SNUL: Bolshevik

Since we’re nearing the 100 year anniversary of the October Revolution, I’m reading up on the early USSR.  It’s fascinating to see how Bolshevik our liberals are.  The clothes, the jargon, the attitudes — the whole SJW schmear, 2017, would be right at home in a Party cell in Petersburg, 1917 (renowned Sovietologist Sheila Fitzpatrick said the Bolshevik “debate” style was all “smugness and tautology”). Even the word “activist” — a very strange one if you think about it — comes from the Russian activ, the collective noun for that personality type (much like intelligentsia, another Russian word; the singular, I think, is intelligent (n.)).

The difference, of course, is that the Bolsheviks had a goal in mind.  It was awful and impossible, but at least a Bolshie could tell you why she was acting as she did.  Our SJWs have no idea why they do what they do.  They can’t possibly describe to you what the Socially Just world would look like… largely because there’s 100 years of evidence showing that it changes from day to day, and a fervent believer in yesterday’s gospel is getting worked to death in the gulag today.

That’s one of the keys to SJW psychology.  The Bolshies dressed like bums and acted like drunk longshoremen consciously, because that’s how they imagined the “Proletariat” acted and they were trying to ape “proletarian” culture (they went so far as to make an “art” movement out of it — proletkult, another wonderful Russian word we could sorely use here).  Again, it was stupid and impossible, but goal-directed.  Our SJWs act like that because acting like that disguises the pointless stupidity of it all.  SJWs are bored, listless people who know, deep down, that they’re wasting their lives.  Constant offense lets them keep that feeling at bay.  It’s “permanent revolution” in the mechanical sense — if you’re always spinning, spinning, spinning in place, you’ll never realize you’re not getting anywhere.

6 thoughts on “SNUL: Bolshevik

  1. Speaking of Bolshies…just finished reading “The Long Walk: A True Story of A Trek to Freedom.” (I had to give the whole title, Stephen King also crapped out a “The Long Walk.”)

    If I was in charge somewhere, it would be required reading for every school kid, retroactively applied to every liberal who cast a primary vote for Bernie.

    • There are a million memoirs of life in commie shitholes. Most libraries carry at least one. People who keep voting Socialist have no excuse for their ignorance.

  2. The original Bolsheviks had the excuse that they didn’t *know* that millions would die in the futile pursuit of their utopia. The current ones do not have this excuse.

    Ironically, Marx was proud that his socialism was *scientific*, whereas the previous iterations of it had been small communes of the hippies of the day that dissolved, mostly peacefully, after a few years. Richard Owens was one such founder, IIRC.

    • Yeah, even back then they “fucking loved science.” But Marx was always pretty open about the need to kill lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of people — you don’t get to Utopia without Revolution, comrade.

      Robert V. Daniels, an old Sovietologist, made that point in an excellent book on The Rise and Fall of Communism in Russia. Bolshevism is like any utopian revolutionary movement, in that it appeals mainly to violent weirdo losers. They weren’t revolutionaries because they were Marxists, he says — they were Marxists because they were revolutionaries (Marxism was just the most current excuse on offer; if they’d lived in a different time they would’ve been Zealots, or Roundheads, or whatever).

  3. There have been a number of quotes published by “inner” Bolshevik party members and early KGB making it clear that most party members were expendable or doomed. The lower level people were not the real “players”. Most of the noise in the US now seems to be from lower level “troops” and mid-level organizers. I suspect that the “core” neoBolsheviks have not yet emerged A century ago many of the early Bolshevik fire-brands were culled by the state and/or by competetors. A concentrated leadership core was a rather late development that continued to mutate well into the Soviet era. The KGB troops were always ready to “take out the trash” for whatever cluster of bosses was in nominal control.

    Does anyone see a similar culling or concentrating process within the current street noise in the US?

    • Hard to say. Bolshevism was a defined movement, with measurable objectives, and a widely-published doctrine (every time they changed their minds about something, all their “intellectuals” had to rush 5,000 pages into print justifying how it all squared with the Marxist scriptures).

      This is why I say our SJWs believe in “permanent revolution” in the mechanical sense. The Bolsheviks had a goal, a doctrine, and an org chart. They were hardcore professional revolutionaries. SJWs aren’t — they’re just in it for the lifestyle, and the lifestyle only exists to keep them from feeling like the losers they so plainly are.

      Given that Marxism always leads to Cults of Personality, if they had a leadership, believe me, we’d know about it. (See e.g. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which — not to toot my own horn — I described as “an attempt to build a Cult of Personality without an actual personality,” You’d think she was Judeo-Christ Herself the way her voters carried on). If someone were giving SJWs their marching orders, we’d see his face everywhere. They’re too scatterbrained to be a vanguard party, and, as I’ve often said, in five years today’s SJW will be an alt-right obergruppenfuhrer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *