Suicide Of The Liberals

Doc7505

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
4,034
Reaction score
4,879
Points
2,080
Location
North Carolina
SUICIDE OF THE LIBERALS


October 2020 ~~ By Gary Saul Morson
Between 1900 and 1917, waves of unprecedented terror struck Russia. Several parties professing incompatible ideologies competed (and cooperated) in causing havoc. Between 1905 and 1907, nearly 4,500 government officials and about as many private individuals were killed or injured. Between 1908 and 1910, authorities recorded 19,957 terrorist acts and revolutionary robberies, doubtless omitting many from remote areas. As the foremost historian of Russian terrorism, Anna Geifman, observes, “Robbery, extortion, and murder became more common than traffic accidents.”

Anyone wearing a uniform was a candidate for a bullet to the head or sulfuric acid to the face. Country estates were burnt down (“rural illuminations”) and businesses were extorted or blown up. Bombs were tossed at random into railroad carriages, restaurants, and theaters. Far from regretting the death and maiming of innocent bystanders, terrorists boasted of killing as many as possible, either because the victims were likely bourgeois or because any murder helped bring down the old order. A group of anarcho-communists threw bombs laced with nails into a café bustling with two hundred customers in order “to see how the foul bourgeois will squirm in death agony.”
~[snip]~
Most important, and of greatest concern, was how intelligents thought. An intelligent signed on to a set of beliefs regarded as totally certain, scientifically proven, and absolutely obligatory for any moral person. A strict intelligent had to subscribe to some ideology—whether populist, Marxist, or anarchist—that was committed to the total destruction of the existing order and its replacement by a utopia that would, at a stroke, eliminate every human ill. This aspiration was often described as chiliastic (or apocalyptic), and, as has been observed, it is no accident that many of the most influential intelligents, from Chernyshevsky to Stalin, came from clerical families or had studied in seminaries. For Struve, the mentality of the intelligentsia constituted a cruel parody of religion, preserving “the external features of religiosity without its content.”
An intelligent could not be a believer, which is another reason no one would have considered Tolstoy (let alone that conservative Dostoevsky) an intelligent. They accepted atheism on faith, were spiritually devoted to materialism, and proselytized determinism. They based these commitments on “science,” a word they used to mean not a disinterested process of discovery based on experiment and evidence, but—and here the reason became perfectly circular —a metaphysics of materialism and determinism.
~[snip]~
The Landmarks contributors aimed to change Russia so that, like England, it would have educated people but not an intelligentsia. They warned, as Dostoevsky had in The Possessed, that to the extent that a society’s educated class comes to resemble an intelligentsia in the Russian sense, it is headed for what we now call totalitarianism—unless others muster the strength to resist it.
One sometimes hears that “the pendulum is bound to swing back.” But how does one know there is a pendulum at all, rather than—let us say—a snowball accelerating downhill? It is unwise to comfort oneself with metaphors. When a party is willing to push its power as far as it can go, it will keep going until it meets sufficient opposition. In the French Revolution, terror was eventually stopped by “Thermidor,” and then by Napoleon. But in Russia, Stalin proclaimed “the intensification of the class struggle” after the Revolution, entailing an unending series of arrests, executions, and sentences to the Gulag. What meets no resistance does not stop.


Comment:
Unfortunately, history is repeating itself in today's Democrat Liberal Party as they have shifted to Progressive Marxist Socialism... and now have shifted to "advocate democratic, constitutional procedures, and did not themselves engage in terrorism, they aided the terrorists in any way they could. Kadets collected money for terrorists, turned their homes into safe houses, and called for total amnesty for arrested terrorists who pledged to continue the mayhem".
I suggest that every so called Liberal advocating these violent anarchist actions read the above carefully.
Most of us seem to take comfort in the idea that things usually revert to the mean, that this is just the pendulum of human affairs swinging back and forth. But sometimes it just flies off it’s hinges and you get the Russian revolution. I hope it’s not where we are today.
The murder of Stolypin was the most consequential political assassination of the 20th century. IMHO there will soon be overt political assassinations in the near future.
The PMS/DSA operatives have attempted several methods to gain power in this country, from the attempted coup d' etat in 2016 to anarchy run rampant in 70 cities. The assasin Reineohl was just the one of the many to follow.
 

jackflash

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2020
Messages
450
Reaction score
318
Points
158
Location
USA
SUICIDE OF THE LIBERALS


October 2020 ~~ By Gary Saul Morson
Between 1900 and 1917, waves of unprecedented terror struck Russia. Several parties professing incompatible ideologies competed (and cooperated) in causing havoc. Between 1905 and 1907, nearly 4,500 government officials and about as many private individuals were killed or injured. Between 1908 and 1910, authorities recorded 19,957 terrorist acts and revolutionary robberies, doubtless omitting many from remote areas. As the foremost historian of Russian terrorism, Anna Geifman, observes, “Robbery, extortion, and murder became more common than traffic accidents.”

Anyone wearing a uniform was a candidate for a bullet to the head or sulfuric acid to the face. Country estates were burnt down (“rural illuminations”) and businesses were extorted or blown up. Bombs were tossed at random into railroad carriages, restaurants, and theaters. Far from regretting the death and maiming of innocent bystanders, terrorists boasted of killing as many as possible, either because the victims were likely bourgeois or because any murder helped bring down the old order. A group of anarcho-communists threw bombs laced with nails into a café bustling with two hundred customers in order “to see how the foul bourgeois will squirm in death agony.”
~[snip]~
Most important, and of greatest concern, was how intelligents thought. An intelligent signed on to a set of beliefs regarded as totally certain, scientifically proven, and absolutely obligatory for any moral person. A strict intelligent had to subscribe to some ideology—whether populist, Marxist, or anarchist—that was committed to the total destruction of the existing order and its replacement by a utopia that would, at a stroke, eliminate every human ill. This aspiration was often described as chiliastic (or apocalyptic), and, as has been observed, it is no accident that many of the most influential intelligents, from Chernyshevsky to Stalin, came from clerical families or had studied in seminaries. For Struve, the mentality of the intelligentsia constituted a cruel parody of religion, preserving “the external features of religiosity without its content.”
An intelligent could not be a believer, which is another reason no one would have considered Tolstoy (let alone that conservative Dostoevsky) an intelligent. They accepted atheism on faith, were spiritually devoted to materialism, and proselytized determinism. They based these commitments on “science,” a word they used to mean not a disinterested process of discovery based on experiment and evidence, but—and here the reason became perfectly circular —a metaphysics of materialism and determinism.
~[snip]~
The Landmarks contributors aimed to change Russia so that, like England, it would have educated people but not an intelligentsia. They warned, as Dostoevsky had in The Possessed, that to the extent that a society’s educated class comes to resemble an intelligentsia in the Russian sense, it is headed for what we now call totalitarianism—unless others muster the strength to resist it.
One sometimes hears that “the pendulum is bound to swing back.” But how does one know there is a pendulum at all, rather than—let us say—a snowball accelerating downhill? It is unwise to comfort oneself with metaphors. When a party is willing to push its power as far as it can go, it will keep going until it meets sufficient opposition. In the French Revolution, terror was eventually stopped by “Thermidor,” and then by Napoleon. But in Russia, Stalin proclaimed “the intensification of the class struggle” after the Revolution, entailing an unending series of arrests, executions, and sentences to the Gulag. What meets no resistance does not stop.


Comment:
Unfortunately, history is repeating itself in today's Democrat Liberal Party as they have shifted to Progressive Marxist Socialism... and now have shifted to "advocate democratic, constitutional procedures, and did not themselves engage in terrorism, they aided the terrorists in any way they could. Kadets collected money for terrorists, turned their homes into safe houses, and called for total amnesty for arrested terrorists who pledged to continue the mayhem".
I suggest that every so called Liberal advocating these violent anarchist actions read the above carefully.
Most of us seem to take comfort in the idea that things usually revert to the mean, that this is just the pendulum of human affairs swinging back and forth. But sometimes it just flies off it’s hinges and you get the Russian revolution. I hope it’s not where we are today.
The murder of Stolypin was the most consequential political assassination of the 20th century. IMHO there will soon be overt political assassinations in the near future.
The PMS/DSA operatives have attempted several methods to gain power in this country, from the attempted coup d' etat in 2016 to anarchy run rampant in 70 cities. The assasin Reineohl was just the one of the many to follow.
I would not panic @ this conjuncture. If needed be the DNC sponsored antifa/BLM show could have been processed, canned & shipped in a couple/three days.
 

Pete7469

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
23,090
Reaction score
7,490
Points
350
Location
The Real World
There is a significant difference in modern America.

Rural people in the agricultural industry and the people who work in it are well armed. In 1917 Russia, few if any had any weapons outside government or military and what they had as far as ammo goes was non-existent. Americans are armed to the teeth. Most people I know have thousands of rounds, multiple weapons, armor, food stocks, medical supplies and tools. Many American families have been preparing for generations for a collapse, whether from nuclear war, the soviet or Chinese invasions, meteor strikes, you name it.

Since Waco, the military, police and armed security industries have been infiltrated by people who believe in the 2nd Amendment. It would be very difficult for leftist pieces of shit to get fire superiority when most of them are bed wetting soy boi losers. We have more to fear from the hordes of angry bull dykes.

In pre-soviet russia the rural peasants were likely to be pro-bolshevik to begin with. At least until collectivism took hold and they ended up starving. In modern America most rural folks are anti-bolshevik from the beginning and have the means to resist commissars and a squad of thugs. Most industrial workers, even liberal union types are not going to abide by the sort of rules they established in soviet russia. Commissars will disappear like Hoffa real quick when production quotas are enforced.


The problem faced by bed wetting liberals in modern America is that they have no concept of history, and the challenges they face. They have been allowed to get away with an awful lot because of our tolerance and our faith in God. We don't want to go to hell for exterminating these pieces of shit, but once the green light goes on and we are face to face it's going to get real fuckin ugly for these pathetic vermin.


.
 

Pete7469

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
23,090
Reaction score
7,490
Points
350
Location
The Real World
~~~~~~
Little does she know that if they succeed they'll kill her too....
The only reason she exists is BECAUSE the little bolshevik monsters the left is creating would EAT THE RICH that pay to keep her in office. The democrook party is the tool that keeps lunatics like Bernie Sanders and AOC (who I think is fake) in a place where they do not have the capability to actually storm any single palace or capital in order to acquire power.

Let's imagine that all the hard core communist parasites in the country actually took DC, slaughtered everyone in it, and burned the city to the ground. They could not possibly expect to control the rest of America. Even if they kidnapped all of the officials, left the power structure in place and occupied it, they could not expect to control the country.

It's almost like a prison, if you've ever been in one you would figure out soon that the only reason the CO's control the place is because the inmates tolerate them. They could easily take the prison by force but as soon as they started pouring out into the world they would be picked off and wiped out by the armed people outside. Thus order is mostly maintained. The illusion is that the authorities are "in charge".
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top