The United Socialist States Of America

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

– Norman Thomas


Communism And Fascism

Been wanting to combine these to one post for viewing them together.

COMMUNISM
The 10 points laid out by Marx:

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

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

10. Free education for all children in public schools.

From: Flunking Fascism

Posted: June 28, 2004 1:00 am Eastern By Vox Day © 2011 WND

FASCISM
Mussolini – For the political problem: We demand:

a) Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women.

b) A minimum age for the voting electorate of 18 years; that for the office holders at 25 years.

c) The abolition of the Senate.

d) The convocation of a National Assembly for a three-years duration, for which its primary responsibility will be to form a constitution of the State.

e) The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industy, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.

For the social problems: We demand:

a) The quick enactment of a law of the State that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers.

b) A minimum wage.

c) The participation of workers’ representatives in the functions of industry commissions.

d) To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants.

e) The rapid and complete systemization of the railways and of all the transport industries.

f) A necessary modification of the insurance laws to invalidate the minimum retirement age; we propose to lower it from 65 to 55 years of age.

For the military problem: We demand:

a) The institution of a national militia with a short period of service for training and exclusively defensive responsibilities.

b) The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.

c) A national policy intended to peacefully further the Italian national culture in the world.

For the financial problem: We demand:

a) A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth.

b) The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.

c) The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.

As with National Socialism and Communism, it is easy to see that far from being a right-wing ideology, fascism is simply another variant of leftist worship of the State.

In 1925, Mussolini encapsulated the heart of fascist philosophy in a memorable phrase:

Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato. This means “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” Now


Karl Marx’s 10 Point Program of Communism

Liberalism = Communism = Statism

Below are the 10 points laid out by Marx.

Consider them and consider where the nation is today in reference to each. Then, consider for each of the points which of our political parties advocate for policies and programs to achieve the stated goals.

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

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

10. Free education for all children in public schools.

How far along now is the U.S.A.?


Elusive Wapiti Classic #1,Part 1, – Destuction of the Family – Feminism and Communism

The next two posts are in conjunction with the April 25, 2011 post:
<a href=”http://conancimmerian.blogspot.com/2011/04/communism-through-institutions.html”>Communism Through The Institutions
Great video of former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov</a>

Part 2 is below this post for a more traditional/readable continuation.

Original here: <a href=”http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2008/03/evils-of-feminism-part-v.html”>LINK</a&gt;

<div class=’post-body’>
<p>
Feminism Destroys Family and Society–Intentionally

<center><i><b>
“Most Americans do not realize that they, through their institutions, are being led by social revolutionaries who think in terms of the continuing destruction of the existing social order in order to create a new one”
</i></b> [4]</center>

In <a href = http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2007/12/evils-of-feminism.html>previous installments</a>, I’ve discussed how feminism devalues women, causes them to be sexually precocious, and leads to cultural <i>hara kiri</i>.  Today, I’ll discuss how feminism, purposefully and with full awareness, aims to destroy the religious- and family-based principles upon which our country and civilization is based, and replace it with its totalitarian matriarchal utopia.  As this post is very long, I’ll post it in two sections.

Some time ago, reader <b>pjanus</b> gently <a href = https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2136312527901126367&postID=2084901249095159579&isPopup=true>rebuffed me</a> for my naivete in thinking that feminists are simply misguided but well-meaning liberals who know not what they do. Well, I’ve done some more thinking and research on the subject, and I concur with him in that, while some feminists, in their zeal for so-called “women’s rights”, fail to appreciate the long-term effects of what they do, the remainder doggedly and intentionally pursue an agenda that is aimed at nothing less than the subsumption of Western and Christian culture.

I will attempt to explain what I found in as brief a manner as possible.  Because it is instructive to know where something came from to know where its going, this post will contain a short history lesson that explains the ideological roots of feminism.  In this task, I ask for your grace…this is ground well-tilled by those far more talented than I, I am not a “women’s studies” major, and I lack the space to delve into these subjects with any considerable depth.  But I will proceed nonetheless, and see where it leads.  Let’s go, shall we?

<b>The Age of Reason</b>

I start my very brief history with the Enlightenment, when man began to reject <a href = http://www.saintswithouthalos.com/n/pcraft.phtml>priestcraft</a&gt; and the theocratic State and used science and his powers of reason to define the world. One primary feature of this event is the decoupling of culture and morality from external sources such as religion.  Man began the process of turning inward and located his compass there, rather than on an Almighty Being, a process probably best exemplified by the rise of the Transcedentalists and the Unitarians in the 1700s and 1800s and the incorporation of their theories into the philosophies of Hegel, Kant, and Marx[4]. As Dreher recently observed, this turn was <a href = http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/02/western-culture-wrecked-this-f.html>doomed to fail</a> as we only now are beginning to fully understand.

This use of humanist reasoning, uninformed by theology, came to a crescendo in Germany in the late 1800s and early 1900s.  We all know what nightmares came of that, both there and elsewhere (such as the USA and USSR).

<b>The Godfather: Karl Marx</b>

Karl Marx thought it all up. His unified, single-factor economic theory of history divides peoples into two classes, sorted by ownership of the means of production. Put short, he dreamt up modern class warfare, in which certain classes of people–in his case, the workers–are <i>a priori</i> good, and others such as the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. His theory of economic organization dictates expropriation from the haves to the have-nots, according to their politically determined need. Marx critiqued society through an economic lens, and he had an intense hatred for Western civilization itself, querying in 1919, “who will save us from Western Civilization?”.[1] He also viewed the family as an instrument of oppression, particularly for the wife who is under the thumb of an oppressive patriarchal male, and advocated for its abolishment in favor of the family of the State.[2]  As one can see, HRC wasn’t the first person to think that raising children “took a village”.

<b>Critical Theory and the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research (ISR)</b>

After the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, it became clear that economic Marxism was not yielding the worker’s utopia that Marx envisioned. Thus a group of Marxists got together and created the ISR–the first modern-day ‘think tank’–in 1923, in Frankfurt, Germany.

The ISR’s purpose was and is to translate Marxism from economic into social terms, and enable Marxism to be fully realized. The key tool with which to do this was called “critical theory”, at term which sounds vaguely academic at first blush. In fact, the theory behind “critical theory” is just to criticize. Relentlessly criticize, relentlessly “deconstruct”, and relentlessly discredit social institutions and mores at every opportunity.  With one’s criticism, the aim is to undermine the prevailing order with the most descructive criticism possible without offering an alternative, and the ISR was hard at work doing just that when the NASDP came to power in 1933. In this staunchly anti-Marxist and anti-Semitic environment, the Frankfurt School fled to Columbia University, various positions in the US government, and in Hollywood, where they promptly begain to apply critical theory to American culture. The Frankfurt school would not return to Germany until after the War.

End of Section 1.

Tomorrow: <a href = http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2008/03/evils-of-feminism-part-v_03.html>Gramsci takes the stick from Marx and runs with it…</a></p>

<div style=’clear: both;’>
</div>
</div>
PART 2 BELOW


Elusive Wapiti Classic #1, Part 2, – Destuction of the Family – Feminism and Communism

Original here: <a href=”http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2008/03/evils-of-feminism-part-v_03.html”>LINK</a&gt;

<div class=’post-body’>
<p>
<i>Note: This is the second half of a post that argues that feminism aims to destroy the family and the cultural fabric in favor of a new social order.

Read the first section <a href = http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2008/03/evils-of-feminism-part-v.html>here</a></i&gt;.

<b>The Protege: Antonio Gramsci</b>

An Italian, Antonio Gramsci, took Marx’s theories and expanded upon them, creating what we now know as ‘Cultural Marxism’.  He took Marxism’s monolithic bloc of aggreived “workers” and broke them up into several smaller constiuencies, each claiming its own variant of oppression, be it sex, race, economic, blue collar workders, or homosexuals. Each had its own particular axe to grind, each had its own reason to be “critical” of the enveloping culture, and each demanded that the wider culture accede to its demands through accomodation or even publicly funded remuneration. Women, usually the largest group in any human population, became the largest “oppressed” constituency in cultural Marxism, and thus swung the heaviest political weight[4]. Gramsci also coined the term “hegemony”, and set it in the context of a full-scale culture war in which each oppressed group was to buck the hegemony which was seen as keeping each down in a state of servile oppression. Gramsci defines hegemony thus:

<blockquote>

“… Hegemony operates culturally and ideologically through the institutions of civil society which characterises mature liberal-democratic, capitalist societies.  These institutions include education, the family, the church, the mass media, popular culture, etc.”
</blockquote>

In other words, hegemony is the culture.  It is the whole system, both tangible and not. From Marx, we know that Gramsci’s hegemony is just code for all of Western Civilization, particularly Chritianity, and especially the Patriarchy.™  By attacking the hegemony with the weapon of critical theory, Gramsci hoped eventually so discredit the guiding influences of Christianity and traditions of Western law and English common law, so as to be able to supplant them with with his own “anti-hegemony” or “counter hegemony” of “scientific”, atheistic, cultural Marxism.  This would best be accomplished via a “slow march” through the cutural institutions (such as the public schools and the universities), where, like a frog in boiling water, the opposition would not know that they were in danger until it was too late.

To accomplish this clandestine overthrow of the culture, however, Gramscian theory needed a vehicle upon which to perch upon. Heeding the maxim that “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”, the cultural Marxists deliberately targeted the industrialized Western civ family’s center of gravity: women. Recruit women as the change agents; they would become the perfect vector by which Gramscian Marxism would infect the whole of the culture.

<blockquote>

Gramsci hated marriage and the family, the very founding blocks of a civilized society.  To him, marriage was a plot, a conspiracy… to perpetuate an evil system that oppressed women and children.  It was a dangerous institution, characterized by violence and exploitation, the forerunner of fascism and tyranny. Patriarchy served as the main target of the cultural Marxists.  They strove to feminize the family with legions of single and homosexual mothers and ‘fathers’ who would serve to weaken the structure of civilized society [3]
</blockquote>

So we know that the cultural Marxists targeted women, both here and elsewhere (as I document <a href = http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2008/01/folly-of-womens-suffrage.html>in my piece on female suffrage</a>), in an effort to abolish the traditional family and usher in their new world order. They found willing accomplices in feminists, who happily exploited the power that cultural Marxism provided, and later crowed about this merging of feminism with cultural Marxism. To wit: “Marxism and Feminism are one, and that one is Marxism”, “Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism”, “Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism”.[5]

<b>The New Feminist Family: An Import from Bolshevist Russia?</b>

Speaking of socialism and communism, some readers would be surprised to learn that the American family law system, of which no-fault divorce is a prime feature, wasn’t an American invention.  It was imported from Bolshevist Russia early in the last century.  That’s right, the same system that the West defeated in the 1980s lives on in our own culture, rotting us from within in the same way that Communism collapsed under the force its own weight.  Bolsheviks, when they came to power, attacked the Russian family with zeal, pushing for loosened divorce laws, granting ‘consorts’ identical property and status rights as wives, and encouraging free love unfettered by any obligation of one party to the other.  Chaos soon ensued: men and women both lightly entered into temporary unions only to abandon them with zest.  Illegitimate births skyrocketed, and the abortionist was busy.  Both men and women could charge each other alimony, and some women found child support quite profitable as they flitted from wealthy man to wealthy man, being impregnated and enriched by each.  Orphans clogged orphanages, and the Soviet state could not bear the additional fiscal burden of it all.

Indeed some Russians fretted about the corrosive effects of these reforms:

<blockquote>

The opposition to the proposed law seemed to centre around four points: (1) that it would abolish marriage; (2) that it would destroy the family; (3) that it would legalize polygamy and polyandry; (4) that it would ruin the peasants[7].
</blockquote>

Their dire predictions look eerily prescient given how they’ve been realized in the current state of the modern American family.  Marriage is tapering off into oblivion, the traditional family now is outnumbered by non-traditional ones, American culture is one marked by serial polyandry and polygyny and soon may feature legalized polygamy, and the middle- to lower strata of American society are disintegrating into ruin.

But these predictions fell on deaf ears. MacKinnon, and feminist scholars like her, were pushing for Russian-style easy divorce as early as 1947[6].  They found their huckleberry 20 years later in then-governor Ronald Reagan, who signed the nation’s <a href = http://www.dadi.org/bolshvik.htm>first no-fault divorce law</a> in 1969. Marxist feminists rammed through the Wisconsin model of child support across the country–itself modelled on Article 81 of the Russian Family Code–soon after.  These cultural revolutionaries continued to push the Russian model even after it became clear that the 30-year Bolshevik attack on the family threatened total social collapse within the USSR and had produced 7 million fatherless children by 1947[5]. To date, there has been no repudiation of the failed Russian model in the family law system despte the evidence right in front of us.  Instead, it continues to wreak havoc to this day, producing legions of “liberated women” who are “married” to the State and, by 1998, nearly <a href = http://www.fathersloveletter.com/Ministry/statistics.html>25 million children</a> lacked a father in the home.

As a result, we no longer have a family law system that honors the Constitution; it has been wholly assimilated by a Bolshevist-cum-Gramscian Marxist “anti-hegemonic” philosophy specifically designed to destroy the family and create as many people dependent on the State as possible.  Western “hegemonic” legal traditions upon which our society was founded have been turned on their heads.  As I’ve <a href = http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2007/10/justice-system-corrupted-by-leftist.html>blogged before</a>, the justice system is fairly shot through with Marxist ideology in the service of Feminism; now we have the dubiously moral practice of rewarding wrongdoing and penalizing, even enslaving, those who have done no wrong, sometimes based on no evidence at all save one person’s self-interested accuation, all for the goal of eradicating the independent, nuclear family and increasing the influence of the State on its subjects.

The effect of this Russian import has been catastrophic to our social fabric, posing a dire threat to our society’s ability to survive. Divorce, while down slightly from its all time high, consumes nearly 50% of all marriages. Marriage is way down. Cohabiting is way up. Abortion slaughters over 1M fetuses annually. Single motherhood, either by “choice” or by divorce, is skyrocketing.  The fertility rate is sub-replacement; even more so when you subtract illegal aliens from the mix. Crime is rampant. Educational achievement is spiralling downward. And just this week, we <a href = http://www.abajournal.com/news/1_in_100_behind_bars_record_high_us_incarceration_rate/>established an all-time record</a> in incarceration.  This is where our society puts disenfranchised men–and the few women who run afoul of Big Sister–who don’t fit into the Marxist-feminist picture of the State acting as the ultimate husband for the family. The government discourages competition, after all.

Feminists and other Gramscian fellow-travellers know exactly what they’re doing. Their aim is to enlarge the State through weakening the family and other hegemonic institutions. How do we know this? Because their acolytes tell us so:

<blockquote>

“[T]he stronger the ‘counter-hegemonic’ strength of unions and left parties, the stronger the welfare state…  When we argue for ‘decommodifying’ (i.e., taking out of private market provision) such basic human needs as healthcare, childcare, education, and housing, we have in mind a decentralized and more fully accountable welfare state then [sic] exists in Western democracies.”[5]
</blockquote>

The feminist agenda of female “liberation” goes way beyond gender equality.  If that was the case, the feminist movement would have ended decades ago when women achieved legal parity with men.  Rather, their aim is to create a omnipresent, omnipotent, socialized matriarchal government.  To do this, they need to destroy the traditional nuclear family–which has sustained civilizations for millennia–and replace it with a solo, female head-of-household wedded to the State. In other words, a matriarchy, with Big Sister as benefactor. Problem is, in destroying the traditional family, they have threatened the very fabric of society.  If 1940s Russia is any indicator, the new social order will not be self-sustaining.

In this way, feminism intentionally, purposefully acts to destroy the family, which in turn threatens to destroy society. Their agenda is clear to those who bother to look.

<i>Feminism delenda est</i>

References:
[1]: Lind, Bill.  “<a href = http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html>The Origins of Political Correctness</a>”
[2]: Lawson, Dominic.  “<a href=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-you-can-blame-it-all-on-karl-marx-437043.html>You Can Blame It All On Karl Marx</a>”.  The Independent (UK), 20 Feb 07
[3]: Borst, William.  “<a href = http://www.mindszenty.org/report/2003/mr_0103.pdf>A Nation of Frogs”</a>
[4]: Atkinson, Gerald. “<a href = http://www.freecongress.org/PC_Essays/F_chapter_five.pdf>Radical Feminism and Political Correctness”</a>
[5]: Wood, Bill. <a href = http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=954>Statement before the US House Ways and Means Committee</a>.
[6]: Mohler, Albert. “<a href = http://www.businessreform.com/article.php?articleID=11722>No Fault Divorce–The End of Marriage?</a>”
[7]: “<a href = http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/26jul/russianwoman.htm>The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage</a>”.  <u>The Atlantic Monthly</u>, July 1926.</p>

<div style=’clear: both;’>
</div>
</div>


Communism Through The Institutions

Great video of former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov:

<object style=”height: 390px; width: 390px”><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/_Iz3VjoHXLA?version=3″&gt;
<param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”>
<param name=”allowScriptAccess” value=”always”>
</object>


The Myth of American Freedom

A great summary of where we are/how did we get here.

The Myth of American Freedom
by Andrew P. Napolitano

Here is Judge Napolitano’s closing argument yesterday on his FreedomWatch.

Does the government work for us or do we work for the government? Is freedom in America a myth or a reality? Tonight, what if we didn’t live in a free country?

What if the Constitution were written not to limit government, but to expand it? What if the Constitution didn’t fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence, but betrayed it? What if the Constitution actually permitted the government to limit and constrict freedom? What if the Bill of Rights was just a paper promise, that the government could avoid whenever it claimed the need to do so? What if the same generation – in some cases the same people – that drafted the U.S. Constitution enacted laws that violated it? What if the merchants and bankers who financed the American Revolution bought their way into the new government and got it to enact laws that stifled their competition? What if the civil war that was fought in the name of freedom actually advanced the cause of tyranny?

What if the federal government were the product of 150 years of stealing power and liberty and property from the people and the states? What if our political elites spent the 20th century importing the socialist ideas of big government Statism from Europe? What if our political class was adopting the European political culture from which our founding fathers fought so hard to break free?

What if our political leaders no longer acknowledged that our rights come from our humanity, but insisted instead that they come from the government? What if you had to produce your papers to get out of or into our once-free country? What if you couldn’t board a plane, a train, or a long-distance bus without providing documentation telling the government who you are and where you’re going, without paying the government, and without risking sexual assault? What if your local police department could shoot down a plane? What if government agents could write their own search warrants, declare their own enemies, and seize whatever property they want? What if the feds could detain you indefinitely, with no visitors, no lawyer, no judge, and no jury? What if they could make you just disappear? What if the government broke its own laws in order to enforce them? What if the government broke down your front door in the middle of the night and shot your dog, and claimed it was a mistake?

What if you were required to purchase a product that you didn’t need, didn’t want, and couldn’t afford, from a company you never heard of, just as a condition of living in the United States? What if the government told you what not to put in your body as well as what to put into it; and how much? What if the government claimed that since it will be paying your medical bills, it can tell you what to eat, when to sleep, and how to live? What if the government tried to cajole and coax and compel you into behaviors and attitudes it considered socially acceptable? What if the government spent your tax money to advertise to you how great the services are that it provides? What if the government kept promising to make you safe while it kept stripping you of your liberties and committing crimes in your name that made you a target of more violence?

What if you didn’t have a right to every dollar you earned? What if the government decided how much of your earnings it will keep and how much it will permit you to have? What if the government took money from you and gave it away to its rich banking and corporate friends whose businesses were failing? What if the government thought it knew better than you did how to lead your life and had no problem telling you so? What if the government took the credit for every success your own human actions helped you achieve? What if the government told you that only it could build roads, run schools, keep you safe, and collect trash even though it’s never been able to do so efficiently before? What if the government spent nearly twice as much as it took in? What if it couldn’t pass a budget on a timely basis and funded itself just weeks at a time? And what if the government kept borrowing money against the wealth of future generations to pay for wasteful programs today?

What if you worked for the government and the government didn’t work for you? What if freedom were a myth? What if we don’t live in a free country? What do we do about it?

From New York, defending freedom; so-long America.

September 30, 2011