Provided courtesy of SayNOtoSocialism.com
With America Headed Towards Socialism, Most Care Not Enough to Resist
Canada Free Press
The relentless encroachment of socialism upon America’s economic, cultural and governmental landscape is like a bad dream to most red-blooded Americans. When society changes it can seem like the ineluctable drift of evolution or chance. But in the case of America’s ongoing continued expansion of government powers, spiking taxes, and shrinking military, it’s all part of a planned elitist push into socialism. And one need not believe in secret conspiracies when contemplating this shift. In fact, for those paying attention, it was all outlined long ago by the Fabian Socialist society, and other groups such as the Frankfurt School, as explained below.
I. Basic Socialism: History & Dogma
Socialism is a European phenomenon, beginning after the French Revolution with writers from Paris and London forming the core. The definition of socialism is: “a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production.” While most believe Karl Marx (1818-1883) was the father of socialism, he wrote very few specifics on the topic. In fact, one of Marx’s most signal shortcoming was his failure to describe his own working economic system. Instead, it was Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924), first leader of the new USSR who developed the theory in situ, according to the Library of Economics & Liberty. Lenin’s attempts at creating a profit-free economy was a spectacular failure, only bettered by Joseph Stalin’s larger failure.
A. Vladimir Lenin’s ad hoc Socialism
The Library lists Vlad’s four critical factors he believed necessary for economic success:
Lenin began from the long-standing delusion that economic organization would become less complex once the profit drive and the market mechanism had been dispensed with—“as self-evident,” he wrote, as “the extraordinarily simple operations of watching, recording, and issuing receipts, within the reach of anybody who can read and write and knows the first four rules of arithmetic.”
The four laws were apparently insufficient to drive en economy towards productivity:
In fact, Soviet economic life under these first four rules was so disheveled within four years of the 1917 revolution, productivity fell to 14% of its pre-revolutionary level. By 1921 Lenin was forced to institute the New Economic Policy (NEP), a partial return to the market incentives of capitalism. This brief mixture of socialism and capitalism ended in 1927 after Stalin instituted forced collectivization meant to mobilize Russian resources for its leap into industrial power.
Suffice it to say that no version of socialism has ever provided longterm economic growth or security anywhere in the world, because it lacks a cohesive economic theory.
B. Karl Marx’s Vision: Revolution
Karl Marx claimed to have discovered a “science” of economics that proved his ideas true. In fact, according to author Paul Johnson in Intellectuals, Marx was a moralizing journalist, with the faculty of a poet, masquerading as a science-minded intellectual. Writes Johnson:
But in a deeper sense he was not really a scholar and not a scientist at all. He was not interested in finding the truth but in proclaiming it. There were three strands in Marx: the poet, the journalist and the moralist. Each was important. Together, and in combination with his enormous will, they made him a formidable writer and seer. But there was nothing scientific about him; indeed, in all that matters he was anti-scientific.
Further, according to Marx’s writing partner, lifelong benefactor and friend, Frederick Engels, Marx should be remembered as a revolutionary. He said grave-side at Marx’s burial:
For Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being…
So Marx’s main interest in writing was to foment revolution, because without the collapse of capitalism, the promised paradise of total government control would never have room to occur. Knowing this, American leftists have long done whatever they could, in small and large ways to help birth the revolution upon American soil. The following is a partial history of that struggle.
II. Congressional Record January 10, 1963
On January 10, 1963, Florida US Representative Albert Sydney Herlong, Jr gave a speech outlining what he believed to be the 45 methods communists were using to take over America. Ponder the staggering number of these goals already achieved, much to our mortal damage.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Control schools. Use them to transmit socialist & Marxist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Infiltrate teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Discredit American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression.
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. Promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate churches. Replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit Bible & emphasize need for intellectual maturity, rejecting a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
29. Discredit US Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle American culture & discourage teaching of American history because it’s only part of the “big picture.”
32. Support any socialist movement to centralize control over any part of the culture: education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
III. Frankfurt School
The Frankfurt School were a group of German intellectual Marxists who established the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University, modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. This became known as the “Frankfurt School.” After Hitler came to power, these Marxist professors fled to the West to preserve their lives. Setting up shop in Columbia University, they decided to launch a mission to convert America to Marxism via a soft war. According to one source they did certain things to aid this:
To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution - but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future - the Frankfurt School recommended (among other things):
A main idea of the Frankfurt School was exploiting Freud’s ‘pansexualism’ - the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:
IV. Fabian Society: Slow Conquering Socialism
The Fabian Society of Britain was named after Roman general Fabius Maximus, famed for a warfare style that eked out victories via patience and attrition. Fabian socialists likewise seek to take over their host countries by slowly changing standards until the dumbed-down populace no longer has the wit to notice or care. A sociological analogy might be—how predators groom their victims, often waiting years for a chance to exploit their prey. An author sums up their strategy:
Like their namesake, today’s Fabians avoid open confrontation with the forces of freedom and, subsequently, tend to shield their true agenda from the light of day.
The creed of the Society, written in 1887, was as follows:
“It (The Fabian Society) therefore aims at the reorganization of society by the emancipation of land and industrial Capital from individual and class ownership…The Society accordingly works for the extinction of private property in land.”
The Fabian plan was to infiltrate America by targeting our legal system. Fabian convert Felix Cohen, a law professor at Yale, wrote the following:
“It is possible to attempt the overthrow of capitalism as an economic system without at the same time attacking the substance of capitalist law…Socialists can learn from their adversaries that it is always possible to attack existing law, in the name of democracy, justice, and liberty, in the name of the great ideals of the American Constitution, and in the name of law itself.”
Fabians sought to overthrow our system by changing the meaning of our stated legal concepts, and to codify those changes with cases brought by Fabian lawyers before Fabian Judges. The effect of this has been that while the technical wording of American law hasn’t changed much, the implementation has been transferred from the citizen and his elected representatives, to appointed bureaucrats. The Fabians have, diabolically, used our own laws to change the law. Freedom is the victim of these Socialist manipulations.
America is infiltrated by Marxists active so long in undermining our institutions and ideals that socialism is now in our collective DNA. They seek an end to private property, representative democracy and rule of law. But once America has turned over leadership to committed liberals, who will be left to protect the world from takeover by globalists intent on universal tyranny?
Unfortunately, the question answers itself.
Most recent columns
Kelly O’Connell hosts American Anthem on CFP Radio Sundays at 4 pm (EST).
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico. Kelly is now host of a daily, Monday to Friday talk show at AM KOBE called AM Las Cruces w/Kelly O’Connell
Kelly can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Article published here in full by the kind permission of the author.
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.' Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.'”
-- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, (Edward E. Ericson, Jr., “Solzhenitsyn – Voice from the Gulag,” Eternity, October 1985, pp. 23-4)
You can't even casually surf the Internet on any given day without numerous reminders of just how radical [Alleged] President Obama is -- and this is during an election year, when it should be in his political interest to mask his radicalism.
Minding my own business, I happened on an article by Jacob Laksin on FrontPageMag.com, titled "Obama's Pick for World Bank Hates Capitalism." I'd heard a bit about this before but hadn't yet studied it. I'm so used to Obama's extremism that such revelations hardly move me, much less surprise me. I know where he stands; I just wish everyone else did.
Obama has nominated Dartmouth College President Jim Yong Kim to head the World Bank. In 2000, Kim edited a collection of studies under the title "Dying for Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor."
The "book's radical central premise," writes Laksin, is that "capitalism and economic growth (are) bad for the poor across the world." Kim co-wrote the introduction, which includes the claim that the book shows "that the quest for growth in GDP and corporate profits has in fact worsened the lives of millions of women and men." It says that even in those instances in which free trade and free markets have led to economic growth, they've done so without benefiting "those living in 'dire poverty,' one-fourth of the world's population." Can't you just hear Obama himself in those words?
One thing that helps the plight of the very poor, according to one chapter, is a socialized health care system, such as the one in Communist Cuba. The chapter's author touts that system because of the Cuban government's "commitment not only to health in the narrow sense but to social equality and social justice." As we opponents of Obamacare have said repeatedly, Obamacare is hardly just about making health care more affordable or more accessible, neither of which it will do in the end, but is a stealth vehicle to greatly expand governmental control over limitless aspects of our lives to enable the leftist central planners to effectuate "social equality and social justice" under the innocuous guise of providing health care.
As with so many of its ideas, the left is wrong about the record of free markets on the poor, notes Laksin, who points to "overwhelming evidence" that economic growth raises income levels and reduces global poverty. But again, leftist ideologues aren't motivated by a desire to improve the lot of the downtrodden, domestically or globally, but by a burning passion for statism.
This book is right out of Obama's playbook. Can you not see the common thread running through these alleged glories of the Cuban system and Obama's approach to health care and his war on oil, coal and gas, along with his corresponding commitment to green energy and his various stimulus bills, all of which increase our national deficits, debt and unemployment but greatly increase governmental control?
Obama's nomination of Kim should be no surprise to anyone, considering his consistent record of radical associations and appointments, from Van Jones to transnationalist Harold Koh. For Obama, one's radicalism is not a deterrent to one's resume, but an enhancement. His appointment of Van Jones was not a mistake owing to the administration's failure to vet him as Obama's defenders later claimed once Jones' radicalism was exposed. Obama appointed Jones precisely because his administration was intimately familiar with Jones' views; indeed, the White House carved out a new position -- green energy czar -- specifically tailored for his worldview and then happily placed him in it.
Tearing myself away from this uplifting article, I next encountered one detailing Obama's ongoing fulfillment of his promise to bankrupt the coal industry -- with his Environmental Protection Agency's issuance of new proposed rules on carbon emissions, which will please the goddess Gaia but won't do much for the production of energy, economic growth, jobs or the poor, for that matter. This was after watching a report on Fox News earlier that morning highlighting Obama's obstruction of oil shale production based on other dubious environmental doom-saying.
Next, I saw John Fund's piece on National Review Online outlining Obama's background in the sordid community organizing tactics of famed leftist radical Saul Alinsky and Obama's close ties with the now fallen ACORN. According to New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor -- in her new book on Obama -- Obama still thought of himself as a community organizer when he was senator. He still does today, and, Fund warns, conservatives should be prepared for his Alinsky tactics in the 2012 campaign.
Maybe this all wouldn't be so exasperating if Obama didn't hold himself out as a uniter, but he is the furthest thing from it, as he, if anything, is doubling down on his polarizing radicalism and his unswerving commitment to a statist agenda for America.