Occupy Wall Street Dopes Want a General Strike

I've been trying to say to you all along that the entire purpose of mobilizing all these people in one place, setting up kitchens and bathrooms, giving them pep talks and instruction, is to HAVE A GENERAL STRIKE.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-10-30/oakland-occupy-protests/51005326/1?csp=34news

Mark.. my... words. Unless firm action is taken and SWIFTLY, people are going to get hurt... and I don't mean their feelings.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/10/27/following-police-violence-occupy-wall-street-tests-general-strike-idea/

It's going to get ugly either way.

Lesson 7: The German Ideology, Part 2

I hold weekly meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC. This is a synopsis from our seventh meeting.

Synopsis of Week 7 Meeting:

1. Human beings are defined by their activity in production.

2. Production for survival is the basic means of attributing this definition. Therefore, if one survives by means of farming, one is a farmer.

3. The interrelationships of men in society establish these things further.

4. The intertwining of societal relationships (for example, between farmer and fertilizer manufacturer) defines the strength of production in that society.

5. The relationship of nations one to another is predicated on the relative strength of their productive efforts, so that a resourceful and working nation like the United States commands respect from a nation less in those qualities (for example, Guyana).

6. The division of labor within a nation (or society) is defined by resources and population.

7. When a population grows, the division of labor within a nation (or society) causes the bonds of interdependency to grow weaker. For example, if a family unit farms, its strength is dependent on available other resources and divisions of labor. The fewer, the more interdependent is the family on itself.

8. Although it might appear that Marx is brilliant, he is only stating the obvious (at least from this 21^st-century perch). But even here Marx has made several errors. First, his assumptions, even his first assumption, is based on generalization. If you have followed our synopses, you may recognize that he has already settled his end goal, that is, his Synthesis. Now is for him the time to set up Thesis and Antithesis. Here, Marx has assumed that individuals and even societies are static in their attitudes. Perhaps his experiences in post-Napoleonic Europe shaped him to believe in this stoicism. Regardless, it is important to understand that Marx’s view of individuals and societies as (basically) sheep fits to his concept that individuals and societies can be molded to ideology. This is not far removed from his offering that religious ideologies which have manifested even in his cherished Hegelian philosophy (both for the Old Hegelians and New) may be eradicated with little more than a whimper.

Note also that families (or, more properly, family members) are to Marx merely cogs in a scheme. The only difference to Marx is whether individuals should be a “slave” (his word, not mine) to the productive capacities and goals of the family or to some “greater good.”

9. Marx postulates next that the tribal division of labor, with “latent slavery” in family units, moves to the next level of society, that of communal ownership through the strength of the State. In this case, Marx is referring to conquest over peoples who in his conception (reality, if you like) are enslaved. Then, following some accommodation for equalization at some or various levels, the ownership of property remains in the hands of established power while those formerly (or still) enslaved work for their meager existence.

While we may agree that certain members of the community are given less than an equal share (even a “fair share” if you are so philosophically inclined), there is nevertheless a need to confront Marx on the idea that subversion of one class for the elevation of another is moral, conducive to success, or both. For this is the fabric of collectivism, that there are Victims, Oppressors, and a Savior. For Marx, the Victim is obviously the “enslaved” proletariat, and the Oppressor is the ensconced power. In irony, it should be noted that if the enslaved become the power then the power (if any should survive) become the enslaved. Whether or not Marx considered that far ahead is not debatable, for his stated goal after the “revolution” is the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” thereby objectifying the turnabout.

10. Marx looks upon private property as the ill-gotten gains of conquest through war and economic devices. His principle is always that personal property which must be protected is immoral (if indeed Marx can be said to have espoused morality). Communal property is all. Those who believe in personal property rights are by his definition mis-educated, either by bourgeoisie ownership or bourgeoisie education in ownership. Marxism is therefore always in conflict with the natural rights of man, as especially upheld by the American Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

Those who have been so mis-educated are destined either for death in the revolution (a consequence, Marx believes, of their inability to relinquish that which is not rightfully theirs) or else reeducation after the successful revolution. If the latter fails, then elimination is called for as a compassion to the greater good (and those killed would not anyway “appreciate” the Marxist “new normal”).

The error in this is, again, Marx’s static view of the machinations of individuals and history. He does not contemplate or consider that property which has been won by conquest (for example, land taken from Indian tribes) can at no far-flung time be accurately or adequately wrested from those who took control by force and returned to their “rightful” owners. Marx must invent an ideology of inheritance whereby the descendants of those who did wrong may serve penance and gather forgiveness from the descendants of those who were wronged. This ideology is not unknown to you. It is the spirit of “white guilt” and “reparations” where it concerns black slavery in America. It is Van Jones crying “Give them the wealth! Give them the respect!” where it concerns the Native American Indian.

But it is a lie, and on two levels. First, reparative payments for the purpose of absolving ancestral guilt for reestablishing some type of cosmic order is not a recognized form of Judeo-Christian belief. It is not in Torah. Torah commands only those who sinned to receive punishment. The idea of visiting the guilt of sin for seven generations thereafter is not an extrapolation of earthly payment but only for God to mete out, at His pleasure. Even the Yom Kippur goat, which collectively pays for the annual sin of Israel, does not carry with it any necessity for heirs to return property called “stolen.” Neither did Jesus say that to be free from the guilt of sin one must repair the property rights of those long gone. That he mentioned to the rich man “perfection” might be attained by selling his possessions and giving to the poor did not jeopardize the rich man’s “eternal life,” for Jesus established by his response the attainment of that goal by keeping the commandments. Therefore, it is puzzling that Jews and Christians alike should conform to an idea of “collective salvation” which is truly Marxist in that it not only relinquishes earthly possessions (more Buddhist than anything) but also places a burden on the congregation to promote a true “dictatorship of the proletariat” by activism for such Victims. I do not doubt a congregation’s sincerity towards bringing to bear a “better world” but can they not see that those who utilize historical guilt to establish a collective society are the same Marxists who tried and failed to unveil utopia in Russia, Cuba, and elsewhere?

Second, the notion of “adequacy” must be examined. For if private property is at heart the apple which tempts mankind, why ought we to agree that its transfer from one class to another, even with some inherent trigger for equalization of wealth, should bring any more than heartache to those who never were ensnared (that is, the poor)? Furthermore, if private property (individualistic capitalism) is the provocateur of all society’s ills, is it not that Marx is a hypocrite, prescribing for the “deprived” class the same poison which he would steal from the ruling class? Certainly, the Marxist view that seizing private property and transmuting it to communal property is the end-game, but the dialectical materialism which they employ permits them to act as if they (1) are doing private property owners (the privileged class) a favor, and (2) will actually allow redistributed property to remain in the hands of the proletariat. Not only has that (to my knowledge) never happened, but it is the height of credulity to think that those unfortunate to whom something was given would peaceably assent to its further seizure.

10. Speaking on feudal society, wherein he attempts to nationalize the idea of slaves and property owners, Marx does not err as much as he does lie. His generalizations concerning feudal life, the interchangeability of the serf/lord and journeyman/apprentice relationships, and the continuance of monarchy are appalling in that he fails to recognize such society was not so much ordered by strength than as by ignorance.

Greece and Rome both fell due to corruption and irreligion, not property rights. Regarding the Roman Empire, it was a republic for 500 years before a declared empire, but even the empire itself lasted for some 500 years in its entirety, and another 1000 years in the East (the Holy Roman Empire) after the barbarians toppled the West. How is it therefore that a combined 2000 years of Roman history can be casually described as mere exploitation of weak peoples? It cannot. If Marx were the great historian he claimed to be, the only conclusion we may draw is that he intentionally misled in order to reach his desired destination. Otherwise, he is a charlatan.

The truth of European Middle Ages history (to which The German Ideology has been applied) is that the continent was lost to the barbarians (including Attila the Hun) by a combination of Roman over-extension, over-taxation, and multiculturalism, finally overrun by single-minded, tightly-woven, and very nationalistic forces. For a current analogy, imagine America destroyed by Islamic fascism. Would the United States and Western civilization be conquered due to immorality in holding unwarranted private property (as a Jeremiah Wright might preach) or would they not rather fall victim to internal immorality, including but not limited to the decimation of the family unit, the disposal of unwanted children through abortion and abandonment, class envy rather than work ethic, and so forth?

11. In advocating for the destruction of capitalism and the ownership of private property, Marx is therefore in favor of a return to barbarism. For his solution to corruption is revolution, and his answer to immorality is more immorality.

His foundational accusation is the exploitation of peoples. But this is nonsense. Capitalistic forces, while deriving their fruits from the labor of others, nevertheless improve the quality of life for every class and in every aspect, from health to housing to transportation and communication and entertainment. No culture has ever been as richly endowed with luxuries and goodies as has the Western way of life. This is not to excuse the excesses of individuals who use their treasure as weapons for power (read: crony capitalists and fascists), but there is no evidence that the structure itself is the problem. Therefore, the Marxist cry for revolution is not only a cop-out from personal responsibility (in the freest society ever to arise) but also a regression back to the “latent slavery” of tribal living.

Amusingly, this brings to image the mindless Occupy Wall Street people who, in the name of avoiding “slavery” to capitalistic forces, reduce themselves to voluntary drones by echoing "the guy with the megaphone" (or bullhorn). Do they not understand that they’ve traded one slavery for another? It's the same when those who have decided to unshackle themselves from the “slavery” of division of labor in capitalist society shackle themselves instead to the slavery of division of labor in their sub-society (whatever that may be). However, they soon find that without, for example, a cohesive chef contingent, a security force against rape or robbery, and a cogent communications network, they are at the mercy of not only their own incompetence but also open to the inherent barbarism of those who are not a part of capitalist society per se (that is, the homeless, the con men, the Marxist elements, the anarchists).

12. In retrospect, and if we were charitable to remove evil as the motivator, Marx’s idealism might be blamed on his inexperience. However, at this juncture, some 150 years after his proposition, we have seen enough carnage, and it is only due to an education system which refuses to offer the truth of Marxism that we must be subjected still to its infliction.

Being Spoiled Will Save Us

by Tom Wise

For years, I have been of the opinion that the American people are spoiled. It has, after all, caused us to demand governmental services which we neither deserve nor have actually secured by payment. It is the cause of debt, public and private, from the 16 trillion dollar federal shortfall, to mortgages underwater, to credit cards of ill repute. As Americans, we now expect certain benefits, a certain standard of living, even a certain behavioral model; and all those who dissent from this are looked upon as unpatriotic, inhuman, or both.

Most recently, this "handout" mentality has reared itself in the Occupy movement. Whether this assembly is completely composed of socialists or not, every demonstrator seems to have a complaint which ends in "where's mine?". Through youtube, I have observed pure communists blaming capitalism, anti-Semites blaming Jews, students blaming banks who demand payment on loans, homeowners with too-high monthly installments, and the usual panhandlers and fakes. Altogether, they compose a sub-society unable to cope with the current economic condition but who otherwise have contributed to its poor state by their ignorance and apathy.

Now it comes to attention that these protesters are being overrun by their own kind. Food, always scarce in such settings, has become dear due to an influx of homeless and criminals. The cooks in charge have decided that conditions are so unbearable they must begin to revolt against their own revolution! In response, a small task force has gathered to police the areas from becoming soup kitchens for vagrants. If you like, militias have organized. Welcome to the real world, where resources are limited and private property must be protected.

It has also been published that many who populate the park during the day are abandoning their tents for warmer abodes, and this conjecture has been proven by heat-imaging technology. The cold and rain, as well as the burgeoning swell of human refuse and stink, has finally forced some with a sensibility of entitlement to rethink their communal ideology. Somewhere inside, they are nostalgic for a comfy couch, Doritos, and their favorite TV program.

In short, they are true Americans in that they are individualists. They cannot help but say inside, "I'm not going to make it. It's too hard." And it is. Even the very tough capitalist system, even the crony capitalism of corporate-governmental collusion, is better than a neanderthal existence in a primordial ooze of anarchy and free love. Not that I prefer the slavery of big government to roughing it, but I must admit that the American system is structured to make each of us complacent in its relative ease. I am spoiled. They are spoiled. They are us.

At this moment comes the lesson, if it can be applied. For rather than returning to the depressed and divided gloom which they knew before coming to Zuccotti Park, they have the opportunity to make for themselves a better life. This Occupy movement can be, if any have the flexibility and leadership, a way to incorporate new ideas into the American bloodstream. While outside the system, they have the greatest chance to create lasting relationships and to give exposition on their highest selves. Thus, they may reenter with resolve to form businesses, run for political office, or even to only find a job wherever fate may lead.

From this current seed of arrogance can spring humility. From this moment of ineptness may follow capability. From this day of alienation will perhaps come fraternity which leads to prosperity. There is hope. Those who have visited these misguided, or left blog posts for them, or even spoken to them through radio and television, have all contributed to an education which they have sorely needed. Now it is up to them to at some point renege disenfranchisement and to embrace a common ground from which they may profit. Not that we should cease to condemn their communist, anti-Semitic, anti-capitalist, antisocial, or other negative behaviors; but now that we each have the others' respective attention, much is possible.

Lesson 6: The German Ideology

I hold weekly meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC. This is a synopsis from our sixth meeting.

Synopsis of Week 6 Meeting:

1. After the collapse of Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, Marx, still living on the Rue Vaneau, began writing for what was then the only uncensored German-language radical newspaper in Europe, Vorwärts!. Based in Paris, the paper was run by many activists connected to the revolutionary socialist “League of the Just,” within a few years to be renamed the Communist League.

2. In Vorwärts!, Marx continued to refine his views on socialism based upon the Hegelian and Feurbachian ideas of dialectical materialism (see previous synopses), whilst at the same time criticizing various liberals and other socialists operating concurrently in Europe. Marx was in some avenues a genius, mainly in his extrapolations from Hegel, but also in the gift he had been given which enabled him to force competing ideas into the box of Marxism. However, regarding the intramural philosophical purge just mentioned, one should probably conclude this as more clever than intelligent. For once street activism and mob mentality is employed, even between two individuals at a table, one has traded that innate ability to quantify for an acquired skill at qualification, justification and (more pertinent here) manipulation. Politically, then, Marx had already become an adept.

3. By his talents, both intellectual and political, Marx came again to the attention of the Prussian king, who pressured the French government to shut down Vorwärts! and to furthermore expel Marx himself from France.

4. Forced from France and Germany, Marx emigrated to Brussels, Belgium. As a governmental condition, he was however not permitted to publish on the subject of contemporary politics. In Brussels, he associated with other exiled socialists from across Europe, including Moses Hess, Karl Heinzen and Joseph Weydemeyer. Engels joined them shortly thereafter.

5. In 1845, Marx and Engels visited the leaders of the Chartists, a socialist movement in Britain, using the trip as an opportunity to study in various libraries in London and Manchester. In collaboration with Engels, Marx also set about writing The German Ideology, a book which is often seen as his best treatment on the concept of historical materialism. This book was not published during Marx’s lifetime but only saw the light of day in 1932 (just in time for a certain rising German to notice it).

6. The German Ideology identified once and for all that Marxism is a German, not Russian, orthodoxy.

7. One of the arguments in The German Ideology is that men distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence; what individuals are coincides with their production in both how and what they produce. The nature of individuals depends on the material conditions determining their production. How far the productive forces of a nation are developed is shown by the degree to which the division of labor has been carried.

This is dangerous. If the sum total of an individual is his productivity, and the society is free, the sky’s the limit for personal advancement and achievement. If, however, the society is ordered, as in communism, the individual is not only stereotyped and forced into certain endeavor by early inclinations (in order to prevent unwanted energy expended towards treating a “productive force” as a “person”), but an individual may also be termed “detrimental” to the society by his or her lack of certain ability, as predetermined by that society. In other words, the special nature of each human is broken down to a specific communal working value. The logical end result of this man-ordered valuation system is eugenics.

8. Whereas the free society incorporates God as a basic building block of liberty and freedom, The German Ideology criticizes the religious aspect of that provincial German life, regarding it as an unnecessary and divisive component. However, Marx seems to make an argument for a natural religion over a man-made religion. There appears to be some contradiction in his acquiescence that human thought constructs all things human (natural religion), the basis of productivity, when compared with that human construct (man-made religion) as a detractor. Marx’s goal with such statements (or thoughts, if you like) appears to be connivance. For having no better standpoint than to criticize a society which oppresses his ideas, he has apparently promoted himself to the position of Almighty Judge.

The German manifestation of this Marxist ideal came later. Once the Prussian empire dissolved to the more recognizable Germany of today, its ideology of productivity as the identifier of a person’s worth became entrenched. Marx made the observation that the British and French had already taken such a necessary evolutionary societal step, and one should think he was referring to the concepts of guilds, but his message appears garbled in this respect (perhaps this is why The German Ideology was not published until later).

9. Consider this passage: “The setting-up of a communal domestic economy presupposes the development of machinery, of the use of natural forces and of many other productive forces – e.g. of water-supplies, of gas-lighting, steam-heating, etc., the removal [of the antagonism] of town and country. Without these conditions a communal economy would not in itself form a new productive force; lacking any material basis and resting on a purely theoretical foundation, it would be a mere freak and would end in nothing more than a monastic economy – What was possible can be seen in the towns brought about by condensation and the erection of communal buildings for various definite purposes (prisons, barracks, etc.). That the abolition of individual economy is inseparable from the abolition of the family is self-evident.”

Recently, Elizabeth Warren borrowed extensively from this premise when she said that successful businesses owed their thriving nature to the worthwhile productive activities of the community-at-large. Contrast her remarks (paraphrased) “you delivered your goods on roads the rest of us built” and “you manufactured your goods with people educated by the rest of us” with Marx and you will see little to differentiate between his historical dialectic and her strident anti-monastic polemic.

Note also that “the abolition of individual economy (that is, self-interest) is inseparable from the abolition of the family” (where individualism begins). If you believe that Marxism is not at work in every aspect of your life, you are sadly mistaken. Its influence has been irrigated into churches, elementary schools, libraries and various other places that children congregate; and for one purpose: the dissolution of the family.

You may think that within the walls of your home you are safe from propaganda, but there is television, radio, the Internet, newspapers, and even neighbors with which to contend. In order to escape the infiltration of Marxism there must be a community of a singular mind separate from the modern world. Unfortunately, whether one chooses the Amish or the leftist commune, that singular mind is mostly communitarian, depending on man-made interpretation rather than truth (ironically, just as Marx postulated in The German Ideology). Therefore, in order to defeat Marxism, the forces of liberty must organize a head-on collision.

The problems with this proposition are many:

(1) Individualists are by definition not capable of efficient organization. The root of this weakness is the desire to remain independent in thought and deed. Marxism therefore has a distinct and powerful advantage in its willingness to trade the self for the collective mind.

(2) Conflicts are not the milieu of the liberty-minded. Most people lean towards compassion and tolerance, desiring the same for themselves. “Judge not” becomes a watch-phrase that deteriorates into a fear of reprisal. Thereby, political correctness is able to be enforced on every level, and physical confrontation is considered a last resort, if any. The Marxist, on the hand, welcomes every chance to promote revolution, even through violence. The individualist’s desire for law and order is a related goodness which nevertheless enervates his passion and capability.

(3) History has not been kind. The purging of ideologies deserves its criticism and our disgust for any more. The label “witch hunt” is apt where it concerns even the removal of Marxism. However, there is at some point no choice. When is it appropriate to remove vagrants from our parks? When they occupy without a permit? When they disgrace themselves by their behavior? When their noise level becomes overbearing to everyone else’s peace? When they are violent? When they mobilize to blockade the food supply chain? While demagoguery is a vice we ought to avoid, there is nevertheless counter-protest which is both appropriate and godly.

(4) The appetite for utopian promises never ceases. It doesn’t matter if by this we mean the adolescent daydreams of worldwide brotherhood or the evil notions of “master race” nations – the Marxist is always ready to accommodate our fever. This is quite satanic and we ought to be teaching at every opportunity our children the dangers of falling prey to those who say that wish fulfillment is just around the corner. But the deeper concern is that adults put themselves in precarious positions, both personal and financial, which necessitates some relief of escape. Once ensconced, grievances of this sort become willing accomplices to the aim of the Marxist, that is, POWER. Yes, folks, your grumbling and unwillingness to take on personal responsibility is the leverage by which your liberty is always threatened. Whining is a disease.

(5) We have unattached from the true rule of law, which is God’s Law. Torah is the foundation for our Constitution and for Christianity. Marx, however, discovered the key to disabling the power of Torah, and therefore the capitalist society: (a) blame economic woes on capitalism, (b) blame capitalism on the Jews, (c) blame society for adopting the capitalism of the Jews. By pure hatred and historical precedent, Marxism takes every superstition and racist molecule and combines them to create a global Victim, a global Oppressor, and a global Savior. Do you think I’m too conspiratorial? All you need do is visit Google News and see for yourself the rising tide of anti-Semitism within the Occupy Wall Street movement and its supporters, now including the Muslim Brotherhood, David Duke, the American Communist Party, the Nazi Party, and various anti-New World Order folks who blame the “Jewish bankers” for all.

That I invoke Torah as the solution is not a “Jewish” remedy but in actuality the advice from Christ. One has only to read the New Testament to notice that doing “the commandments” (Torah) commends one to eternal life, makes one to be called highest in heaven, and gives one the right to come in through the door and have access to the Tree of Life. In contrast, those who teach against the least commandment will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. It is not sin which can be avoided (we all fall short) but it is the instruction against God’s Law which receives the worst punishment. For our current conversation, this means the destruction of our beloved civilization.

Lesson 5: Marx, Bakunin, Engels and Feuerbach

I hold weekly meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC. This is a synopsis from our fifth meeting.

Synopsis of Week 5 Meeting:

1. In 1843, Karl Marx and his wife moved to Paris. There, Marx became involved with new radical newspaper, Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher (German-French Annals), set up by Arnold Ruge, German socialist revolutionary. Although it was intended to attract both French and German writers, Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher was dominated by the latter, the only non-German writer being the exiled Russian anarcho-communist Michael Bakunin.

Bakunin has often been called the father of anarchist theory. He said after meeting Marx:

“They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up.”

Let’s take this in terms of Occupy Wall Street. On the ground, these global events may appear anarchic, even freedom-loving. Many idealistic minds, including in the press, are propagating the notion of the “organic” youth movement leading us into a glorious new future filled with Steve Jobs visionaries and Bill Gates philanthropists, heading up a technological revolution in energy and other necessary components of civilization. But the facts are very different. These are aimless children, mixing with futureless old radicals and burnouts, drifting towards a message of hopefulness predicated on the same tired superstitions; namely, (1) capitalism is a Jewish plot, (2) capitalism is death for the planet, (3) capitalism is poverty for the 99%. Now, if you’ve been absorbing our synopses from prior weeks, you will see that the ideology being hastened is exactly Marxism at its purest.

The anarchic element is in the kinetic mobility of the mob. As they move from park to uptown, a degree of fear shocks through every American. What will happen? It is this anticipation upon which Bakunin (if it helps, think of him as Boris Badanov from the old Bullwinkle cartoons) hoped to capitalize. This is the “universal rebellion” from “free organization of toiling masses.” But Marx argued that such energy without direction is a waste of time. This is essentially the Russian vs. German argument. Later, we will learn that Lenin despised the Russian method!

While both social anarchists and Marxists share the same final goal (the creation of a free, egalitarian society without social classes and government), they strongly disagree on how to achieve it. Anarchists believe that the classless, stateless society should be established by the direct action of the masses, culminating in social revolution, and refuse any intermediate stage such as the dictatorship of the proletariat, on the basis that such a dictatorship will become a self-perpetuating fundamental. For Bakunin, the contradiction is that for the Marxists, "anarchism or freedom is the aim, while the state and dictatorship is the means, and so, in order to free the masses, they have first to be enslaved."

Bakunin was not alone in his criticism of Marxist planning. It was viewed with suspicion by every free-thinking anarchist from France to England to Russia, and beyond. The main obstacle was and remains today – “Who made you boss?” The anarchist believes in self-determination to the point that no government exists. But how this is accomplished runs immediately into trouble, for who will enforce “no government”? It obviously takes a force to remove a force, and a continuing force to protect the rights of free people to remain free. Thereby, the anarchist appears foolish.

Bakunin later wrote that Marx had convinced him of several key points:

“As far as learning was concerned, Marx was, and still is, incomparably more advanced than I. I knew nothing at that time of political economy, I had not yet rid myself of my metaphysical observations... He called me a sentimental idealist and he was right; I called him a vain man, perfidious and crafty, and I also was right.”

Elementally, Bakunin was being indoctrinated, the bomb-thrower becoming pamphleteer (as Van Jones has graduated from grandiose defender of cop-killer in Oakland, Calif. to buttoned-up advocate for fairness).

Note that Marx considered himself to be not a Russian (like Bakunin) but a German thinker, from that school of philosophy (Hegel). This is important. The German inclination for authoritarianism and order is the heart of communism. It demands cleansing of population in order to remain pure. It is highly related to insect hive behavior. Russian ideals, on the other hand, center always on pageantry, whether religious or mythical. Concerning the spread of socialism, the German takes the nationalist route, the Russian the ideological.

Bakunin was not at first a socialist, but became convinced that at the very least he needed to become chummy with Marxists, who he believed might hold the upper hand as it concerned the dialectic materialism (both linguistically and historically). And not that we are concentrating diligently on Bakunin, but his anti-Jewish rhetoric was not unlinked from Marx’s own ideas. Returning again to Occupy Wall Street, anti-Semitic remarks are now becoming not only more prevalent but also fashionable, a consequence of the anarchist hooking together with the Marxist in some sense of secure solidarity.

2. It was in Paris that, on 28 August 1844, Marx met German socialist Friedrich Engels. Engels showed Marx his recently published book, The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844, which convinced Marx that the working class would be the agent and instrument of the final revolution in history. Engels and Marx soon set about writing a criticism of the philosophical ideas of Marx's former friend, the Young Hegelian Bruno Bauer, which would be published in 1845 as The Holy Family.

Engels wrote:

“The condition of the working-class is the real basis and point of departure of all social movements of the present because it is the highest and most unconcealed pinnacle of the social misery existing in our day.”

When I first read this, I thought it was written yesterday. As one can readily see, nothing has changed. Business is not a personal game, but the working class do take everything personally. Insofar as it concerns social upheaval, the general disinterest of the corporation for its employee has been a message parlayed throughout history, whether as slave vs. master, serf vs. lord, or labor vs. management. Grievances are at the heart of all uprisings. And since these are never-ending, the Marxist has ample opportunity to show compassion, organize numbers for power, and finally confront the oppressor. However, Engels was not a genius, only perceptive.

The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844, believe it or not, was aimed towards the German people. He wrote:

“We Germans more than anybody else stand in need of a knowledge of the facts concerning this question. And while the conditions of existence of Germany's proletariat have not assumed the classical form that they have in England, we nevertheless have, at bottom, the same social order, which sooner or later must necessarily reach the same degree of acuteness as it has already attained across the North Sea, unless the intelligence of the nation brings about in time the adoption of measures that will provide a new basis for the whole social system. The root-causes whose effect in England has been the misery and oppression of the proletariat exist also in Germany and in the long run must engender the same results.”

The scheming thus for a marriage between German ideology and communism was begun, based however erroneously upon a revolution both for and against British common law (one might say a second French Revolution patterned after a second American Revolution).

3. A year later Marx would write Theses on Feuerbach, best known for the statement that "the philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it". This work contains Marx's criticism of materialism (for being contemplative), idealism (for reducing practice to theory) and overall, criticizing philosophy for putting abstract reality above the physical world. It thus introduced the first glimpse at Marx's historical materialism, an argument that the world is changed not by ideas but by actual, physical, material activity and practice.

The "Theses" identify political action as the only truth of philosophy. In one example, Marx says:

“Once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically.”

Because “objectivity” must be embraced over all “subjectivity” Marx was consumed that any thing beheld was riddled with inconsistent doctrine concerning it. Thus, the “holy family” (you may conceive this as Trinity or simply as a righteous family unit) is the product of the “earthly family” (that is, doctrines formed through, according to Marx, faulty or unstable observations), and both may be destroyed by attacking the concepts of education, particularly at the elementary level. Naturally, righteousness being the main target of the Marxist, this entails dissolution not only of willy-nilly public education but also of non-state-sponsored religious catechisms, and of private education (including home schooling and tutoring). Eventually, dissolving these will weaken the family unit to its basic atoms, that is, to useful citizens rather than individual minds.

The attractiveness of such a philosophy (which it is) cannot be overstated. It promises the end to war, jealousy, hatred, crime, and violence. Nevertheless, downplayed is the necessity of coercion and extermination. Force must be used, at least in the beginning, to remove people from their pre-existing self-determination. Thus, re-education camps. Those who cannot be dissuaded from their individual “atomistic” thought processes must be either isolated (enslaved) or removed (killed). This is known to them as “compassion.” But why is it attractive? Elitism. Those who “know better” feel it is their “duty” (some to God, some to the state) to flush out the “trash.” This is master racism.

Another “thesis” reads thus:

Feuerbach resolves the essence of religion into the essence of man [menschliche Wesen = ‘human nature’]. But the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations. Feuerbach, who does not enter upon a criticism of this real essence is hence obliged:

1. To abstract from the historical process and to define the religious sentiment regarded by itself, and to presuppose an abstract — isolated - human individual.

2. The essence therefore can by him only be regarded as ‘species’, as an inner ‘dumb’ generality which unites many individuals only in a natural way.”

Marx takes apart Feuerbach’s cautious optimism for humanity as the same “dumb” reasoning accorded also to those humans who think they are individual thinkers but who are in fact herd thinkers. Marx’s objective is to isolate even those who are “verge thinkers” insofar as they do not disagree with Marx but also do not fully agree with him. Marx is purging Feuerbach while at the same time integrating him.

The intellectual argument Marx uses, however, is faulty. Rather than establishing any true knowledge on man’s nature, Marx establishes only the incongruity of Feuerbach. That is, he has not much to say except in negative terms, and therefore all of Marx’s conclusions come out as destructive impulses. He knows how to wreck but not really how to build. It is the philosophy of a spoiled child. It is the same with his “dictatorship of the proletariat,” a platitude built upon the despoiling of the former societal structure, lavishing into a utopian enterprise founded upon... those same “dumb” humans! Therefore, Marx’s intercourse with truth is only as vibrant as it remains distant from his other forays, because you can’t have it both ways!

A bit deeper, Marx makes the obvious error, removing himself as one of the flawed beings. Naturally so, for he is the “savior.” But if it seems that he can only stand by either contradiction without responsible observation, or else by comparing himself through relative morality by virtue of his IQ, you are correct. He is nevertheless a god of imperfection who, if subjected to his own standard, must himself be reeducated. Naturally, however, like all master racists, he is given to himself providence for his many contributions to the cause.

Another of his fallacies lies in this conclusion:

“The highest point reached by contemplative [anschauende] materialism, that is, materialism which does not comprehend sensuousness as practical activity, is the contemplation of single individuals and of civil society [bürgerlichen Gesellschaft].”

That is, selfishness in the “old” way (individualistic, for oneself) is no good, and is furthermore construed from religion, specifically the Jewish religion (re-read On the Jewish Question). If you will recall from previous synopses, Marxism posited the downfall of society as a consequence of living in capitalism, which Marx connoted as an inhuman construct deriving straight from Judaism and Judaic thought, manifested in the “atomistic” philosophy (“it’s all about me”) which automatically derides collectivism. This is the Marxist grand slam: knocking Torah (God’s Law), capitalism, individuality, and revolt against Marxism in one swipe.

It, however, never seems to occur to Marx that his philosophy (which he constantly refuses to name as such) makes him an enemy of his own state. For if individuality, the manifestation of that subjective materialism which builds the fantasy world of creative separateness, while at the same time clinging to the notion of communion with God, is incorrect thinking, then Marx is the leader of that parade. He is in fact a Hun, but worse so in that he deems himself and those like him to be “chosen” (there is no other way to put it).

All who follow Marx must obviously abandon their logic and humanity in order to enter that elite membership. Ah, but there’s the rub! Such an argument doesn’t work on the Marxist for he already believes that rejection of Marxism is inhuman! Marx’s redefinition of “selfishness” under a “new” banner of “human society” or “social humanity” (thesis 10) is the proof. Simply, if you are anti-Marxist and/or individualistic, you are against humanity. You are “selfish” in the bad way rather than selfish in the “good” way. Marx is now your god, Marxism your Torah.

This is why Torah is most important – it resolves you to God and His word, not to interpretations or even “faith.” Faith in what? Feelings? Philosophies? Remember, Marxism cares not if you believe in God, as long as you follow the rules which benefit humanity... as they see it (of course). Torah is a pre-existent canon of regulation which withstands the accusations of any and all, especially those with differing lifestyle choices. Once, however, you acquiesce to the whim of “compassion” over Law, you are a Marxist. If you think Torah is archaic for certain commandments, you are a Marxist. If you think the Constitution has outlived its usefulness in the name of compassion, you are a Marxist.

“Theses on Feuerbach” is therefore not a document of dust and triviality, but a manuscript which must be thoroughly understood before you can push back correctly against the Marxist.

Occupy Wall Street is the Spark

Recently, it is come to my attention that many people still do not take seriously the threat to our national security caused by this movement known as “Occupy.” Apparently, the future is still too dimly-lit. Let me attempt to illuminate.

How did it start? It began with a few dozen people traipsing down to lower Manhattan and settling into a designated area. The so-called event had been well-hyped and planned for at least a year. The purpose was to enervate the Tea Party; first, by emulating it and possibly drawing power from it, thereby absconding with the messaging; second, by intentional irrational and disgraceful behavior which is meant to reflect badly on grass-roots assemblies in general. That some of the attendees were angry dupes who actually believed the party line (“come join and express your frustration”) was to be expected and was designed only to lend some credibility where none should be attributed.

How did it expand? (1) By no opposition meeting the threat head-on, this crowd was enabled to feel secure. Ordinary citizens and counter-protestors stayed home and basked in their liberty rather than vigilantly protecting the future of this nation. At the least, some congregation of patriots playing or singing Americana and march music, and sermonizing from their favorite denomination, would have gone some way towards dissuading the sunshine revolutionary and bringing to exposure the radical. (2) By preferential media, the milieu was portrayed as calm and peaceful, a fallacy which both drew new proselytes and placated the nerves of the half-interested. As well, conversations expanded lauding the efforts of these youth, as if they had aim or gumption. In relation to the poor of this world, these protestors are spoiled children. In relation to the working conditions of our Revolutionary War heroes, they are dust. If this sounds too harsh, it is that their laziness and envy is systemic. (3) By the addition of various groups with some coherent message, such as Ron Paul’s “End the Fed” folks, credibility was lent where none was deserved. At least Ron Paul acolytes desire to work within a capitalist system, bathe, vote, and are otherwise good citizens; Occupy-ers have no such zeitgeist, and have proven themselves to also be willing to agitate against and confront the police.

Where will it end? There are various factions now vying for an end-game:

(1) The communists are involved, and have been almost from the start. Anyone who will say that Occupy Wall Street have only American goals are blind or lying. Just a little research on Google shall uncover the early infiltration of Marxists. These traitors use the obvious “victim mentality” as a tool by which to leverage some street action. The hope is for some form of violent confrontation. The outcome of such a clash is meant to promote further reaction against “fascism” (powers that be). Public opinion is to be shaped by focusing on Congress, corporations and police states. Obama and his gang will be exempted, as will be all fomenters. The ultimate goal is a type of civil war. Already Al Sharpton is attempting to mobilize blacks to join the childish white college students, thereby mixing the message and political repercussions. This is perilously close to a Charles Manson scenario. If all goes as they planned, many will die. And remember, this is all predicated on the concept that whoever is occupying desires a well-paying job. Curiously, no one is suggesting that a college graduate should head to another country, such as Hong Kong or India to procure a better financial position (as if professionals from those countries never came here for such reason). Their excuse will be that they should not have to leave their home country, but what they really mean is that they love the freedoms inherent in American society. Thus, they are crybabies. This will unravel when the communists push these pansies too far. However, we should not exhale in relief, for that end will not arrive without some tumult, even bloodshed.

(2) The Democrats are involved. Our local (Hendersonville) Occupy has been organized by Doug Freeman and Jacque Knable, political insiders (simply research their names under Google News). They are piggybacking on kerosene. By the enthusiastic and hopeful look on the faces of Nancy Pelosi and other influential Democrats, it is apparent that they also are pinning some hopes of reelection and increased power base on the success of Occupy. They rave (literally) that Occupy is a lively reminiscence of their own youth, which (according to some) might even joyously culminate in a reenactment of Kent State (naturally, they hope – I Think! – without actual deaths). The nuances of the Democrat party range from tentative approval to full-fledged embrace, but they are playing with fire. The aims of many involved dupes is not to rebuild the system into a well being but to destroy and leave in ruins. We are hearing now from Occupy and their leeches such flaming swords as “Death to Capitalism!” and “Kill the Pigs!” These people collectively agree on the limitation and obstruction of free trade, individual rights, property ownership, and more. They have nothing in common with the main portion of America, yet they call themselves “the 99%.” Why then are Democrats rushing to be a part of this history? First, some are of their ilk – they are radicals – and we know who they are. Second, some are so self-absorbed that they can only see the photo-op and sound bite. Third, some are fools. But I need not be prejudicial. If any Republican or Libertarian sides with Occupy, they too must fall into these categories.

(3) International elements are involved. Islamic fascists, such as Ayatollah Khomeini have already blessed this gathering. Socialist tyrants, like Hugo Chavez, are gladdened by this show. Proponents of the New World Order, in particular George Soros, are urging if not funding. Naturally, these have countervailing objectives. Khomeini, Chavez, and Soros may have one goal – the destruction of America, capitalism, and Torah – but they are enemies to each other. This must be true since they are all salivating to fill a power vacuum, but all have differing ideologies. This cannot end well. For if such a vacuum appears, either by a type of civil disorder or by a weak leader, their intramural conflicts will involve and decimate many. Need I look further into the future or can you not see the genocide and nuclear winters awaiting?

My purpose is to scare you. I hope you will be sufficiently empowered by my thoughts to all least research these things. Following, I hope you will meet these protesters to corral them. (1) Locally, this may be as benign as showing up and hanging out with them, diluting their anger by close proximity. (2) Or, it may be necessary to form a type of “neighborhood watch” that does not antagonize but which also does not tolerate vandalism and littering. If they wish to peacefully assemble, let them do it. Otherwise, they must become public servants and clean up their own mess. The police cannot by themselves monitor this. (3) Or, you may wish to infiltrate with a patriotic tone by bringing to their rally a sign which reads (for example) “No Communism in America!” If you are rebuffed briskly, you can still counter-protest from across the street. It is also acceptable to play the aforementioned patriotic music or sermons, again in their midst or from across their way. These are all peaceful solutions which nevertheless demand attention and negate some of their vigor.

I plan to follow my own advice.

Occupy Everywhere? No, Hatred Everywhere.

by Tom Wise

Over a year ago, I warned that the reason communism would rise in America, and swiftly, is that the beat-down had been abandoned. I related that my father told stories from his childhood describing the street-corner communist being dragged from soap-box, ridiculed, and given the bum's rush. I observed that in 2010 communists were coming out of the woodwork, feeling emboldened by inaction and the increasing nerve of inside leaders like Barack Obama, Keith Ellison, Cass Sunnstein, and Eric Holder, as well as agitators such as Richard Trumpka, Andy Stern, Van Jones, and Michael Moore. I warned you and you laughed at me.

Six months ago, I watched an occupation of the Wisconsin State House. I saw anger, hatred, coveting, disrespect for peaceful assembly, and abandonment of duty. I warned you that if we didn't get tough, demand order, and refuse entrance to those from out of state things would get ugly. We narrowly avoided disaster. But that anger went on. I warned you this was only the start and you waved me off.

Over the past few months, I've sounded the trumpet on the Gaza flotilla, the raising of the debt ceiling, the use of drones in Yemen, and many speeches by American socialists. I warned you and you told me I was paranoid.

A few years ago, I wrote a book called The Mark which described a collusion between Islam and communism. I sent this book to Glenn Beck and the same week he noticed it for himself. This year, I've watched the fall of Mubarak in Egypt, the NATO invasion of Libya, the rioting and mass murder in Syria, the continuing terrorism from Hamas in Israel, the spread of Hezbollah in Latin America and now Cuba, and I warned you that each of these things represents Marxism in the Arab World. But you told me that it was Islamic fascism. Well, what do you think Islamic fascism is? Collectivism. I warned you but you dismissed me.

I warned you that "Day of Rage" was coming, and you snickered when the gathering turned out to be a few dozen scruffy kids and leftover hippies. But I told you that we ought to meet them with a counter-attack, at the very least patriotic music and sermons. I knew this would spread if we enabled them to feel safe. Without any repercussion, hundreds more showed. Arrests followed. Still no public backlash, and so thousands more came, and the "movement" spread into many cities, including one near you. You did nothing. In fact, some of you decided to agree with them. I warned you this anger and hatred would metastasize and it has.

Now I bring you another warning.

It has come to my attention that some of these groups will "march" into rich neighborhoods, purpose unknown. What will be the outcome? Will these people "occupy" lawns, garages, or homes? Will they "appropriate" private property? Will they vandalize, defecate, and harass? And what will the response be? Will some gun owners shoot? Will neighborhoods block off streets with barriers? Who will win such a standoff?

What does this mean? Unfortunately, this is called civil war. It is also the worst form of revolution, class war. Not only is it envy fueled by Marxist dreams and Hegelian blame games, it is also the vision of Charles Manson, whose motto was "kill the pigs." Well, "pigs" meant to him anyone that was privileged. This is not only French Revolution stuff, it's also race war. How many enmities must we extinguish in order to have peace again?

This makes me weep. Barack Obama was said to be one to bring racial healing, and instead we have more finger-pointing than ever, and with great hypocrisy and double standard. When a man like Herman Cain must be judged by Leftists, by black Leftists, as a traitor to his own people, you know that lynching is not far from their mind. Who's a racist now? This is not only ethnic cleansing, it is hive mutation cleansing. This is the way insects behave.

I've seen this before. Where I grew up, if you achieved you were looked on with suspicion. Our town was loser town. We saw in our county actual race riots, gang fighting, religious persecutions of the violent sort, and class envy. I escaped that place as quickly as I could. Where I relocated there was a different environment and atmosphere, and I slowly learned to be myself without the fear and hatred. Whereas I used to be a "fairness" and "compassion" guy, I became a "do-it-yourself" guy. The Tea Party is the first political assembly I've joined, and I'm happy that it is a collection of individuals rather than an individual collection.

So, I'm warning you again. This hatred and coveting is coming to every city, every town, every household. It's going to be everyone against everyone. This march on wealthy neighborhoods will spread to middle-America. It will become "Occupy (your town)" and there will be megaphones and drums and signs and litter. What will you do? Will you hide in your home? Will you wait on your porch with a shotgun? Will you go to the protest and counter-protest? Will you join them? Will you infiltrate their ranks and be a new type of leader? What will be your response?

Victim, Oppressor, Savior

by Tom Wise

The Hegelian dialectic is the most important element in politics. Whether you are running for office, or just interested in what’s going on, you will encounter Hegel on a constant basis, and your success or failure will be based not only on whether you understand the dialectic but also how you interface with it.

Having dramatically opened, let’s look at Hegelian dialectic with simplicity. Basically, it is setting up two straw men positions (one called “thesis” and the other called “antithesis”) with the intent to reach a third goal (called the “synthesis”). By pitting thesis against antithesis, a “revolution” takes place. This revolution is the most direct route to the synthesis.

Let’s look at a true-life example. Last night on MSNBC, Lawrence O’Donnell “interviewed” Herman Cain. O’Donnell asked “questions” relating to Cain’s personal involvement in 1960’s civil rights activism and the Vietnam War. If you saw any part of this, you are painfully aware of the cynicism and manipulation attached to all of O’Donnell’s queries. His goal was not to gather the truth, nor can I say that it was meant to do much of anything except elicit a response... any response. There was in play already a synthesis, an outcome, and this became clear the next day on the same network, as O’Donnell held a long panel discussion with Al Sharpton and two other black commentators of less note. It took only one or two minutes to deduce that no person involved in this discussion would be defending Cain. You might say, “Of course, because the entire fracas is propaganda.” Very good – but incomplete. If this is your sole response, you have only protected your own senses. The Hegelian dialectic has not been addressed.

The first straw man (it matters not if we call it thesis or antithesis) is that Herman Cain as presidential candidate must answer for every movement he ever made and every word he ever uttered. This is set up in a number of ways. First, it is assumed that being a presidential candidate carries such requirement. Sez who? Second, it is assumed that the press has the right to ask any question. So what if they do? Questions do not always have to be answered. Third, it is assumed that if the media becomes hostile to you by your reluctance to answer their questions your campaign will be dead in the water. Since candidates in the past have overcome no or negative press, it would seem that such an historical basis is demolished; yet every election cycle politicians attend to this same fallacy as if they were just hatched yesterday.

Now, how did Herman Cain address this first straw man? He answered most questions, but not all. His refusal to participate in several instances was actually quite vocal. He predicated these responses on premises stated, and forcefully pushed back when he felt erroneous foundation had been laid. In sum, he did an adequate job in meeting the Hegelian dialectic, not giving it too much power.

The second straw man is that Herman Cain as a black Republican conservative businessman is an oxymoron. It is by this assumed that something is “wrong” with Cain. As a black man, his conservatism must be a type of aberration, and his Republicanism must be due to some defect in his decision-making process. Ergo, he is a wild man and cannot be President.

How did Cain handle that second straw man? In essence, he rebuked it but still managed to keep some honorable sense of humor. Concerning his decision to sit out the civil rights sit-ins, he made his point that, although his heart was always with his people, he had other fish to fry. Concerning his military service in the area of ballistics, Cain gave a blistering reply that amounted to “war is not always about getting shot at.” Nevertheless, no perspective on his responses is actually important here, since whatever Cain said in reality would be ignored. The main facet of interest is in determining how the Hegelian dialectic affected Cain. In this case, O’Donnell was able to land several glancing blows and perhaps even a stiff jab or two, the pain of reaction evident in Cain’s demeanor.

Lawrence O’Donnell’s reactions to Cain’s frank replies were ludicrous and hilarious. Here was a white man grilling a black man on his American struggle, and giving him guff for it. If it were any harsher from O’Donnell, one would have to say it appeared as if a master whipping an uppity slave. But even more absurd was the peacenik O’Donnell chiding Cain for not having the guts to volunteer for the swamps of Vietnam, as if O’Donnell gives a hoot in hell for anything but a decent sound bite with which to beat Cain further.

The day after this hooliganism passing itself off as journalism, during the aforementioned round-table with Sharpton et. al., O’Donnell noted that at no time during his interrogation did he ever give the impression that he was against Herman Cain’s life choices! Let’s check the videotape... wrong!! Shocking? Hardly. The Hegelian dialectic demands only that Cain participated, and that O’Donnell ignore his own contradictions in order to reach the synthesis. But it is ponderous how any honest person who saw O’Donnell’s performance the night before could stand to hear even one more word the next day. This is the triumph of Hegel – that people are too lazy, ignorant, or uncaring to qualify and hold responsible those who would disseminate information.

Herman Cain was given only two choices: (1) answer the questions and be ripped to shreds, or (2) don’t answer the questions and be tagged as “evasive” or “secretive.” That Cain did not play that game maximally speaks well to his understanding of such situations (important should he have opportunity to stare down the communists). However, this did not stop Lawrence O’Donnell and gang from building for themselves a narrative from which further narratives would be built. To watch the delight on their faces as they constructed opinions of Cain based on their twisted analysis of him as a man is to understand Hegel and therefore Karl Marx. There was never any doubt in which manner the esteemed panel would behave the next day. The synthesis (“Herman Cain is a sellout against his own people, and no black person ought to vote for him”) was pre-arranged.

Why would Herman Cain agree to such torment? It appears he has a bit more courage than he let on, for it takes nerve to intentionally enter the lair of the enemy. It would be an oversimplification to say that he needs all the attention he can get (even though his appearance on Dick Morris’ Internet show is eye-opening). We can point to Cain’s own observation that his “name recognition” is not yet top-tier. Thus, by permitting himself to be bruised, he attended to the truism that negative attention is better than no attention. Yet, closer to the truth, I believe Cain had an idea to peel away black voters from the Democrats, even in the face of Hegelian onslaught. Perhaps he thought a fair percentage was a good payoff for stepping in the ring. Here, I can only fault him for being oblivious to the fact that MSNBC has appalling ratings, but I can’t scold him for trying. Cain was almost certainly aware that his appearance would make for days of hay on the struggling network.

Now let’s look at Lawrence O’Donnell’s behavior more closely. It is evident that the game for such avowed communists was and always will be “Victim-Oppressor-Savior.” This, as we’ve learned, is the Marxist strategy to all success. It involves identifying a “victim” segment large enough to provide a power base, whether that be through votes or insurrection. Next comes the “oppressor” who has disenfranchised, polarized, or otherwise made unhappy the victim group. Finally, the “savior” is the one with the answers, providing relief either by empathy or by policy. In the O’Donnell-Cain match-up, Cain is the oppressor, black people are the victims, and O’Donnell is the savior.

Cain was painted by O’Donnell as a weasel (didn’t serve his country “correctly”), a kiss-ass (didn’t complain enough when for race reasons he was rejected from his college of first choice), and a coward (didn’t put his life on the line for racial equality). This sets up the dialectic that Cain’s success (money, power, status) is a type of “reward” from the white man. Thus, Cain is an “oppressor” of black people by the mere fact that he exists (in the same manner that Sarah Palin is an oppressor of women by her feisty existence).

Cain is supposedly a slap in the African-American face (naturally, this does not apply to liberal rap mogul Russell Simmons). His capitalism (a crime in itself) mixed with his unapologetic and vocal esteem for America makes him not only ignorant but also dangerous against all progress for black civil liberties. Many (such as O’Donnell and Sharpton) are “offended” not only for themselves but for every black person who ever suffered an indignity. As incoherent as that may sound to reasonable people, there is a substantial audience for such drivel, and these are the “victims” to whom liberals, progressives, and communists afford their services. The fact that progressives and communists perpetually continue along these lines means that such media strategy really works. And since it does, Herman Cain was correct in saying that blacks and Democrats in general have been “brainwashed.”

O’Donnell, by his fierce and unrelenting struggle to worm the truth out of Cain is the “savior” of all these unfortunates. Why, if he hadn’t had the cojones to push Cain up against the wall, all those poor black folk mighta voted for Cain. And then what? Well, there would certainly be too much talk from the mouth of a black man about personal responsibility and achievement based on merit. We can’t have that now, can we? That would be too much for those victims to handle. Cain is dangerous to their self-esteem. Actually, Cain is dangerous to those who have set themselves up as the saviors of the black community, more so by the very fact that Cain is black.

You want to talk about an end to racism in America? Picture a successful black man bringing the United States back from a deep recession and terrible governance. Why is that a problem for O’Donnell? Not for the obvious reason, that Cain is a Republican and that it must be a Democrat who saves the nation. Not at all. The real reason is that O’Donnell and his ilk do not want to save America. For them, Obama is doing just a dandy job of splintering unity, destroying capitalism, and ignoring all sorts of criminal activity from illegal immigration to Attorney General Holder. Oh sure, maybe they’d like some further gay rights on top of that, and possibly those drone strikes are just a bit too warlike for the liberal-cum-communist public relations image, but all in all Obama is their man.

Herman Cain, however, is a problem for them. You see, the white man can be prodded by guilt and fear. Look what happened to John McCain in 2008. But Cain has nothing about which to feel guilty. Yet, with superhuman fervor, O’Donnell the "savior" was on the case over Cain's military enlistment status and any slightest aspersions against Rosa Parks, wasn't he? The "Perry Mason" of tele-journalism had him cornered! Grandly, Cain didn’t fall for it. Nevertheless, it didn’t stop O’Donnell from the next day acting as if he caught Cain with pants down. The Hegelian dialectic goes on regardless!

I hope you now have a better idea concerning the use of Hegel in politics. It is passive-aggressiveness on display. It is imputing guilt where there is none in order to further revolution to a synthesis. Basically, if you engage with them, you are at their mercy. The more you deny their lies, the stronger they seem to become. Since their goal is not truth, logic and reason is useless against them. They have no standards or shame. Their only aim is to reach the synthesis. With communists, that means the end of capitalism, individualism, and private property. Keep that in mind always.

One possible solution for anyone involved in politics or political discussion is simply to agree with these Hegelians, and with such an exaggerated mannerism that all sound bites become worthless. It reminds me of something Jesus said: “Agree quickly with your enemy, while you are in the way with him, lest at any time the adversary deliver you to the judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and you be thrown into prison, and you won’t be set free until you’ve paid your last penny” (Matthew 5:25-26).

This does not mean we surrender to Hegelian dialectic, but that we treat it as the insanity it is. However, we cannot ignore the dialectic, for it is everywhere: government, education, media, even in our personal lives. It is dangerous and will likely never be extinguished. Wherever is a disgruntled mob, there will be a strong figure to emerge and speak the words that all free people dread: “Revolution Now.” If we do not recognize and ourselves fight against actual and true oppression of the weak (as Torah commands), we will surely meet this false “savior of the people” over and over again.

I Warned You

October 7, 2011:

I'm not happy to report that I was right. The "Day of Rage" needed to be met quickly and with force. The "protesters" might have been sent home packing with a mix of patriotic music, religious sermons, counter-protests, picnics in their midst, and even the occasional beat-down on the worst of them, such as the young brave punk who told an old man, "You're a bum, Jew!"

But now it's too late. You missed your chance. On the back of that weakness, more useful idiots and true communists, as well as various dangerous individuals of all stripe, are "occupying" hundreds of towns all over America. They are going nowhere. They are growing, and it is the unemployment checks that have made this possible. Idle hands are the devil's workplace.

The problem is not their congregation but their thoughts. There is a growing sense of hopelessness among these disenfranchised which is manifesting as talk of rounding people up, identifying Jews as the problem, and even cannibalism. Seriously. Local talk show host Matt Mattin received "Jennifer" as a spokesman of sorts for "Occupy Asheville" (where we are located). She was ignorant of most issues, without coherent thought on her future. Basically, the protest is nebulous and the people unorganized. This will change.

All it will take is a strong leader with bad plans to take this energy and direct it in bad ways. It doesn't take Nostradamus to see that nothing good can come of this. It is mob mentality just beginning. If such a leader emerges (and they always do), it is not far-fetched to imagine random violence, coordinated strikes, riots, and worse. What will you do when the French Revolution comes to your doorstep?

The problem is NOW. The time for chit-chat is over. We cannot just sit by and let this grow out of control. The communists are agitating, the unions are coming in with funding and more bodies. What can be done? Unfortunately, I have only unsavory choices for you.

First, you can go down to the crowd and make a counter-case. I am now considering doing this myself. It is dangerous but at least you can say you tried. Spread the word that the elder Tea Party is the way of change, not the status quo. Make the pitch that politics is the answer, and that disillusioned young people ought to become engaged in local affairs, attend meetings, run for office.

Second, you can hide and hope it goes away. You may as well not even exist.

Third, you can become violent yourself. I don't recommend this.

Evil is coming.

Thank the Lord for several things:

(1) Torah. We know what is right and what is wrong. If you are Christian, follow - truly follow - Christ. Not the guy you think you know, but the one who stood up to corruption. Jesus was Tea Party.

(2) Constitution. America has a document which is like none other in history. It presents national liberty and rights from God. As long as you know it (READ IT) and protect it, your children will be free.

(3) Spokesmen. Glenn Beck is currently doing a great job in identifying the problem and offering solutions. Others like Rush and Hannity are starting to get it here and there. We have a few national politicians on the right side: Ron Paul, Herman Cain. For all their faults, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich get it also. There is hope.

I want to exhort you all to speak out in perilous times for liberty and private property, to pray fervently, and to continue for the cause of righteousness and against corruption.

Tom Wise

What About the Poor?

by Tom Wise

Lately, it has become fashionable to quote from the Scripture in order to make credible arguments for the redistribution of wealth or the forgiveness of general debt. In particular, we find Jesus being wielded with a more respectful hand than in former times (that is, about a year ago) so that his words taken out of context may be utilized to formulate a case against "the rich," "the bankers," "the greedy," and so forth. However, there are several ways in which such constructed aphorisms and diatribes are incorrect, if not demonic.

First, consider the source. When deciding whether any argument for or against the accumulation of wealth is, from a spiritual standpoint, valid, it is imperative that both sides agree to certain parameters. If not, there shall be no argument, only fighting. Therefore, who is slinging about sacred words for such purposes? If perception is of any value, these are the same malcontents who have for years denigrated religion, the Bible, faith, the family, the sanctity of life, and God Himself. Are they not atheists, idolaters, and apostates? But even assuming their opinions have some merit, can we say that our acceptance of any of their premises will result in their edification or, more pointedly, in their conversion to God? While hope springs eternal, the reality is that we’ve seen this before. These are the notorious who speak of righteousness but do not live righteously. It is worse than hypocrisy; it is wanton manipulation, and only the first step towards your destruction.

Second, there is the more important element known as basis. For Christianity, the reliance upon Jesus Christ as final authority is fraught with danger. Where it concerns the poor, there is evidence to this effect. For in Luke 6:20, it indeed reads, “Blessed be ye poor” but in Matthew 5:3, it says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” This discrepancy cannot be resolved but by deep hermeneutics and apologetics. Thus, by citing Christ, the picketers of wealth believe they have Christians cornered. However, this is only true if there is no clarification from a greater foundation. Luckily, there is. It is Torah, the root of all spiritual truth and the essence of Jesus Christ.

What does Torah say of the poor as it relates to social justice? In terms of individual conduct, we are commanded to care for the poor (Deuteronomy 15:11). But where it concerns judgment, the poor are of no greater value than the rich (Leviticus 19:15). Only righteousness matters. This is reflected by James in his demand that you not have faith in Christ with respect of persons. Pinpointing this, when Jesus spoke of “rendering to Caesar” (Matthew 22:15-22) he was not exhorting that men pay their taxes for the redistribution of wealth to the poor; he was actually making the observation that in terms of regarding the person of men (22:16) Caesar received his due respect by a form of idolatry. Caesar’s face and name on the currency meant no less than he fancied himself a god. Rendering tribute (the idol of the currency) was thus befitting a false god. But while God is worthy of all tribute, Torah commands that no graven image shall be made of Him. If therefore one renders to Caesar in taxation, one has done no duty to God, for it is not care for the poor which has been accomplished but only a form of idolatry to a false god. Furthermore, rendering to the state (Caesar) is not a direct charity for the poor, nor is there any guarantee that taxes paid ever reach the destination for which a man may intend or a government may promise (see: Social Security). In terms of Torah, this form of taxation is at best a tolerated evil.

It is not actually the place of the poor to demand redistribution of wealth. First, it changes nothing. The poor shall always be with us, and wealth distributed always coalesces back to those who have learned the art of creating value (or thievery). Second, it is coercive, whether through guilt or by government intervention. Charity is meant to be voluntary. In terms of Torah, the protestations of the poor against the rich are ignorant. Historically, it is worse, always leading to bloodshed and tyranny.

In sum, the best defense against spiritual manipulation, even from those with justifiable grievances, is Torah. Recall always that Christ in the wilderness chased off Satan by reciting verbatim three passages from Torah. If you can do likewise, the forces of evil will have no hold on you either.