Skip to content

White Men: The Kulaks of the 21st Century

The Left is Turning White Men into Modern Day Kulaks

As Stalin solidified his hold on the Soviet Union and began his industrialization policies, one of the first groups he targeted was the “kulak” class of peasants. Before his regime, that term was used only sparingly and toward the end of the Russian Empire and was meant to describe peasants with over 8 acres of land. In other words, it wasn’t a real distinction. There were peasants and slightly more prosperous peasants, but they weren’t anymore a class than the manager of a gas station is of a different social class than his employees.

But to Stalin and his cronies, as with most socialists, the facts were no reason to throw away a possible path to more power. He transformed what “kulak” meant, turning the term from a sparsely used one denoting slightly more material wealth than was typical of a peasant to “a vague reference to property ownership among peasants who were considered “hesitant” allies of the revolution.”

That change let Stalin embark on some of his greatest horrors. Before the term was changed, the peasants were united as a group. They suffered together, lived together, and helped each other. After Stalin’s war on the kulaks began, the Russian people broke. Neighbor accused neighbor, friend accused friend, even family members accused each other of being the most evil of all things: a kulak.

Because it was a vague term with a shifting meaning, it could be applied to anyone. At first, it was the wealthiest of the peasants. They were liquidated, so then the term was used for peasants slightly above average. They were murdered, starved, or sent to the gulags, so, in the end, the term “kulak” could simply mean some miserable, starving skeleton of a man that had managed to find a scrap of bread during the Holodomor. They too were murdered by the state.

Why did Stalin do that? Because prosperous peasants were a threat to his regime. Socialism is premised on the idea that man can’t better himself without the joint efforts of the collective, so it was a chink in the ideology of the state for there to be peasants that owned more than their neighbors. So, he turned that weakness into a strength by turning the peasants against each other.

They bickered and tossed accusations back and forth, steadily eroding their position as the best among them were shipped to Siberia, starved to death when their grain was confiscated for Stalin to sell abroad, or executed by the Cheka. The Soviet state became omnipresent and omnipotent because the peasants fought each other rather than unite against the tyrannical state that was hoisting heavier and heavier burdens upon them.

And it worked. By reworking a term to mean whatever he and his blood-covered agents wanted it to mean, Stalin solidified his position and ensured that any peasant that might revolt was dead or locked up in the gulag archipelago.

But such tactics aren’t confined to the past. The left continues to redefine terms in an Orwellian manner to make achieving their desired ends easier. They call fat people beautiful in order to destroy the concept of beauty. They redefined racism to mean some vague concept relating to power and race. They’ve redefined violence to mean speech with which they disagree, but not actual violence.

Order this awesome 2A hat here: I Love My Freedom

Will the Red Wave come crashing down on the Democrat's heads in November?(Required)
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Most importantly, however, is their reworking of the term “white men” to mean “Satan himself.” And, lest you think it’s as simple as actually being about actual white men, remember that the left is confused about everything, which is why they’ve said non-whites can still be white supremacists. Or, as Nikole Hannah Jones has said, white supremacy can still be the root of an evil action even if the perpetrator isn’t white. As with Stalin’s use of “kulak,” it’s intentionally vague so that it can be a charge used against anyone with whom they disagree.

But, generally, it’s an attack against white men for being white men and the leftists and their friends in the media generally sticks to it, as the People’s Cube put it in this hilarious picture:

No group today is hated more than white men. They’re attacked and blamed every time something bad happens, kept out of jobs (especially in academia) for the crime of being a white male, and generally targeted by the left for every supposed slight or crime imaginable, no matter how ridiculous the accusation is. Hell, the city of Oakland has a UBI program for everyone except whites. Leftists are doing that, turning white men into the new kulaks, because they hate both Western civilization and masculinity and view both of those concepts as threats to their regime that must be neutralized.

They hate Western civilization because they know they can’t live up to it. Hannah-Jones knows she can’t live up to the same standard set by Churchill or Jefferson, but she can destroy both by falsely accusing them of being evil racists or some other such nonsense. No leftist professor is a modern Cicero or Voltaire. The critical race theorists are hardly the heirs of the stoics or the philosophy of natural rights and individual liberty to which the Founding Fathers and Enlightenment thinkers subscribed.

And they hate, and I mean really hate, that they can’t live up to the standards set by the halcyon days of Western Civilization. So, like Nikole Hannah-Jones, they focus on burning down rather than building up because, like Stalin, they want to nip any potential threats to their regime in the bud. As he purged Soviet society of prosperous peasants when he liquidated the kulaks, they’re trying to purge our society of a potential threat to their regime by destroying Western civilization and erasing the men that built it or support it.

It’s only out of convenience that they chose white men as the locus of their attacks, recognizing that society lumps all of them together when looking at the past. Plus, because of our relative insouciance and ignorance, they’re able to lump very different men together, as when they put George Washington and Robert E Lee in the same category as Nathan Bedford Forrest, assuming that because one was less than perfect, all were evil. Too many Americans go along with such conflation, ignorantly accepting it as valid.

Worse yet, it’s working. People are gradually becoming more okay with the Jacobins of the left tearing down statues of great men like Washington and Lee, less and less willing to defend the legacies of the Founding Fathers and Enlightenment thinkers, and less willing to fight back when colleges or schools announce that they are purging their literature requirements of books written by “old white men” like William Shakespeare. Also, as the peasants in the USSR engaged in round after round of recriminations, now Americans are acting in much the same way and blithely accusing anyone and everyone of a variety of fabricated crimes.

It’s disgusting, but also highly effective. Thanks to the re-racialization of American society (again the fault of the left), we’re too unwilling to defend “white men” and view doing so as racist. That’s absurd; those great men and their marvelous works must be defended, whatever the cowards say be damned.

Show you love America by ordering your FREE Betsy Ross flags here: I Love My Freedom

Alongside their attacks on past white luminaries, the leftist Jacobins are also attacking the very concept of masculinity. Soy boys (even if white, ironically) are praised, disgusting and humiliating concepts like cuckolding are praised by CNN, and every example of men being men is attacked by groups as diverse as #MeToo dolts and Gillette razors.

Forgotten, of course, is the fact that masculinity is what defeated the Nazis, flung the British out of America, or blasted the Japanese into submission. We didn’t defeat the Axis powers by avoiding “manspreading” and “talking it out,” but rather by killing as many of them as was practicable as quickly as was possible.

But, as with their attacks on Western civilization, accomplishments mean little. Like they view their inadequacy compared to the greats of the past as a potential avenue to attack their regime, they view masculinity as a threat to their hold on power. Real men don’t sit idly by as their rights are stolen, their hard-earned income taken, and their lives are destroyed by an all-powerful government of looney leftists. Soy boys, however, do. Perhaps they even enjoy it.

And with all that, the left is attacking white men like Stalin attacked the kulaks. Sure, they’re not shooting us in the back of the head with a Makarov pistol yet. But they are canceling us, burning down our businesses, or falsely accusing people of racism or sexual assault to prevent us from earning a living. Does it really matter if you starve because you were canceled rather than because a tyrant in Moscow ordered it?

The world would be a better place if men were more masculine in the best sense of the word. Disputes would be settled with duels/fights or open disputes rather than stab in the back-like attacks, evil would be punished rather than tolerated, and single-motherhood would be a rarity rather than a frequent occurrence. Similarly, we would all be better off if the peak of Western civilization, Victorian England, were still the model of an ideal society rather than the post-morality hellhole that Cardi B and her friends on the radical left shout about wanting. Is the world really a better place now that Christian, Western standards of morality are ridiculed and attacked rather than praised? I doubt it.

At the end of these attempts to turn white men into the new kulaks isn’t a better society. They’re not trying to create a utopia, they’re just trying to hold onto power. Stalin did so by terrorizing the country and liquidating the kulaks. The modern left is doing so by viciously attacking white men. They’ve found it to be a workable strategy, even if incoherent because they also attack women and minorities.

And that, dear reader, is the most ridiculous part about all of this. I couldn’t care less about race or gender. Nor do most conservatives; to the contrary, we were excited to see that more blacks and Hispanics saw the light of conservatism and voted for it in 2022. Plus, people around the world have benefitted from the prosperity created by Western civilization and all those “old white men,” as the left likes to say. Hong Kong was better than China because of British influence. South Korea is better than North Korea because it adopted Western values. Nigerians are hugely successful in America because their mindset is quite congruent with the Western values we support in America.

The fight, despite the left’s determination to make it one, is not a racial or gender-based one. Race doesn’t matter. Gender doesn’t matter. Supporting western values does. Recognizing the necessity of and goodness inherent in masculinity does. Those values have made the world a better place. The left, by cynically attacking “white men” as a way to weaken its opponents and further its agenda, is trying to rid America of those hugely beneficial and moral concepts and values.

We must resist it. Praise the classics. Defend the Founding Fathers. Lionize Robert E Lee, Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, and any other great men that worked to make the West a better place. If we let them have their way, all the good things about our civilization will be destroyed. Adopt the Bronze Age Mindset. Treat the culture war as a total war. Raise the black flag and show no mercy to those that want to cancel Washington or Shakespeare. Whether you’re black, white, or anything else, male or female, American or foreign, fight like hell to defend the civilization that has made life so great.

By: Gen Z Conservative. Follow me on Parler, Gab, and Facebook

Order this awesome shirt here: I Love My Freedom