The radical left has never hidden its hatred of such bourgeois institutions as marriage, family and church. And they are much more open in their stated aims to see such things destroyed. No beating around the bush by using weasel words like “tolerance” and “acceptance”.
Nope, the cultural Marxists have always wanted just one thing: to fully destroy the West, and they have always known that the churches and families stand in their way – these things must be destroyed in the name of the revolution. Thus when the Bolsheviks swept to power in Russia in 1917, one of the first items on the agenda was to abolish marriage and family, along with organised religion.
As but one piece of evidence, consider this remarkable account written by a Russian babushka way back in 1926. It is a devastatingly incredible article and so entirely relevant to the situation we find ourselves in today. She begins her chilling account this way:
“The question whether marriage as an institution should be abolished is now being debated all over Russia with a violence and depth of passion unknown since the turbulent early days of the Revolution. Last October a bill eliminating distinctions between registered and unregistered marriages and giving the unmarried consort the status and property rights of the legal wife was introduced in the Tzik, or Central Executive Committee. So much unforeseen opposition to the proposed law developed that the Tzik decided to postpone its final adoption until the next session, meanwhile initiating a broad popular discussion of the project.
“Since that time factories, offices, clubs, and various Soviet organizations and institutions have passed resolutions for and against the bill, and the halls have not been able to hold the eager crowds that thronged to the meetings in city, town, and village. One must live in Russia to-day, amid the atmosphere of torment, disgust, and disillusionment that pervades sex relations, the chaos, uncertainty, and tragedy that hover over the Russian family, to understand the reasons for this heated discussion, for these passionate pros and cons.
“When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family, like every other ‘bourgeois’ institution, with fierce hatred, and set out with a will to destroy it. ‘To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of the ages we had to give it a good shakeup, and we did,’ declared Madame Smidovich, a leading Communist and active participant in the recent discussion. So one of the first decrees of the Soviet Government abolished the term ‘illegitimate children.’
“This was done simply by equalizing the legal status of all children, whether born in wedlock or out of it, and now the Soviet Government boasts that Russia is the only country where there are no illegitimate children. The father of a child is forced to contribute to its support, usually paying the mother a third of his salary in the event of a separation, provided she has no other means of livelihood.
“At the same time a law was passed which made divorce a matter of a few minutes, to be obtained at the request of either partner in a marriage. Chaos was the result. Men took to changing wives with the same zest which they displayed in the consumption of the recently restored forty-per-cent vodka.”
Wow, ring any bells yet? And of course the sexual revolution of the 60s was merely an imitation of what the Soviets were doing decades earlier. But for all this “emancipation” and “liberation,” the family unit eventually had to be restored:
“The new sex relations have also raised certain problems in the cities. During the winter of 1924-1925 some of the older Communists accused the younger generation, especially the students, of indulging in too much dissipation, of squandering health and vitality in loose connections; they blame the girl students for practising frequent abortions. ‘You must be either a student or a mother; under present-day conditions you can’t be both,’ declared one mentor to the modern Russian women students. The latter indignantly replied that love was almost the only cheap amusement left to them and demanded that they be given at least the same opportunity for free abortions that factory women enjoy. Moreover, they retorted that not all the older Communists could serve as a model of pure living.
“Some members of the League of Communist Youth, an organization which now numbers between a million and a half and two million young men and women, regard the refusal to enter into temporary sex relations as mere bourgeois prejudice, the deadliest sin in the eyes of a Communist. Some of the provincial branches of the League went so far as to organize ‘Down with Shame’ and ‘Down with Innocence’ circles; but these were sharply condemned as rowdy aberrations in the official report on the activities of the League at the last Congress of the Communist Party.
“Both in the villages and in the cities the problem of the unmarried mother has become very acute and provides a severe and annoying test of Communist theories. In the early stages of the Revolution the Communists held the theory that children should be reared and cared for by the State. But it soon became evident that the State, especially in war-torn and impoverished Russia, was financially quite incapable of assuming such a heavy burden of responsibility. The figure of ten thousand foundlings, reported for thirty-two provinces of the Soviet Union over a period of six months, illustrates the danger that the present large number of vagrant homeless children may be swelled because of the inability or unwillingness of parents to provide for the offspring of temporary connections.”
So here we have the whole lot: the destruction of marriage and family; easy divorce; sexual liberation and promiscuity; abortion on demand, and social problems galore. Are we talking about the West today or Russia of the past?
Will we never learn the lessons of history? Or are we doomed to forever repeat its mistakes? And just in case a few folks have not yet made the connection here, let me point out the fact that the sexual suicide we are witnessing in the West today has not come about by accident. Indeed, it has been a fully deliberate, orchestrated and planned assault.
Don’t believe me? Fine, don’t take my word for it. Let the current day crop of Marxists tell you in their own words. Consider this very revealing article found in the Communist Party of Australia’s official newspaper, The Guardian. In its most recent editorial it said this in part:
“As a pillar of the capitalist system, the church sees marriage – as it defines it – as an institution vital to its continued power, indeed to capitalism itself. Thus for many decades – into the 20th century – churches opposed any changes to divorce laws that made it easier for couples to end their relationship.
“If you strike blows against that pillar, challenging that power, there will be a reaction, as there is, from the Vatican all the way down to the pious hypocrites in Australia’s parliament who publicly espoused that gay marriage was against their beliefs. The creed that a person’s religion is a private matter between the individual and his or her faith is always shattered when it comes up against the political, as it always does.
“To put it in context, in an interview on ABC radio in the lead up to this year’s Sydney Mardi Gras an organiser of the event called the gay rights movement in general a liberation movement: liberation movements take many shapes, sizes and forms. These things form the basic political nature of the struggle for same-sex marriage.”
There you go folks – we have here a straight line from the atrocities of the Bolsheviks in the early 1900s to the ongoing war against everything decent in the early 21st century. The Marxists never die; they just morph into new forms. But their overriding objective remains the same: to destroy the church, family, marriage, morality, and the West.
So when are we going to wake up to the war we are in? Or are we going to sleep through this revolution as well, only to eventually wake up to find out that it is all too late to even utter a whimper against all the destruction and carnage which has transpired?