Stalin, Lenin and Kalinin, 1919

As the saying goes: “tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are”. But the opposite is also true; our enemies tell everything there is to know about us too, perhaps even better than our friends. A friend, after all, is such an inclusive term; a co-worker, a lifelong companion, both can fit into that category. Not so with enemies. Enemies are special. It is a much more sharply defined group in the lives of individuals, nations, political movements. As the neo-Marxist neo-Bolshevik movement that is represented by the white archipelago in Tuesday’s State of the Union address is sweeping America ,it behooves us to find out more about this movement. Who are its friends and even more importantly, who are its enemies? We do not have to search far and wide for an answer to this question. The founding trio of Marxism-Bolshevism, Marx, Engels, and Lenin tell us in their own words. The eternal enemy of the Marxist Bolshevik is the bourgeoisie. But what is it, actually? Who are the bourgeois?

Etymologically, the word bourgeois comes from the Franco-German coinage “bourg”, meaning simply “town”, “city”, as in Strasbourg, St. Petersburg, Hamburg, etc. So then, the “bourgeois” or “burgers” is simply a French or German word for city dwellers. The word was coined in the feudal Middle Ages when European population consisted substantially of the ruling land-owning nobility and the masses of peasants who worked the lands belonging to their feudal overlords. The peasants were entirely self-sufficient; they made their own clothes, built their own homes, and made most of their own agricultural implements. There was a small “middle” class of highly skilled artisans: builders of large stone edifices like cathedrals and castles, armorers, tapestry weavers and other artists. These were “free” people (hence the free masons of the builders’ guild), who worked on commission for noblemen. Most of the art one sees in Europe today, from Westminster Abbey to Michelangelo’s David, was made precisely by this class of artists and artisans.

Video Of Vladimir Lenin Speaking To The Crowds

Speaking of Europe, one of the most striking things a discerning observer may notice is how small the walled medieval European cities really were. Beyond the large expense to wall off large areas, they simply did not need to be any bigger. Their purpose was to house the noble family and the artisan class while providing a safe place for the peasants to come to worship and trade goods in the weekly market on Sundays. When the principality came under attack, the city population swelled with peasants seeking protection behind its walls.

This feudal society had no bourgeoisie to speak of; it was bicameral, split between the large population of peasants and the very small one of nobles and their artisan employees. It was only the technological advances of the late pre-industrial age that began changing this picture. Modernized warfare required the mass production of cannon and muskets and military uniforms. These items did not have to be exquisitely made; they just needed to do the job and cost as little as possible. Cannon, in turn, made the tall city walls made of stone obsolete. Mortars could lob projectiles, including incendiary ones, over the tallest walls and five-pound cast iron cannonballs made short work of brittle stone fortifications. Living outside the walls became as safe or as dangerous as inside, but for the many folk who could now make living as blacksmiths or tailors living close to the city if not in it made sense because it brought them into closer contact with their customer base of generals and admirals and entrepreneurs busily equipping expeditions to the newly discovered West and East Indies.

And so the city populations grew and and a new class appeared: the bourgeoisie. What were the distinguishing character traits of this new class? Well, these guys had to leave the relative safety of subsistence farming in the village where their families had lived since time immemorial and travel to the regional city to try their hand at a trade that they previously only used to make stuff for themselves or their neighbors. It is one thing to dabble in black smithing in the back of your hut and fix your own tools or maybe those of your neighbor in exchange for a sack of flour. It is yet another to set up shop at the city gates and try to become the supplier of forged equipment to His Majesty’s army or navy. It requires tolerance for risk, a high level of skill, ability to quickly learn and adapt to changing situations, a knack for marketing, sales, and most importantly an innate feeling for what is profitable and what isn’t. It also requires a strong spirit of independence; a willingness to trade the bottom-line protection of serfdom for the limitless potential of free enterprise. More than anything else, these were round the clock workers, hell bent on making it in the new brave world of free enterprise.

When the industrial revolution began utilizing the early 19th century advancements in math and physics, advancements that led to steam power with its myriad applications, the European (and by this time North American) bourgeoisie was ready. It was ready to become the manager and owner class in the factories that sprung up around every city; to absorb the multitudes of peasants displaced by advances in agricultural methods and in the methods used to process agricultural produce. These peasants were the ones that never left their native lands and never would have had it not become an absolute necessity. These were the people who lacked vision, abhorred risk, preferred the protection and the patronage of overlords to the risk of personal responsibility and freedom.

The anti-religious activists remove the large (5000 kg) bell from the St Volodymyr’s Cathedral central Kiev USSR (now Ukraine). The caption reads: the precious metal will be used much more effectively elsewhere

Karl Marx, not at all unlike Barack Obama, or Vladimir Lenin, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, never worked a day in his life at anything meaningful. Like them, he was a beneficiary of a set of circumstances, in his case an educated and secularized Jewish family and a quick intelligence that allowed him to parlay these circumstances into an education of his own. Like them, he never had an understanding of what it takes to be an entrepreneur, a manager, a leader of men. As such, his observations of industrial revolution Europe were akin to those of an alien who arrived on Planet Earth to observe and report to his home world. And what did Marx, the clueless, but good with words observer observe? He observed that there was a class of people that owned stuff and/or told other people what to do and another class of people who owned nothing and did as they were told. He further observed that the former class had a significantly higher standard or living, a better quality of life, and enjoyed much better health than the latter. As to the reasons that this imbalance existed, as to how it would organically develop if left to its own devices, Marx knew nothing. Furthermore, he didn’t want to know. Like all shallow thinkers, like all social justice warriors (to use modern coinage), he simply wanted a quick fix based on violence and revenge, first and foremost violence and revenge that would assuage HIS OWN guilty conscience for being a bourgeois, for solidly belonging to the class of the oppressors, and for secretly harboring nothing but disgust and disdain for the unwashed members of the proletariat whom he was about to weaponize and unleash on society.

Of course Marx in his lifetime was a complete failure. His ridiculous alien planet class struggle theories did not find many followers, though a certain re-balancing of power and resources between the manager class and the employee class had to happen, which it did. It took another white collar guy who never held a real job, Vladimir Ulyanov aka Lenin to develop the theory that would weaponize Marx’s ramblings. Lenin understood that the highly skilled and entrepreneurial bourgeoisie could not be defeated from the outside. It needed to be undermined from the inside. He further understood that the resilience of the bourgeois classes lay in their devotion to God and to family. So Lenin proceeded to destroy both. The foundation upon which all human families are built is not complicated. It is simply the twin ideas of sexual exclusivity and sexual access. A family happens when and only when a woman agrees to limit her sexual activities to her husband and to abstain, within reason, from withholding from him her sexual favors. In fact, exclusivity and availability of sex are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a stable family.

White crosses in memory of victims at the Berlin Wall

From this foundation, certain practical realities flow. Women who work at home raising their children are much less likely to avail other men of their sexual favors and much more likely to be sexually available to their husbands than women who work outside the home. Lenin’s Bolsheviks blew up Russian families by declaring women “equal” to men in every way, including, somewhat improbably, in their suitability to hard physical labor. Then, they nationalized sex. Just like wheat, pork bellies, and coal deposits, the Bolsheviks declared sex to be a commodity that belonged to the state. Since this commodity resided in women just like wheat resided in farmers’ cellars of coal in the earth, it was the duty of Russian women to provide it, free of charge, to those who needed it, i.e. men. It was the duty of a Russian woman to make herself sexually available at any time to any man. Of course, senior party members, high-level technical specialists, and military commanders worked harder than most, took upon themselves more risk and more responsibility and thus were entitled to more. More and better. More and better food, transportation, lodgings, and, of course, sex.

Needless to say, no family can survive a wife who is not exclusive with her sexual services. And indeed, from then to now, a hundred years later, the Russian family, obliterated by Lenin and his Bolsheviks has never recovered. Have you ever wondered why Russia has one of the lowest birthrates in the world? Why Russian women prostitute themselves by the millions all over the globe from the palaces of Dubai to the oil rigs of Northern Alberta? Look no further than Lenin’s nationalization of sex.

A poster celebrating the unity of the republics under Stalin. The writing on the flag reads “Thank you, great comrade Stalin!”

But wait a second, what does all of that have to do with our world today? The bourgeoisie is long dead and buried, isn’t it? And today’s empowered women wouldn’t dream of offering sex just because some guy asked for it. Right? Wrong. The bourgeoisie has never gone anywhere. It simply changed its name. It is now called the middle class and it is precisely this class that the modern-day neo-Bolsheviks wish to destroy in America. The middle class destruction project is now at its terminal stages. Just like before so now, a stable middle class cannot exist without stable families and stable families cannot thrive in two-career households. So the first phase of the middle class destruction project was price inflation to the point where single-income households could not make ends meet. This phase was completed by the mid-1980’s. Next came the indoctrination of American women in the theory that sexual exclusivity was demeaning to them as free agents in society and that freely providing sexual services to a large number of casual acquaintances and often complete strangers was empowering. Today, we are entering into the final stage of this project with the a new indoctrination aimed at American women. This time they are required to believe that children are disgusting. In the face of every human urge, every evolutionary instinct, American women are required to believe that pregnancy is an infestation. That babies growing in their wombs are akin to exotic parasites, a rare species of tapeworm perhaps that they might have picked up when they tried that mystery meat from a Bali food cart. And what do you do with such a disgusting parasite? You get rid of it, of course, and the sooner the better, though any time is good.

Why must Bolsheviks destroy the middle class? In 1919 Russia and in 2019 America the answer is the same. Bolsheviks are a control parasite. The Ophiocordyceps unilateralis is a tropical fungus that zombies its hosts, unsuspecting forest ants. It causes them to abandon their cool homes up in the tree canopies and move down to the hot and humid forest floor where the fungus thrives and grows. Then it commands them to tap into a sap vein on a leaf and serve a as conduit for the sap to the fungus until the ant itself dies of starvation. Nothing can come closer to the description of Bolsheviks than this fungus. Just like their Russian predecessors, they know that they can never be elected, fair and square, to any office of power. In fact, the Russian Bolsheviks were roundly beaten in the Russian general election in the spring of 1917. No, the only way that these parasites can attach themselves to the rich veins of wealth and power is by eliminating the independent-minded middle class with its ideas of tradition, religion, and family and replacing it with people who are displaced, recent immigrants for example, people who have little knowledge of how to survive in their new surroundings, people who are easily manipulated into submission.



Ants biting the underside of leaves as a result of infection by O. unilateralis. The top panel shows the whole leaf with the dense surrounding vegetation in the background and the lower panel shows a close up view of dead ant attached to a leaf vein. The stroma of the fungus emerges from the back of the ant’s head and the perithecia, from which spores are produced, grows from one side of this stroma, hence the species epithet. The photograph has been rotated 180 degrees to aid visualization. Fungus species: Ophiocordyceps unilateralis Ant species: Camponotus leonardi doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004835.g001

Image by David P. Hughes, Maj-Britt Pontoppidan

Bolsheviks plan for the future about as much as their ideological counterpart the fungus. The don’t care what happens when the ant dies, nor do they care when the resources of a once rich country be it Russia a hundred years ago or Venezuela today are so depleted that they must die with it. They are simply incapable of that kind of reasoning. This is why asking Ms. Ocasio-Corrtez how medicare for all can be funded is the same as asking the plague bacillus what it will do when its host is dead. The Bolsheviks, like the bacteria, do not understand the question. All they know is that they must have sustenance right now so they can divide and grow. They are simply incapable of thinking beyond that.

How do we fight parasites? We try to kill them, purge them, avoid getting infected in the first place, sure. But they adapt, they develop immunity to our best medicines and they are always in the air. The only real way to fight is to get immunized and stay current on our shots. Go to church or to synagogue. Learn about your ancestors; amazing men and women who made it all possible for you by not submitting, by staying free, even when it was very dangerous to do so. Get married and stay faithful to your spouse. Have lots of kids and talk to them, constantly.

Today, my daughter has a workshop on race and colonialism at her very famous university. “Plug your ears”, I told her. “Don’t listen to a word of that vile mendacious propaganda”. “I know, dad”, she said, “I promise.”