Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Posts Tagged ‘Communism’

Feminism, Communism and the Destruction of the Nuclear Family

cultural-marxism-destruction

Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

The above statement is listed in the 45 goals of the communist party to take over the United States. As mentioned before, these goals were entered into the congressional record in 1963, after it was revealed that there was extensive communist infiltration into our government. Today, many sources are claiming that this list is a hoax; however, the results of such goals are self-evident in our society, and one area where this is particularly true; is the nuclear family. Our families have literally been destroyed and for many reasons. Today, it is virtually impossible for the average family to raise their children without both parents working, providing the family has two parents. Divorce runs rampant in our society as nearly forty one percent of first marriages are likely to end.[2] It should also be noted that marriage itself is in a decline, less people are getting married due to several factors such as poor economic prospects and a society that is less involved in religious institutions[3]. Religion has always been one of the strongest advocates for marriage, so, the more successful the attempts to discredit religion, the more successful the attempts to break up families will be. According to Pew Research Center[4], 26 percent of today’s younger people, ages 18-32 are likely to tie the knot, compared to sixty five percent in the 1960’s, forty eight percent in the baby boomer generation, and thirty six percent among the so called generation x crowd.

These numbers reflect not only changes in marriage rates, but an overall shift in American values. The nuclear family once held the bedrock of society together as it was understood that this was the most basic unit of self-governance, which was the fundamental principle essential for liberty in the United States. With strong marriages headed by mothers and fathers, family units were solely responsible for the upbringing and education of children. This was based on the idea that men and women had equal but separate roles to play in raising and nurturing families, and this represented the true meaning of freedom to our founding fathers.[5] In fact, the concept driving marriage was based on a collective, as opposed to an, “individualistic” approach to forming society.

Coverture represents the idea that married couples form a community of interest that the married couple freely joins and that protects all members of the family better than alternatives can. It reflects equality because it is freely chosen by men and women; it protects consent because the parties think the community of love and interest protects their lives, liberty, and property. Such laws show that marriage as a union is to be exclusive and, except in extreme cases, permanent.[6]

Today, the idea of equality has drastically changed and this is having drastic effects on the family structure as well as the well being of children. The studies proving that children need both a mother and a father are numerous[7] as are the studies showing the disadvantages that growing up in single parent homes have on children. For instance, children in two parent homes are more likely to live longer healthier lives, more likely to graduate high school and attend college, are less likely to live in poverty, are less likely to get into trouble with the law, less likely to do drugs, less likely to be sexually active and are more likely to get married and raise healthy families.[8] Keeping this knowledge in mind, it is not hard to draw correlations between the declining marriage rates to the state of society today, with the high crime rates, poor academic performance in many schools and over all disrespect for society that seems to run rampant among many younger people.

The American left seems to have an entire different vision of America’s traditional family structure. To them, the family is an oppressive institution of patriarchal dominance. One where the women are oppressed and forced in a world where she is reduced to nothing more than a house keeper doing the work that is needed to be done by everyone else. She is prohibited from pursuing her own dreams as she spends the day washing clothes, vacuuming, cooking for her husband and tending to the children’s needs. The idea that this is an arrangement freely agreed upon, and that the work being done is pursued in the best interest of children is nonexistent to the left as they go about the work of discrediting the family as an institution. Where did these ideas come from? How did a nation that once espoused the traditions of the nuclear family, a nation that understood its importance in securing the blessings of liberty, become one of declining marriages and less respectful of the values that traditional family life once taught? Obviously there is communist influence here, but more notably, it is the work of Betty Friedan and her creation of the feminist movement.

Author of the book, “The Feminist Mystique,”[9] Friedan lays the ground work for what would become the modern feminist movement where women demand total equality with men and the idea that men and women play separate but equal roles in raising children is all but dead. In fact, the idea of motherhood itself has become a form of oppression to modern feminists as the idea of taking responsibility not only for personal actions, but for the life of another has become the underlying theme in today’s abortion rights movement. The Feminist perspective has not only destroyed the traditional family, it has contributed to over downfall of society as feminists generally blame men for all of the world’s problems while seeking to dethrone them from all legitimate seats of power. In fact, many may argue that there is an overall effort to feminize men because it is believed that the hormone testosterone is responsible for much of what the feminists would claim is wrong with the world. The very first paragraph in chapter one of Friedan’s book says it all.

Freidan writes-
The problem lay buried, unspoken for many years in the minds of American women. It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning that women suffered in the middle of the twentieth century in the United States. Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for the groceries, matched slip cover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured cub scouts and brownies, lay beside her husband at night- she was afraid to ask of herself the silent question—”Is this all?” [10]
In that paragraph alone Friedan attempts to portray the life of an American housewife as an oppressed victim forced into a life of servitude. She goes on to give the impression that all housewives in America feel the same as they desire to go out and become politicians, scientists, businesswomen and live lives free from the bondage of motherhood, and serving the men that dominate them. Remember, to our founding fathers marriage represented the entering of an agreed upon contract where it was understood that men and women both brought to the table qualities and attributes that were essential to the raising of children and creating successful, responsible communities. This represented God’s design as it is difficult to argue that men and women are indeed created differently. Women are obviously designed to give birth and many would argue that they bring to the table a more delicate, loving touch to raising children then men do. On the other hand, men seem to have the quality of bringing discipline and teaching the hard learned lessons in life. This is why the nuclear family has been traditionally viewed in American society as the bed rock of self governance; men and women entering into a mutually agreed upon contract carrying out the work that was once believed to be Gods original intent for man. When men and women marry, bringing together their separate but equal abilities, they become one unit in the eyes of God, they become one flesh. The Feminist movement has destroyed this concept.

Today, modern feminists carry out the work of Friedan by insisting that society still revolves around the male and his never ending list of privileges. In nearly all aspects of our culture you can find a group of feminists rallying around a cause, blaming the man for some, misperceived inequality, or some form of injustice committed against women simply because of their genitalia. One of the tactics of the communist left is to continually insist that the “right wing” is waging a war on women, trying to keep them down, barefoot and pregnant, and that it is our traditional view of the agreed upon contract of marriage that is oppressing them. The truth however, is the exact opposite. So called right wing conservatives appreciate women for the qualities they bring to the table, qualities in many cases, especially when it comes to caring for children, men often lack. Men cherish women and think they are deserving of special treatment. It is the never ending, impossible quest of total equality that is the real oppressor of women and equal rights. Women are not designed like men, plain and simple. By ignoring this one fact, that there are simply different attributes that men and women were designed with, the left is forcing women as a collective group, into a role that the majority of them may very well fall short on. Society would be much better off if men were allowed to be men and women were allowed to be women. The true equality of the sexes would shine through as everyone is operating in the so called “gender roles” they were assigned.

To properly understand the feminist view, and the idea that gender is a social construct as opposed to a deliberate design created by God, it must be understood that feminists are operating from a Marxist, or Communist point of view. They simply do not believe in God, or rather; they may view God as the Patriarchal being that represents the oppression they claim to be fighting against. After all, feminism seems to be going about the work of totally remaking society in their image. They argue that gender is a social construct, separate from the fact that men and women are biologically different, and that this social construct was created to justify the subjugation of women. Freya Brown writes in her essay, “On the Social Construction of Sex,”[11] that the idea of sex being a biological difference is patriarchal in nature and in order to break from this oppressive mindset a Marxist approach is needed.

At the end of the day, the sex/gender dichotomy is part of patriarchal ideology, and it is an idea that we need to break with in favor of a theory which is revolutionary and Marxist in character. The purpose of the present article is to provide an initial counter to the idea that sex assignment is “just biology.” A properly Marxist theory of sex will be more thoroughly explored in part two. Freya Brown-“On the Social Construction of Sex”

In today’s world the idea of gender being a social construct is being pushed to its ultimate limits. In the end, this is the problem when it comes to gender based equality and not the solution. The results of this backwards ideology are creating a world where sickness in the name of equality is the rule. For example, in many parts of the country the idea of having separate bathrooms for men and women is starting to be viewed from this “gender is a social construct” theory. For example, San Francisco elementary schools are forcing boys and girls to use the same bathroom because at that age, claims the school district, children choose to be transgender, or rather, tomboys.[12] As of 2013, the entire state of California adopted laws that allow children to use bathrooms and locker rooms not based on their biological sex, but rather the sex they choose to identify with.[13] Furthermore, the law allows both boys and girls to join sports teams not based on sex, but the sex they decide to feel like. How does this idea promote true freedom and not represent oppression? A young girl that decides she ought to be able to play football on the boys team is not only setting herself up for disappointment if they are unable to perform to the standard, she is also creating the conditions where boys will be unable to live up to their fullest potential because a drop in standards will be required in order for the girl who claims to feel like a boy to be able to play on an equal footing. This is oppression of the highest order if you think about it. The same is true if a boy decides to feel like a girl and uses the girl’s restroom. Just because this is now the law it does not mean that girls will automatically feel comfortable with boys invading their space and being present while they shower, change clothes and use the bathroom. This represents nothing but a sick, twisted remaking of society in the image of people who hold an anti-God view of the world. This is the same mentality affecting our military as well. As the debate heats up on whether women should be able to join combat units, no one is stopping to consider the real affects this may have on society. While it is certainly true that there are women out there who may very well be capable of performing to the same standards of men, the majority of women cannot, and to allow all women to serve in combat roles for the sake of achieving “total equality” threatens to lessen standards of performance while putting lives in danger. For instance, an article published by the website Western Journalism by female marine Jude Eden[14] highlights some of the problems of believing that women are just as capable of men serving in the combat zone. She highlights facts such as women losing half of their strength before a menstrual cycle, making them virtually incapable of enduring the rigors of combat that men are capable of dealing with. She also highlights a fact that the left, believing in Darwinism as they do, should understand very well. Once you put men and women together there is going to be sex. She mentioned the fact that once the U.S. Navy allowed women to serve on ships, problems of pregnancy, relationships, and unwanted sexual advances became prevalent, detracting from the mission of defending the nation. These are but a few examples; however, it should be noted that because men generally view women as needing protecting, it is highly likely that men would put their own lives in danger, abandoning the mission to protect women.
To believe that equality is something that needs to be forced by government as opposed to something that is already an inherent quality given by God only serves to further oppress women, not liberate them. Whether the left likes it or not, men and women are created different, with different purposes. Nothing will change the fact that biologically women are created to give birth, that is the purpose of the design. The left, through their anti-God, Marxist view will never be able to change that, and by attempting to do so they are serving to destroy the family structure as women are being made to feel that there is something more fulfilling than raising responsible, compassionate children ready to contribute to society. It is highly likely, looking at the work of Freidan and her political leanings that this is all being done on purpose with the deliberate intent of destroying the family. This isn’t to say that women shouldn’t be able to pursue careers; however, instead of teaching women how oppressed they are perhaps they should look at the effects children suffer when both men and women decide that careers are more important.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/11/feminism-communism-and-the-destruction-of-the-nuclear-family/#XwLbuAtsT1aq78IK.99

Occupy Wall Street Mainstreams Communism

Democrats' 'Progressive Agenda' is Outright Communism

by Tad Cronn
It must be so close they can taste it.imagesde

It’s never been a secret that the Democrat agenda has been quietly driven by the philosophies of Karl Marx and every radical socialist who ever lit a fuse against the United States.
With a long line of public figures who have idolized or modeled themselves after Alinsky, Mao, Lenin or Castro, the Democratic Party has been home to the despicably anti-American and their foolishly misguided followers.
Anybody who paid any attention to the party’s politics and had a modicum of historical knowledge could spot the connections.
But leftists being leftists, the DP leadership has always tried to pretend otherwise because their hold on many of the low-information voters is all based on perceptions.
Which is what makes it remarkable that the Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality, a document put together by New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, so clearly patterns itself after Communist Party and Socialist Party doctrine.
Even more remarkable is that de Blasio and others are trying to make this the official Democratic Party platform for the 2016 presidential election.
The Democrats are calling the Progressive Agenda their “Contract With America,” which is as frightening as it is insulting.
Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” was a stroke of political brilliance that helped pull together congressional conservatives to pass important legislation and help America get back on track.
The Progressive Agenda is aimed at turning us into something just shy of the Soviet Union.
All the hallmarks are there: hike the minimum wage (c’mon, if it’s such a great idea, why not make it $100 per hour, guys?); national paid family and sick leave; pass laws to make it easier to force workers to unionize; “immigration reform” to organize illegals; refinance student debt; expanding state brainwashing with mandatory pre-kindergarten, after-school and child-care programs; increasing taxes on “the rich”; etc.
De Blasio, who calls President Obama “too conservative” to lead a Progressive economic policy, said last week at the agenda’s rollout, “It’s time to take that energy and crystallize it into an agenda that will make a difference. We’ll be calling on leaders and candidates to address these issues, to stiffen their backbones, to be clear and to champion these progressive policies.”
Democrat officials had a variety of silly metaphors about cavalry and “meat on the bones” to use in praise of de Blasio’s manifesto. The most interesting remark, however, came from Rep. Charles Rangel, who talked about “revolution.”
Buzzword alert.
The Revolution, of course, was the crucible in which the United States was formed. But there’s a world of difference between the way the Founding Fathers meant it and the way modern Regressives mean it.

The Founders meant to take back something that never belonged to the King in the first place: our independence. Regressives mean to assert everyone’s dependence on government and take things from the public treasury that never have belonged to them.
To facilitate the fattening of their own purses, Progressive leaders will begin by taking away your rights.
If you don’t believe that, then you are dangerously naive.
Look at history. That’s always how “progressive revolutions” begin.
It’s already started here. Obama was the warmup act. Now we’ve got closet socialist Hillary, open socialist Bernie and B-string socialist Fauxcahontas (aka Elizabeth Warren), all eyeing the Oval Office.
And leftists hope their Communist Manifesto, er, Progressive Agenda will pave the way.
Lurking in the background, supporting de Blasio’s agenda, is Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party and founder of the New Party.
The openly socialist New Party, Chicago branch, once claimed a young Barack Obama as a member, something his flying monkeys have denied for years.
De Blasio was executive director of the New Party’s New York branch.
The basis of his plan was a report by Nobel prize-winning Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz, who also held “teach-ins” at Occupy Wall Street.
Stiglitz has accepted funding from billionaire George Soros, the ex-Nazi employee who helped fund Obama’s career and who has hosted fundraisers for Elizabeth Warren and donated to Hillary Clinton’s PAC.
Stiglitz also sits on the boards of several Soros organizations, including one whose aim is to remake the global economy.
You start to see how the pieces fit together?
Who says there aren’t any real-life conspiracies to destroy America? Oh, right, mostly the people involved in them.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/22451/democrats-progressive-agenda-is-outright-communism/#5lSPc7kv5ypmtHel.99

COMMUNISTS TO OBAMA: WE'VE GOT YOUR BACK

THIS TEACHER ROCKS! Entire Class Fails when Obama’s Socialism Experiment Fails

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

Class room
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Soros and Hillary Take on America

soros_2

by Matthew Vadum
Radical anti-American billionaire George Soros is going all-in for Hillary Clinton’s yet to be officially declared run for the presidency in 2016.

And because Soros’s wealthy leftist friends often follow his lead, a tsunami of early money may be poised to swamp the former U.S. secretary of state’s zygotic campaign.

Soros is lending his name to the “Ready for Hillary” super PAC, giving $25,000 to snag a co-chair post on the organization’s National Finance Committee. Soros’s political director Michael Vachon confirmed Soros’s involvement with the super PAC.

“George Soros is delighted to join more than one million Americans in supporting Ready for Hillary,” Vachon said. “His support for Ready for Hillary is an extension of his long held belief in the power of grassroots organizing.” (Soros also gave $2,300 to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.)

After pledging for the umpteenth time to abandon electoral politics, Soros keeps allowing himself to be pulled back in. A currency speculator and convicted inside-trader, Soros is a practiced hand-wringer who frequently tells gullible reporters he is getting out of electoral politics altogether. This is his mantra between elections even though he never actually follows through on the threat.

Soros is now spreading his wealth around to help a slew of Democrats in future elections.

In addition to the “Ready for Hillary” donation, so far In 2013 Soros has given: $1,500 to challenger Sean Eldridge (D-NY19); $2,600 to Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.); $2,600 to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.); $20,000 to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; and $2,500 to Sen. Al Franken’s (D-Minn.) campaign, along with a separate $2,500 to the political committee, Franken MVPs.

Soros has also given more than $100 million to groups that support “immigrant rights,” immigration amnesty, and open borders since 1997. The idea is to flood America with reliably Democratic future voters who will support Soros’s extreme policy agenda.

He makes little effort to conceal his contempt for this nation. Soros co-founded the ultra-secretive Democracy Alliance, a billionaires’ club that wants to radically transform America, delivering the nation to Greek-style socialist mayhem. He has said that European-style socialism “is exactly what we need now” and cheers on American decline.

Soros openly favors the collapse of the greenback and the decline of America in general. “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States,” he has said.

Soros praises Red China effusively, saying the totalitarian nation that cuts babies from unauthorized pregnancies from the wombs of their mothers and runs over eminent domain resisters with steam-rollers, has “a better-functioning government than the United States.”

Soros loves calling Republicans Nazis. Leading up to the 2004 election Soros said that ousting George W. Bush was critically important because of the administration’s “supremacist ideology.”

Soros said that rhetoric emanating from the Bush White House reminded him of his childhood in Hungary during the Nazi occupation. “When I hear Bush say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ it reminds me of the Germans,” he said. “My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me.” In his 2006 book The Age of Fallibility, Soros likened Bush’s campaign to “the Nazi and Communist propaganda machine.”

During World War II, Soros accompanied his guardian around Nazi-occupied Hungary as he confiscated the property of Soros’s fellow Jews. Years later he referred to that time as “probably the happiest year of my life” and “a very happy-making, exhilarating experience.”

Soros has influence over Obama administration policy. He has visited the Obama White House at least five times.

Like the protagonist in the classic Orson Welles movie Citizen Kane, Soros can never have enough power. But unlike Charles Foster Kane, the haughty, imperious fictional media mogul, Soros views himself as much more than a mere leader. He told reporters, “It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”

Soros says he funds the fake media watchdog, Media Matters for America, because it is “one of the few groups that attempts to hold Fox News accountable for the false and misleading information they so often broadcast. I am supporting Media Matters in an effort to more widely publicize the challenge Fox News poses to civil and informed discourse in our democracy.”

In the 2012 election cycle Soros also gave $1 million to American Bridge 21st Century, a super PAC headed by David Brock, who founded Media Matters for America. Soros also pumped $1 million into Senate Majority PAC and $675,000 to House Majority PAC, two Democrat-affiliated committees.

Last year Soros gave $1 million to Priorities USA Action, the super PAC whose infamous TV ad blamed the tragic cancer death of an ex-steelworker’s wife on Mitt Romney. Soros said he was “appalled by the Romney campaign, which is openly soliciting the money of the rich to starve the state of the money it needs to provide social services.”

Soros also bankrolled a documentary that celebrated left-wing terrorists who plotted to napalm Republicans at the 2008 GOP convention in Minnesota. The left-wing 2011 documentary Better This World depicts David Guy McKay and Bradley Neil Crowder as idealistic activists who, according to the official blurb, “set out to prove the strength of their political convictions to themselves and their mentor.” In fact McKay and Crowder were convicted of making instruments of death calculated to inflict maximum pain and bodily harm on people whose political views they disagreed with.

So, of course, it is only logical that Hillary Clinton, who presided over the shameful Benghazi saga and coverup as secretary of state, would be Soros’s choice for the White House in 2016.

Mrs. Clinton is a hardcore Saul Alinsky devotee just like President Obama. Soros is banking on her to destroy whatever remains of America at the end of Obama’s term of office.

Maxine Waters Exposes Obama’s National Citizen Database In TV Interview

Obama has created a monster that will destroy long after he leaves

“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life,” Representative Maxine Waters told Roland Martin on Monday. “That’s going to be very, very powerful,” Waters said.
“That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They’re going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can’t get around it.

And he’s [President Obama] been very smart. It’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.”

The Three Differences Between Communism and Nazism

by Zack Foster
Soviet_poster_in_tajik_circa_1920As an introductory note, let it be clearly stated that in this article the usage of the word “Communism” refers to Soviet-style socialism, or Marxism-Leninism as applied by the Soviet Union and later China. “Nazism” refers specifically to German National Socialism in the Third Reich.

I’ve been reading a lot of Karl Marx lately, as well as a number of books and articles on the early decades of the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, for a large term paper due in one of my political science classes. The thesis of my paper is that Stalinism is the logical conclusion to Marxian socialism. The abbreviated logic is that the many holes and open ends in Marxist theory, combined with the oppressive growth of the state under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, render the conversion from socialism to stateless communism to be impossible. The state will not wither away as workers enjoy new freedom, but rather will grow into a totalitarian one at their expense.obama_hitler_stalin

“On [Dr. Goebbels’] assertion that Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith was very flight, a faction war opened with whizzing beer glasses” (from a November 1924 New York Times article, cited in The Soviet Story).

In my research I’ve found an overwhelming number of similarities and downright parallels between communism and Nazism, but what I found most striking were the three main differences between the two, which ultimately convinced me that Communism and Nazism are but two sides to the same utopian totalitarian coin.

1. A superior human being. Karl Marx offers in The German Ideology a glimpse of a utopia where the post-revolutionary proletariat is so productive that men are free to fish in the morning, hunt in the afternoon, and write literary and political criticisms in the evening. From this, Trotsky expanded the utopia to include the idea of the New Soviet Man who
“will make it his purpose to master his own feelings, to raise his instincts to the heights of consciousness, to make them transparent, to extend the wires of his will into hidden recesses, and thereby to raise himself to a new plane, to create a higher social biologic type, or, if you please, a superman” (from Literature and Revolution).
Basically, the revolutionary proletarians will be such hard workers and so dedicated to the Marxian revolution that they will physically and mentally evolve into super-humans. The Nazis, on the other hand, worshiped the Aryan as the next super-human. In contrast to the Soviet superhero being more evolved due to class consciousness and dedication, the Aryan will advance because he is genetically (racially) superior to other humans and through selective breeding will continue to far surpass the others.

2. Private property and state control. In a May 1, 1927 speech Adolf Hitler said,
“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
The Soviet state confiscated the overwhelming majority of private property, encompassing real estate (land), industry/businesses, and physical objects like machines and tools. Turning these items into state property, the Communist party-state planned the economy and dictated production. The Nazi state never did away with capitalism, nor did it abolish private property, but rather marginally tolerated them for the sake of benefiting the state. The Nazi party-state instead planned the economy and left it to the industrialists and business people to make it happen within heavy regulations imposed by the government. This merger between corporate and state power was the socialism Hitler was after, with the benefit of German citizens derived from the economic outputs of the corporate/state marriage.

3. Imperial expansion. Marx reinterpreted Hegel’s theory of dialectics (opposing forces or viewpoints) to form historical materialism, which argues that history is the story of class struggle (The Communist Manifesto, Section I). The struggle and victory of one class over another is what makes history move from one stage to another. The first stages were primitive communism—as practiced by the early peoples—then slave society—as practiced by the ancient empires like Rome and the Greeks—and feudalism. The world is currently in the capitalist stage, at the end of which the proletariat will rise up and usher in the socialist stage, which will pave the way for the stateless, moneyless utopia of communism.

The Russian Revolution/Civil War and later the Chinese Revolution/Civil War solidified the idea that the proletariat was beginning to complete its historical mission. However, beyond Russia, no other country in the world became Marxist all by itself (except tiny Cuba). Because the proletarians were lagging in rising up, it was the job of the Soviet Union to make revolution happen worldwide. The USSR heavily funded Mao’s Communist army in China during the Chinese Civil War. Later, the USSR and China either sent combat troops into or provided financial and material support to every militant Marxist movement in the world. All the European countries that became Communist after World War II made the transformation at Soviet gunpoint.

Lenin’s idea was that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union would spread revolution across the world (implying that Moscow would be the world’s capital). While Lenin and Stalin were intent on conquering the world for Communism to establish one giant Communist society, Hitler’s aim was to conquer the world and liquidate the undesirables for the benefit of the Aryan people of the worldwide Nazi German Empire

When comparing these three differences in the Soviet and National Socialist ideologies, they start to appear only superficially different. They start to appear like… tyranny and genocide.

“Until its complete extermination or loss of national status, this racial trash always becomes the most fanatical bearer there is of counter-revolution, and it remains that. That is because its entire existence is nothing more than a protest against a great historical revolution… The next world war will cause not only reactionary classes and dynasties, but also entire reactionary peoples, to disappear from the earth. And that too is progress.” –Friedrich Engels (from The Magyar Struggle)

“The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions of life must give way…. They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust.” -Karl Marx (from The People’s Paper, April 16, 1856)

Graduates, Your Ambition Is the Problem

Obama’s commencement speech at Ohio State on Sunday would have perplexed the Founders.

By ROGER PILON

Civic education in America took a hit on Sunday when President Obama, giving the commencement address at The Ohio State University, chose citizenship as his theme. The country’s Founders trusted citizens with “awesome authority,” he told the assembled graduates. Really?

Actually, the Founders distrusted us, at least in our collective capacity. That’s why they wrote a Constitution that set clear limits on what we, as citizens, could do through government.

Cato Institute scholar Roger Pilon on President Obama’s commencement speech at Ohio State, and what it says about his understanding of the Constitution. Photo credit: Getty Images.

Mr. Obama seems never to appreciate that essential point about the American political order. As with his countless speeches that lead ultimately to an expression of the president’s belief in the unbounded power of government to do good, he began in Columbus with an insight that we can all pretty much embrace, at least in the abstract. Citizenship, Mr. Obama said, is “the idea at the heart of our founding—that as Americans, we are blessed with God-given and inalienable rights, but with those rights come responsibilities—to ourselves, to one another, and to future generations.”

Well enough. But then he took that insight to lengths the Founders would never have imagined. Reading “citizenship” as standing for the many ways we can selflessly “serve our country,” the president said that “sometimes, we see it as a virtue from another time—one that’s slipping from a society that celebrates individual ambition.” And “we sometimes forget the larger bonds we share, as one American family.”

Not for nothing did he invoke the family, that elemental social unit in which we truly are responsible to one another and to future generations—by law, by custom, and, ideally, in our hearts. But only metaphorically is America a family, its members bound by tendrils of intimacy and affection. Realistically, the country is a community of individuals and private institutions, including the family, with their own interests, bound not by mutual love but by the political principles that are set forth in the Constitution, a document that secures and celebrates the freedom to pursue those interests, varied as they might be.

Alas, that is not Mr. Obama’s vision. “The Founders left us the keys to a system of self-government,” he went on, “the tool to do big and important things together that we could not possibly do alone.” And what “big and important things” cannot be done except through government? On the president’s list are railroads, the electrical grid, highways, education, health care, charity and more. One imagines a historical vision reaching as far back as the New Deal. Americans “chose to do these things together,” he added, “because we know this country cannot accomplish great things if we pursue nothing greater than our own individual ambition.”

Notice that twice now Mr. Obama has invoked “individual ambition,” and not as a virtue. For other targets, he next counseled the graduates against the “voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s the root of all our problems, even as they do their best to gum up the works.”

The irony here should not go unnoticed: The opponents that the president disparages are the same folks who tried to save the country from one of the biggest pieces of gum now in the works: Mr. Obama’s own health-care insurance program, which today is filling many of its backers with dread as it moves toward full implementation in a matter of months.

None of that darkens Mr. Obama’s sunny view of collective effort. What does upset him, still, is the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis: “Too many on Wall Street,” he said, “forgot that their obligations don’t end with their shareholders.” No mention of the Federal Reserve, or Fannie Mae, FNMA +4.55% Freddie Mac, FMCC +4.55% the Community Reinvestment Act, or the many other “big and important things” government undertook before the crisis hit, things that explain the disaster far better than any Wall Street greed. None of that fits in Mr. Obama’s morality play. For that matter, neither do the Constitution’s checks and balances. When the president laments that “democracy isn’t working as well as we know it can,” he is not talking about those big, misbegotten public projects but about the Washington gridlock that has frustrated his grander plans.

From George Washington to Calvin Coolidge, presidents sought mostly to administer the laws that enabled citizens to live their own lives, ambitiously or not. It would have been thought impertinent for a president to tell a graduating class that what the country needs is the political will “to harness the ingenuity of your generation, and encourage and inspire the hard work of dedicated citizens . . . to repair the middle class; to give more families a fair shake; to reject a country in which only a lucky few prosper.”

A more inspiring message might have urged graduates not to reject their own country, where for two centuries far more than a lucky few have prospered under limited constitutional government—and even more would today if that form of government were restored.

Mr. Pilon is vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute and director of Cato’s Center for Constitutional Studies.

A version of this article appeared May 8, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Graduates, Your Ambition Is the Problem.

"WE SHALL KNOW THEM BY THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR"

Quotes_Fun“WE SHALL KNOW THEM BY THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR”:
Q: What do Barack Hussein Oba.m.a., Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Trotsky have in common?

A: (1) They all promised their people they would spread the wealth.

(2) They all used race deceptions and unions to gather their power.

(3) They all believed in Darwin’s theory of Evolution and Perversion.

(4) They all are responsible for the murder of millions of their own people and multi-millions of other innocent souls.

Q: What did Barack Hussein Oba.m.a. and Mao share during Christmas a couple of years ago?

A: Oba.m.a. had pictures of Mao and other perverts on ornaments decorating our White House Christmas Tree while he spewed his deceptions concerning his belief in the abomination known as COLLECTIVE SALVATION !!!

SEO Powered By SEOPressor