The term Marxist defined.

Vic Biorseth, Saturday, December 04, 2010
http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

Re the term Marxist defined, or re-defined, as in contemporary usage today. It has grown, and it has changed. The term Liberal doesn’t mean what it used to mean either. Marxism today has co-opted, overtaken and just absorbed a whole lot of other earlier terms. As I have said elsewhere, in my view, today Marxism equals Socialism and it equals Communism. Marx’s Socialism has overpowered all former forms, and of course, Communism – the utopian Worker’s Paradise – is quite the impossible pipe dream. But Communism is the invention of Marx and so that makes it Marxism. Call it a Marxist Ideal, if you wish. But, as we shall see, there are many other branches, subsets and variants, and many other terms that have been adopted by Marxists as camouflage to hide the truth of what they really are and what they are about.

What prompted this article was yet another conversation with friends in which one or more participants were troubled by my “loose” application of the term Marxist, or Marxism. Most people see Marxism as narrowly defined, and certainly separate from terms like Socialism, Communism, Liberalism, etc. It is my contention that Marxism has overtaken, co-opted and absorbed such terms, in a deceptive and deceitful way, in a process that took place over many generations. Of course, Marx invented Communism, which is why I treat Marxism and Communism as synonyms. Communism, which is quite impossible, has not and cannot even exist in it’s true form; yet the world has seen multiple Communist governments, multiple Communist Parties, the International Communist Party, etc.

Once upon a time there was such a thing as the collective, formed by farmers or others for good economic reasons. But the old notion of the willing, voluntary collective has been shoved into the corner of history by the massive, forced collectivization of Marxist governments. Today, collectivization is nearly synonymous with Communism. Throughout history there have been willing communities gathered for a common important purpose, who shared everything in common via a system of redistribution; many religious communities live that way to this day. But the expanded political notion of forced redistribution of everything, involving everyone, has co-opted the term to such an extent that today redistribution is nearly synonymous with Communism.

Once upon a time the term Liberal was the honored term describing the open, objective quest for truth, and the willingness to look at all options and go down any trail in that purely objective quest. But Marxism (Socialism, Communism) co-opted that term too, when it went underground and became devious and deceptive, after the failures of direct and open revolution. It called itself Liberal rather than Marxist (or Socialist, or Communist) to throw people off the track and to deceive the masses.

So it was with the term progressive. So it was with the term moderate. Term after term after term is co-opted or invented and used in the service of deception and evil, to bring man down, to put him into subservience to the false ideals of Godlessness and Marxism. It is done slowly and deceptively; you hardly even notice.

It’s not International Communism any more; that’s too obvious. The preferred terms are The Global Village, and the newer term, Global Governance, and the ever popular New World Order. Borderless Society. One Big World. Globalism. Global Economy. Only rarely do Marxists come out in the open and publicly declare themselves what they actually are, and that is done most usually when they have seized power or are about to seize power somewhere.

I believe in being direct. To me, a man is what his under girding philosophy, purpose for being and chosen life-direction make of him. If his politics and his sense of proper social order, and his sense of nature, are all that there is that motivate his thoughts and his actions, then he may be said to be a thoroughly secular, or secularized, man. The more brutal term is Godless, or un-Godly. The removal of God, and of the normative family, from the social discourse was and is just another feature from Marx’s masterpiece, the Communist Manifesto. Marxism cannot possibly advance or make any headway in the minds of Judao-Christian believers, or in a people with a deep love of family.

Even today, with the great Tea Party awakening, and the great resurgence in attention paid to our American Declaration of Independence, our American Constitution, the writings of the American Founders, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, etc., etc., etc., most people still think of Karl Marx as a great philosopher, a great economist, a great social thinker and so forth. That’s what they learned in school.

But Marx wrote no great social treatise; what he wrote was the Communist Manifesto. He was no great social thinker; he was a deadbeat, a dark, brooding malcontent, and a bloody revolutionary. His economic theory was so obviously, grossly and fatally flawed as to honestly warrant the term stupid. Nevertheless, his “Workers of the world unite!” became a pop-fad among the most elite among the sophists of societies all across the world, and it became such a pseudo-sophisticated elitist fad that today, history, text books, formal education, academics, economists, journalists, political scientists and the elites of almost all societies consider Karl Marx to have made important, even epic contributions to betterment of the social order. He did nothing of the kind. It was quite the opposite.

Be careful who your call Marxist, or how you apply the term Marxism, warn my friends, most usually when we speak about the newer “Social Democracies” or Democratic Socialist” states in Europe. They think there is something different about that form of Socialism than the clear and obvious Marxist dictatorships that existed behind the Iron Curtain and the Bamboo Curtain. I beg to differ.

What led them to their current semi-Socialist condition was the development of Keynesian economic theory, which I have elsewhere referred to as itsy-bitsy teensy-weensy Marxism. Whether Keynes was just mistaken in his economic theory or he had evil intent from the beginning, I cannot judge. But the fact that he never corrected his theory over many years of clear lack of success tells me that he either was too proud of it to correct it, or he was (or became) a closet Marxist himself. Keynesian economics are interventionist economics, which interfere with and seek to control aspects of the free market. A controlled market is not a free market. That’s just obvious. The market is either free, or it is controlled, and the degree of control makes little difference. If it is controlled to any degree then it is no longer a free market, and it may not properly be called either Capitalist or a Free Market economy, because it is neither.

A controlled market will eventually fail.

Only a free market is self sustaining. Prices of goods and services are only reliable and accurate when they are left alone to be naturally and automatically set by supply and demand. A free market requires a liberated citizenry. All participants must be perfectly free to participate in the activities of the market place. There is nothing tough about this.

The fatal flaw of Keynesianism involves the notion of government injecting money into the economy to spur economic activity, such as consumerism. It doesn’t work. It has never worked. The government only has three possible sources of money to use in this regard (or in any regard): tax revenue, borrowing money, and printing money. When it collects tax revenue, it takes money out of the economy, slowing consumerism. When it borrows money, it increases national debt. When it prints money, it causes inflation. If you take it from the tax payer, and then somehow give it back to the tax payer, to spur the economy, the tax payer is merely going to use it for what he would have used it for if you had not taken it, which is, to survive, pay bills, make house payments, buy food and go on living. If the government had not taken it in the first place, it might have stimulated the economy. Keynesianism is just too dumb for words. It has been co-opted by Marxism as another means to migrate monetary power and control from the private sector to the government, and do it while pretending to be something other than Marxists.

But France developed a different free-world economic model. France had a different kind of revolution than the American one, and it trended away from a free market and a liberated citizenry in favor of equality, and a conjured-up false image of fairness in the distribution of – well, of everything. Goods, services, wealth – you name it. This sort of controlled, un-free market, forced-distribution system required an elite, superior class of imperialists to run it, because the masses were considered to be too dumb to take care of themselves as Americans did.

That was the predominant elite European mindset, or “ideal,” if you can call it that, before the Great Depression and the devastation of WWII. The Great Depression was brought about by the American government actions of the administrations of Presidents Hoover and FDR, but Keynes theorized – incorrectly – that Capitalism itself had failed, and he built his economic theory around those “controls” he thought would prevent any such failure in the future. It took a long time for people to recognize that the actions of FDR and interventionist Keynesian economics were exacerbating the situation and making things worse, but, eventually, the light dawned, and the Conservative movement was born.

This was the period in which conservatism and liberalism changed places. Conservatism no longer meant to stay the course and stand pat; it meant to reduce government to Constitutional levels and liberate the people. Liberalism no longer meant the open objective quest for truth; it began to mean the championing of “fairness” and “equality” and the increase of government, in size and scope, to accomplish all this ideal fairness and equality.

Government gains power only at the expense of power of the people.

The European Union put this trend away from free market Capitalism and toward Socialism on steroids. Aping the USA, European nations were mesmerized into thinking that a sort of United States of Europe might become an economic powerhouse to rival America. A false and impossible dream. America might be called a “melting pot” of sorts, but at least we all speak the same language, and we all, in our overwhelming majority, share the same guiding ethos, which is Judao-Christian at its roots. Europe is a mixed bag, running the gamut from atheistic, to semi-secularized, to Moslem, with little pockets of Christianity and Judaism here and there. Their governments are not even representative of the governed, because the one thing all European governments have in common is absolute secularization. They are all Godless, and un-Godly to the point of openly opposing religion, which they hold in contempt.

Marxism capitalized on Keynesianism to such a degree in Europe that it is now more Marxist than Keynesian. Social Democracy, they call it, or other similar names. The free market and Capitalism are held in open contempt there. Whatever they call it, it is just another variant of Socialism. If anything is held in more open contempt there than free market Capitalism and citizen liberty, it is God, and belief in God. Moving to a common currency to be used by all, from Germans to Bosnians to Turks, and expecting no economic problems related to that, was just plain stupid. That’s what Marxism does to whole peoples.

To avoid the economic collapse experienced by the old Soviet Union, China moved from what they used to call Communism, but was really just a fairly typical Socialist dictatorship, to something called State Capitalism, in which the citizenry are free to start business enterprises, or take ownership of privatized or “liberated” prior state functions and operate them as for-profit business enterprises. But, with controls, of course. The government, which remained Communist, would keep the owners of the business enterprises on a loose leash of sorts. China began to experience something of an economic boom, as soon as some of her people were liberated to act in their own interest, to some degree.

Now the EU is doing much the same thing; they have already referred to their economic system as State Capitalism. The owners of businesses are controlled to some degree by the government. We used to call that National Socialism, or, Nazi-Fascism. It’s making a come-back.

Question: What’s the difference between State Capitalism and a Social Democracy?

Answer: Nothing whatsoever. Both are Marxist inspired and trending Marxist. Capitalism and Marxism – which is to say anti-Capitalism – do not mix. Capitalism cannot coexist for long with Marxism, and a free market cannot endure artificial restrictions.

In the Marxist world, Left and Right mean something different than they do in America. In Marxism, the Left is represented by old time Bolshevism (International Communism,) and the Right is represented by old time National Socialism (Nazi-Fascism.)

In America, the Left is represented by Marxism, in any variant at all, including Communism, Socialism, Nazi-Fascism or even Keynesianism, and the Right is represented by American Constitutionalism, which opposed all of those things in favor of a limited government and a liberated citizenry. That means, of course, free market Capitalism.

Obviously, Marxism, in any variant whatsoever, is absolutely incompatible with and antagonistic to American Constitutionalism. All the things enumerated in the American Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution fly in the face of Marxism. Marxism opposes God and belief in God. It opposes the family. It opposes national borders and national sovereignty. It opposes the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It opposes private property. It opposes the right to freedom of religion, press, speech, assembly, – you name it. Read the Communist Manifesto if you don’t believe me. That is Karl Marx’s great masterpiece. That is what all good Marxists live by.

So, who’s a Marxist? Marxist defined is all of the above, and even more. The whole slew of pro-Socialist, pro-Communist, pro-Keynesian, Leftist, Liberal, Progressive, Moderate, etc., people in view today. Virtually everyone who is antagonistic to America and the American Ideal, other than Moslems, some of whom may also be Marxist, as incompatible as that may seem. And more.

Just about the whole of the American Democrat Party is Marxist, as I have defined the term. Very nearly every point in the Democrat Party platform may be found not in the American Constitution, but in the Communist Manifesto. Every Republican who calls himself a “Moderate” or a “Centrist,” or who willingly compromises with Marxism in any way, may be said to lean toward Marxism, and to not directly oppose Marxism.

The Constitution refers to Legislators, in the form of Representatives and Senators, to Executives – the President and Vice President, and to Justices of the Supreme Court and lesser courts. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution lists and delimits the scope of the federal government. It makes direct or indirect reference to soldiers and sailors, border security and postal workers. That’s about it.

Marxist defined: Anyone working in government indoctrination. I mean public education. Teachers are not mentioned in the Constitution. Teaching is not within the tasks enumerated in Article 1 Section 8, or anywhere else. The Department of Education has no constitutional reason to exist. The notion of government indoctrination via public education came right straight out of the Communist Manifesto.

Marxist defined: Anyone working in government health care or in government health care insurance. The practice of medicine is not among the tasks enumerated in Article 1 Section 8, or anywhere else. Nor is the practice of medical insurance. The federal government has no business whatsoever involving itself in medicine or in insurance.

Marxist defined: Anyone working in government environmental protection.

Marxist defined: Anyone working in government housing or urban development.

Marxist defined: Anyone working in government global warming programs.

Marxist defined: Anyone working in government food regulation or control.

Marxist defined: Anyone working in the government OSHA. FCC. HHS. CDC.

I think you see where I’m going. To hell with cutting spending back to some previous level, or by some percentage. We should be cutting whole huge departments and giant bureaucracies. Any actual function any un-constitutional department was doing that is deemed worthy or necessary should be privatized and cut out of the federal government. Marxism seeks to get us to fritter away our attention and our treasure on unimportant nonsense as another path to our own economic destruction. Open fraud is involved in much of this.

Worst of all may be the IRS. There was no progressive income tax in the Constitution. They had to pass a constitutional amendment to get it in there. Our progressive graduated income tax is another destructive national travesty, which came to America right straight out of the Communist Manifesto.

When I see a Global Warmer I see a Marxist in camouflage. When I see someone campaigning on the old government-invented HIV – AIDS hoax, I see another Marxist. When I see a Union man, I see someone who responded to Marx’s famous call, “Workers of the World Unite!” When I see a rabid environmentalist, I see a Marxist. When I look at a Democrat, I see a treacherous, sneaky, underhanded Marxist who is increasingly unafraid to be recognized as a Marxist, as Marxism takes over.

When I see a member of the SLIMC, I know I’m looking at a Marxist. When I see a Juan Williams, a Geraldo Rivera or an Alan Combs I know I’m looking at a Marxist.

When I see the likes of a John McCain or a Bill O’Reilley, I know I’m looking at someone who sees no real danger to constitutional American in Marxism and who likes to give Marxism a fair shake, at least, in the interest of “fairness.” Whether they are flat out stupid, evil, or somewhere in between, I cannot tell. It’s at a point where it doesn’t matter whether a Marxist is of the useful-idiot variety or the bloody revolutionary variety. Marxists are dangerous to the constitution, to individual liberty, and to faith in God; that’s all the hell I need to know.

And then we have Comrade Obama, the least vetted, least qualified President in American history, who won election thanks almost entirely to not only the support of a Marxist political Party, but even more to the unwavering support of a thoroughly Marxist SLIMC, which operated, and still operates, as Obama’s personal propaganda arm. His own written and spoken words clearly identify him as a devout Marxist and an anti-American, who despises our Constitution, our whole history, and us, as a people. All of his friends and associates share in this elitist, pseudo-sophisticated alienation from and demonizing of America and all things American. I would be greatly surprised if you could find even one exception to that statement.

Previous to the reign of Comrade Obama, our Marxocrat Party operatives were content with creating, feeding, tending and growing huge, giant bureaucracies such as the Department of Education, or the Environmental Protection Agency, or various welfare agencies, and to making sure that all lower employees of these bureaucracies were unionized, to detract both American treasure and American attention from the important tasks of protecting liberty and opposing Marxism. They were content to prod America and Capitalism slowly toward failure. Even Comrade Carter didn’t go any farther than that. Comrade Clinton backed down and pretended to turn Conservative as soon as he encountered insurmountable opposition to his Marxist pushing. The intent was to simultaneously feed class envy between the demonized bourgeois (the rich) and the proletarian (the poor,) and to simply spend America into economic failure mode.

Every Marxist since Lenin has been obsessed with America, and has had America in his sights. Because America is and has always been the singular, one-and-only shining example of the prosperity that goes along with liberty, and the decency that goes along with Godliness. The American experience stands juxtaposed to every claim of Marxism. Everyone who flees Marxism comes to America, or seeks to do so. America early on became the prime target in the Marxist quest to destroy Capitalism and the free market economy. Until America fell, Marxism could not succeed on a world-wide basis, and every Marxist knew it. Nothing has changed since Lenin, except that America is now weaker, and poorer, and has not been paying attention, until Comrade Obama.

In Machiavelli’s day, “The Ends Justify The Means” was clearly recognized by all to be immoral to the point of being evil; that universal recognition was Machiavelli’s downfall. But it was co-opted by Marxism, and much of the world has trended toward Marxism, even to the degree of America’s Democrat Party. Today, “The Ends Justify The Means” is seen to be a virtue. Children are not taught that such thinking is immoral. It is now a commonplace idea. It is an axiom; a given. The Marxist corollary, “You Can’t Make An Omelet Without Breaking Eggs,” just naturally follows. A Marxist will do anything at all to further the aims of Marxism. Our cattle cars are being prepared for us. By Democrats and Obamunists.

The Hegelian Dialectic, modified by the Cloward-Piven Strategy, has been mastered and utilized by Democrat strategerists to the nth degree in America over the decades. Obamunism has put the program on steroids. Every single flaming emergency spending program, including TARP in the closing days of the Bush administration, was a flagrant categorical lie. Every bail-out was a lie; every stimulus was a lie; every emergency was a lie. There was no such emergency. There was no such need to spend any such funds. Banks or businesses of any variety that might have failed should have failed, and life in America would have gone on. A failed bank would be replaced by a better run bank. Fannie May and Freddy Mac never should have been started by the government, let alone allowed to continue to live. No mortgage should have been bailed out. None of any of this was really necessary.

It was purposely done. It was orchestrated. It is all part of a program to destroy the American economy for the purposes of the Marxist attack on Capitalism in general and America in particular.

The Obama Czars should indicate just how much farther Comrade Obama pushes Marxism than any of his Democrat predecessors. Where they created, fed and grew huge un-constitutional federal departments and bureaucracies, by the path of legislation, he just appoints them, without vetting, without congressional approval, without oversight, without any constitutional basis – by hey, at this point, who cares about the constitution?

The problem with bureaucracy is bureaucrats. They have the power and authority to create “regulations” with full force of legislated law, but without legislation, and without representation. Nameless, faceless bureaucrats who are un-elected and unaccountable to anyone can make, essentially, laws, which you must obey under penalty of law, and there is not a thing in the world you can do about it. Let’s look at the first (there are more to come) of Comrade Obama’s appointed Czars.

1. Afghanistan Czar - Richard Holbrooke
2. AIDS Czar - Jeffrey Crowley
3. Auto Recovery Czar - Ed Montgomery
4. Border Czar - Alan Bersin
5. California Water Czar - David J. Hayes
6. Car Czar - Ron Bloom
7. Central Region Czar - Dennis Ross
8. Climate Czar - Todd Stern
9. Domestic Violence Czar - Lynn Rosenthal
10. Drug Czar - Gil Kerlikowske
11. Economic Czar - Paul Volcker
12. Energy and Environment Czar - Carol Browner
13. Faith-Based Czar - Joshua DuBois
14. Government Performance Czar - Jeffrey Zients
15. Great Lakes Czar - Cameron Davis
16. Green Jobs Czar - Van Jones
17. Guantanamo Closure Czar - Daniel Fried
18. Health Czar - Nancy-Ann DeParle
19. Information Czar - Vivek Kundra
20. Intelligence Czar - Dennis Blair
21. Mideast Peace Czar - George Mitchell
22. Pay Czar - Kenneth R. Feinberg
23. Regulatory Czar - Cass R. Sunstein
24. Science Czar - John Holdren
25. Stimulus Accountability Czar - Earl Devaney
26. Sudan Czar - J. Scott Gration
27. TARP Czar - Herb Allison
28. Technology Czar - Aneesh Chopra
29. Terrorism Czar - John Brennan
30. Urban Affairs Czar - Adolfo Carrion Jr
31. Weapons Czar - Ashton Carter
32. WMD Policy Czar - Gary Samore

Every one of these Czars gets a six figure salary, significant benefits and all the “perqs” that go with holding a big-shot government position. Every one of them has an expensive staff and a sub-bureaucracy to do his bidding. Every one of them serves at the pleasure of Comrade Obama, and that should tell you everything you need to know about what kind of people they are.

But it goes even farther than the federal government setting pay limits of individuals in private enterprises. It comes at us from all angles. We have legislated law and adjudicated legal precedent unconstitutionally restricting our liberty. Government restrictions now involve what kind of light bulbs we can use, and even how hot the coffee may be at McDonalds, in case someone decides to dump it on himself instead of sip it.

Just think of the sheer stupidity of such laws as Sarbanes Oxley. That law appears to have been designed and intended just to piss people off, and if that is the true purpose, then it is wildly successful, every single day, in business offices all across this nation.

Much tax law and other law is designed to control or restrict human behavior, which is tantamount to restricting liberty. Just look at smoking laws. Just look at taxes on tobacco. I submit that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) has no legitimate reason to exist. Tobacco is legal; alcohol is legal; firearms are legal. So long as they are legal, the government should not be trying to modify people’s behavior by any special taxes, required wording on packaging, special government stamps, etc. If it is deemed to be that harmful, it ought to be made illegal. If it is not illegal, it should be left alone. Citizens do not need to be treated as children and they do not need to have their behavior controlled by the state. “Behavior” taxes are particularly onerous. Modifying citizen behavior is not a good reason for any tax. BATF should be shut down; experienced officers should be moved into border security.

And no, I do not believe that second-hand smoke can drop a charging bull elephant in his tracks at 20 yards.

Comrade Obama has put the spending-into-failure-mode program on steroids, and he has put the increase in bureaucracy program on steroids, and he has blatantly ignored and directly violated the constitution more than any previous President. The constitution may as well not even exist. He has put himself above the law. Even after the huge Democrat defeat in the November election, he blithely pushes on, pressing his lame-duck majority in the House, his retained majority in the Senate, using his Presidential authority to issue Executive Orders, and, of course, his Czars, to double down on all of his initiatives.

He is clearly even more anti-Semitic than Jiminy Carter, Billary Clinton, Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat. He would even restrict Israeli citizens from building new homes in Jerusalem, which is tantamount to restricting American citizens from building new homes in Washington DC. He will oppose Israel at every opportunity; he will do nothing to defend Israel. If Israel is bombed or even invaded, or even nuked, he will make a speech, and tut-tut, and strut, and maybe call for talks.

He will do nothing to increase American border security. He will do nothing about all the illegal aliens in America, except to make them citizens, if he can get away with it. Hey, he’s gotten away with everything else up until now.

If North Korea invades South Korea, or even if North Korea takes out American forces there with nukes, Comrade Obama will posture, speechify, pontificate, strut, appoint a committee, and do nothing.

If disaster strikes America, in the form of a terrorist attack, a nuke or other form of WMD, whether from Islam or from another nation, Comrade Obama will issue warnings, speechify, pontificate, puff, strut, call for a UN resolution, and essentially do nothing.

What does he want? The destruction of Capitalism and the destruction of America. He has no interest whatsoever in any second term. He doesn’t even intend to run. He has already destroyed the Democrat Party, provided America survives him. The Democrat Party has served his purposes, and he has no further need of it. He hopes to become dictator.

His first choice would be to assume World Leadership at the UN.

Failing that, his second choice would be to become the sole ruler of a destroyed, devastated and starving United States of America.

Failing that, his third choice would be to be remembered in history by all good Marxists as the one who made the most significant contribution to bringing America down, and all of Capitalism with her.

Sarah Palin once alluded to the possibility that Comrade Obama may not be packing the manly equipment usually required to do really gutsy things. If she is right, then Comrade Obama will wimp out and take the third option, and hope for survival.

But until sorely pressed, he will continue the march and take his chances. Anything can happen. He hopes for disaster, or multiple disasters. He hopes for anarchy. If he believed in God, he would pray for anarchy, and for the opportunity to declare martial law, suspend the constitution, shut down all opposition and just take over. The military is a question mark; perhaps even the Secret Service is a question mark, when it comes to going that far.

Anything can happen.

Why he will fail. The worst enemy of any Marxist is another Marxist. Stalin and Hitler started out secret partners, but each was a treacherous Marxist. They wound up at war with each other, as they both knew they would sooner or later. Treachery is typical of Marxists. Stalin killed millions – millions – in his own Communist Party, in the purges, out of paranoid, or perhaps not so paranoid fear of one of them taking him out and taking his place. Marxists are Godless men who do un-Godly things. They cannot be trusted, even by other Marxists. Comrade Obama is not the only Marxist who would like to be ruler of the world, or of America. Every Marxist shaking hands with any other Marxist has a dagger in his other hand behind his back. They are their own worst enemies.

The American citizenry is now wide awake, and their blood is up. Though it may be a long, bitter, bloody and ugly struggle, we will eventually win if we are pressed to action. There are just too many of us and we are just too determined not to fail.

Every Tea Party meeting I have attended began with prayer, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, and ended with prayer. In between the beginning and the end were always many other references to God, and to family, and to tradition, and to the Constitution, and to the Bill of Rights, and to the Declaration of Independence. We are not going to give all that up, and that is final.

We are all races; we are union an non-union; professionals, clerics, tradesmen, and laborers, we are Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Constitutionalists, Christians and Jews of all variety and description. We are disgusted with professional politicians of all political Parties.

We have no leader. We have no hierarchy. We have no membership list. We simply have access to our town halls, and to each other. We share phone numbers and emails; we make calls, we go door-to-door, we pass the hat at meetings and put up billboard ads, and support candidates and issues. And we vote. No matter what happens, we will live and die free Americans.

The free spirit of America will never die. Pray for America, and join us.

God bless the USA.

Reference Material

Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Date: Tue Dec 28 05:13:14 2010
From: Joe Miller
Email:
Location:
Comment:

I read your fine print about not using crude language, insults etc. so if your standards are so high, why do you think it is fair (and yes, I suppose, balanced) for you to call Karl Marx a "deadbeat" or "stupid"? Also, while you are obviously full of rancor against anybody and everybody opposing your points or view or whatever it is that you are supposed to stand for, what is your positive counter-point to this vapid abuse heaped upon those who disagree with you, i.e. what is your positive message, what is your alternative, especially to those who are unemployed and sinking below the poverty level? Yes, I know, pray, vote GOP, and pass the ammunition.

Date: Tue Dec 28 05:55:57 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Joe:

Karl Marx was indeed a deadbeat, and he was indeed stupid. Truth reigns here. If a position or an argument or a statement is stupid, I will say so, and so should you. Marx abandoned God and family, and then spent his life depending on the largess of others rather than on himself. He bitterly attacked all who had not abandoned God and family, and he attacked their obviously higher standard of living, all the rest of his days. Indeed, he sought to destroy belief in God and the family, and even the very notion of private property.

What can I say? Karl Marx was a deadbeat, and he was stupid.

My “counterpoint” alternative position, for Americans, is to read and understand our founding and constituting documents, and see where Marxism is taking us as a nation. We need to return to fundamental America, as the founders envisioned it, designed it and constituted it. Constitutional America opposes Marxism in every single aspect. There is nothing in Marxism that is compatible with Constitutional America. Being even a little bit Marxist is being a little bit anti-American. I really thought all of that was pretty clear.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Tue Dec 28 08:00:36 2010
From: Jo Lynn
Email:
Location:
Comment:

I thought Marx was a university professor and a journalist.

Date: Tue Dec 28 09:24:30 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Jo Lynn:

Marx was totally dependent upon his father until his father died. Then he worked to become a professor, and was one for a time, until his radical mentor professor was fired, and Marx himself was discredited as a revolutionary nut case. He then moved about to more and more liberal areas, first France, then Belgium, to work as a journalist until being fired for his inflammatory writing. He then depended upon the charity of Engles and other Communists as he worked on his grand “philosophy.”

He is discredited as a philosopher (in my eyes) because he looked down on all other philosophers as mere seekers of truth regarding the world, while he sought to change the world. He thought that’s what a good philosopher was supposed to do, and thus, that he was the only real philosopher in the world.

Whatever food and shelter Marx enjoyed, someone else was always picking up the tab. He thought that working to earn a living was beneath someone of his “smarts” and that the world owed him a living just because he was so much smarter than everyone else. That is typical of over-educated pseudo-sophisticates here and every where. The typical Marxist wants to direct the work of others, not actually do any of it, even when he knows nothing whatsoever about the nature of the work to be done.

Marx was the antithesis of the practical working man with common sense.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Thu Dec 30 04:29:24 2010
From: Joe Miller
Email:
Location:
Comment:

Your "truth" reigns supreme here. That's exactly what I thought. Your views and your opinions are the truth; anybody else who contradicts or gainsays you with facts or educated opinion is an evil communist because you know the Will of God. This makes you an extremist and a hate-monger, Vic, exactly like the Muslim extremists that you fear and loath. I therefore see no point to your website. The only interesting thing about your website is the intensity of the anxiety and desperation you generate, but that is not surprising since both the Catholic Church and the run-away free market capitalism in the United States are under such duress they may hopefully either go under completely or undergo some welcome reforms that will no longer accommodate people like you.

This is my last comment since it's just not worth my time. I asked you what your positive, constructive message was. As I thought, more vapid hatred. Absolutely nothing reconciliatory or hopeful. You are supposed to be a Christian? I don't think so.

So to use a good French word and to mock your phony courtliness, adieu, Vic. For the good of everybody, quit your website. It's truly disgusting. You're just pandering to hatred and destructiveness.

Date: Thu Dec 30 06:02:14 2010
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Joe:

Regarding Marx and Marxism, you have presented no facts, and you have presented no opinion, educated or otherwise. You have presented no coherent argument of any kind supporting Marx or Marxism. All you have done is attack me personally, God, the Church He founded, Capitalism and America. Since you hope for a future America that will “no longer accommodate people like [me]”, you attack the very Constitution of America. Now, what would you call a person like yourself?

This is a very timely submission, because I’m just finishing work on a page of anti-American quotes; I will include your submission in it.

Auf wieder-derchi, ariva-sehen, and hasta la something-or-other.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Sat Jan 08 22:58:03 2011
From: Jo Lynn
Email:
Location:
Comment:

First, if my comment was what caused the controversy with Joe Miller, I must apologize, and state that I didn’t feel particularly under attack by Vic’s response.

My question here regards my ongoing attempt to put Marx’s life story in order, and some fine points that need resolving. The biggest one regards why Marx had to “scramble” to make a living after his father died. I found that he had the support of a radical lecturer (not a professor) named Bruno Bauer. This support was both to help Marx obtain a position with the university as well as monetary support. But what I found was that Bauer was dismissed before Marx was actually employed. The relationship continued; they both worked for the same publications until the publication was shut down or they had to run for it. Marx was also supported by one Moses Hess, and other radicals throughout his life.

But what I have not been able to resolve is why he had to “scramble” to somehow earn a living after his father died. I cannot find out whether his father disowned him, or his father had nothing to leave him.

Date: Sun Jan 09 06:45:29 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Jo Lynn:

What you found is entirely plausible to me. It may be that Marx was a lecturer as an unpaid or low-paid intern student of Bauer. Sometimes advanced degree candidates stand in as teacher/lecturers in classrooms and take on the aura of professorship, just as lecturers are often assumed by observers to be professors, ala “Professor” Obama.

Marx’s father supported him only while attending university, and conditionally, that he study law. Whether he intended to cut him off after that, or he disinherited him, or whether he had nothing to leave him or anyone else, that I do not know. I do know that both Marx and Engles despised even the very notion of the family itself. The three things Marxism hates most are God, family and property.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Tue Jan 11 21:41:53 2011
From: Smitty
Email:
Location: Eagle Pass, TX
Comment:

Vic, I think you were a little hard on Joe Miller. As a disinterested observer, it looks to me like his rhetoric is about as over-heated as your own. And that it is it just that – rhetoric. I doubt that actually he meant to restrict your free speech. Go back and re-read your own words and you may see that they qualify as hate speech. Many people would be upset with your choice of words. I like your writing and your ideas, but your fiery rhetoric is sometimes inflammatory.

Smitty.

Date: Wed Jan 12 06:10:52 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Smitty:

First of all, let me state the obvious: that all Communists despise freedom of speech and freedom of the press. While it is possible that Joe Miller’s little rant was mere overheated rhetoric, words still have meaning, and I always take them literally. Perhaps my words are sometimes “hot”, but show me any of my words that were not true, if you can. Even rhetoric should speak truth.

Go back and study the founding era discussions, debates and hot rhetoric back and forth to find the original source and the driving force that brought us freedom of speech and freedom of the press. You will find that it was primarily all wrapped up in one person: Patrick Henry. His words were loaded down with what we would call overheated rhetoric, or perhaps “hate speech”; but they were true. He was a revolutionary pamphleteer; the British wanted his head on a pike over his patriotic pamphlets, which were the most significant rallying call to revolution.

What he and the other founders meant by “press” was anyone who had or had access to a printing press, to spread his words widely throughout the public arena. I submit that today, bloggers and websters (I call those with their own websites like this one websters) are the radical pamphleteers of our century.

Joe Miller apparently hates that, and perhaps you do too. Define for me the term “hate speech.” Is it possible that it might be speech that offends someone? If so, then it is precisely the type of speech that Patrick Henry and the Founding Fathers intended to constitutionally protect.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Sat Jan 22 06:52:13 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Correction: I said above that the primary author of the “overheated rhetoric” in an abundance of revolutionary-era pamphlets was Patrick Henry; I should have said that it was Thomas Payne, the author of Common Sense. Sometimes when I’m speaking or writing fast I get my Founding Fathers mixed up in my overheated little mind.

Special thanks to Jimmy for pointing out the error.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Wed Mar 02 08:18:04 2011
From: Chazz10
Email: dbt.vito@att.net
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Comment:

I do believe that the first President to use the term Czar was Ronald Reagan, also Bush had czars in his cabinet, Since you include so many that think different from you as Marxist, I guess its OK to think of you as conservative Nazis.

Date: Wed Mar 02 11:42:52 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Chazz10:

You may if you wish, but it would not be accurate. Hitler, too, was a self-defined Marxist, and a man of the Left, not the Right. The only difference between Communism and Nazi-Fascism is that the Communism expropriates property, while Nazi-Fascism expropriates the owners of property and controls them, thereby controlling property. In both cases, the people are the losers. That includes, of course, the workers.

Regards,

Vic

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.