Martin Luther King, Jr. - Don't Shoot the Messenger

Note: When I first wrote and posted this, I, unlike a lot of Americans, continued to read and research, as of now I have concluded that Martin Luther King was what I must now call an American Communist.

Introduction

I remember back when a co-worker and eventually a very good friend of mine said to me, “Have you seen or heard Glenn Beck (Glenn)?”

I looked at him and said, “No, who is he?”

He went on to explain that he was a conservative talk show host on CNN. So like any person approaching something new, I opened my mind and tuned in. I liked what I saw and became hooked. I felt that maybe I had found someone who would entertain, yet educate and unlike most sheeple in America, I'm always willing to listen to another opinion and I'm definitely open to learning.

I followed Glenn from CNN to Fox and even though the 5:00 time slot overlapped with my work schedule, I did what anyone with a DVR would do, I recorded his show. In fact I ended up burning some of the shows to DVD for future reference.

When he started the 9-12 Project, I was lucky enough to find one of the first websites that “welcomed” me and my rants. In fact, I was privileged to have Glenn read one of my comments on air. However, I ended up leaving that site when the Site Administrator violated my trust, as I would become accustomed to with other 9-12 sites and Glenn Beck himself. I would later join another site that, though some were Glenn Beck fans, they thought for themselves.

When Glenn left Fox, I was very disappointed to say the least. I thought at least I could still listen to him on the radio. Yes, I still listen to him today. However as I've continued to listen to Glenn, I began seeing that Glenn's message began to change and he began to develop a rather selective view of history, particularly when it comes to his almost worship of Martin Luther King (MLK).

Martin Luther King Jr.: Communist, Socialist or Progressive

When Glenn began his admiration, bordering on idol worship, of MLK's non-violent approach to the race problems in the sixties, I started wondering exactly where was he heading with this admiration? Was he doing what a majority of people do who put a person on a pedestal, ignoring the real history of the person or just taking a selective view?

As Igor, my friend and editor, is fond of saying when I challenge things at work, “You're opening a can of worms.”

Yes, I may be doing just that and most likely I will unleash a Hell storm of criticism, name calling and most likely down right hate. This is NOT my intention; I will present the facts and allow you the reader to look at the facts presented and make up your own mind.

Once again, I ask, “Don't shoot the messenger.”

Let's begin by setting the rules. To begin with, as most of my readers know I will be using sources, direct quotes. The second rule is I am going to ask the devoted fans and followers of Glenn to think back and remember. BUT most importantly keep an open mind and remember when Glenn said,

“You've got to demand the truth from yourself.”

Martin Luther King, Jr.: A Communist?

This is the not the only place where I feel Glenn is completely off base. But, for the purpose of this post it is the only one I'm going to deal with.

Do Glenn Beck fans remember him saying, and I paraphrase,

“Progressives are Communists with patience”

From this statement, one can and should conclude that Progressives are Communists and that would mean that Theodore Roosevelt (October 27, 1858 – January 6, 1919) who was one of the founders of the Progressive Party was a Communist, though at the time, just as today, the terms were interchangeable. Though Roosevelt did believe in "Social Justice". [1]

There are some who will say that the differences between Communism, Socialism and Progressivism are just a case of semantics, but there are differences and the problem or question that arises is, what are the differences?

I could spend a great deal of time and the rest of this piece going into the differences in the ideology and methods of Communism, Socialism and Progressivism but I won't; instead I will just give a brief history. Spoiler alert: Watch this space for a more in depth study in the differences.

Lets just say look at the history of Socialism.

After the Revolutions of 1848, the Socialist ideology split into three distinct factions.

The “Revisionist” socialists were those who promoted gradual reform by using compromise, the democratic process and non violence to achieve the nationalism of state and local public works.

The “Anarchic” socialists who believed that both the state and private property should be abolished and society should be composed of small collectives of producers, distributors and consumers.

Last comes the “Bolshevik” socialists, who believed in using revolutionary (violent) tactics to raise the conscious of the working class (proletariat) in order to advance socialism through an absolute dictatorship. It is what would eventually spur Lenin to lead the Bolshevik Revolution (Russian Revolution) of 1917 that would morph into what today people call communism. When most people speak of Communism today, they speak of a country ruled by a dictator whose power was achieved in most cases by violence and asserts complete control over production.

Now, since MLK did not believe in a violent approach to achieve social change, one can and should conclude that MLK was not a communist as defined by the Bolshevik philosophy. However he did have militant elements within his organization but as he said:

“Our militant elements were used, not as small striking detachments, but to organize.” [2]

The idea of violent tactics to achieve Marxism is not the only separator between communism and socialism, but according to the early American socialists there are other differences.

According to W. D. P. Bliss,

“Socialism puts its emphasis on common production and distribution; Communism on life in common. Communism makes less of existing political institutions as instruments; Socialism would very largely use them."

Or as Victor L. Berger wrote,

“The definition of Socialism, as generally accepted now, is “the collective ownership of all the means of production and distribution.”[3]

While,

“Communism proposes the common ownership of the means of production, or, in some cases, the means of production and consumption. Socialism, on the contrary, asks only for the common ownership of the means of production, as made necessary by the modern development of the tool into the machine. Socialism leaves consumption, i.e., the selection and the enjoyment of the means of life to the free will and the taste of the individuals”[4]

So using these two statements from the principle founders of the American Socialist Party in 1901, one should conclude that there is a difference between Socialism and Communism.

Did MLK believe that the government should control production, distribution and even consumption? If he didn't once again, he's not a Communist.

Socialism or Progressivism? Or are they the same thing?

Now this is where people really have to stop, think, and look at the facts and answer some very difficult questions and draw their own conclusions.

The first and most important question is:

“If there is no difference between the doctrines of the American Socialist Party and those who claim to be Progressives and the doctrines of the American Progressive Party, does that mean that they are the same only with different names?”

Next ask the question:

“If celebrated Progressives were also members of Socialist Party of America or Socialists, again does that mean that Progressives are Socialists?”

Remember when Glenn said on On May, 2014,

“Progressives have a longer time table”

Well, so do the Revisionist Socialists.

Martin Luther King, Jr. a Progressive

SOCIAL JUSTICE

According to the Center for American Progress, The Progressive Intellectual Tradition in America,

“In terms of its political values, progressivism throughout the years stressed a range of ideals that remain important today:... Social justice, the proper arrangement of law, society, and the economy to ensure that all people have the formal and informal capacity to shape their own lives and realize their dreams.”

Does everyone remember when Glenn said,

“I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words.”

Or how about when he said,

“If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop.”

Now, I must ask, if Glenn believes that “Social Justice” is such a code word and his followers should run away or report the priest to the bishop, then why does Glenn embrace MLK, a minister, who said in a 1963 speech at Western Michigan University, entitled "Social Justice",

“I think with all of these challenges being met and with all of the work, and determination going on, we will be able to go this additional distance and achieve the ideal, the goal of the new age, the age of social justice.” (My emphases...OM)

Why would Glenn fail to mention that according to The Nation magazine, Martin Luther King, Jr was named one of “The Fifty Most Influential Progressives of the Twentieth Century” where the author says,

“...not only about civil rights but also about economic justice” (My emphases...OM)

and

“The struggle for civil rights radicalized him into a fighter for economic and social justice.” (My emphases...OM)

Why would Glenn praise a person for his nonviolent approach to civil rights and yet fail to mention that when Planned Parenthood Federation of America announced MLK was going to be named along with three others to receive the first PPFA Margaret Sanger Award in 1966 [3] it said,

“...for his courageous resistance to bigotry and his lifelong dedication to the advancement of social justice and human dignity.” (My emphases...OM).

Population Control

Once again, flashing back to Glenn's programs on Fox, his viewers were introduced to Margaret Sanger, Eugenics (particularly against Blacks) and her founding of Planned Parenthood of America, the world's leading abortion factory, under the guise of “women's health”. Isn't abortion the ultimate violence, considering that an unborn CHILD has no way to defend his/her self?

As previously mentioned, why does Glenn neglect to mention or educate his viewers that MLK was among the first recipients of the first Planned Parenthood for America (PPFA) Margaret Sanger Award in 1966? Where, in his acceptance speech MLK wrote, and which his wife presented said,

“Finally they would observe that we spend paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an urgent threat to life on our planet. Our visitors from outer space could be forgiven if they reported home that our planet is inhabited by a race of insane men whose future is bleak and uncertain.” (My emphases...OM)

Or,

“There is no human circumstance more tragic than the persisting existence of a harmful condition for which a remedy is readily available. Family planning, to relate population to world resources [Isn't this straight out of Agenda 21?...OM], is possible, practical and necessary.” (My emphases...OM)

MLK and the Communist Belief in Government Supplied Jobs

Glenn has constantly ranted and raved that WE, the People, need to demand and work for a smaller federal government, government that stays out of American's lives.

If Glenn truly believes this, then once again, one must ask why Glenn had not completely done his homework OR if he did, just why did he chose to ignore that MLK also believed in one of the ultimate government controls; that the federal government should supply jobs,

“We must develop a federal program of public works, retraining, and jobs for all—so that none, white or black, will have cause to feel threatened. At the present time, thousands of jobs a week are disappearing in the wake of automation and other production efficiency techniques. Black and white, we will all be harmed unless something grand and imaginative is done. The unemployed, poverty-stricken white man must be made to realize that he is in the very same boat with the Negro. Together, they could exert massive pressure on the government to get jobs for all. Together, they could form a grand alliance. Together, they could merge all people for the good of all.”[5]

Now, is this not the same socialist belief that was outlined in the Socialist Party Platform of 1908:

“The immediate government relief for the unemployed workers by building schools, by reforesting of cutover[sic] and waste lands, by reclamation of arid tracts, and the building of canals, and by extending all other useful public works. All persons employed on such works shall be employed directly by the government under an eighthour work-day and at the prevailing union wages.”

Conclusion

Some who will read this, may feel that this is a hit piece on Glenn Beck and Martin Luther King, Jr., it is not my intention. But since Glenn is ever so fond of quoting Thomas Jefferson,

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”

Well, I am boldly questioning and asking why Glenn is not telling the FULL story and presenting all the facts concerning MLK? I will leave it up to you to make up your own mind and answer that question.

I will also ask, “Can a person believe in just a few items from an agenda and not believe in that agenda? Or can one just pick and chose, ignoring the facts." I feel it is like being a little bit pregnant.

You decide.

A special thanks to Igor and The Riceman for their editing and advice in the preparation of this piece.

References not linked

[1] Foster, William Z., History of the Communist Party of the United States, International Publishers, New York, New York, 1952. [William Z. "Bill" Foster (February 25, 1881 – September 1, 1961) was a radical American labor organizer and Marxist politician, whose career included a lengthy stint as General Secretary of the Communist Party USA. He passed through the Socialist Party of America and the Industrial Workers of the World, as well as leading the drive to organize the packinghouse industry during World War I and the steel strike of 1919.]

[2] King, Jr., Martin Luther, "Let Justice Roll Down", The Nation, March 15, 1965.

[3] Berger, Victor L., "American Socialism", Social Democratic Herald, No. 1, July 9, 1898, pp. 3-4. [Victor Berger (1860 - 1929) In 1901 Berger joined with Eugene Debs and Morris Hillquit to establish the American Socialist Party. The party was very strong in Milwaukee and played a major role in the city's government for the next fifty years. In 1910 Berger became the first socialist in the United States to be elected to Congress. The following year he proposed a bill to provide old age pensions. Berger was a strong opponent of America's involvement in the First World War, describing it as a "the wholesale murder in Europe". However, as Shane Hamilton has pointed out: "the main thrust of Berger's anti-war stance was socialistic, not pacifistic."
In 1918 Berger was charged under the Espionage Act and after being found guilty was sentenced to twenty years in prison. While free on appeal, Berger was elected to Congress in 1919 with an increased majority. In 1921 the Supreme Court overturned Berger's conviction.
As well as representing the people of Milwaukee in Congress, Berger edited the Milwaukee Leader (1911-1921) and served as chairman of the American Socialist Party (1927-1929). He was a strong opponent of the American Communist Party and warned against the "folly of imitating Soviet models, condemning the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat." A collection of his speeches and editorials, Voice and Pen, was published in 1929.]

[4] Ibid

[5] Alex Haley’s interview with the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.in Playboy, January 1965.

People Can't Handle the Truth: American Communism Is In Place

Sometimes in my my various discussions on Twitter, I often had to explain to many closed mind, brainwashed people that there is a difference between Socialism & Communism. 

Some will say that like everything, things and words evolve, prime example is the word gay, from the middle English, gai, meaning happily excited, to a meaning for homosexual. This has also been done to the Constitution where many people and politicians change what the Founding Fathers wrote for their own particular purpose. Unlike those people I believe in source documents as well as any supporting to understand the meaning of various documents and terms.

Now, having explain that, I present the following for you education and comment.

In my re-evaluation concerning my position on socialism I showed that according to Frederick Engels in 1888, Manifesto of the Communist Party, should have been titled the Manifesto of the Socialist Party.

I further showed in the second part of my re-evaluation, the views of noted socialists through their writings the difference between socialism and communism.

Finally in part three, I showed how America has actually actually established its own unique form of communism, what I chose to call American Communism.

Now, “the knownothings” or those who just refuse to accept the facts, whether they be on radio, television, in print or the general public don't want to see or admit the difference. They would rather use soft terms like, Liberalism, Progressivism, Big Government or God forbid, Socialism. I present what I consider the evidence.

I am not going to rehash or go into a complete a repeat of past posts, but I will define some terms:

Socialism: The ORIGINAL meaning, as defined by Marx is society, not government, controls production and distribution. Much like a local farmer's Co-op or as the Riceman explains it, a hive mentality, everyone working for the “good” of society or the hive, with no real leader a TRUE democracy or as Vladimir Lenin said: 

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism"

SPECIAL NOTE to everyone: America is a REPUBLIC not a democracy as guaranteed by Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Or, once again turning to Lenin:

“Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing.”

Communism: As currently defined and accepted by those who have not taken nor will not take the time to study the sources or even read some of my prior posts, is a dictatorship established by violent revolution where government uses Marx's theories to control production, distribution and consumption. This idea was based on the model established by aforementioned Lenin:

"The goal of socialism is communism"

There will be some who will say its a case of semantics, others will say the main differences is “revolution” and “dictatorship”. 

To the former I say, if this helps you to avoid the facts and history nothing I can say will change your closed mind.

To the latter, look up the word revolution. It does not have to be violent. Prime example the Industrial Revolution. As far as a dictatorship, that is a political system, communism is a economical system.

Did America have a revolution to put in place the tenets of Marx's Manifesto, YES.

It was quiet and accomplished by politicians who got the taste of power and realized that the American people had gotten envious, greedy and to some extent lazy and realized that they could use their positions to gain control, a quiet less obvious dictatorship, with the illusion of freedom.

To accomplish this, they turned back Marx and passed laws / regulations in order to put in place as Karl Marx said: 

        “…in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.” 

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 

Antiquities Act of 1906 - This act gave the President of the United States (POTUS) the authority, by presidential proclamation, to restrict the use of public land owned by the federal government.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 

The Revenue Act of 1916 (39 Stat. 756) created a tax on the transfer of wealth from an estate to its beneficiaries, and thus was levied on the estate, as opposed to an inheritance tax that is levied directly on beneficiaries.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 

This particular plank may be separated into two parts. On one hand the American Communists are embracing emigrants, illegal and legal in order to build a “power base” to maintain power and control. While on the other hand using courts and laws to take people's land through Eminent Domain and if necessary Condemnation.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The Federal Reserve also was given the power to buy and sell treasuries and influence credit and money conditions. This power helped to stabilize prices and make full employment more likely for larger shares of the population.
Banking Act of 1933 (which establishes FDIC)

The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act : July 21, 2010 

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 

The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887: First federal law to regulate private industry in the United States. It was later amended to regulate other modes of transportation and commerce. 

Communications Act of 1934: Established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a government agency established to regulate in the public interest interstate and foreign communications by radio and wire. The FCC is divided into six major operating bureaus: Common Carrier, Wireless Telecommunications, Mass Media, Compliance and Information, International (includes satellite regulation), and Cable Services. In addition, there are 10 staff offices, consisting of Managing Director, General Counsel, Inspector General, Engineering and Technology, Plans and Policy, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, and Public Affairs, Administrative Law Judges, Communications Business Opportunities, and Workplace Diversity. (Editor's note: What does workplace diversity have to do with communications?)

Department of Transportation (USDOT or DOT) established by an act of Congress on October 15, 1966

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Reforestation Relief Act of 1933: established the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC); it provides work in reforestation, road construction and developing national parks.

In 1965 youth conservation corps program was finally developed. One of the major concerns of President Johnson’s war on poverty was how to help the rising number of teenage drop-outs and draft rejectees break the “cycle of poverty.” Sargent Shriver, the President’s General in the War on Poverty, incorporated a youth conservation element into a new training program to be known as the “Job Corps.”

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 

Maybe this should read, unequal liability for all not to work and draw government handouts, thus establish armies of those on welfare to continue to keep American Communist controlled government in power.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 

Sustainable Communities Initiative: Provides grants to improve regional and local planning efforts that integrate housing and transportation decisions, and increase the capacity to improve land use and zoning to support market investments that support sustainable communities.

By taking advantage of these grants, thus giving federal government more control this is taking place at the state level as more and more American Communists push for the combination or unification of city and county governments. Using a local example, the combination of Jefferson county, Kentucky and the city of Louisville, Kentucky into Metro Louisville.

An outstanding source for more information on this is Spreading The Wealth, by Stanley Kurtz.

10. Free education for all children in public schools.

The responsibility for K–12 education is suppose to be the providence of the states under the Constitution. However, American Communists believe that there is a compelling national interest in the quality of the nation’s public schools. Therefore, the federal government, through the legislative process, provides assistance to the states and schools in an effort to supplement, not supplant, state support. 

The primary source of federal K–12 support began in 1965 with the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
 
Department of Education in 1979

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

Common Core 

Now there is talk of free college paid for, thus controlled, by the government using taxpayers money.

Now, something I pray people noticed. Although a number of these planks have been put in place by Congress and in doing so congress abdicated their duties under the Constitution to the Executive branch.

Also, remember this, even though Congress passed the laws putting these planks in place,   they are not the responsibility, under the Constitution, of the federal government.

Now, its up for you to decide.

Semper Fi!

The War Nobody Saw Coming – The Plan

INTRODUCTION:

As the holiday season is in full swing, Patriots cringe as we watch the American Communists and those who want to destroy the American way of life crawl out from under their rocks and once again begin their ongoing war on religion and escalated it to the all out  “War on Christmas” (again).

Just as predictably many talking heads showed up on talk shows, some have written books or are there to hawk their past published books.

Others are just there to complain and yet give no rhyme or reason of why the war goes on with no apparent end in sight.

Some. not many, will even cite Karl Marx;

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

While others might cite the idea that the American Communists do not want people to believe that there is anything more important then the "State" (In this context, Centralized Government)

If people stop and really think, both are considered correct by those wishing to destroy the American way of life.

Like a number of wars throughout history, the how or the why they started gets lost in time.

What if someone were to say that the war on religion, thus the War on Christmas, began in Italy ca. 1920's. I'll bet that people would call that person nuts.

"Hello." You can call me nuts.

Since 2008, the names of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Antonio Gramsci and Saul Alinsky have become common names in debates about the ongoing destruction of the America way of life. I can imagine people reading the list, nodding and then all of a sudden, stop and say, “WHO is Antonio Gramsci and what does he have to do with the destruction of America?”

Everyone knows who Karl Marx is, but few people will even mention Marx's "comrade in arms" Friedrick Engels (1820-1895), both were the “great scientists” that laid the foundations of “scientific socialism” [1] in Manifestoof the Communist Party and “were the first to explain that socialism was not the invention of Utopian dreamers, but the inevitable outcome of the workings of modern capitalist society”.[2] Considering that Friedrick Engels DID say in the Preface of the 1888 edition of the Manifesto, “Yet, when it (Manifesto of the Communist Party [sic]) was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems:....”.

However, few know that after the publication of the Manifesto and the defeats suffered by the Socialists during the Revolution(s) of 1848, different ideas developed on how to implement Marx's ideas into society.

 Just as today, where there is a division within the Democrat Party between the few so called “moderates” (what was once known as Blue Dog Democrats) and the Liberal/Socialist/Occupy Wall Street/Black Lives Matter Democrats, a division between the three philosophies of Marxist Socialists also developed.

The “Revisionist” socialists were those who promoted gradual reform by using compromise, the democratic process and non violence to achieve the nationalism of state and local public works and large-scale industries. Does this sound like the Fabian Society of Great Britain and America and the modern day Progressives or in reality the American Communists.

Then there were "Anarchic” socialists who believed that both the state and private property should be abolished and society would be composed of small collectives of producers, distributors and consumers. This is similar to the system in France where industries are owned and managed by the workers. Or more locally, your neighborhood farmers CO-OP.

Finally and very well known and often cited, the “Bolshevist” socialists, those that believed in using revolutionary (violent) tactics to raise the conscious of the working class (proletariat) in order to advance socialism through an absolute dictatorship[4] much like the unions and Occupy Wall Street of today.

It is this group who would eventually be the symbol of Communism, though if one were to read Marx's Manifesto, no where does the word "government" appear.

These differences would come to the world's attention in 1917 when Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov aka Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924) along with Leon Trotsky lead the Bolshevik Revolution that overthrew the Tzar of Russia.

This revolution not only established what we, today call Communism but also separated the Revisionist's idea of peaceful social revolution as envisioned by Marx and Engels [4] and the Bolshevik's theory of armed conflict to overcome the injustices of the capitalistic economic system[5]. This revolution not only caused a split within the American Socialist Party but also a split between the international socialists and one of the leaders in the theory of the “peaceful” change was Antonio Gramsci.

Gramsci believed that capitalism was so firmly entrenched that violent revolution would only serve to further strengthen the Bourgeoisie (modern capitalists, owners of means social production and employers of the Proletariat, wage laborers) resolve to maintain “control”.

Antonio Gramsci was born January 22, 1891 on the island of Sardinia,Italy and would grow to be considered a leading Italian Marxist as well as a major theorist.

Gramsci's belief in Marxism along with his membership plus his actions as a leader of the Italian Communist Party brought him into direct conflict with Benito Mussolini's Fascist regime. This conflict would cumulate in 1926 when he was arrested and sentenced to five years in prison. This five year sentence would eventually become twenty five years when a year later he was transferred to another prison and an additional twenty years imprisonment was added to his sentence. It was during his imprisonment that Gramsci wrote the Prison Notebooks. It is within the pages of these notebooks that, I feel the foundation of the war on religion and the “War on Christmas” and the peaceful destruction of the America way of life was laid.

Cultural Hegemony

Although no translation of Gramsci's Notebooks actually gives a black and white definition of Cultural Hegemony, his often quoted characterization of hegemony as “the 'spontaneous' consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group; this consent is 'historically' caused by the prestige which the dominant groups enjoys because of its position and function in the world of production” In other words, the ruling group(s) uses its political, moral and intellectual leadership[6] to impose the direction of social life (culture) whether it be religion, the family or the basic traditions.

Gramsci felt that in order to bring about the defeat of capitalism, it would be necessary for the proletariat to develop a counter-hegemony (counter culture) and bring this counter culture to institutions such as schools and colleges, the churches, charities, media, and most importantly, the Family.

America and the free world has faced and to some extent defeated armed aggressors out to destroy free societies. BUT, cultural hegemony is the saboteur who quietly infiltrates and slowly works to destroy a society from within. Unlike an enemy with a weapon that can be stopped with equal or superior force, those seeking the destruction of traditions can be everyone, because everyone is part of the culture.

As the old Pogo cartoon said, “We have met the enemy and he is us”

Continued in "The War Nobody Saw Coming - The First Attack"

[1] Foster, William, History of the Communist Party of the United States, International Publishers, 1952.

[2] Iliad Foster, William, Chapter 2.
[3] “The social revolution originally envisioned by Marx and Engels would begin witha proletariat dictatorship. Once in possession of the means of production, the dictatorship would devise the means for society to achieve the communal ownership of wealth. Once the transitional period had stabilized the state, the purest form of communism would take shape. Communism in its purest form would be a classless societal system in which property and wealth were distributed equally and without the need for a coercive government.” 
[4] Russell, Bertrand, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1920.
[5] Gramsci, Selections from the prison Notebooks, Translated and edited by Quentin Hoare and Geoffrey Norwell Smith, New York, 1971. In T.J. Jackson Lears' The Concept of Cultural Hegemony: Problems and Possibilities, The American Historical Review, Vol. 90, Issue 3, pages 567-593, June, 1985.
[6] Moraes, Raquel de Almeida, University of Brazil, Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education.

Let me know what you think.

In The Hour of the Wolf – Reflections on Constitution and Subsidies

As I read and think about the various tweets from my great followers on twitter and believe me when I say that I value each and every one of them I have to wonder if some of my follower have, like a number of “conservative” talking heads and political candidates, have gotten so numb to various government programs that they don’t even stop and consider whether it is within the limits of the responsibilities of the federal government as outlined and SPELLED out within the Constitution.

It is not my intention to bash or degrade any particular GOP candidate or any particular follower on twitter.

I will paraphrase certain things and point out where what I consider errors in reference to Constitution. If I’m in error, I’m sure someone will correct me.

With a vast number of people watching the unfolding events in Iowa between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, either which could possibly get a boost by winning the caucus.

To this end, Mr. Trump has gotten what many “talking heads” may consider a very important endorsement.

No it was not Sarah Palin, but the so called conservative governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad.

Why did Gov. Branstad endorse Mr. Trump?

Was it because he believes that Trump is the best candidate for America?

I don’t think so!

I feel that Gov. Branstad endorsed Mr. Trump mainly because the governor is against Sen. Cruz’s stand on the ethanol subsidy and to some extend subsidies in general after Senator Cruz said:

“I don’t think Washington should be picking winners and losers. I have every bit of faith that businesses can continue to compete, can continue to do well without having to go on bended knee to Washington asking for subsidies, asking for special favors. I think that’s how we got in this problem to begin with.”

To which Gov. Branstad replied:

"Ted Cruz is ahead right now. What we’re trying to do is educate the people in the state of Iowa. He is the biggest opponent of renewable fuels," Branstad said, according to the paper. "I think it would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him." 

Now, I don’t blame Gov. Branstad for doing what he feels is best for his state, IF he didn’t, I would join Iowans in removing him from office. BUT like a number of laws and programs out of District of Corruption, they have been passed, put in place and taken for granted that they are okay. Why hasn’t anyone stopped and even considered their constitutionality?

When I posed this question on twitter, one of my followers said:

“They are acts of Congress not the Constitution. Congress makes law.”

To this I asked two simple questions, and it’s the same questions I have been asking for years on many other subjects:

“Isn’t congress supposed to make and pass laws that is within the authority of the Constitution? And just where is ANY subsidies authorized by the Constitution?”

Just where in the Constitution does it say that:

"Money paid, usually by GOVERNMENT, to keep PRICES below what they would be in a free market, or to keep alive businesses that would otherwise go bust, or to make activities happen that otherwise would not take place. Subsidies can be a form of PROTECTIONISM by making domestic goods and SERVICES artificially competitive against IMPORTS. By distorting markets, they can impose large economic costs."

This is the same question I asked Mr. Trump and Mr. Branstad on twitter? Did I get a reply, NO! In fact, I didn’t get anyone who supports Mr. Trump defending his stand on ethanol subsidies.

On the other side of the coin, I have to offer Ted Cruz, I offer this piece of advice. When talking about the corn subsidy or subsidies in general, just point out the fact that NO where in the Constitution does the federal government have any right to, as Mr. Cruz said, 

“I don’t think Washington should be picking winners and losers.”

In fact, if Mr. Cruz and Mr. Trump would have looked at history and see what a little known member of the FIRST congress, James Madison, had to say when confronted with a vote on what would be the first subsidy:

“...tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define general terms, If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” 

How many  “conservatives” were outraged & complained about the subsidies or bailouts to the auto industry which Mr. Trump supported in 2008? How were outraged and complainted about the subsidies to solar panel manufacturers? How about the tax money spent to study shrimp on treadmills?

ARE you one who complains about the waste of the many government handouts and programs?

Do you favor corn subsidies or any subsidies in general including government funding of schools?

If the answer is YES to the first question and NO to the second, then how can you look in the mirror and say you believe in the Constitution? Or do you, as many others do, just take it for granted that that's the government job.

Maybe it is, but not under our Constitutional Republic, but under a government where the elected officials believe in and follow an 1848 publication by Karl Marx or the 1908 American Socialist's party platform as a guide.

In the Hour of the Wolf – A Time to Reevaluate

NOTICE: YOU REALLY NEED TO READ ALL THREE PARTS OF SERIES

Many of you know that “The Hour of the Wolf” is when I do my “best” thinking and writing, others will say its when I do my best stinking thinking and writing.

I'll let you be the judge for I am about to unleash the hell that only a pissed off Marine Gunny is capable of when all else fails not only in blog posts but on twitter as well.

BUT, first things first, with this post, I will no longer spend time defining words, idea, etc. within this or any other post. I will establish a separate page that will list terms and words used in my posts with their meanings and source, and YES there will be history and original sources.

Second, I am going to do something that I have never done, I am going to beg you to OPEN your minds, do as I do as a scientist, look at the facts, evaluate and if necessary reevaluate.

FINALLY, I am going to ask that IF you do not agree, which I'll admit a number of people won't, I want you to feel free to comment, but be fore warned; be prepared to defend it with facts and legitimate sources. IF you begin your comment “talking head” said, I will eat your lunch and then I will answer, but I will push you for the original sources. This will apply to all future and past posts.

Now that the housekeeping is out of the way, let's get down and dirty.

“Mediocre minds usually dismiss anything which reaches beyond their own understanding.” ... Francois de La Rochefoucauld

Re-evaluation of current situation

For many years, I have ranted and raved that America has become more and more socialistic. I have quoted and documented the actual words from the Manifesto of the Communist Party (Manifesto), the Platform of the 1908, the Soros run Center for American Progress (CAP) and of course Boo Boo, our current POTUS.

In the process of doing RESEARCH for my various rants and writings I must admit that I have been forced to re-evaluate my conclusions.

America HAS NOT become a socialistic country.

Just as our Founding Fathers used various sources; the Bible, David Hume, John Locke, etc., to establish America; America has “done it its own way”. We went from a group of disorganized colonies under a monarchy to the United States of America united under the unique document called the Constitution.

Americans have always done it our own, quite unique way.

YES, were some mistakes made along the way: but being Americans, we corrected them in most cases without bloodshed. All of which were part of the learning curve.

Unfortunately over the many years, the American people and particularly politicians have forgotten that uniqueness which made America great and began to copy and adapt the movements that began taking place in Europe during the middle 1800's, BUT like everything which made America great, those wishing to bring about this change did it in the unique American way.

They took into consideration that most people would be repulsed by the idea of the use of violence to change the system. After all, the people of America were (are) basically peace loving and would use force only if all else failed, saw the violence in Europe (Revolutions of 1848 and the Commune of 1870) and memories of our own Civil War were still fresh in American's mind.

Even Marx in late 1870, warned the workers of Paris NOT to use violence to overthrow the French capitalistic government and would later say:

“One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”

Eventually those in America, who were seeking power, control, as well as change took heed of these words and turned to using crisis, propaganda and most importantly the ballot to began quietly and slowly using these guises to gain power.

The politicians took office, both locally and nationally, and began to pass laws and even allowed non-elected officials to enact regulations that would end up controlling aspects of American life.

Thus the establishment of what would become more acceptable, at the time, and falsely called “Big Government” but in reality should be called American Communism.

I can hear everybody, screaming now, “We are not communistic. We're a free country under a Constitution. We elect our leaders. We did not have a violent revolution that brought in a dictator, Etc.”

Part of these people's thinking is correct.

Yes, we do elect our our “leaders”.

True, we did not have a violent revolution that brought about a dictatorship. Although, under Boo Boo and the SCOTUS it appears that way.

Instead, Americans grew envious, greedy and sadly lazy and elected those on BOTH sides of the aisle who grew the size of government and made more people dependent on the government. A QUIET REVOLUTION, but a revolution nonetheless.

Does that mean we have not become communistic?

Are the American people really free or are we subject to whims of those in Washington who pass laws, or un-elected officials who issue regulations or the courts who interpret and in some cases misinterpret them. In other words, is Government controlling our lives?

“Si nescis unde venias, nescis quo adeas”

Socialism or Communism

“Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist (my emphasis) manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems:...” (Fredrick Engels in the Preface of 1888 edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, which has served as a basis for the “modern” British, American and the late U.S.S.R publications of this infamous plan.)

Now, unless you do what a friend of mine did when we were discussing a mathematical equation and I showed him the equation in a reference book, he threw the book away and said, “it's wrong”; then there is no reason for you to keep reading, your mind is made up and I shouldn't confuse you with facts.

So, for those that are still with me, when I quote Marx or Engels and they say communist or communism I will ask you to remember Engels, preface and call it socialist or socialism.

Not to know what Communism is, is today simply intellectual laziness.

(Paraphrased from Sidney Webb)

Continued in.....In the Hour of the Wolf – A Time to Reevaluate With an Eye on History

In the Hour of the Wolf – A Time to Reevaluate With an Eye on History

“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”...Samuel Adams

As I continue my reevaluation of what for years of believing America has edged closer to socialism, let us admit to one important thing; when it comes to socialism and communism, no matter what the various talking heads say, it comes down to a case of some subtle differences in the basic underlying theory between the two and in the long run; it can be a case of semantics and no matter what name you call it, they are both an attack on America and freedom.

Also, lets remember that socialism and communism ARE not about the body politics, they are about economics

Or is it a case of newspeak: where Big Government is not as bad as socialism which is preferable to communism?

Or is it that a Progressive is better then a Liberal which is better then being a Socialist which in turn is far better then being a Communist.

However, as I'm about to show this newspeak has been used and still being used to bury the truth and not scare the citizens of our once great country.

How many hard working, patriotic Americans would be repulsed by candidate on both sides that claims to be communist and wants to put in place various laws, regulations and programs to control what is produced in factories or on the farm? Or, how these products get to the store shelf or eventually to your homes? Or maybe even what you eat or use? Or, that the government will take care of you from the day you're born till the day you die?

Yet, those same Americans will cry, “Where's the federal government?” when __________ (fill in your own outrage). 

Or, will say, “Congress ought to pass a law.” when ____________ (I'm sure everyone can find SOMETHING that they feel there should be a law against).

Historical Look and Meanings

Long before Obama was elected to transform America. 

Long before some people finally woke up and realized that America was being destroyed.

Long before the “talking heads” and uninformed Americans who's idea of communism are a couple of pages in the Manifesto.

Long before those either wish to put their own unique spin on the subject or to show how “smart” they are about socialism and communism; there was a battle going on in America between those who wanted to bring about change in America.

Fredrich Engels, Karl Marx's partner in crime, wrote in 1847 before the publication of the Manifesto, explaining “What is Communism”:

“Communism [Socialism] is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.”[1]

American Socialism

Although the idea of Utopian socialism was present in the U.S. even before its founding, it wasn’t until the 1890's when the idea of scientific socialism really began to take hold in America.

The decade of the 1890's was an era of panic and financial depression and just as today, there were those who wanted to change America; those who believed in “not letting a good crisis go to waste”. (Note: And most people thought this idea was an invention of the Obama administration)

It was also during this crisis that American socialists began to prey on people's fear, envy and greed. They used this crisis and began to develop a federation of unions and political organizations. Sadly, for America, these socialists began to lay the foundations for American Communism.

It was also during this period that these foundations were “invading” American colleges, particularly Harvard, where Michael Medved's hero, W. E. B. DuBois and others established the American Fabian Society based on the principles and ideas of the established of the Fabian Society in England.[2]

America was also beginning to outgrow its Nationalism or it might be said, the idea Utopian socialism.

Out of the American socialist movement a number of people came to prominence, very much like Marx and Engels became prominent as leaders of world wide socialist movement.

It is these proud and unabashed socialists and their writings that I will turn to show the differences between socialism and communism and how eventually America put its unique spin on it and as usual did it the American way, thus establishing the wayto American Communism.

One such socialist was W.D.P. Bliss, considered the pioneer historian of the world socialist movement; who wrote A Handbook of Socialism in 1895, that not only summed up what socialism is and what it is not but also showed the division between the three major ideologies of socialism. 

“Socialism is the fixed principle, capable of infinite and changing variety of form, and only gradually to be applied, according to which the community should own the land and capital collectively and operate them co-operativity [sic] for the equitable good of all.”... Bliss

Now for those who want to argue that Bliss is wrong, after all most people's idea of socialism is what they hear on radio or television, let us look at what the Century Dictionary had to say:

“Socialism is any theory or system of social organisation [sic] which would abolish, entirely or in great part the individual effort and competition on which modern society rests, and substitute for it co-operative action; would introduce a more perfect and equal distribution of the products of labour [sic], and would make land and capital, as the instruments and means of production, the joint possession of the members of the community.”

And then there was what Victor L. Berger had to say in his article, American Socialism, published in the July, 9, 1898 edition of Social Democratic Herald:

“The definition of Socialism, as generally accepted now, is “the collective ownership of all the means of production and distribution.” This definition is about the same in all countries.”

Now, let's turn to what Socialism is not and once again I turn to Bliss.

Socialism is not Governmentalism [sic] or Paternalism

IF anyone has REALLY read the Manifesto or closely read the definitions of socialism above, you should notice the absence of one very important word that leads to the misconception of Socialism. NO WHERE does the word government appear.

For many of us, including myself, we were taught to believe that socialism meant a “nanny state”, it is NOT.

Nor is socialism an expansion of State activity.

“The state is not abolished, it dies off. The phrase of the 'socialist state' may thus be judged for its value as a slogan in temporary propaganda of socialism, for its scientific inefficiently.”...Engels

“Socialism is not turning things over to the State, to the municipality, or to government of any kind. By the derivation of the word from the Latin socius, an associate, by its history, by its use by Socialists themselves. Socialism is essentially fraternal, the very opposite of paternalism.”...Bliss

Finally and for better or worst, Fredrich Engels explained it this way:

“The first act in which the State really appears as the representative of society as a whole, namely, the seizure of the means of production in the name of society, is at the same time its last independent act as a State. Interference of the State in social relations gradually becomes superfluous in one department after another, and finally of itself ceases (goes to sleep). The place of government over persons is taken by administration of things and the management of productive processes,...”

Socialism is not the Regimentation of Society

Socialism is not meant to control a person's life, nor does it mean that the State should develop a fixed form of society, as outlined by Plato's oligarchy as defined in his idea of Utopia.

“It seems almost impossible to bring people to understand that the abstract word Socialism denotes, like radicalism, not an elaborate plan of society, but a principle of social action."...Sidney Webb

Webb continue on to point out that Socialism inevitably suffers if identified with any particular scheme, or even with the best vision we can yet form of collectivism itself and tells us:

“People become so much concerned with details, that they miss the principle." They cannot see the forest for the trees." [Editor's note: Is this not the American sheeple today, looking to blame the condition of America today on everyone or everything, yet failing to see the REAL cause. Basically, 'Not seeing the forest for the trees'?] The moment will never come when we can say, "Now Socialism is established," for Socialism is not a status but a life. Society is not to be run into it as a mould [sic]. Socialism is evolutionary, though the evolution may be a gradual and peaceful revolution.”

“True Socialism is as flexible in its system, as it is definite in its aim. Any system that would carry out its principle is Socialistic. This means that in different countries and under different conditions, Socialism would take very various forms.”...Bliss

“Socialism, therefore, cannot be identified with any one form of Socialism.”...Bliss

Socialism is not Co-operation

Socialism is not a workers paradise of co-operation between arbitrary groups of workers that has abolished competition.

In social science co-operation means the union of any group of persons, who agree on equitable principles for the purposes of joint purchase, production, distribution or consumption, based on their mutual benefit. This does not mean using government as a weapon to achieve the goals of joint purchase, production, distribution or here comes the key to the discussion of socialism and communism consumption.

Above all, socialism can be considered a union of the WHOLE of a community or society for the purpose of common ownership and management of land and/or capital.

Or as Hillary Clinton has said:

“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”

Socialism is not Anarchism

Just as there are differences between Republicans and Democrats, there are differences between the two schools of Anarchism.

Those who believed in individual sovereignty (Individual Anarchism) and those who believed that “all things belong to all provided that everyone contribute their fair share of labor...” or Anarchist Communism.

Both “schools” of Anarchism believe in the abolishment of the State.

The Anarchist Communist glorified the use of physical force and emphasized “the propaganda of the deed”, later to be known as the Bolsheviks, while the Individual Anarchist are not afraid to use violence, but they realize that their numbers were too small to successfully use force.

Socialism differed with both of these schools of thought. Socialists not only abhor the use of violence to achieve their goals, but believe in using the State. Socialists realized that “man is born into a society, a fact that man can not escape.” Thus they will use and work within society to gain freedom. (Remember: I am using their thoughts, their words, their philosophy.)

Socialism is not Communism

Many people will argue that difference between Socialism and Communism is a case of semantics, they mean the same and are equally bad. Yes, they are both bad for America.

Some will use the two words interchangeably.

While others will use Socialism instead of Communism in fear of not facing the truth.

Some will lump both words together as Communism or vice versa.

So, let's look at at the difference between the two. Again I will remind you that this is their philosophy and principles back before the newspeak began.

“Socialism puts its emphasis on common production and distribution; Communism on life in common.”...Bliss

Or as Berger would say a few years later in 1898:

“Communism proposes the common ownership of the means of production, or, in some cases, the means of production and consumption. Socialism, on the contrary, asks only for the common ownership of the means of production, as made necessary by the modern development of the tool into the machine. Socialism leaves consumption, i.e., the selection and the enjoyment of the means of life to the free will and the taste of the individuals.”

Communism makes less use of existing government and in most cases overthrows existing governments as evident by attempted overthrow of the French government in 1870 and the Russian revolution of 1917, which I feel marked the beginning of what everyone now recognizes as Communism. The key point is that since 1917, Communism has not only meant violent overthrow of existing governments and morphed into central government control and a dictatorship and the lost of freedom. Again I must remind you, the readers, that Socialism and Communism are ECONOMICAL theories and principles.

Many will say that by the very definitions and philosophies of the writers above, America is more socialist then communist, but remember, America has through the years put its unique spin on these ideas and created American Communism.

“The goal of socialism is communism.”...Vladimir Lenin

Continued in....In the Hour of the Wolf – The Reevaluation - American Communism

Literature Cited and not linked

[1] Engels, Frederick, The Principles of Communism, Selected Works, Vol. 1 pages 81-97,      Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969.


[2] Dobbs, Zygmund, Keynes at Harvard - Economic Deception as a Political Credo,

     Probe Research, inc; Rev. and enl. ed edition, 1969.