by
Gadfly
We are hearing a lot more about socialism in the
current news. Older generations
understand the irony and danger in this development, because they are closer to
the history of its nihilism and brutality.
Younger generations are not so concerned because they have been exposed
to a different “education.”
For older generations, they know socialism led to the
death of millions in its communist and fascist manifestations. They are sisters of socialism. Communism is its leftward manifestation and
fascism a rightward (still well left of the political center)
manifestation.
The left loves to demonize white supremacy or white
nationalism as a right-wing phenomenon. Right-wing
based on what? The political center? The socialist center?
I contend classical liberalism (individual liberty,
private property, limited government, free market/free enterprise grounded in
the Judeo-Christian tradition) is the political center of a Constitutional
Republic, with leftward manifestations being lesser adherence whereas greater
adherence is rightward leaning. Socialism
is a left of center ideology. Economic
freedom is right of center.
Racial supremacy is contrary to the notion of classical
liberalism because the latter’s fundamental view of humanity is one of equality
and individual liberty. Any notion of
privilege or supremacy is contrary to this philosophy. Is it any wonder then that leftist social
justice achieves its full potential by coercively applying privilege as in
affirmative action measures, redistribution of wealth, proposals for
reparations, and so forth? Recall that
the last surviving commandment in Orwell’s socialistic Animal Farm was, “All animals are created equal, some are more
equal than others.”
Am I suggesting that the Republican Party, as a right
of center political party practices classical liberalism? For the most part, yes. Modern conservatism is mostly aligned with
classical liberalism. Unfortunately,
once in office, Republicans tend to capitulate on the levels of spending that violate
a limited government principle. This is
the hubris of power in modern politics.
The most to blame for this corruption, however, is the general public—Americans
who are living in comfort zones and essentially outsourcing self-governance to
a small percentage of elected and unelected officials.
Younger generations have not been taught any of socialism’s
history. Rather, the focus has been a
new form of patriotism: a progressive
patriotism that looks toward a perfected future—utopia. It is pure socialism. Progressives have been successful in taking
prayer out of schools and other public venues, facilitating a trend toward
atheistic nihilism. According to Gallup surveys, those affiliating
with Judeo-Christian religions have decreased by well over 30% since 1956 (when
99% of those surveyed affiliated with Judeo-Christian religions). Other
surveys show similar declines in church membership, with Catholics showing
the sharpest decrease (likely a result of the public narratives on abuse scandals—even
though there are mitigating circumstances such as communist and homosexual
infiltration as reported by Bella Dodd in here memoir, School of Darkness and Enrique Rueda’s analysis of the homosexual
political movement in The Homosexual Network: Private Lives and Public Policy). These
trends allow the state to increasingly fill in as the moral authority.
Marx would be proud of socialism’s success in
America. Education has played a critical
role. In the Manifesto
of the Communist Party, education is mentioned 68 times. The Manifesto
states: “All children will be educated in state
establishments from the time when they can do without the first maternal care.” Colorado just approved funding for all-day
kindergarten. Nation-wide, teacher’s
unions exercise tremendous power in classroom curricula, manipulating the
composition of school boards, and funding political candidates.
Closely related to
the role of education by the state is the need to dismantle the family—that is,
a traditional family with a mother and father and children. Marx believed the family was a critical
foundation for capitalism. Current political
movements to disrupt the traditional family are critical to achieving socialism. The fact that many suffer moral injury are of
no concern—they are instruments in the overall cause.
In memorializing
his experience as a prominent British Communist, Douglas Hyde, in his book I Believed, described communist
infiltration efforts when Churchill became an ally to Joseph Stalin:
In that campaign, [sic] experience was gained
which not long after came near to bringing about the affiliation of the
Communist Party to the Labour Party. In
addition, important new contacts were made in trade union and cultural circles
in particular which are still being exploited to this day.
The British Labour
Party is similar to America’s Democrat Party.
In addition to exploiting teacher’s unions, the Communist Party clearly
exploits all unions, to include those to which a significant percentage of
government employees belong at the federal, state, county, and municipal levels. Examples of these unions include the American
Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO), the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the National Education
Association (NEA), and the American
Federation of Teachers (AFT), among others.
Randi Weingarten, President of AFT, demonstrated socialist
ideology in a recent column, “A
Defining Moment for Democracy.” The message
was very anti-Trump and socialist in its themes. Communism emphasizes “democracy” as a
necessary condition for socialism. This
is why today’s public-school education avoids the founder’s rationale for a
republic because they knew the dangers of democracy.
Assuming the reader agrees with the argument that socialists (many
use the label progressive or modern liberal) have controlled the education
process to facilitate socialism, then how do they control the political
process? They use tried and proven
methods as clearly described by Douglas Hyde in his more recent book, Dedication
and Leadership. The following is
an excerpt from the book’s back cover:
On March 14, 1948, Douglas Hyde handed in his
resignation as the news editor of the London Daily Worker and
wrote “the end” to twenty years of his life as a member of the Communist
Party. A week later, in a written statement, Hyde announced that he had renounced
Communism and, with his wife and children, was joining the Catholic
Church.
The long pilgrimage from Communism to Christ
carried Douglas Hyde from complete commitment to Marxism, to a questioning
uneasiness about Soviet Russia’s glaring contradictions of ideology and action,
to a final rejection of the Party.
In Dedication and Leadership, he
advances the theory that although the goals and aims of Communism are
antithetical to human dignity and the rights of the individual, there is much
to be learned from communist methods, cadres and psychological motivation. Hyde
describes the Communist mechanics of instilling dedication, the first
prerequisite for leadership. Here is the complete rationale of party technique:
how to stimulate the willingness to sacrifice; the advisability of making big
demands to insure a big response; the inspirational indoctrination; and the
subtle conversion methods.
According to the US
Geological Survey (USGS), there are 3,141 counties and county equivalents
in the 50 States and the District of Columbia. The Communist Party USA (CPUSA) employed its
50/3000 model during the 2018 midterm elections. That is, CPUSA has active cells in 3,000
counties in 50 states. John Bachtell, national
leader of CPUSA, boasted
that they were successful in generating 12 million more votes (45 million
versus 33 million) for Democrat candidates.
As in their success in aligning with the British Labour Party in the
past century, the Communist Party has blatantly aligned with today’s American
Democrat Party.
CPUSA gets a lot of support and collaboration. The media, Silicon Valley (see, for example,
this disturbing Congressional testimony),
and Hollywood cabal control the public narrative, to include technology and smear
tactics to censor opposing views. Groups
like Media Matters for America and the
American Independent Institute.
The leading think tank for the progressive movement is the
Center for American Progress. It was founded by former President Clinton’s
Chief of Staff, John Podesta. While the
infamous Wikileaks publications during the summer of 2016 featured sinister
actions by Podesta, the left’s concern was less about actual content and more
about the fact that this information was made public. In their opinion, only “trusted” leftist sources
such as The New York Times or The Washington Post are allowed to “leak”
sensitive information.
Another organization, Organizing
for Action (OFA), has recently changed its www.ofa.us
link to a page called All On the Line.
Its predecessor names were Obama for America (OFA), Organizing for
America (OFA), and then Organizing for Action (OFA). Here
is a recent progress report by Katie Hogan, Executive Director of Organizing
for Action. She reports:
62,243 people trained on skills needed to make an
impact at no cost to them
7,572,171 online action-takers
145 active chapters from coast to coast
30,924 grassroots events in all 50 states and D.C.
OFA is just warming up, and it can count on healthy
funding from the Obama Foundation, which
is a magnet for progressive donors. It is
not limited to America. Socialism is not
bound by national borders. The socialist
mantra, “workers unite” has a global thrust.
More specifics on progressive tactics were captured in
a recent Patriot Post article. The tactic involves converting red counties
into blue counties. It involves dark money. The article provides specific details on how
they templated the tactics with a county in Tennessee.
The purpose of my book, The
2012 Political Contest in America: Conversations
with a Gadfly, was to sound an alarm about the progressive (socialist)
movement in America. At the time, some
wanted to compare Obama to Lincoln. I
disagreed and presented a case that Obama was more aligned with Vladimir
Lenin. The following table from p. 64 of
the book is included here with permission.
Among the Bolsheviks, Lenin was considered a demigod
who tailored Marxism for the Russian people.
That is why we still refer to Marxism-Leninism to describe Communism in
Russia, the former Soviet Union, and in China (even today). Here is a cartoon that reflects anti-Bolshevik
sentiment that Lenin (in the red robe) sacrificed Russia to a statue of Marx. Note: Lenin
advanced the Bolshevik Party, also known as the Russian Social Democrat Labour
Party.
Not widely published (let alone recognized) is Obama’s Lenin-style
and demigod arrogance. Despite it’s
recent history for slanted coverage, On March 26, 2018, CNN reported
on Obama’s wish to clone millions in his and Michelle’s images. Here is the headline: “Obama hopes to create ‘a
million young Barack Obamas or Michelle Obamas’.” The article starts off saying: "Former President Barack Obama says he aspires to create 'a million young Barack Obamas or Michelle Obamas' who will pick up the baton in what he describes as the 'relay race that is human progress.'" This is exactly the method Communists employ in achieving "dedication" that Douglas writes about in his memoir, I Believed, and in Dedication and Leadership. The following is the picture that accompanied
the article.
In closing, those of us who firmly believe in a
Constitutional Republic--gifted to us by Founders and Framers who pledged their
Lives, Fortunes, and sacred Honor--should all be asking to what extent the
former Soviet Union’s Nikita Khrushchev was correct when, speaking at the
National Press Club in 1957, he declared to America:
. . . I can prophesy that
your grandchildren in America will live under socialism. And please do
not be afraid of that. Your grandchildren will not understand how their
grandparents did not understand the progressive nature of a socialist society” (cited
in J. Edgar Hoover’s book, Masters of
Deceit, 1958, p. 3).
Today’s talk about socialism is not mere rhetoric
and wishful thinking. It is here. Either give in to it and prepare for its
inevitable slide into brutal tyranny, or fight it. We can do this peacefully at the ballot box
and in respectful conversations.
Until Democrats distance themselves from the
Marxist utopian ideology that is American progressivism, a vote for a Democrat
is a vote for socialism.
