Culture Wars/Current Controversies

The March of the New American Leninists

It’s interesting to compare this piece by Williamson likening the J6ers to the Bolshies with Michael Lind’s piece at Tablet comparing the BLM/Antifa/whoever with the Jacobins. Both of these analogies may work on a remote or peripheral level, but those who are always looking to foreign examples to explain present-day unrest often seem to not understand how much of this is quintessentially American, or how much violence, unrest, and political conflict there was in the USA in the 19th and early 20th century.

By Kevin Williamson, National Review

The more loyalty to a political leader or movement supplants loyalty to the constitutional order, the closer we come to revolution.

S teve Bannon, the recently indicted Trump sycophant and ex-Breitbart jackass, sometimes describes himself as a “Leninist.” I believe him. And he isn’t alone.

For Vladimir Lenin, a revolution required three preconditions: The masses had to be unwilling to accept the status quo, the ruling class had to be unable to enforce the status quo, and, as a result of the first two, there had to be an outbreak of political fervor and activity among the masses. Once these conditions were satisfied, Lenin would be ready to move on to the question of revolutionary instruments, which in his case were war, terror, and executions.

(It is worth keeping in mind that Bolsheviks wanted to outlaw capital punishment, and Lenin overruled them: “How can you make a revolution without executions?”)

Americans are a little sentimental about revolutions, because we had one of the very few good ones. But the revolutionary family tree gets pretty ugly pretty quickly: The American Revolution helps to inspire the French Revolution, with its purges and terror; the French Revolution provides a model for Lenin and his gang; the Russian Revolution informs the Iranian revolution. The line from the Boston Tea Party to the Iran hostage crisis is not a bold, straight one, but it can be seen, if you want to see it. Revolutions are dangerous, often in ways that are not obvious at the time and become understood only decades later.


2 replies »

  1. The main difference between Stalhelm/Bolsheviks is that the modern J6/BLM types are useful idiots for existing factions within the establishment, are mostly pussies, and have no radical proposals. Establishment Democrats and Republicans both hate actual Marxists, who generally want to execute most of them. And if AntiFa or Trumptards were actually like the Stalhelm there would have been thousands of people shot, not sparing police. Americans are such fat crybabies that they would probably just run and hide if they had to deal with actual Nazis or the Shining Path.

  2. For political murders alone (not counting street fights between different political gangs) there were 354 murders in Weimar. Adjusted for population that would equate to 1,893 POLITICIANS killed in these riots and so called insurrections. If we factored in fighting between the police and political gangs in Weimar it would be much greater. So, no, these are not Bolsheviks or Nazis.

Leave a Reply to Ricky Moore Cancel reply