UN migration pact, that declares all migrants as welcomed in all the Western countries, and proposes a censorship towards critique of immigration, has gained support in the international arena from both Russia and ultraliberal politicians. The international level is reflected in the local politics – in Saeima (Latvian parliament) both pro-Russian “Harmony” and liberal parties “Development/For” and “Unity” voted FOR migration.
What unites the ultraliberal and Kremlin forces? It is the ideology of neo-Bolshevism, which is in a fundamental opposition to the idea of nation state. This is the fundamental clash of political currents of the 21st century. Choice is between the defence of the principle of nation state, which is the ide that nation has the right of self-determination and right to its own destiny within its borders, and the opposite idea of taking away these rights from the nation. People of this position want all the power to themselves. They are globalists. Choice therefore is between nationalism and globalism. This globalism has many faces. In the West and in Russia it is the multicultural or neo-Bolshevik face, but in Islamic world idea of globalism has intertwined with idea of the worldwide Caliphate that in practice is terrorism without borders. These projects of globalism reinforce each other – neo-Bolshevism paves the way for Islamic civilization in Europe. Only strong nation states are check against this chaos that is taking over modern world.
- Genealogy of neo-Bolshevism
Origin of neo-Bolshevism is a result of a long historical process. The roots are to be found in the French Revolution, which was a draft version of all the other leftist revolutions in the 19th and 20th centuries – total war of destruction against all traditions and all the organic bonds in the society between the different groups and between the generations, inspired by moral slogans and naïve political theories. Declared goal – to replace this traditional and organic society with a “utopia” where everyone would be “equal”. The French Revolution was chaotic in its aspirations and in its hate, it swallowed itself. But from this revolution a new ideology emerged in the 19th century which had a more detailed theoretical basis and more well thought out political tactics – Marxism. “Proletariat” or the working class was declared as the main agent of historical change. The mission of this working class would be the overthrow of the capitalist system. At the same time the role of the individual was denied – working class would only be fulfilling task of the unavoidable historical process which would inevitably lead to communism. This gave the psychological appeal to the Marxist propaganda, because it created a conviction for each revolutionary that the history itself is on his side, but those who resist are only “residues” that will have to retreat in the face of progress. Such practitioners of Marxism as Lenin created an interpretation of Marxism called Bolshevism. Bolsheviks believed that revolution has to be led by “vanguard of revolution”, or small group of fanatical revolutionaries, that would deal with “practical” tasks – how to change the state apparatus in to a weapon of terror that would be total and never-ending (unlike the French experiment!), to “oppress the oppressors” and to “rob the robbers” – evil “kulaks” and “capitalists”. The result was the bloodiest political experiment of the 20th century with tens of millions of victims with the same principal direction as the French Revolution – to uproot individuals and entire nations (by assimilation, destruction of intellectuals, historical monuments, by deportations to GULAG camps), to create the “utopia of equality”.
At the same time another direction of Marxism developed in the West – neo-Bolshevism. It was born, on the one hand, from a certain support of U.S. special services to the Marxism of Stalin’s opponent Trotsky. The short-term interest of U.S. was not to lose the Western intellectuals to the Soviet communism. On the other hand, neo-Bolshevism was strengthened by the active involvement of USSR secret services in the West with the long-term goal of destroying the moral core of the Western society to destroy the West from within. Therefore, Cheka took over the control of Western leftist movements, using their destructive tendencies for their own goals. Although USSR and its Communism went straight in the trash heap of history, neo-Bolshevism it inspired in the West survived. Either by some misjudgment or by a conscious manipulation this new Marxism in the West is sometimes called “liberalism”. But it has little to do with the classical liberalism. It is neo-Bolshevism, but in this case the role of “revolutionary vanguard” is played by the international financial oligarchy.
2. Neo-Bolshevism of the West
Neo-Bolshevism means leftism both ideologically and economically. Ideologically it is the same ideological war against traditions and obstacles to the human appetite to money and pleasure which characterized the French revolution and the Bolshevik experiment – regardless of the slogans they used to hide this ugly truth. But this time this tendency to “liberate” human is more radical. Now it is the “liberation” from the human himself. It is the most radical uprooting of man, because for the first time in the history of mankind there is a coordinated attack on the human nature itself – his biological sex and institution of family. The idea of “equality” is implemented with the idea of “social construct” by declaring that, for example, natural family is just a construct created by society that doesn’t require bigger juridical protection than any other model of cohabitation. Thus, unequal things are treated as equal. In a result everything that secures existence of the society is “deconstructed” and thrown away. It is accompanied by the same idea of the “unavoidable historical process” that for the neo-Bolsheviks create a weird conviction that everything they do is justified, because it brings us closer to a progressive utopia without “hate”, “racism” and “sexism”. But the source of all these “-isms” is the Western civilization itself – therefore it is the main goal of the attacks from the neo-Bolsheviks.
What is the weapon? It is not the working class anymore. For Western Marxists it was too conservative. In its place new “oppressed classes” were found – subcultures, LGBT activists and ethnic minorities. If the subculture maintains itself through the fact that the leftist ideology creates a lot of isolated individuals with identity problems, then the role of ethnic minorities is growing in the result of politics of mass migration.
With the mass migration several goals are achieved at the same time. First, mass migration allows to diminish the independence of nation-states and concentrate the power in Brussels or U.N. It is a way to move towards a global federation that would replace the sovereign nation-states. Knowing very well that the citizens in the democratic process would never agree to such a plan, mechanisms are created that essentially destroy the borders of countries. If some supra-national power would control the flow of peoples and the ethnic composition in the nation-states, it would control everything else with it. This is why it is so important for the European Commission and U.N globalist elites to impose migration. The author of the idea of Europan Union (or Paneuropa) Richard Nikolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi proposed such a goal almost century ago: “border security, coupled with their liquidation, preserves the formal structure Europe, while changing its nature.”  It would be worth reminding the vision of Kalergi for the united future Europe: “The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.” 
Second, it is the uprooting of the people from their homeland. The idea that your children and grand-children will live in a completely different civilization than your parents and grand-parents and you should simply accept it, because it is the “current year” is simply cultural terrorism. It is the same thing that USSR practised in the occupied lands with its policy of colonization. In this context the concern of neo-Bolsheviks about the “human rights” is nothing less than hypocrisy, because their goal is a world of grey, isolated mass of individuals without any notion of nationality, with whom the system can manipulate and to displace to any place of the world according to the needs of the “market” and politics. With the cynicism of totalitarians this greyness is called “diversity”. But “diversity” or “diversity of individuals” in this kind of society is not possible. Truth is that the “culture” part in “multiculturalism” doesn’t describe any real higher culture, but the death of culture – reduction of all the separate cultures to the lowest common denominators – “bread and circuses”. In the result of multiculturalism Europe hasn’t achieved any higher achievements of culture, but only adopted certain culinary tendencies and the dark side of the third world realities like the increase of sexual crimes.
Third, there are cynical economical calculations behind the mass migration. Massive influx of the third world work-force means the possibility to lower the salary to the “demanding” European worker, because there will always be someone on this earth that will be willing to work for a lower salary.
Fourth, the loss of the habitual cultural environment, the notion of the stolen homeland during the time of peace, and the social problems because of the cheap labour force creates a huge social tension that breaks out from time to time in certain incidents. Migrants radicalizes in the context of their culture and joins the ranks of Islamic terrorists, but Europeans join the anti-migration organizations, at least if they can liberate themselves from the self-censorship and conformity of the political correctness. These social tensions divert the energy and the focus of the society from the real perpetrators – international financial oligarchy whose goal is a global federation without nations or religions.
3. International financial oligarchy – sponsors of neo-Bolshevism
For the international financial oligarchy world is a booty but nation-states – an obstacle for business, a complication for bribing politicians (it is much easier to bribe a few European Commission or U.N. politicians than hundreds of parliamentarians in countless of countries) and for exchanging money (or – interest) to real resources like land, minerals, natural resources. For these people slogans about equality of people, help for migrants and “human rights” are only theories that are designed for the executioners of the second and third levels. For them only money counts – money and power it can buy.
For many readers these might sound like a conspiracy theory and some may believe that in the global politics high principles are reigning instead of selfish interests. But I will give a few examples that will help to understand that conspiracies and cynicism in the international level is not an exception, but, unfortunately – a law. Good example for the influence of the international financial oligarchy is the former U.N. Special Representative for International Migration Peter Sutherland – also former Chairman of Goldman Sachs, member of the Bilderberg group and many other globalist clubs (all this information is publicly available). He has talked very openly about the “benefits” of unrestricted migration (“however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states”), proposed a thesis that migration is a common obligation of all the states, because “no state is or can be an island” , that multiculturalism is unavoidable and European Union should “undermine national homogeneity”. Is it not a surprising coincidence that his theses are directly reflected in the content and goals of the UN migration pacts? But the project of “Pan-Europa” of Kalergi, to whom many European federalists are still loyal, was sponsored by financial oligarchs Rothschild and Warburg.
A better-known example is George Soros. He has openly proposed that migration is the goal, but national borders are the obstacle. It is worth reminding the level of morality of this man – his machinations with the British Pound led to a financial crisis in UK in 1992, that destroyed lives of a lot of people, but he in the result of this gained approximately billion pounds. One can assume that the activities of Soros are not motivated by any high moral principles, but these are cynical power politics. His sponsored “open society” project outlines a typical tactic of the globalism. International financial oligarchy supports neo-Bolshevism that seemingly propose “human liberties” with the goal to liquidate the national borders, natural family, thus transforming nations in to divided and alienated masses of individuals, that would allow to concentrate the power vertical of this oligarchy. For example, Soros is a board member in an organization called “Drug Policy Alliance” that popularizes legalization of narcotics. Other board members – George P. Shultz (representative of “JP Morgan Chase”), Paul Volcker (former chairman of Federal Reserve) etc. Meanwhile Rockefellers are leading the international feminist movement and initiatives regarding the legalization of abortion, attracting such international companies like “American Express Foundation”, “Goldman Sachs Philanthropy Fund”, “Microsoft”, “Pepsi Co”, “J. P. Morgan Chase & Co”and others.
Executioners of the wishes of international oligarchy are many politicians of the local and international level. Hard-headed ones understand that this is a way to secure a life of wealth, comfort and career, while naive ones really believe that they act in the name of better future for mankind. Even better for the oligarchs – it is a way to save some money. The spectrum of the executioners is very broad – from the radical “antifa” elements who use physical violence against the conservatives and nationalists, ironically believing that they fight “capitalism”, to the Twitter “bubble” of narcissistic individuals who are united by a herd instinct of virtually attacking anyone who take the liberty to break any of the Commandments of the political correctness. They are also united by completely ungrounded idea of being members of the elite of all the mankind. There is also a separate category of very pragmatic fellows, an entire social class, whose life-style depends on the using different kind of funding and grants for the work with “minorities” – and the more minorities there are, the more work to do, meaning – more funds. In their pragmatic interests they will fight very aggressively against anyone who will try to restrict the mass migration and other destructive processes of neo-Bolshevism.
These active promoters of migration are participating in a gradual but fundamental change of the founding principles of society. Western culture has always been based on the self-sufficiently and initiative of the personality – now it is replaced with the a society of dependency, where for a individual there are only many roles of “victimhood” – there will always be some kind of minority to belong to and some “-sim” that will be at the root of all the wrongs in the world. But where there is a “victim”, there are also “advocates” that will deny the individual responsibility of this individual over his life. For example, if the first wave migrants that came to Western Europe after WW2 adapted to the Western society very fast, because they believed that their success depends on their own efforts, then now leftist activists immediately give the role of “victim” to the migrants, stressing that Western society is “racist” and without any real culture worth of respect, so it is better to stay in their communities and live in their parallel worlds.
System of social benefits creates the dependence from these “advocates” and the absurd situation is created when people are not working for generations. But the “advocates” do not care about this, because this kind of society is a stable electorate for the leftist parties – at least until the migrants have not founded their own ethnic or religious parties.
4. Neo-Bolshevism – Russian style
Attempts of Russia to show itself as an alternative to globalism and Western neo-Bolshevism is only a strategic spectacle. In fact Russia offers only alternative model of globalism that would be based on its geopolitical dominance and alternative variation of neo-Bolshevism – neo-Stalinism with KGB-man Putin as its leader. At the same time Russia does not have any problems to support destructive tendencies of Western neo-Bolshevism and it has its logic.
This support, that in Eastern-Europe is happening openly with the mediation of Kremlin satellite-parties coincide, first, with the essential difference of Russia as Eurasian civilization. Unlike the West, in Russia idea of nation and nation-state that is based on an involved citizen has never existed. Russia has always been multicultural empire in which many ethnic groups where united by the loyalty against the Tsar – the embodiment of absolute power, supported by the Russian Orthodox church. USSR was only a change of facade for this principle of Russian empire. Attempts to assimilate ethnic groups where a cynical power technology for levelling the masses of the empire, but not an attempt to strengthen the Russian people, whose morality and self-confidence regime has always attempted to crush. These politics of power are well characterized by the term “Russian speakers” – or masses that speak in Russian. In occupied countries Soviet regime tried to convert the local nationalities in to “Russian speakers” (unfortunately, succeeding in many ways), but titular nations were made in to one of the “communities”.
Second, it is a long-term tactic of Russia against the West. Eurasian project of Russia means its expansion in Europe, therefore European nations are to be weakened first – divided and turned in to an easily enslaved mass. Nation-states have always been an obstacle to imperialism. Neo-Bolshevism that destroys the immune system of Europe – the will and ability of nations to defend themselves – clears way for Russian imperialism. It is the new “Icebreaker” for the Russian strategy in Europe. This is why Russia is promoting neo-Bolshevism through support of UN migration pact and also through “practical” means, like intensifying the migration flows from Syria because of its military actions or organizing migrant flows through Eastern and Northern borders of the EU.
Third, multicultural ideas of neo-Bolshevism allow to realize Russian “compatriots policy” in the former USSR countries. According to the doctrine of Russian political scientist Karaganov Russia is attempting to realize its interests in these countries with the help of Russian speaking communities, using them as a lever in the economical and political questions. Russia is trying to keep these communities self-sufficient by the promotion of bilingualism. And this is achieved by using the naivety of Western leftists in the questions of “human rights” and “defence of the interests for the ethnic minorities”. With the hands of European commissioners, a road is paved for the restauration of Russian empire.
Fourth, excesses of Western neo-Bolshevism allow the Russian propaganda to show itself as an [fake] alternative for seemingly national and traditional values. It wouldn’t be surprise if many neo-Bolshevik organizations were controlled or at least influenced by the Russian secret services – exactly like USSR infiltrated the agents of Cheka in the leftist organizations to weaken the West. Russian politics are sympathetic to many leftist organizations in the West that are opened to its messages about the “rebirth of fascism” in Baltic states and Ukraine. For example, German leftist party “Die linke” quite regularly is calling for cancelation of sanctions against Russia and is sending its representatives to visits in Donbass.
Regardless of what are the roots of neo-Bolshevism – either in the Marxism of Trotsky in the West or Marxism of Stalin in the USSR – it is the biggest threat of the 21st century that slowly, but maybe so surprisingly effectively transforms the Western civilization in to something unrecognizable. Our technological and cultural achievements where possible in a society where the personality was endowed with initiative and freedom, but now it is replaced with a society of dependence and “victims”. And in this society people are expected to participate in self-censorship and to adapt to any absurdity out of fear of breaking Commandments of political correctness. But these fears are disappearing – almost in all the Western world big success in elections is enjoyed by forces that reject political correctness and are not afraid to stand against uncontrolled mass migration. And it is certainly not too soon – the economical and demographical situation of the West is at a critically low point. Besides, if the project of globalism after the 1991 had the potential to change the globe, now it is only a suicidal anachronism of the Western society. At this point all the non-Western civilizations are increasing their cultural, economical and demographical potential and will use weakness of the West – aggressive foreign politics of Russia is only one of the threats to our civilization. One must not forget about the radical Islamic terrorism and the demographical pressure from Africa whose population will double until 2050 and reach 2.5 billion people.
Famous American political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote about the task of the Western civilization in the new era of civilizations: The principal responsibility of Western leaders (..) is not to attempt to reshape other civilizations in the image of the West, which is beyond their declining power, but to preserve, protect, and renew the unique qualities of Western civilization.” Regeneration of the Western identity could be the mission of Latvians and other “young” European nations. Latvian national-conservative philosopher Pauls Jurevičs wrote: “we have to understand that we are not left behind people, but we are ahead – [in the old Western nations] only recently a dawn has appeared that illuminates that the previously ruling ideals have been worthless (..) There is no place for inferiority complexes on our side – we can indeed look at ourselves as more advanced – the modern idol worshipers will join us with time only (..) we have to be loyal to our idealism.” Our “un-modernity” is “the best mark of our relatively better spiritual health and high value. We are not so sick with certain modern illnesses and we have to be careful that it doesn’t happen.”
To be a “good European” doesn’t mean to please multiculturalist
elite that besides is losing its positions in one country after another. We must
grow our self-confidence as a nation that has not only the rights on its own
position in foreign and internal politics, but also a sacred duty to our
ancestors and the next generations. Mass migration and Russian imperialistic tendencies
have to be rejected. We also have to be careful and not to allow a dependency
society to grow in our country. Every responsible people must think about the
contradictions and challenges of our age and make a choice where there is no
neutral position. There is a cause and effect. If we will not be a cause to
better life for ourselves, then alternative can only be acquiescence to the effects
that will grow out of the external and unfriendly forces. One must remember,
that the basis of freedom can be found in the distribution of power to the
smallest local unit. On a global scale this smallest unit is the nation-state
and only in it democracy, freedom of speech, inviolability of property and
other values of civilized society can thrive. In the neo-Bolshevik “utopia” of globalists
it would not be possible – it would only be “a boot stamping on a human face”,
but on this boot there would be written “tolerance”. Therefore, everyone must decide – either for or against the
 Rudevska, Baiba: “Daži juridiski iebildumi pret ANO vienošanos”
 Trotsky criticized Stalin for his attempt to build a socialism in one country. He proposed that the world communistic revolution should be continued. Later many U.S. Trotskyites joined so called “neo-conservative” movement that supported aggressive export of liberal democracy and “human rights” in all of the world. It ended with the catastrophical war in Iraq and the overthrow of Qadhafi regime in Libya.
 “Rietumu marksisms – īsa vēsture (jeb kā Rietumi pazaudēja sevi)” https://www.nacionalaapvieniba.lv/aktualitate/rietumu-marksisms-isa-vesture-jeb-ka-rietumi-pazaudeja-pasi-sevi/
 Kalergi, Rihards Nikolajs Kudenhovs. Praktiskais ideālisms. Augstdzimtība – tehnika – pacifisms. Domas spēks, 141. lpp
 Turpat, 27.lpp
 “Globālistu ietekmes tīkli Latvijā” http://m.aprinkis.lv/item/28425-globalistu-ietekmes-tikli-latvija
 Stalin’s “Socialism in one country” was in fact a project of restoring Russian empire. Trotsky was against this as he wanted to stick with the classical interpretation of Marxism.
 Liberal “experts” who call Latvians “a community” and Latvia “country of two communities” are attempting to legitimize ethnic policy of USSR.
 Jurevičs, Pauls. Dzīve un liktenis. Refleksijas par latvisko eksistenci. Kopenhāgena: Imanta, 1955., 117. lpp
 Jurevičs, Pauls. Variācijas par moderno cilvēku. Esejas. Daugava, 1956., 37. lpp