MARXIST FUNDAMENTALSBy Prof. Libor Brom, 1982 From "Where is your America?" by IMPRIMIS of Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan, 49242 Vol 11, No. 8., August 1982 The fact is that we live in a time of fateful challenges. As a people and a nation we are under test. This challenge is, of course, Marxism-Leninism. There is no mystery in its strategies and tactics. It has always been concrete and spelled out in black and white. It has also been openly and actively tested in the economic, political, and ideological struggle for control around globe. Lenin, the founder of the first Communist state, put it simply: "First we will take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia. We will encircle the last bastion of capitalism, the United States of America. We will not need to fight. It will fall as a ripe fruit into our hands." And, "We must practice coexistence with other nations, until we are strong enough to take over by means of world revolution.... We are not pacifists. Conflict is inevitable. Great political questions can be solved only through violence.... It is inconceivable that Communism and capitalism can exist side by side. Inevitably one must perish.'' Rykov, Lenin's successor in the Council of Soviet Commissars, corroborated: "It is our duty to inculcate in the minds of nations the theories of international friendship, pacifism, and disarmament, encouraging their resistance to military appropriations and training, without ever relaxing our own efforts in building our military equipment.'' Manuilsky, a prominent Soviet professor at the School of Political Warfare, said: "The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. We shall begin by Launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends." And Khrushchev, a more contemporary Soviet prime minister, said: "We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find out they have Communism.'' Today, Marxism-Leninism represents a most complex and powerful doctrine developed by Communist theoreticians and practitioners in every corner of the world. 'Its universal library offers dynamic political weapons and comprehensive theories, diversified approaches and seductive slogans. On one side of the globe, there is the Yugoslav moderate theory of reformed Communism and participative economy which lures masses into socialism. On the other side of the earth there are Chinese slogans which are more productive in inflaming a Communist revolution. Marxism-Leninism is particularly effective on the semantic level where it exhibits a devastating duality. It lulls its adversaries to sleep, while at the same time it mobilizes its followers to revolutionary action. The Communist International's Seventh Congress concluded that open use of revolutionary terminology does not promote the Marxist-Leninist drive for world domination. Therefore, "revolution" has been changed into "liberation," "world conquest by the proletariat" has been changed into "peace and socialism," "armed seizure of power and liquidation of the bourgeoisie" has been rephrased to read "peaceful and gradual transition to socialism.'' Even the word "Communism," which every revolutionary is so proud of, has been changed into "progressive, "anti-Fascist" or "liberal." Further, to confuse their adversaries, the Marxist-Leninists have devised a new language which uses old words in the basic vocabulary. When they say "imperialism arouses the wrath of the people and digs its own grave," they mean "through our manipulation of the local Communist parties, and with a vast auxiliary corps of dupes ; and sympathizers, we so arrange matters that the free enterprise system and democracy are destroyed from within. All we need to do is push it into the grave." Thus, the free, complacent, conscience-stricken, guilt-ridden, sex-sodden, drug-driven, decadent, and often antagonistic societies have been manipulated by goal-oriented, dedicated, and shrewd Marxist-Leninist dialectics into a notorious period of so-called peaceful coexistence and plain overt hostilities. "Detente" has become not the hope of free people everywhere, but rather their doom. "Detente does not necessarily spell out the end of the struggle between the two social systems," says Pravda. "The struggle will continue between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie." In other words, the so-called detente is nothing more than a form of Marxist-Leninist art skillfully geared toward pacifying the American public by encouraging them to act ridiculously nice while the Communists kick the daylights out of them. The result is that the free world continues to shrink. Democracies cannot handle periods of low-tension confrontation. They have - an almost universal desire to believe that peace is the natural condition of man, that armies are temporary nuisances, that conflicts of interest can be dissolved simply by a policy of good will. Unfortunately, nothing is further from the truth; but for some reason free people prefer to believe it. http://www.marianland.com/marx01.html (Opens in a New Window) From "Where is Your America" by Libor Brom Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, the monthly journal of Hillsdale College. August 1982, Vol. '', No. 8. “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.
Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page Return to HOME PAGE Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement) CommentsDate: Fri Nov 20 19:38:57 2009
This article proves that all professors are not necessarily Lefties. It also pretty well documents the evil nature of Marxism, and its close affinity to un-truth. The slick terminology it uses is what upsets me most, because the terminology is what brings so many otherwise decent people under the spell of this lying ideology. Every good and decent person wants peace; every good and decent person wants an end to wars; every good and decent person wants an end to hunger; etc., etc., etc. Every idealistic youth wants social perfection, and the ultimate Marxist aim is touted to be a social utopia – a man made perfect society – heaven on earth – worldly perfection – a worker’s paradise – a new world order. But it’s all a lie. In Hillary-Speak, the goal is the Global Village. In Obama-Speak, the goal is the World Community. In some future ideologue-Speak, it will be something else, but it’s all the same thing. The only real goal is the end of free commerce and the end of individual liberty. Meaning, necessarily, the enslavement of man. It doesn’t sound so nice when the real language is applied, but that’s what it is. Today, Liberalism = Leftism = Progressivism = Moderation = anti anti-Communism = Marxism = the drive toward dictatorship and tyranny. Which explains my aversion even to FOX News, as being “Fair and Balanced” because they present the “Liberal” point of view to counter the pro-American point of view. Why should they do that? Liberalism is the enemy of America. Why should an ideology that seeks our destruction get equal time? How do you compromise with someone who intends to kill you? How to you participate in gentlemanly give-and-take with a sworn mortal enemy? Once again, I repeat, because it bears repeating: there is no Conservative – meaning no strictly pro-American – news network in America today. FOX gives equal time to the anti-American point of view. Every other network is slanted heavily in the anti-American direction. There is no pro-American news network. There can be no compromise with Marxism. You cannot “reach across the aisle” and compromise with someone who’s goal is your nation’s utter destruction. Marxism is the clear enemy of all free men everywhere, and it is the clear enemy of the American Constitution. That is just crystal clear, and Professor Brom has beautifully shown it to us in this essay. Date: Tue Apr 27 00:08:19 2010
I am asking for some guidance. I am so confused. I am doing a paper on any idea from Clear and Present Danger: "Wahhabism" as a Rhetorical Foil by Alexander Knysh. I am so lost. I read his paper twice and I can't even understand what he is saying. Here is my question that I am trying to answer in my paper. What was the ideological void left by the collapse of Marxism-Leninism which led to these "mutually opposed movements” Sufism and Wahhabism to take hold? I know what Sufism and Wahhabism are but I have no idea how to relate this to Marxism. If you could point me in the right direction, suggest something to read, I would greatly appreciate it. What I do know is that Marxism was more of a religion and so is Sufism and Wahhabism. Was it the fact that Marx lied to the people and what be promised he did not deliver so they sought a new religion? Did they find meaning in the Islam religion? I know that there is a clear-cut divide between the ‘right’ or ‘proper’ and the ‘wrong’ or ‘evil’ forms of Islam, the former being ‘traditional’ Sufism, the latter so-called Wahhabism. How do I fill in the Marxism part? Any help would be appreciated. Lucy Date: Tue Apr 27 05:35:02 2010
Lucy: Having no familiarity with Professor Knysh or with his work, and not being compelled to delve into it, I cannot answer your questions out of any great scholarship or inner knowledge of my own. I’m afraid there are no shortcuts. A careful reading of the paper / book you cite should show the country or countries involved and the history of related events. If that is not the case, then the question is a bogus question not worthy of answering. Sufism appears to be a form of mysticism that predates Islam and merged with it among some sects. There’s no telling where someone will wind up when they go looking for God in all the wrong places. Man seems always on a quest to find God, but only in Judaism and in Christianity did God seek man, and reveal Himself to man. In every other case it’s the other way round. Man “finds” God, or invents him, and a religion is born. Marx rejected religion, referring to it as the opiate of the masses, and sought to instill materialistic atheism in his followers. Marxism is merely a tool of use to would-be dictators to get in charge of nations. Marx’s vision was international, as shown in his Communist Manifesto. Nevertheless, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and other Marxist dictators showed by their iconic statues and grand, mass ceremonies that smacked of liturgy that Marxism had morphed into a quasi-religion, in which the dictators took on the aura of gods. Islam, or Mohammedism, is also a sham religion. Mohammed encountered no angel, or, if he did, then it was the wrong kind of angel. Islam is merely a tool of use to would-be dictators to get in charge of nations. Mohammed’s vision was international, intending the whole of the world to submit to rule by Islam. The argument between Sunni and Shiite branches involves merely a disagreement about which branch of Mohammed’s blood line is to produce the ultimate Emperor (or Caliph) who is to rule the world. There is no “right” or “proper” or “correct” form of Islam. There are only Moslems who are more or less religious. The more religious the Moslem is, the more likely he is to kill someone, and the more dedicated he will be to expanding Dar Al Islam (the house of Islam) at the expense of Dar Al Harb (the house of war.) Dar Al Harb is where we infidels live. Allah is only merciful in Dar Al Islam. Allah is downright murderous in Dar Al Harb. Similarly, there can be no compromise between America as Constituted and Marxism. Marxism includes what we today call Liberalism. We are either free to vote with our own dollars for the goods and services competitively available in a free market, or we are not free to do that. The market is either unrestrained or government controlled. The people are either independent, or dependent on government. I submit that we have not had a free and open market and an independent citizenry since at least the 1930s. And it is rapidly getting much worse under Obamunism . But the technical answer for your assignment is to be found in the publication you cite, Lucy, if it is to be found at all. There just ain’t no shortcuts. Regards, Vic Date: Tue Apr 27 22:20:13 2010
You speak untruth regarding Islam. Islam is peace; there is bad and good within Islam as there is bad and good within Catholic church. There is no difference. When you speak untruth about Islam why should anyone believe what you say about Marxism or Catholicism or America? You are full of hate and not peaceful man. Date: Wed Apr 28 05:55:11 2010
Mahmoud: I have said nothing that is untrue. The very nature of Islam is violent, and the entire history of the movement involves military conquest and brutal suppression of any and all resistance. I offer as evidence the following fact. Every African nation that is Islamic today was previously Christian, and every one of them was “converted” to Islam not in the normal sense, but by the sword. Not by preaching, evangelization, reason or informed consent, but by pure military conquest and by force. To my knowledge, there are no exceptions. This is a historically verifiable statement. If Islam is a religion of peace, it has a very funny way of showing it. Since the 09/11/01 Islamic act of mass-murder I have written multiple pages on the nature Islam on this site, the last one being the Islam Is The Enemy page, written after the Fort Hood multiple murders committed in the name of Islam. If there exists any movement more destructive of freedom and truth and more dangerous to the world than Marxism, it would have to be Islam. Today we have a President who is even more anti-Semitic and more of an enemy of Israel than ex-Presidents Jiminy Carter and the Presidents Clinton. He seeks some weird kind of reconciliation with Islam at the expense of our only true ally in the Middle east, and the only protector of our own and their own holy sites. This is a vitally important point: Comrade Obama has no interest in protecting or supporting or standing by Israel. He will allow Israel to be destroyed. He is a ruthless man, for whom both Marxism and Islam are mere tools of use to him in achieving his own personal ends. American national survival, the survival of Israel and the peaceful well-being of the world depends upon the American citizenry getting Comrade Obama out of office, as soon as possible. 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.
|
