Bolshevism, as Ouspenski boasted, had to destroy. It set out to destroy everything formerly in existence. This meant destroying people because people are indissolubly connected with things. It would mean, it was carried through to the end, destroying everyone, since people’s lives have their roots in the past, and in institutions, and customs and beliefs that have grown out of the past; and if the past is to be destroyed they have to be destroyed as well. The past and the people stand or fall together.
Even in Russia, however, the destructive force innate in Bolshevism cannot be carried through to the end. It gains impetus; proceeds more and more frantically and hysterically, but must at last spend itself. It cannot be carried through to the end because it depends on hate, or of class war. Certain individuals; sadists and some Jews and cripples; frustrated intellectuals, can hate all their lives; base their lives on hate; and a whole society can be propagandized into hating for the duration, say, of a war or a general election; but not whole society can hate indefinitely. There comes a limit. No whole society can hate long enough to destroy itself; and self destruction is the only conceivable end of Bolshevism and of the class war. Thus Bolshevism must, by the nature of things and by its own nature, be an uncompleted process.
Malcolm Muggeridge
Winter In Moscow — pg. 105
1.) Cultural Marxism has become our version of Russian Marxist Bolshevism. Like Bolshevism, it thrives on hate, and like Bolshevism in order to thrive it has to create a oppressor class upon which the locus of hate can focus. For the Bolsheviks it was the Bourgeois. For the cultural Marxist today it is the White European Christian.
2.) Cultural Marxism is likewise committed to destruction just as Bolshevism was. Bolshevism destroyed the Kulaks, destroyed the Church, and destroyed those who did not fervently enough support the party. Cultural Marxism has destroyed the unborn, destroyed the Church, and destroyed the whole notion of distinction or hierarchy. For the Bolshevist the goal of all the destruction was the creation of the “New Soviet man,” which is exactly the same project of the Cultural Marxist in the West.
3.) Marxism, in whatever its incarnation, must destroy the past for the past, with its customs, traditions, and stability, is that which is inimical to the agenda of the Marxist. Marxism desires Utopia and Utopia is only arrived at by sloughing off the dead hand of the past.
4.) I do believe however that Cultural Marxism, unlike Muggeridge’s description of Bolshevism, can be carried through to the end. Cultural Marxism has advanced by the whole ideal of perpetual revolution as it keeps right on marching through the cultural institutions. I see no spending of the vigor of cultural Marxism. We have gone from serial adultery, to no-fault divorce, to homosexuality and there is no indication that in this one area that any end is in sight for the normalizing of perversion. Because of that I do believe that as a culture we will destroy ourselves.
5.) The ultimate impetus behind Marxism is the host of the underworld with its Prince at its head. Jesus said that Satan came to kill, steal and destroy and Marxism is that social order by which Satan implements his agenda.