CULTURAL MARXISM: Engineering Thought

USAHavana

Del totalitarismo marxista al autoritarismo gramsciano

Neo Club Press

Armando de Armas

En los tiempos de Marx y de la brusca y agitada liberalización política y económica del diecinueve, la sociedad civil, concebida como sujeto material y concreto, adquiere una supuesta capacidad de acción y movimiento que no sería otra cosa que mortandad y estancamiento. Y de la sociedad civil marxista pasamos a la sociedad civil gramsciana, antinaturales ambas.

Gramsci funde en una sola cosa lo civil y lo estatal y, como los católicos en versión aristotélico-tomista, pero sin lo sacro, apuesta por la sociedad perfecta, y piensa que cuando el Estado lo es todo la sociedad civil recupera con ello su concreción ideal y consolida su hegemonía ética, política y cultural. Gramsci vaticinó que el poder político sobre la sociedad había que tomarlo desde los sistemas escolares y académicos, los centros culturales y los medios de prensa. Contrario al marxismo, el gramscismo no tiene nada de obrerismo revolucionario, sino mucho de intelectualismo revolucionario. Justo lo que sucede al presente en el mundo occidental, empezando por Estados Unidos.

Si Estados Unidos había encarnado la libertad durante dos siglos al menos, es probable que ahora, gracias al gramscismo, eso estaría dejando de ser cierto.

Así, el olvido de la tradición y la herencia, el alejamiento de los mitos fundacionales y la caída bajo el influjo de los mitos disfuncionales llevarían al actual presidente estadounidense, Barack Obama, a cometer uno de los más grandes tropiezos durante su reñida campaña por la Casa Blanca en 2008. El tropiezo ocurrió antes de las elecciones primarias en Pensilvania, al decir el entonces senador que muchos vecinos de pequeñas poblaciones obreras de ese estado estaban amargados y que, en consecuencia, se aferraban a las armas y a la religión para compensar sus frustraciones y problemas económicos.

Unas declaraciones que indicarían desconocimiento de la nación que al presente gobierna, pues dos de las insoslayables bases sobre las que se ha erigido la nación estadounidense serían, precisamente, el derecho ciudadano a la tenencia, porte y ejercicio de las armas, por un lado, y el derecho a la libertad de religión por el otro.

Olvidaba Obama que ambos derechos aparecen ya en The Bill of Rights o la Lista de los Derechos del Ciudadano, esa que, firmada el 15 de diciembre de 1791, define realmente a Estados Unidos, y sin la cual la Constitución nunca hubiera llegado a ser la Ley Suprema de la Nación. Olvidaba Obama que relacionar los problemas económicos con la fe, la fe como consecuencia de los problemas económicos, tiene más que ver con el apotegma leninista de que la religión es el opio de los pueblos (mito disfuncional clave) que con la realidad de un pueblo que ha hecho imprimir en su moneda In God We Trust.

Olvidaba Obama que la mayoría de los grandes monumentos arquitectónicos y artísticos de la humanidad, todos aquellos que nos definirían frente a una hipotética colonización extraterrestre, se los adeudamos más a la religión y a la opulencia que a los problemas económicos.

Obama, su generación en suma, no sería otra cosa que el producto final de una sociedad antinatural al estilo gramsciano. La sociedad civil puede en verdad ser saludable para la libertad, pero obviamente no aquella que se comporte como la serie de compartimentos estancos, cada cual en su bandería (obrerismo, sindicalismo, nacionalismo, etcétera), de que hablara Ortega y Gasset al analizar los prolegómenos que darían lugar a la Guerra Civil española de 1936.

La democracia puede degenerar en demagogia. La demagogia deviene en dictadura cuando los políticos están obligados a contentar a toda costa, para arribar al poder, a las mayorías dominadas no por la mente, sino por el estómago o la entrepierna.

En la posmodernidad, los estrategas antisistema han declarado abiertamente, entre ellos el subcomandante Marcos de la guerrilla zapatista, que una sociedad civil reivindicativa sería la manera de minar las democracias burguesas. Y así se apoyan, crean o exacerban ciertos derechos a reclamar por grupos de activismo homosexual, ambientalista, pacifista, pro marihuana, pro emigración ilegal, relativista, multiculturalista y, sorpresa, en esa guerra asimétrica sirven hasta pedófilos y zoofilicos. Créanme, ya existen grupos de pedófilos y zoofílicos declarando que ellos sienten un genuino amor por los niños y los animales y que, por lo mismo, han de tener derecho a matrimoniarse con el objeto de su amor. No es un disparate, recordemos que en Estados Unidos existe la Asociación Norteamericana por el Amor entre Hombres y Niños

La lucha de clases del marxismo ha sido sustituida por la fragmentación social del gramscismo.

La sociedad gramsciana requiere, como en el mundo de Orwell, una neo lengua que pervierta no ya la palabra sino el pensamiento, y no ya el pensamiento sino la realidad. Así, aunados el mundo de Orwell y el de Huxley, el hombre deviene en esclavo que se piensa perfectamente feliz.

Sociedad civil, sí, pero cuál. Una pregunta que deberían hacerse las persona preocupadas por la libertad, especialmente los cubanos pues, no escapa al observador atento, el régimen de la isla hace rato que se prepara para dar el salto del totalitarismo marxista al autoritarismo gramsciano.

5 out of 6 “foreign dignitaries” listed on the official Mandela memorial service are known Marxists

Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog 

By: Cliff Kincaid*
Accuracy in Media

If President Obama’s handshake with Cuban dictator Raul Castro is news, Castro’s featured presence at the Nelson Mandela memorial service and what the South African government said about him are equally newsworthy. South Africa was described as “joined at the hip” to Cuba and in its debt for “liberation.”

Yet, this part of the memorial service has been carefully edited out of most of the “mainstream media” coverage of the event.

The service was organized and orchestrated by officers of the African National Congress (ANC), the ruling party of South Africa which operates as a front for the South African Communist Party. Baleka Mbete, ANC chairperson, introduced Raul Castro’s speech by saying, “Comrades, we will now get an address from a tiny island—an island of people who liberated us, who fought for our liberation in Cuito Cuanavale—the people of Cuba.”

Cuito Cuanavale refers to the foreign intervention of thousands of Cuban military troops on behalf of communist Angolan government forces in Africa under the guidance of Soviet military officers during 1987 and 1988. This was a critical time when communist forces backed by the Soviet Union, Cuba and China were determined to crush the non-communist pro-freedom movement UNITA (The National Union for the Total Independence of Angola).

As part of his effort to turn the tide against communism in Africa and elsewhere, the “Reagan Doctrine,” President Ronald Reagan strongly supported UNITA and its leader, Jonas Savimbi.

In the end, the communists solidified control of Angola, assassinated Savimbi (shot 15 times, twice to the head and once to the throat), and then took over Namibia and South Africa as the white population—fearing extinction in the face of the onslaught—made deals with the communists.

Mandela, in commemorating the 20th anniversary of the battle in 2008, referred to it as “a turning point for the liberation of our continent and my people.” This helps explain why the Cuban regime is held in such high regard by the South African government. The ANC and SWAPO (the South West Africa People’s Organization) communists in Namibia greatly benefitted from the Cuban imperialistic intervention. Of course, Mandela’s communist movement also enjoyed the support of Libya and the PLO.

After Raul Castro’s speech, during which he highlighted Mandela’s visit to Cuba to meet with and thank Fidel Castro, ANC deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa said, “Thank you President Castro. We thank you for all the support and help that we continue to get from the people of Cuba during our years of struggle, and our countries continue to be joined at the hip in the areas of development…”

AIM noted in our column about current South African President Jacob Zuma that he traveled to Cuba in 2010 to receive the top Communist award from Raul Castro himself. Zuma also told a meeting of young communists in South Africa, “Work begins today in earnest to improve the quality of life of all our people and to build Cuban-style patriotism and internationalism within our ranks.”

Of the 6 “foreign dignitaries” listed on the official Mandela memorial service program as giving a tribute to Mandela, five are known Marxists: Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff (a former terrorist herself); Chinese Vice President Li Yuanchao; Namibian President Hifikepunye Pohamba; Cuba’s Raul Castro; and of course President Obama. The other speaker was President Pranab Mukherjee of India, described as a “close friend” of Marxists in India who has “remained a friend” of the Communist Party of India during his political career and leadership in the United Progressive Alliance. Indeed, he has been labeled a “communist agent.” The Indian delegation to the memorial service included Sitaram Yechury of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M).

Earlier in the memorial service, Andrew Mlangeni, identified as a Mandela “family friend,” spoke on Mandela’s behalf. Now considered an “elder statesman” in the ANC, he had studied “military science” and “guerrilla theory” in China. The Stephen Ellis book, External Mission, confirms that Umkhonto we Sizwe, which became the military arm of the ANC, was launched by the South African Communist Party after negotiations with Chinese Communist mass murderer and dictator Mao Tse-tung. The cover of the book, which also reveals that the East German secret police trained the ANC’s security personnel, shows a photograph of Mao Tse-tung meeting with SACP leader Yusuf Dadoo, a Muslim Indian South African communist.

Mandela ran Umkhonto we Sizwe, which carried out violence and terrorism, and he went to prison as a result. He was never a “political prisoner.” He refused to renounce violence in order to be released early. He could have been hanged for his conviction for terrorism.

Although Mandela is being widely praised for his spirit of “forgiveness” and “reconciliation,” the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), led by Mangosuthu Buthelezi, was never fully accepted as a legitimate partner and actor in South African politics by Mandela’s ANC. The IFP advocated the abolition of apartheid, or racial segregation, but refused to engage in violence and terrorism against innocent people. It also had an anti-communist orientation.

“The armed struggle, and Inkatha’s refusal to engage it, had driven a wedge between our organizations,” Buthelezi says. “Propaganda against me and Inkatha was rife and there were many attempts on my life.”

But the U.S. government under Obama is in complete support of the South African government and provides an estimated $500 million a year in foreign aid to the regime.

The United States ambassador to South Africa, former Democratic Party operative and radical organizer Patrick Gaspard, recently announced that American taxpayers would provide an additional $100,000 in U.S. government funding for the purpose of the “preservation of documents” relating to Mandela. The money was given to the Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory, the official home of the Nelson Mandela Foundation. This is the same group offering a poster featuring a quotation of Mandela under an image of communist murderer and Castro henchman Che Guevara.

In supporting South Africa, the U.S. is supporting Cuba. Obama’s handshake with Castro only confirms this fact.

-------------------

*Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism

Obama’s panic button still not working

By Judi McLeod 

jacksanfernandes.com

Obama is running into not the chaos he counted on, but orderly, steadfast human resistance

When Marxists are rummaging in the bottom of their bag of tricks to drive the masses to panic, it’s only commonsense that you do the exact opposite.

It must be frustrating for a president waiting five long years for folk to panic when they are clearly standing their ground on not giving him his way.

It’s a frustration that’s so easy to read in consideration of yesterday’s Immigration Rally held at the closed National Mall, where lawmakers arrived in golf carts to hear a Nancy Pelosi speech. Halloween costumes were the only thing missing.

Right now the government shutdown/slimdown is a public exercise in pulling-the-wings-off-flies,  with a look-how-much-pain-I-can-so-easily-inflict-upon-the-plebes kind of showcasing.  But the only one really panicking is Obama witnessed in the outrageous lies dropped in yesterday’s presser.

Keep reading on canadafreepress >>

Carlos A Montaner - Conferencia «Anatomía de ciertas ideas absurdas»

Wenceslao Cruz

Carlos Alberto Montaner comienza la primera de una serie de conferencias en honor a Juan M. Clark. El titulo «Cuba:Mitos y Realidades, Anatomia de Ciertas Ideas Absurdas» celebrado el lunes 3 de junio de 2013 en Casa Bacardí, sede del Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies (ICCAS).

Worried college will turn your kid into a Marxist? It's worse

wnd

wonkette.com

By Michael F. Haverluck

The expression “boys will be boys” is no longer true at dozens of America’s universities who are offering sex change operations with paid tuition fees. Instead, “boys will be girls” more accurately portrays the thinking behind the new health coverage policies at many of America’s elite colleges, which, according to the host of the nationally syndicated radio show “Line of Fire,” reflect the agenda pushed by the Obama administration.

Michael L. Brown, host of Line of Fire, said in a WND interview that universities routinely teach that gender is a matter of mind, not physical assignment at birth, so it’s changeable.

And President Obama has been helping spread that idea.

“Without a doubt, the president and his administration have been real game changers, not so much in changing public opinion from scratch, but rather in hastening the progress of LGBT activism,” said Brown.

“What has surprised me is to see how some religious leaders are now caving in because of the president’s public stands. Before Mr. Obama was elected, I warned my radio listeners that he would be the most radically pro-gay president in our nation’s history, and in that respect, he has not disappointed us.”

Brown cited the recent news from Yale, founded in 1701 as a Bible college to instruct colonists in morality and the Christian faith, that it may be adding sex-change operations to the student health plan.

Already, some three dozen colleges and universities agree to pay for student sex-change procedures as part of their health benefits plans.

“Almost overnight, perception has changed about ‘transgender’ issues, and without any new scientific or psychological [research] to justify that change in perception, more and more of the public now simply believes that if a little boy (or a grown man) claims to be one gender outside and another gender inside, then that’s who they really are, in which case sex-change is like any other surgery,” Brown told WND.

“The fact that most American colleges and universities are quite liberal means that they would more readily embrace this point of view,” he said.

Many of the arguments for transgenderism come from the American Medical Association, which has coined “gender identity disorder” as a “serious medical condition” that manifests as a continual discomfort with one’s primary and secondary biological sex characteristics.

Its claim is that individuals could experience severe depression and have suicidal tendencies if not treated.

Yale officials already offer the benefit of sex-change procedures to faculty and staff, university spokeswoman Karen Peart told Fox News.

She explained, “Cost would vary depending on treatment.”

Estimates are it could be $25,000 or more.

It might be too early to tell how much the extra “service” would escalate student expenses, but could the surgeries add to the already high cost of education at Yale? Already, the university says that a single student living off campus during the 2012-2013 academic year can expect to pay a “reasonable, albeit modest” $61,394 for tuition, fees, room and board, and the Yale Health hospitalization fee.

It claims that the $41,225 tuition fee includes health-care services under Yale Health, but how much of the fee would go into covering-sex change operations is yet to be seen.

According to the Yale Daily News, Yale University Health Services Director Dr. Paul Genecin insists that students have shown “increasing interest” in the school covering sex-change surgery but concedes that he has received only a “small number of requests.”

Other demands also are arising.

“It’s among a handful of health-care issues that are of concern to students right now; another would be improving access to mental health and counseling services,” Gabriel Murchison, a Resource Alliance for Gender Equality member at Yale, told FoxNews.com.

Does this increased need for treatment of emotional or psychological problems have anything to do with the mainstreaming of LGBT teachings in education?

“It has to be so,” responded Brown, founder and president of the Fire School of Ministry. “The more that kids are raised without a mom or dad, the more they are told that any arrangement that is loving works, the more that marriage is genderless, the fewer role models they have and the more negative media influence they have, coupled with the propaganda put forth in schools (along with Gay Straight Alliances and the like) – when you couple all this with the fact that a young person’s sexual development can be confusing at times, it is only natural that these problems would be on the increase.”

The Transgender Law and Policy Institute announced last month that Brown University became the 36th university to offer sex changes to students.

Brown points out that more and more education programs at colleges and universities are seeking to normalize homosexual and transsexual behavior. He says this has greatly affected the way society defines sexuality and morality, which has resulted in an outright war against those holding to Christian principles.

“Since our next generation of leaders (or, with the Internet boom, the current generation of leaders in many cases) is being educated at our major universities, where gay positive is the norm and moral (and biblical) conservatism is mocked, the new ‘tolerance’ is outright hostile to biblical values,” Brown contends.

And when asked which universities he considers to be most aggressively pushing the LGBT agenda through their academic programs and campus politics, Brown didn’t know where to start.

“There are too many to mention!” Brown exclaimed. “A whole book was written by gay activist Shane Windmeyer for the The Advocate, listing the most gay-friendly campuses in America, and they included quite a few of the biggest and best. Some even had funding in their programs to recruit LGBT students. I have a whole chapter on this in my book, “A Queer Thing Happened to America.”

Windmeyer says campuses promoting sexual alternatives are to be commended.

“Every student deserves to feel safe on campus, and all of these colleges are committed to creating a more LGBT-friendly campus,” Windmeyer said.

Some notable schools making Windmeyer’s 2012 Campus Pride “Top 25 LGBT-friendly Colleges and Universities List” are Stanford, UCLA, Cornell, University of Chicago, Penn State, UC Berkeley, Ohio State, Washington, Michigan and Oregon.

Do the shocking statistics about immorality on American campuses nationwide present the most compelling cases out there that would alert parents who are planning on sending their kids to college?

“Not so much the stats (which include all kinds of sexual immorality – gay and straight – as well as lots of drugs and drinking), but the anecdotes, where kids really ‘come out’ and begin to identify themselves in every imaginable way, like a queer-bisexual-transdyke – in other words, ‘normal’ doesn’t exist anymore,” Brown contended.

Public K-12 schools also are see by Brown as the breeding ground for the sexual libertinism witnessed on college campuses from coast to coast.

“Public schools that have policies where a boy who identifies as a girl uses the girl’s bathroom, or that don’t make gender distinctions and refer to the students as ‘friends’ rather than boys and girls, or that have GSAs where kids can come out as gay among their peers and faculty advisers without parents knowing, or first-graders having gay books like “King and King” read to them, or a gay positive sex-ed programs – all this and more paves the way for the ultra-liberal atmosphere on the campuses,” Brown explained.

After-college life is being hit, too, with one quarter of Fortune 100 companies covering sex changes with insurance, up from only 1 percent less than a decade ago.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/lurch-toward-transgenderism-pushed-by-obama/#R7j3yj3qRhOMcE1Y.99

Pope’s Possible Successor Promotes Marxist for Sainthood

trevorloudon

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

American Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan, reported to be in the running to replace Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the Roman Catholic Church, is usually described as a “conservative” because he has strongly criticized President Obama’s attacks on religious liberty and federal intrusions into church affairs. But Dolan is also the leader of the campaign to promote Marxist Dorothy Day for Sainthood.

One report asks, “Could Timothy Dolan Become The First American Pope?” Dolan, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB,) is considered the voice of U.S. Catholicism.

But Carol Byrne, author of The Catholic Worker Movement (1933-1980): A Critical Analysis, says Dolan manipulated a vote by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops last November to move forward with the canonization of Dorothy Day, even though The New York Times itself noted that some of the Bishops said “she had an abortion as a young woman and at one point flirted with joining the Communist Party.”

The Times story was headlined, “In Hero of the Catholic Left, a Conservative Cardinal Sees a Saint.” Day, a major figure in the “Catholic Worker” movement, died in 1980.

In a letter obtained by this journalist, Virginia State Senator Richard H. “Dick” Black was so disgusted by the push for sainthood for Dorothy Day that he told the Pope on January 7, 2013, that he was “appalled” that “a woman of such loathsome character” would be considered for sainthood.

Black, a retired Marine Corps colonel, noted that “Vatican archives are filled with reports of Christians martyred under the regimes that Dorothy Day supported. I am revolted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ support for the canonization of a woman whose views supported the violent extermination of Christians throughout the world. I ask that these matters be carefully weighed so that the Holy See will not be inadvertently misled when considering the canonization of Dorothy Day.”

As a Marine pilot, Black fought the communists. He flew 269 combat missions in Vietnam and was wounded during fierce ground fighting with the 1st Marine Regiment.

“I am particularly concerned about her support for Ho Chi Minh,” Black said in his letter. He said that he had recently hosted a group of 12 Vietnamese men, each of whom served as senior officials in the Free Republic of Vietnam during the time when the North Vietnamese Communists overwhelmed Saigon in 1975. “Six of them were imprisoned in concentration camps no less severe than those of the Nazis in Germany,” he explained.

Regarding Dorothy Day’s “flirtation” with the Communist Party, as the Times put it, Carol Byrne told this journalist, “…I have provided proof, drawn from archival evidence and other authentic sources, that even after her conversion to Catholicism, Day became a member of several socialist organizations and was actively involved in political groups (including trade unions) whose founders and leaders were predominantly Communist Party members. She also supported the causes of individual Communists who were in the pay of the Soviet Union.”

Byrne went on, “This must be considered against the background of successive Popes who condemned communism as ‘intrinsically evil.’ They forbade Catholics from supporting Communists, and in July 1949 Pope Pius XII issued a decree of excommunication against anyone who collaborated with Communists or joined their associations. There is evidence to show that Day simply shrugged off the papal ban: she did not see communism as a real problem, or experience any moral quandary for a Catholic working in coalition with such groups professedly dedicated to ‘Justice and Peace.’”

State Senator Black said he was extremely concerned that, for almost 50 years, Day was the editor of a pro-communist newspaper, the Catholic Worker. He noted that the 58l-page FBI file on Day “contains a recommendation that Dorothy Day be considered for custodial detention in the event of a national emergency.”

His letter to the Pope went on to say that he was particularly concerned about Day’s “favorable writings regarding Lenin, Castro, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh. As you well know, each of the above dictators ordered the execution of Catholic priests among the millions of other Christians murdered by these regimes.”

Carol Byrne confirmed that Day “supported the policies of hostile foreign powers operating from Moscow, Havana, Peking and Hanoi against her own country, the USA. She also wrote favorably about such socialist dictators as Lenin, Castro, Mao and Ho Chi Minh, even though they had all violently persecuted the Church in their respective countries. Nor could she in principle bring herself to condemn the social and economic ideals of Marxism.”

Nevertheless, The New York Times reported, “Cardinal Dolan has embraced her cause with striking zeal: speaking on the anniversaries of her birth and death, distributing Dorothy Day prayer cards to parishes and even buying roughly 100 copies of her biography to give out last year as Christmas gifts to civic officials including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.”

--------------

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism

“On the Current Marxist Revolution”

trevorloudon

Given Barack Obama‘s obvious Marxism, its hard to argue with the logic presented here.
February 2013 by Partisan
This white paper will examine a Marxist Revolution under the assumption that the president wants to incite Marxist Revolution in America.
When Vladmir Lenin came to power, he introduced a set of socialist policies that literally crashed the Soviet economy by 1921. After pure socialism visibly failed, Lenin introduced what was called, “New Economic Policy,” a modified form of socialism more akin to state-capitalism. Various industries were allowed to remain in private hands while others were wrangled into the purview of government control.
As we recount the industries over which the government is now in control – healthcare, energy, education, student loans – how can one not draw similarities as the contemporary version of Lenin’s state-capitalism? And if we conclude that the president is a Marxist in a still very much un-Marxist nation, how can we think this is the end of his efforts? As long as the material needs of the neo-peasant class go unmet, the Marxist’s work is never done. (As long as there is a neo-peasant class…) Socialism is only the first step in the march towards “single class” Marxist communism; and that makes us the counter-revolutionaries.
Proletariat revolution and the peasant class.
The president’s thrust to power was the result of the perfect Proletariat revolution. Because the neo-peasant class was able to vote their revolution into place with the aid of the Marxist bourgeois, a violent revolution simply wasn’t needed. But there’s still plenty of work for the Proletariat revolution. The president still needs to continue constructing socialism in order to get to Marxist communism.
This begs the question, How do you sideline, neutralize, or otherwise silence opposition? Conservatives and libertarians make up around 50% of the nation but that number is reportedly declining; therefore a violent Marxist revolution is out of the question. The Marxists simply don’t have the guns.
Counter-constitutional activities.
We would expect the president to not only engage in anti-constitutional but counter-constitutional activities. This includes circumventing the established and separated powers of government; disabling the rule of law in America by selective enforcement; and propaganda campaigns that include how anachronistic the document created by racists is. Further, we can deduce that the president doesn’t care for large portions of the Constitution and he would probably like to get rid of it altogether. We would expect the president and his staff to create a culture of non-compliance with the law, introducing new harmful laws while giving party-affiliated organizations breaks from those laws.
Threat of military coup.
As long as counter-constitutional activity is continued, and before it’s achieved total victory, the Marxist revolution is susceptible to compromise. To mitigate the risk of a military coup by high level leaders who are upholding an Oath to support and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, we expect the president and party leadership to identify and replace conservative and Patriot military leaders.
Furthemore, if the president wanted to prevent a military coup, why not take the teeth off the conventional military by fostering dissension among the ranks? It’s unlikely that policy changes would incite a coup, and we’re unlikely – under this president – to get involved in another ground war. Allowing openly homosexual soldiers accomplishes two things: it bolsters the Marxist president’s standing in that community and it sows discord among the ranks of conservative military members.
February 8th, 2013 by Partisan
As for introducing females into line units, no one has proved that this will increase combat efficiency; and there are volumes of data that women can’t compete at the same levels as required in combat units. Walter Williams cites Defense Department statistics and says that dating back to 1994, only 2.9% of females can achieve the male’s standard of pushups and two-mile run time. Defense Secretary Panetta suggested that if women were incapable of meeting the same standards that the Defense Department review those standards and determine if they were too high.
Disarm the opposition.
Disarming the opposition would include a literal disarmament along with a political one. In 1993, before the first Assault Weapons Ban was enacted into law, Attorney General Janet Reno said, “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” The first step in 2013 is to re-enact the Assault Weapons Ban, with no expiration date. When that surprisingly doesn’t end all gun violence, the administration go after other firearms until the end goal is achieved.
Speaker Boehner recently claimed that the president was trying to “annihilate” the republican party. As long as it destroys itself, the president will have cooperation in its demise. Part of the plan to destroy the GOP is to introduce millions of democrat voters through amnesty and other citizenship programs for current “undocumented visitors”.
Removing effective representation will leave the Patriot-class severely under represented. The administration will continue to alienate the Patriot community and polarize the issue and, eventually, they could blame the racist, clingers to guns, religion, and low taxes as the cause of their problems; much like Hitler did the Jews in the 1930s and 40s. The ninth rule of Saul Alinsky’s Rule of Radicals is, “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” By arresting and publicizing the “most dangerous” Patriots – those with expertise, say veterans – the administration could successfully push the threat of the Patriot and citizen militia as a preeminent national security threat.
Destroy and reassign wealth.
The first rule in the playbook of politics is that power is derived from money. Global banking founder Mayer Rothschild infamously said, “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” As long as the Federal Reserve controls the money supply, our currency will suffer from manipulation to the detriment of the many for the benefit of the few. Lenin said, “The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” As I’ve said before, $16 trillion isn’t debt you pay back with money you have in the bank; but with money that you will create. The Federal Reserve, at the behest and cooperation with the federal regime, will destroy the dollar in the process. After all, inflation is just a stealth tax.
In a Marxist revolution, wealth and capital destruction is also achieved through progressive income taxes (“The rich must pay their fair share.”); and the reassignment of wealth to the state through confiscatory death and estate taxes, effectively abolishing inheritance. Assuming state control of the financial and banking industry is the next step. The administration will design federal programs to “protect” pensions, 401Ks, and IRAs until the machinations result in the reassignment of wealth back to the state.
Thanks to Butte.

Carl Sciortino: Marxist Musical Chairs in Massachusetts

NewZeal

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Carl Sciortino

Democratic Socialists of America aligned President Barack Obama, has appointed DSA supported Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, as US Secretary of State.

Leftist Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey is standing for Kerry’s old job, while Democratic Socialists of America supported Massachusetts State Rep. Carl Sciortino has put his hand up for Markey’s Congressional seat.

Sciortino said in a statement to a local newspaper:

“I am running to continue the strong progressive leadership that the families of the Fifth District have always counted on. I look forward to bringing my record of accomplishment to Washington to fight for our progressive values…I am proud to call Ed Markey my Congressman and I am dedicated to helping elect him as our next U.S. Senator. His record on behalf of Massachusetts families – fighting for jobs, consumers’ rights and a healthier environment— is the kind of leadership Massachusetts needs in the Senate and it is a record I look forward to continuing in Congress.”

Serving in the Massachusetts State Legislature since 2004, Sciortino has been backed by Boston Democratic Socialists of America his entire term of office. If he makes it to Congress, Sciortino will join a long list of Reps. who owe their careers, at least partially, to the US’ largest Marxist organization.

According to to the Boston DSA newsletter, The Yankee Radical, September 2004, page 6:

 Although supporting all of the CC” (Commonwealth Coalition) ”endorsements, Boston DSA has prioritized the campaign of Carl Sciortino for State Representative in Somerville. And in addition to our’ work with the Coalition, DSA is urging a vote for Andrea Cabral for Suffolk County Sheriff and John Kerry for President.

According to The Yankee Radical November 2004, the DSA influenced Commonwealth Coalition played a major part in Sciortino’s primary victory:

Most notable of the Coalition s winning candidates was Carl Sciortino, who defeated powerful conservative Rep. Vincent Ciampa in the 24th Middlesex district. With the support of many of the member groups of the Coalition, including DSA, Sciortino s campaign was able to overcome a last minute effort to save Ciampa by conservative House Speaker Tom Finneran.”
‘The September 14th State Primaries brought a welcome victory to Boston DSA and Massachusetts progressives. Carl Sciortino , a 26-year-old progressive activist and LGBT-rights advocate, edged out 16-year leadership incumbent Vinnie Ciampa in the Somerville-Medford 34th Middlesex District by 117 votes…Together, we were able to bring down one of Finneran’s staunchest lieutenants.
Carl Sciortino made a perfect champion for this broad progressive alliance. As Research Manager for Fenway Community Health Center, Carl saw the devastating effects of budget cuts on AIDS-prevention work. He became active in the Stop the Cuts Campaign, advocating for progressive tax reforms as the best way to prevent cuts to public health programs, public schools, and local aid. At the same time, he was active with OutSomerville and the Freedom to Marry Coalition.”

DSA led Neighbor to Neighbor came on board to help design, and later manage, the field plan.

According to DSA leader and Neighbor to Neighbor Director Harris Gruman:

In July and August, volunteers streamed in from the Stop the Cuts coalition, the Progressive Democrats of Somerville, Freedom to Marry and other groups.This gave Carl an impressive grassroots army of highly motivated door to- door canvassers and phone callers who contacted voters three to five times each.
”This surprise victory for progressives shows what can be done with clear issues and a strong grassroots campaign. Even more important, it shows the Legislature that progressive taxes and equal marriage rights are not the issues Republicans use against Democrats they re issues the left uses to defeat conservatives! Moral of the story: PINKOS UNITE!“

On June 13, 2006, almost 50 supporters attended a fundraiser at the Somerville Massachusetts home of DSA member Dick Bauer to help DSA aligned Congressman Bernie Sanders in his successful quest to become the next U.S. Senator from Vermont.

The reception, organized by local volunteers as part of a national project of the Democratic Socialists of America Political Action Committee, raised almost $5,700 for the Sanders Campaign. Sponsors of the event included Boston City Councilor Felix Arroyo, State Senator Patricia Jehlen, and State Representatives Anne Paulsen, Alice Wolf, Denise Provost and Carl Sciortino.

Carl Sciortino was also endorsed by Boston DSA in 2008, 2010 and 2012.

The Yankee Radical, Aug. 2006, p7

No doubt, if Ed Markey becomes a US Senator, Boston DSA will back Carl Sciortino in the Democratic primary for Markey’s vacant Congressional seat.

DSA influence is rampant in the Massachusetts State Legislature, as it in the US House of Representatives.

If Carl Sciortino becomes a US Congressman, he will be simply moving from one Marxist infiltrated body to another.

It takes 54 trees to make a Merry Marxist Christmas

CFP/ Judi McLeod

The maligning malcontent activists in the White House try harder than ever to torment the people who never voted them in.

In this, the ‘Year of the Big Gloat’ it’s a $4-million Hawaiian taxpayer-paid, 20-day vacation and 54 ‘Christmas’ trees, one-upmanship on George W’s last 27 Christmas trees in 2008.

 The Obamas celebrated their first Christmas in the White House with an 18-foot tree decorated with Mao Zedong and Drag Queen Hedda Lettuce ornaments, and four years later accept the “Our Lord and Savior” title.

The 54 trees decked out for this year’s celebration can’t be Christmas trees.  The Obamas, who claim they do not give their daughters gifts, do not believe in Christmas.

The trees are decor—decor meant to demoralize and depress anyone paying attention.

Letter writers to Canada Free Press (CFP) keep asking why the Obama regime and their supporters are so angry even after winning the November 6 election.

They’re angry because the United States of America is, even after all the damage hurled at it from an activist-run government, still up and running.

They’re angry because it is in raging Marxist blood to be angry.  They’re angry because it’s taking too long a time to inflict One World Government on passionately patriotic America and even with the United Nations doing all the heavy lifting, there’s no guarantee that OWG will ever come to pass.

The waste of the Obamas in office puts them in the same category as Romania’s high spending Ceausescus.

While the 54 trees are intended to rub salt in the wound of the millions worried about what Barack Hussein Obama will do to the one country the rest of the world depends on, they are really preaching to their own czar and star-studded choir. More >>

Eric Hobsbawm, The last intelligent Marxist

The Economist

His boyhood enthusiasm for the countryside, especially for its birds, never left him. His heart soared at the sight of a red kite or a hen harrier. He mourned how rarely he heard the song of the yellowhammer, “a-little-bit-of-bread-and-no-cheese”, on his hikes through the hills of mid-Wales to which he had retreated, close to the River Wye.

Eric Hobsbawm was a rare bird himself: “the last living Communist”, as he was teased at his 90th birthday party, and one of the last committed Marxist historians. He had become a Communist at secondary school in Berlin in 1932, and joined the party when he went up to his beloved King’s, Cambridge in 1936, because politics was his passion and it was either Hitler or the other side. But he remained for 50 years until Communism foundered, collapsing “so completely”, he wrote, “that it must now be obvious that failure was built into this enterprise from the start.” Why, then, had he stayed? Because he was of the generation that believed the October Revolution of 1917 was the great hope of the world; and he could not bear to betray either the revolution itself, or those who had fought for it.

There were testing moments, for sure. In 1956, after Soviet tanks crushed the Hungarian uprising and Khrushchev exposed the crimes of the Soviet past, Mr Hobsbawm’s embrace of Stalinism was revealed for the folly it was. Most of his intellectual friends left the party. He stayed, gradually regretting that he had remained an apologist for “Uncle Joe” for so long. But just as he kept his kneejerk political obsessions—supporting, for example, any team that played football against a country, like Croatia, that had a fascist fellow-travelling past—so he remembered the Soviet Union, horrors and all, with an indulgence he could not feel for China.

Alongside his Communism, he insisted on remaining a Marxist historian. Again, he was asked why. It put him in a ghetto, when he had rather cleverly—with his blue eyes, fair hair and English father—got through a childhood in interwar Vienna as der Engländer, rather than being labelled as the Jew he also was. That Marxist tag threatened to tarnish his reputation, when his lucid and scholarly books on what he called the long 19th century, from 1789 to 1914 (“The Age of Revolution”, “The Age of Capital”, “The Age of Empire”), on nationalism and on labour movements deserved, and won, an audience well beyond leftist circles and academe.

Defiant, Mr Hobsbawm championed Marx to the last. For his intellectual force; for his grasp of the world as a whole, at once political, economic, scientific and philosophical; and not least for his conviction, as relevant in 2008 as in 1848, that the capitalist system, with its yawning inequalities and naked greed, would inevitably—irresistibly—necessarily—be destroyed by its own internal tensions, and would be superseded by something better.  More >>

Top Soviet-bloc defector: Marxism infecting U.S.

WorldNetDaily/

By Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa

Editor’s note: Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest-ranking Soviet-bloc official ever to defect to the West. In December 1989, Romanian President Nicolae Ceausescu was executed at the end of a trial whose accusations came almost word-for-word out of Pacepa’s book, “Red Horizons,” subsequently republished in 27 countries.

After President Carter approved his request for political asylum, Pacepa became an American citizen and worked with U.S. intelligence agencies against the former Eastern Bloc. The CIA has praised Pacepa’s cooperation for providing “an important and unique contribution to the United States.”

A few weeks ago I read “America’s Marxist Picnic,” a touching story by WND’s David Kupelian, which illustrates how much the U.S. government hated Marxism a generation ago.

David’s father was one of America’s top rocket scientists, and he became deputy undersecretary of defense for strategic and theater nuclear forces under Ronald Reagan. During the 1970s, however, the U.S. government considered withdrawing his top secret security clearance because some informer had reported that, during his teen years, his mother had attended an Armenian church picnic where a pro-Soviet speaker gave a talk.

That story moved me. My father also worked for America – not as a top rocket scientist, but as service manager of the General Motors affiliate in Romania. Working for America became a crime when the communists took over Romania at the end of WWII and my father was soon killed by the Red Army.

Today the Communist Party is abolished in Romania, which re-became a trustworthy ally of the U.S.. Meanwhile, the formerly cursed Communist Party USA is throwing its full support to the current president of the United States.

I wrote to David. That’s how this interview was born.

Editor’s note: Ion Mihai Pacepa was interviewed by WND Managing Editor David Kupelian.

WND: Gen. Pacepa, it’s an honor to talk with you. Please tell me, did America win the Cold War? If so, why are we fighting Marxism in our own country today? And if not, what really happened?

Pacepa: Yes, we won the Cold War, but unlike other wars the Cold War did not end with an act of surrender and with the defeated enemy throwing down his weapons. But no, we are not fighting Marxism in our country, because the American people have not yet been warned that their country is being contaminated by Marxism. A few conservative luminaries like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly have warned that Marxism is infecting the United States, but neither the Republicans’ “Pledge to America” nor the Tea Party’s “Contract from America” has mentioned the word Marxism.

So far, to the best of my knowledge, only your “Marxism, American-Style” (June 2012 Whistleblower magazine) and PJ Media’s “Say No To Socialism” have called attention to the looming dangers of Marxism, a heresy that killed some 94 million people and transformed a third of the world into feudal societies in the middle of the 20th century.

There is still a widely popular belief in the U.S. and Western Europe that the nefarious Marxist legacy was uprooted in 1991 when the Soviet Union was abolished, just as the Nazi legacy was extirpated in 1945 when World War II ended. That is simply wishful thinking. There is a considerable difference between these two historical events.

In the 1950s, when I headed Romania’s foreign intelligence station in West Germany, I witnessed how Hitler’s Third Reich had been demolished, its war criminals put on trial, its military and police forces disbanded and the Nazis removed from public office. I also saw how West Germany’s economy was being rebuilt with the help of Marshall Plan money and how the country had become a multi-party democracy and a close friend of the United States. In 1959, when I returned to Romania, West Germany’s Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle) made it the leading industrial power in Europe.

None of those things have happened in the former Soviet Union. No individual has been put on trial, although its Marxist regime killed many more millions than the Nazis did. Most Soviet institutions, under new names, have been left in place and are now run by many of the same people who guided the Marxist state. The KGB and the Red Army, which instrumented the Cold War, have also remained in place with new nameplates at their doors.

“Communism is dead,” people shouted in 1989, when the Berlin Wall began to come down. Soviet Communism is indeed dead as a form of government. But Marxism is on the rise again, and people are not paying attention. Why not? Because most people do not seem to be familiar with the undercover forms of Marxism we are facing today.

Hiding the ugly face of Marxism behind a smiling mask has become a Marxist science, which I described in a large piece recently published in PJ Media. Here let me just say that until 1963, Marxism was mostly camouflaged as “socialism.” The 1963 missile crisis generated by the socialist República de Cuba gave the socialist mask of Marxism a dirty name in the West and few Marxists wanted to be openly associated with it anymore. They therefore began hiding their Marxism under a new cover called “economic determinism,” which became all the rage among leftists who no longer wanted to be labeled socialists.

Economic determinism is a theory of survival rooted in Marx’s “Manifesto” (another theory of survival), but it pretends that the economic organization of a society, not the class war, determines the nature of all other aspects of life. Over the years, economic determinism has assumed different names. Khrushchev’s dogonyat i peregonyat (catching up with and overtaking the West in 10 years) and Gorbachev’s perestroika are the best known.

I wrote the script of Nicolae Ceausescu’s determinism, which was hidden behind the nickname “New Economic Order.” Most Americans, who are not used to dealing with undercover Marxists, have problems recognizing one. In April 1978, President Carter publicly hailed Ceausescu as a “great national and international leader who [had] taken on a role of leadership in the entire international community.” At the time, I was standing next to Ceausescu at the White House – and I just smiled.

Three months later, I was granted political asylum in the United States, and I informed President Carter how Ceausescu had been feeding him a pack of lies. The admiration for Ceausescu’s undercover Marxism had, however, taken on such a life of its own that the U.S. Congress, dominated by President Carter’s Democratic Party, brought the United States a sui-generis version of Ceausescu’s economic determinism. That move generated double-digit inflation. The U.S. prime rate hit 21.5 percent, the highest in U.S. history, and people had to spend long hours in line waiting to buy gas for their cars.

Laura D’Andrea Tyson, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton and later an economic adviser to President Obama, has kept that undercover Marxism alive in the U.S. She even wrote her Ph.D. dissertation on the merits of the allegedly “mixed” socialist-capitalist economies in Ceausescu’s Romania and Tito’s Yugoslavia. Two American presidents went to Bucharest to pay tribute to Ceausescu’s Marxism disguised as economic determinism. None had ever gone there before.

A few months ago, when the devastating economic crisis in Greece exploded, economic determinism lost credibility and our Democratic Party replaced it with “progressivism,” which is the current cover name for American Marxism. The real Progressive Movement was born after the U.S. financial crisis of 1893, which the country tried to solve by redistributing America’s wealth. The progressives pushed through the first federal income tax and they created a string of labor standards that opened up the floodgates of corruption and financial excess that generated the Great Depression. A new Progressive Movement, dubbed the New Deal, led to steep top tax rates, strict financial regulations, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, eventually generating the current economic crisis.

Today’s Progressive Movement was born in New York’s Zuccotti Park. It was first known as the “Occupy Wall Street” movement and advocated the abolition of “capitalist America.” The Democratic Party strongly embraced it and made “Progressive” its new byword. “God bless them,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told the U.S. Congress. “It’s young, it’s spontaneous, it’s focused and it’s going to be effective.” 

More >>

Needed: A Marxist-Style Analysis to Understand and Combat the Extreme Left’s Hegemony

PJ Media/  By Barry Rubin

Ironically, those opposing the current hegemonic ideas and political forces in the United States and Europe must develop a Marxist-style analysis of what has happened. To call the current dominant ideas and political currents socialist, Marxist, Communist, leftist, progressive, or liberal is not meaningful and conceals more than it reveals. The movement must be understood on its own terms in order to understand it and see how it differs from its predecessors.

The problem of revolutionary movements has been to find a group to be the motive force in fundamentally transforming society. Next, they must analyze which groups can be made into allies and which must be defeated.

The Marxist Analysis of the Social Battle

Marx and his followers identified the industrial working class as that revolutionary force. Here’s how the idea appears in the 1848 Communist Manifesto:

Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

Marxists posited that the workers’ condition would worsen and that no reform could improve their situation, forcing them to become revolutionaries. Their main ally would be the lower middle class, wiped out by big business and new technology:

The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat …

In contrast, who are the revolution’s enemies? Capitalists, clergy, and those elements that benefit from capitalism. And along with them:

The “dangerous class,” [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

Note that in many ways the post-Marxist left reverses this analysis. The lumpenproletariat becomes its ally along with those — many of them prosperous — who benefit from the government’s management of capitalism. In contrast, Marx’s description of the revolutionary forces sounds more like a description of Tea Party members.

Why Marxism Failed

This is a complex subject, but given limited time here are some key points:

– Capitalism didn’t decline but advanced, raising living standards across the board. So Marx was wrong about capitalism. Rather than a generalized misery (think of London during the second half of the nineteenth century), the “victims” today are a small minority, 10 to 20 percent, who have been left behind. And even these people receive welfare and other benefits beyond the wildest dreams of the poor in every other country and every historical era in the world.

– The working class prospered, preferring material betterment rather than a transformation of society. So Marx was wrong about the proletariat, especially in the United States. What’s important to remember is not that this group struggled to improve its life and working conditions but that it succeeded.

– This adjustment of society to solve these problems was due to many forces. One was improved technology and methods of organization, created by the capitalist system. Another was reforms, usually brought by liberal and social democratic parties and the institution of trade unions.

– The workers were responsive — at the time more than the elites — to the appeals of religion, patriotism, and traditional culture.

More >>

Why Is Observing Obama as a Marxist emVerboten/em?

American Thinker/ By Bill Flax

The recent release of a tape by Andrew Breitbart's outfit sparked renewed interest in President Obama's murky past.  In anticipation, conservatives were elated that the president might finally be exposed.  The tape showed Obama, then at Harvard Law, orchestrating a protest on behalf of Derrick Bell.

Without providing any background on just how radical is Professor Bell, the compliant liberal media derisively dismissed it all as conservative paranoia, even proclaiming presidential vindication.  It still appears preposterous to purport that America elected a communist ideologue.  The world's greatest beneficiary of capitalist bounty would never willingly empower a radical socialist to "fundamentally transform America."

Unfortunately, we did, even if Americans loathe admitting it.  And this ought to have been obvious even before Mr. Breitbart's valiant efforts.

Obama exploits the citizenry's concerted blindness, cloaking his views under veneers of "social justice," "fairness," and "progress."  Unadulterated Marxism attracts few votes.  In rare candor, sans teleprompter, Obama lectured Joe the Plumber that his prescription for widespread prosperity is "spreading the wealth around."

Before catapulting to prominence, the president complained that thanks to constraints instituted by our Founders, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice."  Obama's justice ensures not that transactions are freely entered and fairly measured, but that bureaucrats enforce results fancied per the fluttering fashions of political correctness.

Still, most Americans would deny Obama's Marxist outlook, mistaking the term's meaning as synonymous with Stalin or Mao.  Marxist theory informed many of history's most murderous tyrants, but Obama's brand is the emasculated theorizing of the faculty lounge.  He neither intends similar mayhem nor has such means in our constitutional republic.   More >>

Dalai Lama: ‘I am a Marxist’

Selwyn Duke|AmericanThinker

"Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilisation of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes — that is, the majority — as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair." —Dalai Lama

There is no better way to proclaim your lack of spiritual and philosophical depth than by, two decades after the fall of communism, disclosing that you’re a Marxist.  Yet this is precisely what Buddhist spiritual leader the Dalai Lama did during a speech before 150 Chinese students at the University of Minnesota this month.  Journalist Tsering Namgyal reports on the story at Religion Dispatches, writing, “‘as far as socio-political beliefs are concerned, I consider myself a Marxist.’  ‘But not a Leninist,’ he [the Lama] clarified.”
Well, that’s a relief.  Those Leninists can really kill ya’.  Marxists will just murder you.
This isn’t the first time the Lama indicated that his soul is as red as the robes he wears.  During a lecture in NYC on May 19, the Tibetan leader credited “capitalism” with bringing new freedoms to China but then said, “Still I am a Marxist”; he then explained that Marxism has “moral ethics, whereas capitalism is only how to make profits.”  That’s some deep thinking right there.
Now, I have the word “capitalism” in quotation marks because it was originated by a communist, and we shouldn’t allow enemies of the good to define the vocabulary of the debate.  I prefer to call the mostly free market in question a “natural economy,” as it is what naturally occurs when people are afforded economic freedom; they will buy, produce, sell and compete.  In contrast, communism (in the real world, not in the stateless utopia of textbook fantasies) requires a large, intrusive, freedom-squelching government to micromanage people’s endeavors and quash the yearnings of man’s spirit.  And because the Natural Economy does allow people the most freedom practical (we still must have courts to enforce contracts, for instance), it is infinitely morally superior to Marxism.
Having said this, the Natural Economy doesn’t have “moral ethics”; it just is.  It is, again, what naturally occurs when man is permitted to spread his wings.  And it will be as moral as the average people who operate within it.
In contrast, Marxism will be as immoral as the worst people who operate within it.  This is because, while the Natural Economy is governed by those hundreds of millions of consumer votes called the market, communism is ruled by the unscrupulous few who can claw their way to the top in an inevitably corrupt political system.
Read More Here

# Conspiracy - How Marxofascism is Being Systematically Implemented in American Neighborhoods

By: Arlen Williams
Gulag Bound
Also called…

• Smart Growth
• Sustainable Communities
• Sustainable Growth
• Sustainable Climates
• Local Governments for Sustainability
• Sustainable [whatever else]
• Liveable Cities
• Resilient Cities
• Greenhouse Gas Prevention
• Green [whatever]
• Biodiversity
• [Something, Something] Climate Change
• Triple Bottom Line Finance
• Communitarianism [more convenient than Marx & Engles' C-word]
• ICLEI
• Responsible Planning
• Responsible Redevelopment
• Effective Environmental Protection
• Rio Accords
• New World Order [yes, they use that term]
• Global Governance [yes, that one too]
• the list can be longer, but you get the picture

Listen to Rosa Koire, San Francisco liberal, lesbian and civil libertarian, reveal the conspiracy fact and evidence, as we become Gulag America. Her organization is Democrats Against Agenda 21.

America’s Marxist Media

by David B. Jenkins

To think that two and two are four
And neither five nor three
The heart of man has long been sore
And long ‘tis like to be.
– A.E. Houseman, Last Poems, xxv

It has by now become glaringly apparent to all but the most obtuse or thoroughly indoctrinated among us that a majority of the members of the mainstream media (I call them cockroach media, but we’ll come back to that later) are socialists in outlook and practice. As Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote in an article for Pajamas Media on August 28, 2010, “We now know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that our formerly august mainstream media is replete with socialists.”
Well, excuse me. Not at all to diss Kyle-Anne, who does good work, but that information has been around for a long time and has been readily available to anyone who cares to look.

More  Here...

Marxismo, racismo y revolución en Cuba - I I/ Juan F. Benemelis

Marxismo, racismo y revolución en Cuba - I I / Juan F. Benemelis Cubanálisis - El Think-Tank