuge—convincing the West that their cause was dead and that there wouldn’t be any need to worry about them anymore. In the meantime, they would perpetrate every crime conceivable and engage every economic and political strategy available to corrode the West’s power and influence throughout the world. When the West was sufficiently neutralized as an obstruction to their political objectives, they would re-emerge and begin the ruthless take-over of the planetary population.[2] Their goal was political dominance or hegemony as we understand the term today. He detailed the methods they would deploy in his books, New Lies for Old and The Perestroika Deception. Today, much of what he claimed would happen has come true. Early in the formation of the Soviet Union as a Super State,[3] the International Communists of the Central Committee began laying out long-range plans to subvert Western Oligarchies. These were plans of succession—The First Party Plan, The Second Party Plan, the Third Party Plan and the one in which we now find our human history brooding, the Fourth Party Plan.
International Communism has become the third leg of an alternate globalist regime competing with those of Asia and the West. In our nescient rationalizations of current events we think the Asian Oligarchs want to own all the planet’s gold while Western Oligarchs want to treat people (those who have been characterized as “useless eaters”) like chattel. The International Communists intend to level the field of competition for power by treating everyone around them as a resource to be exploited through terror, inhuman brutality, and slavery until they die from exhaustion or are executed to accommodate the needs of the State. In their “brave new world” there will only be the Communist Party and everyone else. Communists are not impressed by ostentatious wealth. The imperious behavior of billionaires aggravates them. For the last 100 years, communist bureaucracies have stashed trillions of dollars away in hidden accounts all over the Western world and Asia. They used the West’s model to inaugurate their own “New World Order” and siphoned off most of the existing wealth of the people they controlled under their ruthless regime. They created their own “Oligarchs” with this wealth—strange new personalities emerging from the shadowy ranks of their loyal ideologues as “investment bankers,” professional bureaucrats, “intellectuals,” and technocrats that, curiously, we had never heard of before the so-called fall of Communism in 1989. These are the people orchestrating and financing all of the Chaos.
We watch the ridiculous behavior of our politicians as they seem to struggle with the obvious. There is a “Fifth Column” of subversives at work and they’re imposing the most infantile ideas upon the population that anyone can imagine! This is purposeful. The International Communists, attending to the steps of their subversive goals, are not interested in those who possess a fluid understanding of their immediate reality and can see through all of the melodrama. They’re after the vapid, vacuous minds of the materialistic syncophants who are asleep behind the wheel (so-to-speak). That’s why their message is so simplistic. It is a message of barbarous intent wrapped in the tapestry of violence and savagery.
When the LEFT-leaning D.A.s and Trial Lawyers attempt to prosecute someone for defending themselves from a very real and patently obvious existential threat, they remove any reason for the common folk to navigate their lives within the boundaries of Positive Law. They are now making criminals out of victims and victims out of violent criminals. The common folk will shortly have "nothing to lose." Once the elements of our civilization have crossed this line, there will be nothing to hold back the anger of the common citizen. It won't be a civil war. It will be a violent uprising by an overwhelming majority of the general population. They will savage these moronic social engineers and political schemers and they won't stop until these ideologues have been completely destroyed (That’s right, read: The French Revolution). To the International Communist, this will be a perfect storm within which they will activate their “sleepers.” These activists will rise up against Western Democracies creating chaos so horrific that they will be able to slip a modern-day “Lenin” into the retinue of barbarity. Think of this fellow as an “anti-Christ” because he certainly won’t have what we can call a “Christ consciousness.” The International Communists will have stashed away the resources and the support they need to seize power and authority over the disorganized, misguided, and thoroughly confused general population as, one-by-one, each nation state is “taken down” in classic Bolshevik style.
At the onset of a new “Communist” era, humanity will suffer a world-wide purge of the general population. In the past, the Communist Intelligentsia has always begun a purge by eliminating at least 10% of the general population. This isn’t by accident; it is intentional. Killing off 10% of the population is an act of social engineering. It brings the survivors into line and heels them making them docile and subservient. Once this is achieved, the slave labor can begin throughout the thousands of “Gulags” the International Communists will create to provide them with the necessary “manpower” to manufacture the assets and the trappings of their “New World Order.” People will be worked to death.[4] Women will be sterilized through compulsory sterilization programs.[5] The population of the planet will rapidly diminish over the few hundred years it will take to institutionalize Communism as a global governance paradigm. That is the “Timeline” that International Communists would like to see; ah, but will they ever see it? If the general population can shake off all of the bullshit they’ve learned in school and pull their heads out of their asses to wake up and realize just from where the existential threat is coming, no, I don’t think that they ever will.
It is my opinion that Communism, as a governance model, will eventually perish in oblivion because it is an intellectual abstraction that does not find its calculus within the attributes of the human condition. It relies on deceit and cruelty to expand its influence which opposes the functionality of the human mind. Its psychology is manufactured, that is, the technique of psychological manipulation relies on an almost alien brutality to traumatize the human psyche. Once traumatized, humans then adopt the objectives of their tormentors instead of examining the rudiments of their material universe to determine what is real and what is not. These tyrants change the scope of their control programs every so often as the existing architype cannot remain a dominant mechanism of oppression in perpetuity. The human mind is capable of “healing” in silence. When the objectified, manipulated, and exploited masses begin to realize that they can “think” their way out of “the system,” the oppressors lose control of their sociological momentum.[6] That is what was happening to the Soviet Union just a few decades ago; it is the reason why the Central Planners of the Communist Party came up with this cockamamie scheme to take down the West. They couldn’t conceal the nature and character of capitalistic, democratic governments in the West from their subjects so they decided to take us all out. It seemed like a good idea. If properly managed, the International Communist Movement would “bury” us in an onslaught of barbarism and chaos like nothing before known to the mind of humankind.
Civilization is built upon its successive foundations, the momentum and direction being wholly dependent upon comparative improvement down through the passage of time. Communism seeks to destroy this tapestry and replace it with something that really never existed in all of the time that humankind has walked the Earth. Don’t try to compare Communism with our tribal past or the rule of the clan. Those early orders of governance were dependent upon the nuclear family and Communism seeks to destroy such fundamental and essential human relationships.[7] Eventually, the psychological exploitation of innocence produces a powerful skepticism within our collective situational awareness as promises made seem never to manifest among the plethora of alternate explanations and lame excuses. Communism can only be advanced through pretense and it is wholly dependent upon the quality of human ignorance of which we, no doubt, have much. The deeper our sleep, the more successful a Communist regime will be in establishing itself over us but, here, I’d like to offer a cautionary note: enlightenment—while the most powerful effect of our realization—cannot, alone, deliver us from this malevolence. We must also become self-aware; we must discover who we are and what we are. We are human beings that are the products of our history. The modern philosopher George Santayana said of understanding human history:
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction to set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted; it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in whom instinct has learned nothing from experience." [Emphasis mine]
We need to stop misquoting Santayana to underwrite the notion that "those who cannot remember the past will make the same mistakes." He wasn't saying that. He was saying that those who cannot remember how our kind picked ourselves up out of the filth of barbarism will, once again, descend into the abyss of animal savagery should we forget the memories of our journey. We will return to our origins and become the new barbarians because our link to the past has been severed and our minds have become vacuous.
The modern-day social engineers of the International Communist Movement think themselves clever. They are trying to recreate the Bolshevik Revolution never stopping to think that Lenin was successful in his sedition and barbarity only because he was dealing with a population who had pinned their last hope, as human beings, to the vapid promises of a Communist Regime. In Tsarist Russia, the existing governance paradigm had imposed a monarchist establishment upon the people, perpetuated by the arrogance of their ruling elite, who had kept the establishment of a class system, comprised of a ruling elite, landed aristocracy, a bourgeoisie, and the kulaks, for centuries. No such body politic exists here in the West. There is only a population who once knew a prosperity tempered by good humor, a political will strengthened by a specific set of moral rules common to everyone who wished to participate, and a positive societal outlook that formed the boundaries of our behavior towards one another. The "New Bolsheviks" are about to take all of that away from us and, when they do, we will have nothing more to lose. What does anyone expect the millions of patriots to do? Well, I can tell you, they won't just agree to go to their appointed place to die.
Some words of wisdom from an old man: "Everything is what it is and not another thing. Things and actions are what they are, and the consequences of them will be what they will be: why then should we desire to be deceived?" [Bishop Joseph Butler 1602-1751 A.C.E.] Heads up my countrymen and women: people are no longer content to navigate their lives within the boundaries of these current polarities. Change is upon us.
[1] Lenin originally launched a nearly bloodless coup against Russia’s Provisional Government. The Bolsheviks and their unwitting allies engaged in violent civil unrest, occupying government buildings and politically and socially strategic locations in the capital of St. Petersburg (Sound familiar?). Within a few days they had seized enough political momentum and influence to replace the government. Lenin assumed its leadership. This earlier “Revolution” or the “October Revolution” was the conflict in which the crew of the Potemkin, a pre-dreadnought battleship, mutinied against their officers “enabling” the October 1917 Revolution. This initiated a “civil war” between the “Red Army,” who preferred the “Bolshevik” form of socialism espoused by Vladimir Lenin, and those loyal to the old order who were identified as “The White Army.” The White Movement included political and social activists of diverse interests favoring political monarchism, capitalism and an early form of social democracy. [Wikipedia]
[2] Sudakov, Dmitry; Soviet Union to rise from ashes in 21st century (Pravda: 15.08.2017). Go here to read the article: https://www.pravdareport.com/society/138418-ussr/.
[3] The mechanism through which “Soviet” expansion is implemented.
[4] The real function of the Soviet Gulag was the exploitation of human beings, which occurred by working the people to death or near death before discarding them. [Wikipedia]
[5] It’s called Eugenics and it’s already happening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization
[6] Study the concept of “Samizdat,” the clandestine copying and distribution of literature banned by the state, especially formerly in the communist countries of eastern Europe.
[7] Weikart, Richard; MARX, ENGELS, AND THE ABOLITION OF THE FAMILY; History of European Ideas, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 657-672, 1994 (Elseyier Science Ltd:1994).