The Ugly Spectre of Marxism Raises Its Medusa Head Again

The Ugly Spectre of Marxism Raises Its Medusa Head Again

If you're a Marxist, say you're a Marxist. Don't use the unjustified killing of a black man by abusive police officers as a cynical proxy for your attempts to succeed Comrade Lenin. Don't pretend you had any feelings for the man or his family over the excitement of the opportunity it landed you for your ambitions to continue your Long March Through The Institutions. At some point this all collapses into being one long attempt to reverse us back from the idea of civilisation itself into animalistic tribal culture.

Here we are again. Another extremist front group disguising their manifesto behind a slogan they provide to exploit people's compassion and the mob's outrage. It's the same people. Last time, it was our "extinction".

There is nothing "new" or "enlightened" about wanting to "dismantle" the mechanisms by which we transcended our taxonomic position as higher apes. The "liberation" from our "constructed" moral constraints back into our primate behaviours isn't some form of "emancipation" to be celebrated.

Christ delivers possibly the most profound moral wisdom in human history through the Parable of the Tree and Its Fruits.

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."

Murdered police officers. Terrified shopkeepers. Extraordinary racial tension. Defaced monuments. Censorship. Cult behaviour. Demands of submission. Rioting and looting. Mob harassment. Families encouraged to shun each other.

These are the fruits of people claiming they are the face of unity, peace, equality, and moral unanimity.

In the post-mortem of the collapse, it's going to be apt to focus on how a certain group of extremists deceived a lot of very naive people into believing their radical ideas had a causal relationship to "social justice".

It's like the entire country of America doesn't know what Marxism is.

The Police Here Aren't The Public

George Floyd clearly, self-evidently died unlawfully due to the malfeasance of an individual officer, who already had an extensive criminal record. There is no reason any reasonable person can present which justifies the use of a "chokehold" on an obese man in such an interaction with law enforcement. His autopsy is clear: pressure on the carotid artery cut off blood flow, and weight on his back restricted his ability to breathe. He was not killed by Covid-19, nor the drugs in his system.

His individual character and/or history is entirely irrelevant.

The individual concerned, and his alleged abettors, have been arrested, and charged. 12 ordinary jurors will hear the evidence, and his defence, and prescribe their verdict accordingly - if it's even possible now for him to be convicted in a fair trial. The alternative, as Twitter and rioters seem to be demanding, is mob vigilante justice. We appear to be at war with enlightenment reason and civilisation itself.

There is clearly, self-evidently a problem in US policing. Activists have been pointing to it for decades. It's entirely reasonable to look at police reform, and entirely legitimate to criticise the absurd length of time taken to do that.

If you're British, it's more self-evident for than, perhaps, others. As Peel said,

"The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

There is a problem. There has been a problem for a very long time. The police do a heroic job and put their lives on the line to deal with things which is, frankly, a daily ritual of experiencing the worst of humanity. Those two things are simultaneously true. There are plenty of black cops in the Minneapolis police department, which, if you asked them (as the author has, being a traveler there on more than one occasion), would ever describe the organisation as "systemically" or "endemically" racist as a collective. The black cops are systemically racist?

There is more than one problem. For example, US police officers do not have to prove their lives were in danger when they discharge a weapon, rather they "feared" their lives might be. The former is an objective standard, the latter is entirely personally subjective. We could be here forever discussing all the problems of the US policing system, which developed at the same time as the British one, at the turn of the 18th century.

But that's where reason ends. After the obvious answer, it descends into a carefully-planned madness which stinks of opportunism.

Policing: The Apparatus of Capitalism, Apparently

The roots of this go right back into anti-modernism, and the despicably cheap fraud of French philosophers from the late 20th century, masquerading ideas of our "liberation" back to Bonobo behaviour as "progressive" scholarship, in their hopes of reversing the onslaught of civilisation - as developed through the industrial revolution their prophet Marx so despised.

We're done with this now.

As Carlin said, we are barely out of the jungle. Every time a brick goes through a window in the name of resisting "gentrification", we know where this originates; the battle gets fought in the same place: those who got left out.

The police are a creation of the time we describe as the industrial revolution. Who else hated the industrial revolution? And complained about the police being a "component of the bourgeoisie's repressive apparatus for subjugating the working class"?

Within communist thought, the police are the "armed men" which the "ruling class" ( as expressed through the State) use to protect their private property - which they believe should be abolished.

This ideology has been around for a long, long time. All we need is one more surge of massive violence to get to the Kingdom of Heaven on earth:

"It is the structural racism of the capitalist system that leads to a racist outlook and ideology—not the other way around. There's no question that there is a heavily racist component in the targeting, degree, and frequency of police brutality. Marxists do not reduce this or any other complex social phenomenon “only” and mechanically to class. But in the final analysis, if there were no classes, there would be no need for police, and without police, no police brutality. Only in a society of superabundance, in which there is no scarcity, and therefore nothing life and death to fight over, will people's prejudices begin to melt away. This is why Marxists continually explain that there is no lasting antidote to the venom of racism within the limits of capitalism, which has tailored and compartmentalized this society to benefit the rule of the bourgeoisie."
"This does not mean that we must passively wait for socialism before we combat racism and police brutality. On the contrary! It is precisely during the process of the socialist revolution, which will combine political and economic struggles against the bosses, as well as against racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and all forms of discrimination and oppression, that the necessary class unity to win will be forged. Only through common struggle against our common oppressors will the majority of workers fully understand that we have much in common with each other, and nothing in common with the bosses."

It goes without saying how horribly, horribly wrong this kind of thinking is; not to mention, the terrible ignorance of history it exemplifies. Or, of course, the mass murder it always eventually leads to.

It's important to understand that Marxists are intoxicated on the idea the "struggle" against "oppressors" will "bond" people together to form a new magical society where there will be no prejudice, because there is no need. Protesting, rioting, identify politics, and the chaos itself, are all part of the plan.... to bring unity.

Yes, you read that correctly. And no, it's not sane or coherent. It's never been.

Hacking & Exploiting Humans Through Their Weaknesses

The vast majority of the protestors screeching "Black Lives Matter" are obviously there in good faith. They equate the 3-word slogan (humans LOVE 3-word slogans) to the unjust killing of an unarmed black man. They equate it literally. They are there under the banner of the words themselves, not the front group. The anger is unimpeachably righteous in that regard.

It's doubtful many of them know much about the organisation they are legitimising, or their aims. It's even more doubtful they are trying to express their support for a communist revolution.

Although it might not seem immediately relevant, former Facebook execs have made some fascinating statements on how their bastard child has weaponised psychology:

"It's a social-validation feedback loop ... exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with, because you're exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology."
"I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works,”


He went on to describe an incident in India where hoax messages about kidnappings shared on WhatsApp led to the lynching of seven innocent people. “That’s what we’re dealing with,” said Palihapitiya. “And imagine taking that to the extreme, where bad actors can now manipulate large swathes of people to do anything you want. It’s just a really, really bad state of affairs.”

This is a very, very attractive prospect to hostile state actors and special interest groups whose aim is to actually rip societies apart. The existing system has to be destroyed first, in order to build the new one in its place. For America, the most practical way to do that is turn the country into Obama's famed "circular firing squad" in the model of the Civil War.

Marxism has a similar structure: it exploits several vulnerabilities in human psychology:

  1. Religious idealism;
  2. Compassion for the less well off;
  3. Resentment towards those doing well;
  4. Disgust at corruption or a "rigged game";

Almost everything is permissible in Marxism because the intent is marketed as something noble; it's fine to murder a few thousand objectors if it gets us to the Kingdom of Heaven on earth; it's fine to murder a few businessmen and take other people's homes if they're guilty of a proscribed collective crime. It's always been referred to as a pseudo-religion. Marx himself despised religion, ironically.

It's fine to destroy property, because we want it gone anyway. It's fine to sow division, chaos, and anarchy, as the struggle will bond people together in their common humanity.

If ordinary people realised and fully understood these ideas, there's little chance they'd agree. Which is why, in the service of the Revolution, deception is required to bolster public support. That typically involves latching onto legitimate crises and galvanising moderates for your extremist cause, as they believe they are supporting a legitimate one.

The trouble is, ordinary people don't typically enjoy feeling scared of leaving their homes, or unable to get the things they need, or their children being taught radicalism, or having their property taken away. They get bored easily.

You have to re-brand.

If you're Occupy Wall Street, you need to become Rising Up! or Extinction Rebellion. If you're the Black Panthers, you need to become the Movement for Black Lives and Black Lives Matter. If you're Red Action, you become the Anti-Nazi League. If you're Unseat! you become Momentum.

It goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on.

The strategy is simple: pick an issue which the bulk of the electorate care about, then hijack it with a front group (a "movement") featuring the same manifesto as the last time. If you're lucky, the changes will confuse people so much, they won't realise who's actually behind it. Right-wing extremists do this too, which is why both groups of nutjobs create "watchdog" groups to figure out the other's latest antics.

This is a common characteristic of revolutionary groups: rebranding periodically to deceive ordinary people for financial and political support.

It's found in the animal kingdom; plenty of species use the concept of disguise for varying purposes. It's also found in a 1902 work by a certain Russian man who created the world's first communist state, who describe the idea as "a large number of other organizations intended for wide membership and, which, therefore, can be as loose and as public as possible".

The effect was profound:

"Few of them realized the true nature of the organizations they joined. The fronts paraded as independent, nonpartisan groups under the facade of non-Communist control. They were actually satellites of the Communist Party whose primary aim was to create the impression of mass support for an essential part of the party line. To maintain the illusion of non- Communist control, the formal leadership of these organizations was almost invariably composed of non-party members; the actual control was, however, in the hands of party activists."

Very little has changed in 2020. They're still up to the old tricks. And now, they've realised they have social media as a force multiplier.

A New World, Our Revolution: What Is To Be Done?

Any student of history will recognise that phrase. Comrade Lenin determined the proletariat just wouldn't rise up on their own, and it would need to be done for them for their own good, via a political party which brought "class consciousness" to all of society.

Sounds reasonable!

It's not the 1% and the 99% this season. Black Lives Matter - founded by 3 liberal arts graduates - recently released their "demands". If the wording seems odd, it's because it is. The only types of people who have "demands" are typically terrorists and kidnappers who have captured hostages.

1. End the war on black people.
2. Reparations for past and continuing harms.
3. Divestment from the institutions that criminalize, cage and harm black people; and investment in the education, health and safety of black people.
4. Economic justice for all and a reconstruction of the economy to ensure our communities have collective ownership, not merely access.
5. Community control of the laws, institutions and policies that most impact us.
6. Independent black political power and black self-determination in all areas of society.

Source: ("A Vision for Black Lives: Policy Demands for Black Power, Freedom and Justice,")

War? Reparations? Collective ownership? Community organisations? Self-determination?

This is not a "platform". It is a plagiarised summary of the Communist Manifesto. An exact repeat of several which have come before.

Wait a minute
Marxism for ladies!
Marxism for gay people!

Once you dig deeper, you seem some disturbing familiarity: the parent organisation, the Movement for Black Lives,  was created in 2014 as a collective of 150 organisations in the US, centred at, you guessed it, Cleveland State University. Even their wikipedia page openly states their purpose is a "united front". Anyone, again, familiar with history knows that phrase goes back to the 1917 Russian Revolution:

"The united front tactic is simply an initiative whereby the Communists propose to join with all workers belonging to other parties and groups and all unaligned workers in a common struggle to defend the immediate, basic interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie." (Section 10: "The United Front Tactic").

It wasn't long before an old organisation's roots have resurfaced thanks to the influx of millions of dollars of cash:

"The murder of George Floyd, he said, woke people up. BLM is now “mobilizing its base and plans to develop a highly-trained “military” arm to challenge police brutality head on.” Newsome said they will send out armed “Peace Officers” to “patrol black communities to challenge law enforcement and stop police brutality, reminiscent of the Black Panther Party.”

Hmm. A communist militant group from the 70s?

"a revolutionary socialist political organization founded by Marxist college students Bobby Seale (Chairman) and Huey Newton (Minister of Defense) in October 1966 in Oakland, California. At its inception on October 15, 1966, the Black Panther Party's core practice was its open carry armed citizens' patrols ("copwatching") to monitor the behavior of officers of the Oakland Police Department and challenge police brutality in the city."

In other words, here we go once again. Despite racism becoming more or less a social taboo, we have organisations claiming loudly it's never been worse.

A lot of this can be traced back to the mutation of fraudulent sociology activism in the last 1980s which emerged as "Critical Race Theory" and "Intersectionality", as James Lindsay points out:

No need for a slide. Answer: none.
"From that awful starting place, Critical Race Theory then teaches that one’s identity must be political. Critical Race Theory doesn’t allow or forward black voices. It only forwards those black voices that it considers authentic, meaning ones that speak into the dangerous politics Critical Race Theory advocates. So it radicalizes people on this and then blames “white society” or “white dominance” for being the real radicalizer. If you disagree, you’re just part of the problem. You need to “do better.” You need to “do the work.” You need to be an “antiracist.” Not an antiracist in reality, mind you, but an antiracist as Critical Race Theory defines it, which means, in the words of Robin DiAngelo, making a lifelong commitment to an ongoing process of self-reflection, self-criticism, and social activism on behalf of, not your own personal conscience or a better society, but Critical Race Theory. This makes Critical Race Theory a cult, not a social theory."

The mainstream moderate argument's been won - as the protests themselves demonstrate -, so now all that's left, open, nakedly, is the Revolution. The one nobody wants, which never happens, and if it did, would leave us with a lot more dead people.

Is this really about the senseless and unjustified killing of one individual?

Social Science and Its Manifesto "Assertions"

Marx had some odd goals from the time he spent with Parisian anarchists. One of them was believing the family was a false instrument of capitalism, religion was a form of opium, and achievement caused oppression.

These evidence-free "assertions" can be seen all over social science, such as in papers written by charlatans like Peggy McIntosh. Assertions is an academic word; when you collect them together and publish them at a political conference, they become manifestos.

This kind of diarist nonsense actually gets published in social science journals. 

Let's take a look at the Black Lives Matter manifesto, which, presumably, 90% of protestors haven't. It's a masterpiece of Marx-smuggling, as they always are. Milennials and Gen Z are moralisers in search of the fuzzy, right thing to do for everyone.

Every day, we recommit to healing ourselves and each other, and to co-creating alongside comrades, allies, and family a culture where each person feels seen, heard, and supported.

We acknowledge, respect, and celebrate differences and commonalities.

We work vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension, all people.

We intentionally build and nurture a beloved community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is restorative, not depleting.

We are unapologetically Black in our positioning. In affirming that Black Lives Matter, we need not qualify our position. To love and desire freedom and justice for ourselves is a prerequisite for wanting the same for others.

We see ourselves as part of the global Black family, and we are aware of the different ways we are impacted or privileged as Black people who exist in different parts of the world.

We are guided by the fact that all Black lives matter, regardless of actual or perceived sexual identity, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, immigration status, or location.

We make space for transgender brothers and sisters to participate and lead.

We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.

We build a space that affirms Black women and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.

We practice empathy. We engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.

We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).

We cultivate an intergenerational and communal network free from ageism. We believe that all people, regardless of age, show up with the capacity to lead and learn.

We embody and practice justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements with one another.


Other than being an example of painful writing, and a tremendous collection of university garbage, what's curious here is the title of the section ("What We Believe") is something commonly found on church websites.

We "practice" empathy. As we "practice" social distancing. Not long along we were to "practice" mindfulness and yoga. The language isn't just tortured, it's strangely esoteric.

There is so much crazy in such a small space, it's hard to disentangle the ridiculous nonsense being printed out onto the page. But the language is, as mentioned, extremely odd; it's full of assertions in the present tense for active voice prose: we foster, cultivate, embody, practice, dismantle, nurture, and disrupt. This New-Age, New-Left word salad is so distinctive, it's like a paganistic verbal signature.

"Comrades" kinda gives the game away. As does the omission of fathers as part of the family. What's so important to understand here is the deceit involved: no mention of the parent organisation; no mention of their communist history; no disclosure of their origins as Marxism; no transparency regarding financing; a tailored statement deliberately made fuzzy for its target audience.

But where have we heard much of this before? Hmm. Rising Up! and their Great Economic Transition springs to mind. Another masterpiece of Marxism-smuggling aimed at people who might find the other pieces perfectly reasonable:

Promote cooperatives and employee owned businesses.

Limit the pay differentials in any business, for example to to 15:1

Introduce a land value charge (and charges for the use of other commons) to free land back to ordinary people.

Remove the charging of interest for loans (other charges for a service would remain). Think differently about usury and from a Christian perspective.

Build publicly, cooperatively owned infrastructure, housing and health services (an overview from Common Wealth and a debunking of the myth of public sector inefficiency)

But wait... the website is out of date. Where to now? That's right... Extinction Rebellion! Like BLM, they have "demands":

When are you going to realise people always spot the Marx stuff? Government must be led by a Citizens Assembly?
"We have a shared vision of change—creating a world that is fit for generations to come.

We set our mission on what is necessary—mobilising 3.5% of the population to achieve system change by using ideas such as "momentum-driven organising" to achieve this.

We need a regenerative culture—creating a culture that is healthy, resilient, and adaptable.

We openly challenge ourselves and this toxic system, leaving our comfort zones to take action for change.

We value reflecting and learning, following a cycle of action, reflection, learning, and planning for more action (learning from other movements and contexts as well as our own experiences).

We welcome everyone and every part of everyone—working actively to create safer and more accessible spaces.

We actively mitigate for power—breaking down hierarchies of power for more equitable participation.

We avoid blaming and shaming—we live in a toxic system, but no one individual is to blame.

We are a non-violent network using non-violent strategy and tactics as the most effective way to bring about change.

We are based on autonomy and decentralisation—we collectively create the structures we need to challenge power. Anyone who follows these core principles and values can take action in the name of Extinction Rebellion.

Other than being vague paganistic garbage, it's the same "assertion" touchy-feely quasi-religious language again: we challenge, mitigate, create structures etc etc. This time it's all a bit milder, but with a clever dog whistle for Marxists about "breaking down hierarchies" and "creating structures".

Political campaigning is obviously not a bad faith activity in and of itself. If you want to campaign for communism, the principles of Free Speech dictate you can. The issue here is deliberately disguising your long-term political intentions for the purpose of recruiting others into your extremism. It's jointly a form of cowardice and aggression, and clearly manipulation. If it weren't in the service of a "higher goal" with "good intentions", it would weigh on a participant's conscience.

The purpose of these "movements" (aka front groups) is to deceive people into unknowingly supporting extremism.

Antifa: Paramilitaries To Soften The Battlefield

During Mussolini's dictatorship and Hitler's rise to totalitarianism, communists were heavily persecuted. Not as appallingly as Jews, but something approaching the same kind of treatment. Hitler also hated the Bolsheviks and their ideas. The stage of the Second World War in Europe was fundamentally a clash between a humiliated Germany wanting to restore its national glory against a massive force of the first communist state next door.

The Communist Party of Germany (KPD) viewed Capital as a "dictatorship", and fascism not as an entity in itself, but as the last/final stage of capitalism. Any anti-soviet opinion was called "fascist", as was capitalistic society. They were militantly loyal to Stalin. It didn't take long in the 1930s for Hitler to decide he didn't want his enemy's supporters around.

Read that again. Capitalism itself, anything/anyone capitalistic, or anyone/anything which opposed communism, was considered fascist. It was the "death throes" of late-stage capitalism.

The way the communist subscribers responded was to form "community action groups" in local neighbourhoods. Hence Antifaschistische Aktion was born in 1932 via an article in "The Red Flag". It was formed to be an organisation of "self-defence" against the Nazi party.

In the US, the first real so-called "anti-fascist" groups (e.g. the ARA) were established at the end of the 50s to combat the Klu Klux Klan. What we know as "Antifa" originated around 2007 in Portland, Oregon. Since 2010, their population has been increasing in proportion to populist movements with nationalistic tendencies (e.g. Brexit) and anarchist exception to so-called "gentrification".

Their focus so far has been on anti-capitalism, and anti-gentrification. Almost certainly because this generation is priced out of the housing market.

In 2016, the election of Donald Trump sent them into overdrive, with New Jersey classifying them as an "anarchist extremist" terrorist group, and finally in 2010, where Trump denounced them as domestic terrorists.

Antifa have always been a paramilitary wing of the communist party. Which is what makes sympathetic left-wing newspapers' depiction of them such as this so despicable:

Antifa are not "aligned" to the communist party; they were the communist party and even today parade with communist flags. They are not a "loose knit network" or a "tradition", the expert "historian" is the guy who wrote their operating manual, they supported the Soviet Union (and Stalin), and they were most certainly not brave warriors fighting Hitler by any stretch of the imagination.

These people are here to protect you from fascism. By wearing Nazi jackboot costumes and throwing bricks through the windows of fancy restaurants.

Today they are clearly identifiable to police, openly broadcast instructions on social media, meet for "training camps", and solicit their own publications which accept financial donations, such as

"It’s Going Down is a digital community center for anarchist, anti-fascist, autonomous anti-capitalist and anti-colonial movements. Our mission is to provide a resilient platform to publicize and promote revolutionary theory and action."

When your business has been attacked, you'll be sure to find the "press release" on the "operation" celebrating it on Or, perhaps, when your Canadian grandma is "Nazi Scum" and makes the news on her way to collect her pension:

Secretive groups who organise as "cells" in a "network" and wear "black bloc" uniform have a name. An urban militia carrying clandestine acts of sabotage and violent disruption has a name. This is not a so-called conspiracy theory: there are hundreds of people who have insurance claims and doctor's charts who can testify to it; not to mention the millions on YouTube watching them in action.

And when these paramilitaries emerge with total disdain for anyone giving them a democratic mandate, to fight others who have been given a democratic mandate, it's exceedingly clear what their nature is.

In America, Trump's enemies have labelled him a fascist, and he's openly touted nationalism as something he "likes" (as his svengali Bannon also touts). Sadly, what he almost certainly doesn't understand is the "dog whistle" that is to highly-pathological paramilitary wannabes already looking for trouble.

Does wearing a USSR flag make you a controversial rebel? No, it makes you a nutjob.

The story from Antifa, and their sympathisers, is clear: we fight the bad guys, which makes us the good guys.

No, it doesn't. It just makes you another group of bad guys. These people are ridiculously pathological nutjobs by anyone's standards. And the very fact they are attempting to train as paramilitaries wanting to terrorise their political enemies, despite being cowards, is, in itself, what defines them as bad guys.

The story from Trump's ilk, and their sympathisers, is clear: we are patriots proud of our exceptional nation and prize our economy.

The first is wrong in every single way imaginable. The second is wrong because it is ignorant of the history of nationalist extremism and what has come from its conflict with collectivism.

Antifa's violence and "forward operating" in the latest protests has been catalogued endlessly:

An Army of Useful Idiots

The cruel stereotype of Americans as naive, or stupid, or the clumsy braggart, is, anyone who has ever spent any time here, entirely wrong. If anything, the American propensities which make their society most vulnerable to exploitation are their heart for charity, their love of new ideas, and their optimistic/trusting nature.

Two terms from communist countries reflect the cynicism towards Western liberal compassion. The first Lenin never actually said, and is better translated as "useful innocents" or "useful fools". However, Lenin's description is harrowing.

"These simpletons “do not recognize terror” because they chose for themselves the role of servile accomplices of the Whiteguards in fooling the workers and peasants. The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks “do not recognize terror” because under the flag of “Socialism” they are fulfilling their function of placing the masses at the mercy of the Whiteguard terror."

The Essentials of Lenin, Volume 2

The Whiteguards were the Bolsheviks' enemies, and the Mensheviks were their rivals. More:

It only gets worse:

"The subversive activities of these professional plotters are dangerous precisely on account of the naivete of those who are merely flirting with the revolutionary idea. Those confused and misguided sympathizers who call themselves “liberals” and whom the communists call useful innocents, the fellow-travellers and even the majority of the officially registered party members, would be terribly frightened if they were to discover one day that their chiefs mean business when preaching sedition."

Ludwig Von Mises, “Planned Chaos”

Perhaps most ironic of all is a letter to a Minneapolis newspaper (!!!!!) in 1964, which rings more true than ever today:

"The frustrated intellectuals, the opportunists, the mentally deranged, the social derelicts, the atheists and a handful of good people (the “useful fools” of Lenin) who still believe in the panacea of this Marxist revolution?—Si!"

As always, the KGB had the most sinister depiction.

"[T]he useful idiots, the leftists who are idealistically believing in the beauty of the Soviet socialist or Communist or whatever system, when they get disillusioned, they become the worst enemies. That’s why my KGB instructors specifically made the point: never bother with leftists. Forget about these political prostitutes. Aim higher. [...] They serve a purpose only at the stage of destabilization of a nation.

For example, your leftists in the United States: all these professors and all these beautiful civil rights defenders. They are instrumental in the process of the subversion only to destabilize a nation. When their job is completed, they are not needed any more. They know too much. Some of them, when they get disillusioned, when they see that Marxist-Leninists come to power—obviously they get offended—they think that they will come to power. That will never happen, of course. They will be lined up against the wall and shot.”

In Communist China in the age of social media, a new insult has arisen: Baizuo.

The question has received more than 400 answers from Zhihu users, which include some of the most representative perceptions of the ‘white left’.

Although the emphasis varies, baizuo is used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.

A people who have never known dictatorship are particularly vulnerable if they don't bother to understand it. The tactics of Mao's regime and Stalin's terror are well-known. Lenin's writings describe what it is all about.

Comrade Lenin was no fool; no-one in Russia or China was ever a fool. They knew the only way to achieve communism was through totalitarianism.

The dream of the "new world" is merely the bait and the method. The end goal is something else, and those who fail to see it suffer the psychopath's classic derision and contempt for their blindness.

Suppression Tactics: Struggle Sessions, Re-Education, Book Burning, Unpersoning

The "Cultural Revolution" in China wasn't exactly, to use British understatement, a pleasant time; like the murderous "Great Leap Forward", it was a colossal, murderous failure. Plenty of people - dissenters - didn't go along. They were made to "confess" their sins and subsequent conversion in public.

"The aim of a [class] struggle session was to shape public opinion and humiliate, persecute, or execute political rivals and those deemed class enemies. In general, the victim of a struggle session was forced to admit various crimes before a crowd of people who would verbally and physically abuse the victim until he or she confessed. Struggle sessions were often held at the workplace of the accused, but they were sometimes conducted in sports stadiums where large crowds would gather if the target was well-known."

The purpose of these events was, as Comrade Lenin first claimed, to "educate" the person and/or the crowd. There's a very good chance when someone demands you "educate" yourself on a subject, it's a barely-concealed attempt at indoctrination which translates to "submit to a specific point of view".

Today, a million Uyghurs are interned in "re-education" camps ("Vocational Education and Training Centers").

"149 subjects are documented as violating birth control policies. 116 of the subjects are listed without explanation as "untrustworthy"; for 88 of these, this "untrustworthy" label is the only reason listed for internment. Younger men, in particular, are often listed as "untrustworthy person born in a certain decade".

In North Korea, as happened in Soviet Russia and Cultural Revolution China, multiple family generations are imprisoned in camps and prisons for the same "re-education". The sins of the father are paid by 3 generations collectively: if you commit a "crime" against the state, your entire family is interned. It is known as Kin Punishment.

The idea of "collective guilt" isn't new - ask Jews - and has its educational starting point in the US from Marxist "alternative" historian Howard Zinn in 1980:

"A People's History of the United States is a book by Howard Zinn that retells American history with a focus on the stories that don't typically make it into mainstream historical accounts. Zinn explores the class struggles, racist agendas, and political movements that are underrepresented in mainstream historical discussions."

In the UK, we have the openly-Marxist neo-humanities such as "post-colonial studies" and "cultural studies" to thank for the same kinds of disinformation spreading through academic circles.

The idea of collective ("systemic", "endemic") crime is not new. It is a horrifically, extraordinarily dangerous concept which has been responsive for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. It's simply one the most evil edifices our species has ever broached. Somehow, some way, this madness is being encouraged in the 1619 Project.

"A September 13, 2019 analysis in New York Magazine by Andrew Sullivan, formerly a contributor to The New York Times Magazine, critiqued the project as an important perspective that needed to be heard, but one presented in a biased way under the guise of objectivity. He declared this evidence of The New York Times' shift from impartial reporting to activism."

When all else failed, there was of course a particularly evil remedy which Orwell featured extensively in his novel, to depict Communism's ultimate punishment of erasure from existence itself: the concept of "unpersoning" or becoming a "nonperson". "Unpeople" were erased from photographs, newspapers, books, and as the apparatus hoped, from history itself; physical death wasn't enough.

"After presiding over mass arrests and executions during the Great Purge (1936-38), Yezhov became a victim himself. He was arrested, confessed under torture to a range of anti-Soviet activity, and was executed in 1940. By the beginning of World War II, his status within the Soviet Union became that of a political unperson. Among art historians, he has the nickname “The Vanishing Commissar” because after his execution, his likeness was retouched out of an official press photo. He is among the best-known examples of the Soviet press making someone who had fallen out of favor “disappear.”

Social Media: A Chance To Resurrect A New USSR

We are seeing all this re-emerge in the digital landscape. Each piece.

Communist radicals - and yes they are communist - , among others, are charging Americans with collective ancestral crimes and demanding their own community patrols to replace the "capitalist apparatus". Antifa thugs are inflaming riots with violence in the name of self-defence, destroying "property" out of reaction to "fascism". Dissenters are "deplatformed" and being sent for "re-education" in their workplaces, or "unpersoned" with their expulsion from Internet visibility.

These were fringe incidences in a "virtual" electronic world, but the mob has now bought them into the real one through our universities - where our knowledge and leaders are made.

In extreme cases, they are herded into public groups where they repeat mantras to confess their crimes and profess their conversion to the cause.

After indoctrinating 3 generations of students, the Marxist united front in America seems to have gathered a new gameplan after the recession for the fourth, who entered university in 2012 and live on their phones. It's to exploit the black electorate's old wounds which derive from the passions of the civil war, in the hope the Original Sin of slavery will be enough to persuade its people of the need for a secondary revolution. It's no longer about resisting the "threat" of economic nationalism, but the predominance of an emergent worldview. The prize is a new USSR, and the vehicle is the Internet.

It's most likely all of this is a "happy accident" which no-one ever thought was possible; an experimental virus which escaped the lab.

The KGB invested an enormous amount of time and effort perfecting these processes for their attempted conquest of the Asian subcontinent. Their prize was India, which required Hindu culture to be subverted so it could be "normalised".

Stage 1 takes a minimum of 15-20 years, because that's "how long it takes to indoctrinate one generation of students". We've now had at least two, possibly three.

Riots in an election year give us a small taste of 20th century history. The issue, as always, is a total deficit of education. If and when American institutions ever recognise the malignant nature of Marxist groups and their international criminal history, they should put an immediate end to their spread as humanely as possible. The problem we have now is whether the disease is terminal. Knowing America, it thankfully isn't.

After the police, it's churches.

"Having once got rid of the standing army and the police – the physical force elements of the old government – the Commune was anxious to break the spiritual force of repression, the “parson-power", by the disestablishment and disendowment of all churches as proprietary bodies. The priests were sent back to the recesses of private life, there to feed upon the alms of the faithful in imitation of their predecessors, the apostles."

There's an argument to be made that the very behaviour of attempting to so feverishly oppose apparent "fascism", it will end up summoning the demon itself. Ordinary people aren't going to tolerate this for too much longer, and will end up calling for a strong force to put it to an end. We are going to need to mitigate the terrible implications and consequences of such a mandate.

When you demand a country take down its defences, there is a name for it; when you demand physical submission from politicians, crowds, and institutions, it shares the same name; when you demand a people shame and betray themselves, the name is the same, no matter what word you give it. No amount of wordsmithery is going to convince anyone your actions are peaceful.

The debate over whether humans are a "blank slate" is done. Steven Pinker summarises it here:

The debate over whether communism is noble or viable is done. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn exposed it here:

The debate over whether humans should be hierarchically categorised according to skin colour is done. The British Empire decided it 200 years ago:

Any debate over the need for law enforcement was never open. Montreal tried it here:

The debate over alleged historical racial culpability is done. Many of the burning bodies of 6 million Jews can be found crying out here:

The New York Times reporter Walter Duranty was often fond of apologising for Stalin by constantly repeating "you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs". He was also often asked how many eggs would be required.

Orwell rightly asked a much more pertinent question we should all be reflecting on.

"Where is your omelette?"