In Remembrance of the October Revolution

Antonius Aquinas

This October marks the centennial anniversary of the Bolshevik takeover of Russia and the establishment of Soviet-style Communism, which, tragically for the Russian people, would last for some seventy interminable years. Not only did the Soviet regime liquidate and imprison millions, but its idiotic system of central planning impoverished the country, turning it into an economic basket case, the effects of which continue to this day.

Just as bad, the Bolsheviks murdered the last Czar, Nicholas II, and his family, brutally ending nearly five hundred years of monarchical rule of Russia. Within a year of the demise of the Russian aristocracy, two other of Europe’s venerable royal houses – Germany and Austria – met the same fate, all three casualties of their insane decision to participate in World War I. The end of the German Court and especially that of Austria came at the vengeful insistence of then President Woodrow Wilson, who brought the US into the conflict on the pledge to make the “world safe for democracy.”

The triumph of the Bolsheviks and the downfall of the German and Austrian monarchies ushered in the Age of Democracy, as other Western constitutional republics at the time and in each passing year began to resemble and adopt features of their supposed Communist foe. As the 20th century wore on, each Western nation state became more “democratic,” increasing their welfare/warfare state apparatus, imposing more and more radical egalitarian social and economic measures, and adopting greater amounts of economic planning mostly through central banking. Not only did economic activity become increasingly effected by monetary policy, but the central banks were instrumental in the eradication of the gold standard throughout the Western world.

Not only did Communism prove to be a disaster economically in Russia and everywhere else tried, but socialism had other debilitating effects. The quality of the population declined along with the numbers of ethnic Russians, a trend that ominously continues to this day. While ingenuity was stifled by the Soviet command economy, its culture, although never as advanced as Western Europe, became sterile and overshadowed by the heavy hand of the commissar. The only memorable literature produced during the period were accounts of the gulag and the repression of dissent. Music and the arts were similar cultural wastelands.

44074

The Communist monster, Vladimir Lenin

The West, too, as its nation states became more socialistic and egalitarian, witnessed retrogression in every aspect of society. The catastrophic drop off in the size of the native populations can largely be attributed to crazed feminism, where women were encouraged and given privileges to pursue careers and become “working moms,” which led to the phenomenon of the “dysfunctional family” and declines in the number of child births. Hans-Hermann Hoppe explains this effect in the American context:

“In the U.S…less than a century of full-blown democracy has resulted in steadily increasing moral degeneration, family and social disintegration, and cultural decay in the form of continually rising rates of divorce, illegitimacy, abortion, and crime. As a result of an ever-expanding list of non-discrimination – ‘affirmative action’ – laws and nondiscriminatory, multicultural, egalitarian immigration policies, every nook and cranny of American society is affected by government management and forced integration.”
Democracy: The God That Failed, p. xiii

Hoppe’s seminal demolition of Democracy


A primary reason why the quality of Western life has crumbled so markedly has been the replacement of its “natural elites” with “political elites” via the democratic process. Every society should be led by its leading individuals, who, through talent, hard work, brains, foresight, moral fortitude, fairness, and bravery, come to the top, and are looked to for guidance. Under democratic conditions, however, the natural elites have, in a sense, been “voted out” by the political class, who, instead of out-competing their rivals, secure their status by politics mostly through demagogy.

In Soviet Russia, the natural elites were ruthlessly purged by Lenin’s forces, and over time any sort of advancement or achievement had to come via the Communist Party.

Despite the overwhelming failure of socialism, Western nation states continue to practice many of its features, a most notorious recent example being that of the passage of Obamacare, the first step on the road to universal health care in the US. America, itself, resembles more of a police state than ever before, with the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the passage of draconian legislation such as the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

The October Revolution should be remembered for what it was: the inauguration of mankind’s first total state. It, and the social system which it spawned, should be condemned by all those who seek prosperity and an advanced civilization.

Murder of the Imperial Family

Murder of the Imperial Family by the Communists.

Originally published at Antonius Aquinas

 

6 comments

  • “While ingenuity was stifled by the Soviet command economy, its culture, although never as advanced as Western Europe, became sterile and overshadowed by the heavy hand of the commissar. The only memorable literature produced during the period were accounts of the gulag and the repression of dissent. Music and the arts were similar cultural wastelands.”

    Sputnik
    Prokofiev
    Bulgakov
    Tarkovksy

    If the alt right starts running away from great western scientific and artistic achievements just because some of them were produced under this that or the other economic system, then as a movement it stands for nothing.

    Like

  • The main reason why communists and their globalist backers detest monarchies is because the latter are fiercely nationalist whereas communism is globalist, the very opposite. Some of the greatest works of classical music and art were funded by members of the aristocratic class.

    Today’s elites, by contrast, are rootless because they are globalists. They are not the stewards of culture and nation like the old monarchists. Sam Francis was essentially correct when he stated that whites haven’t gotten the memo that their elites are no longer vested in protecting the traditional institutions of western civilization. Adorno once said that the civilization that gave us the symphony must go.

    The globalist dystopia is a world without borders where resources can be effectively centralized on a global scale without major resistance.

    Like

    • The Globalists pursue a burned ground strategy, they have no interest in creating anything they only want to destroy all vestiges of traditional culture, kinda like what early christians did to Pagan Evrope conquering it by fire and sword, convert or die was their motto same as today’s Cultural Marxists they will take no prisoners, it’s only a matter of time when a new PC-Inquisition will take place maybe even with the same methods the old one operated.

      Like

    • Monarchies were not generally fiercely nationalist and even in the age of nationalism, some of them were hardly nationalistic at all. Their custom was to marry the offspring of foreign monarchs in preference to someone sprung from the nation that they ruled.

      Kirt Higdon

      Like

      • But the king considered his country as his private property, so it was in his best interest to pursue a nationalistic policy, additionally he was held in check by the nobles who had an even greater interest in the success of their country(apart from certain countries which where sold out by the nobles to foreign interests *cough*Poland*cough*), so in most cases you where better off under a monarchy than a liberal-democracy. Furthermore the taxes where minimalistic in comparison and tax evasion was considered a virtue not a vice.

        Like

        • I certainly agree that you were generally better off under a monarchy than under a liberal democracy, but that is at least partially due to the fact that the monarchs were less nationalistic. They considered their countries their patrimony (I think that describes it better than private property) and hence were less inclined to risk it all in total war. Wars were usually more limited. Unfortunately by the time 1914 rolled around, the French Revolutionary poisons of both liberal democracy and nationalism had grown strong enough to overcome the better instincts of the monarchs. Revolutionary leaders (e.g. Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Ho, Nasser, Ben Gurion, etc. etc. etc.) tend to be the most fiercely nationalistic, even when their official ideology is not nationalism.

          Kirt Higdon

          Like