Lesson 11: The Communist Manifesto, Part 3

I hold weekly meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC. This is a synopsis from our 11th meeting.

Synopsis of Week 11 Meeting:

We continue The Communist Manifesto.

1. Quoting the next paragraph in our study: “We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.”

How misleading! The bourgeoisie (itself a misnomer) is and has always been a reflection of the means and mores of the “masses.” Unless the people are entirely enslaved, there is a marketplace, and this marketplace is enumerated by “the 99%” – that is, by those of average means. Therefore, capitalism, and the fabric of society around it, is entirely at the mercy of “proletariat” and their tastes.

The fact that religion, the family, and the social sciences (including psychology) impress certain values on the general population is no indicator that the marketplace is pre-designed any more than the color blue may be given credit for the popularity of the football New York Giants. The marketplace for the Giants is made by the same measures as any other football team: (1) location, (2) results, (3) good will.

Factually, the only economic and social arrangement in which the bourgeoisie are assured a captive audience is Marxism, wherein the state runs all commerce. Even a military dictatorship or monarchy is less interested in controlling the marketplace than the loyalty of the people. Even the harshest Islamic or papal state has offered internal free trade, within the confines of its particular religious law. The Communist Manifesto has thus described not capitalism but Marxism! In psychological terms, it is called “projection.”

Where Marx is able to hook a gullible and ignorant audience lies in the final clause. Naturally, production and exchange has evolved as health, technology, and public education have improved; but these were/are improvements due to creativity, individuality, and liberty, not statism.

2. Quoting the next paragraph in our study: “Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune, here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.”

If the reader has already fallen under Marx’s lies and misdirection, this paragraph has appeal – but only to one aggrieved. Recalling at all times that the central service of Marxism is to proffer sympathy or compassion to “the grievance,” Marx’s explanation for the stability of capitalist society drills directly into those who feel powerless. Marx furthermore explains this helplessness, both in terms of reality and psychology, as stemming directly from a police state which protects evil capitalism. Marx rarely misses an opportunity to feed into the “communism vs. fascism” game (see Synopsis 10).

Even those who despise communism may be sucked into half-agreement by dint of Marx’s historical perspective. Yet, it is dialectical materialism posing as historicity. Though romantic in exposition, Marx’s sequence is flawed. In fact, each development of the “bourgeoisie” was not accompanied by some monarchal evolution, nor vice versa. Exploration of the New World, for example, did not result in any significant shift in European power structure, except perhaps in national dominance. On the other side, France’s bloody internal struggles were not met with an equivalent positive change for the wealthy; if anything, those able to escape La Guerre Parisienne moved to the relatively sedate climes of Prussia or England.

Marx’s greatest transgression here is the identification of American constitutional government as the worst of all possible worlds. The error is not a difference of opinion but deliberate deceit. Consider: “afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway.” Since the American representative state was founded specifically on the Hebrew (Torah) method of government (tribal representation, leading to the chief executive Moses, actually the humble servant of the true executive, God), Marx’s aim is, for those who know his earlier works, to destroy true religion as well. Whether or not you believe that the representative form of government is a puppet of capitalist concerns (the multinational corporation, in modern vernacular), a choice has been handed to you: (1) accept Marx’s premise, which demands the dismantling of the Constitution and dismissal of Torah Law, or (2) reject the premise, acceding to the so-called fascism of capitalism and its surrounding fabric (including religion).

The choice is false. It breeds from biased, even bigoted, standpoints. First, it is anti-Semitic, as we have in earlier Synopses proven. Nevertheless, the damage is done. Even if one rejects Marx’s premise, the seed of doubt has been planted. As grievances are harvested and warehoused, the Marxist is able to leverage these stored resentments as proof that capitalism, and therefore Judaism (that is Torah), is the main cause of societal and economic casualty. Second, it is anti-Christian. For as On the Jewish Question bluntly posited, when a Christian is a capitalist, that Christian is a Jew. Those with no animosity towards the Jew see this as benign, but those who hold hatred and/or old superstitious fears against Jews may be blinded and/or lead ferocious pogroms. Thus, we see again in 2011 the rumblings of anti-Jew rhetoric and symbols where social upheaval or economic crumbling is worse. The Christian is therefore forced to choose sides. The Marxist’s job is to separate Christian from Christian by creating the paradigm of “social justice” (for white peoples) and “replacement theology” (for non-whites). Simply, Marxism seeks to make “compassion” the central plank of Christianity when in fact it is Torah (the rule of law) which Christ has made sacred (Matthew 5:19, Matthew 23:3, Luke 18:18-20, et al). Humility to one who is greater, not compassion for fellow man, is the motivator for serving God. If not, all we have is humanism, that is, atheism, that is, communism.

Why Torah (commonly known as the Pentateuch, that is, the first five books of the Bible)? If one believes in the Ten Commandments, there is no doubt about it - they are the central core of Torah. Therefore, if Marxism is to succeed, it must destroy that core.

The third bigotry is nationalism. Marx exposes that immigrants often take more menial work until they are assimilated. In America, the path to such nationalism is often smooth, but in Europe that road has been notoriously difficult and sometimes impossible. Related bigotries (race and gender) have obvious concurrence. Marxism seeks to exploit these grievances through great power blocs of those “left behind.”

Marx ends the paragraph with this choice phrase: “The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” In other words, the President of the United States is a stooge for big business. How powerfully this impacts any particular person is naturally staked to how far back the social or economic ladder an individual may be when this bombast is heard. Marxism, however, does not rely on winning votes, only planting seeds which sprout “when the time is right,” i.e. at the revolution.

The Occupy movement of 2011 was apparently a call to action for such seedlings. Yet, the Marxist was unpleasantly surprised to find little support within most communities, even during tough economic and social times, and even with radical Leftists in government cheering. Why? Marx miscalculated; and therefore the Marxist, being a purist, also miscalculates. They have failed to recognize that America is special. There is a "magical" (actually, God-imbued) nature to the air and water of the United States which causes even those with most virulent ideology to take pause. However, don’t be lulled into a stupor – this aura, though so very resilient, is not indestructible; and liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Marx’s riskiest gambit is therefore somewhat nullified by the opportunities of liberty afforded through those most ancient documents – Torah, the Magna Carta, the Constitution. In America, rugged individualism over meager collectivism is for most still the default choice. In the main, Americans would rather go without and be free than to be fed and enslaved. The goal of the Marxist is to break this resolve.

3. Quoting the next paragraph in our study: “The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.”

Marx is basically saying, “The capitalists did it to themselves.” First, this is a gleeful shirking of personal responsibility, ignoring all of the social advances man ever achieved through moral rebellion (Pilgrims, Huguenots, Abolitionists, et al).

Second, it is passive-aggressive behavior, blaming others for the misfortune one has. Even those in torturous circumstances have found faith in God to be a stronger weapon than collective rage.

The irony is, if “the capitalists did it to themselves,” what did they do? If you don’t know, I suggest at this point you read The 5000 Year Leap by Skousen.

4. Quoting the next paragraph in our study: “The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.”

Read this out loud and dramatically. Notice the following: (1) how emotional it is, (2) how florid it is, (3) how hypocritical it is. While we know that Marxism appeals to emotion and imagery (whereas capitalism entreats to the mind and to actuality), it is truly mesmerizing to witness the religiosity with which it inflames. Captured is no less the essence of a John Wesley or Billy Graham. The adjectives are more important to the invective than are the verbs. Despite his rejection of such occupations, one should think Marx a poet or philosopher. Nevertheless, it is the malevolent and auspicious devaluation of language itself which must appall most.

Did Marx really convey to caring for “the heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour” (Marxist blasphemy!) while simultaneously pining for “philistine sentimentalism” (paganism)? Did he then actually utter that these were drowned in “icy calculation” when that description is the essence of Marxism?

As for capitalism having “resolved personal worth into exchange value,” that is the process of life which Marx himself extolled! Did he not say that the proletariat has been exploited, that is, not received a true exchange value for the personal worth of his services and character? Ah, but Marx is not interested in logic but in fanning the fires of human envy.

Note the punchline – it is “Free Trade” which is the Visigoth construct. The barbarian Marx is calling out technological progress as barbarian!

And the “one word” which is always on the lips of the Marxist – “exploitation” – is counted as not only the end (“for exploitation”) but also the means (... brutal exploitation”). That is, the aim of religion and politics is to reach exploitation by exploitation. It should be obvious that only the lowest form of human conduct – sin – could harbor such claptrap. It is not the liberty of free trade which exploits, but the intrusion of and collusion with government which sets traps for “the folks.” For when free trade is unfettered by regulation, and neither protected nor persecuted by government, the association between merchant and customer is true, according to proper weights and measures, with moral certitude through public approval or else ostracism. In short, when Torah (true, not crony, capitalism) is the basis of both business and judicial law, all honest and righteous people prosper. On the other hand, when a heavy yoke is placed upon the people by regulation or tax, whether directly or through the veil of “fair share” legislation, all such happiness suffers.

Marxism is not the cure for such ills; it is the next step in oppression. For even if we live now in a fascist police state which protects capitalist interests through brutality and other coercion, it is still better than the grey fruitlessness of eternal envy and sameness. At least under fascism there is an illusion of natural rights; under communism there is neither illusion nor right.

I am not, however, convinced that America is a fascist nation. There is of course growing concern that we have traded liberty for security, as well as suspicion that perhaps the multinational corporations and international banks have usurped American sovereignty; but one must excuse my optimism that these are not long-term but momentary trends in the overall trajectory. I believe America to be not an oppressor nation but the land of opportunity. If not, why is this nation still the primary target not only for hopeful immigrants but also for bomb-throwing Leftists?

5. Quoting the next paragraph in our study: “The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.”

At this point, the Marxist will be shaking with laughter, the capitalist left scratching his head. Only the ingénue will be convinced of anything.

That Marx invokes “the priest, the poet” as honorable occupations is antithetical humor, but to the innocent it is dewy-eyed idealism. “See?,” croons the hypnotized romanticist, “Marx cares for our institutions.” The lie, however, is evident; for how is it that religion is the tool of capitalism and yet Marx defends it? This is the Hegelian dialectic. While the rationalist attempts to unravel any practical logic, the Marxist sneaks off to plant the next linguistic landmine.

Another odd dualism is that “the man of science” is the “paid wage laborer” for capitalism, yet it is science itself which Marx utilizes to disprove the metaphysical aspects of capitalist society. Shall we now believe that the evolutionist works under the same aegis as the creationist? Or that the climatologist is in the same department as the industrialist? Again, these are but clouds of psychedelic aroma meant to entice, which only those with no experience or blinding envy will inhale.

6. Quoting the next paragraph in our study: “The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.”

Once again, experience knows that religion is a foundational partner of the family whereas Marxism’s interest in family is particularly towards productivity. This does not exclude that certain elements of capitalist society do not target the family for self-interested motivation. For examples, (1) the government tax code encourages marriage and children by providing deductions, and (2) marriage may take the form of a financial arrangement, two incomes being more attractive than one for their buying power (which confluence indicates empowerment, not slavery).

And what has been Marx’s opinion of the family’s “sentimental veil”? Merely that the family is a form of slavery (see previous Synopses). And what is Marx’s solution? Merely to strip the child early from the mother’s grip, to educate “properly,” and to enrich the mass of uniform collectivism. Marxism is in need of productivity born from generic collectivist thinking, even breeding. For examples, we need look no further than the regimes of Lenin, Mao and Hitler. Any pretense therefore that Marx cares for the family is only Hegelian dialectic.

Next Week: It only gets worse. Try to stick with it, educate yourself, and know your enemy.

The clash Marx predicted is here, and you can’t avoid it. A worldwide struggle has now emerged, between the forces of Marxism, crony capitalism (oligarchy), radical Islam (theocratic Marxism), and several other master racists with immense power. Caught in the middle is the Constitution and Torah. The good news is, there are still more of “us” than “them.” We only need to find each other and pledge to fight for those ideals which proclaim liberty and righteousness.

Lesson 10: The Communist Manifesto, Part 2

I hold weekly meetings for interested parties here in Hendersonville, NC. This is a synopsis from our 10th meeting.

Synopsis of Week 10 Meeting:

We continue The Communist Manifesto.

1. From the start, Marx lied, utilized generalizations, and preyed on grievances and sympathies (see Synopsis 9). The Communist Manifesto proceeds then in the next several paragraphs to build a narrative based on those errors and evils. This is the story of man’s economic and social progress, seen through the prism of static attitudes on human behavior and a disdain for reason, instead relying on emotion and evocative imagery (basically, sophistry).

According to Marx, the method of extracting labor for unearned profit is at the center of it all. The guilds exploited the craftsmen; the manufacturer pushed aside the guilds and exploited the specialized laborer; the industrial giant crushed the local entrepreneurial manufacturer and exploited further the laborer, dehumanizing him; and finally the global corporation absorbed the industrial giants into a gigantic pool of vacuity and inhumanity.

It’s a compelling story, ripped it seems from the pages of today’s Google News. Yet, if Marx said these things 160 years ago, and today we have the same complaint against “greedy capitalism,” where is the evolution of society that Hegel predicted and Marx exhorted? How did the revolution against capitalism fail?

In short, it was exploration and creative thinking, pushing European expansion to the New World and other regions. There are three basic elements which Marx, in his fervor, neglected (whether or not deliberately):

(a) Advances in medicine and healthcare delivery caused the population to soar. Thus, the establishment of larger entities to provide work for this labor force was not per se exploitation but a necessity. In keeping with certain laws of economic physics, it would have been unbearable for governments to employ too many soldiers or bureaucrats, or to extenuate a welfare state. The retention of slavery was also waning, the rights of free peoples having been spelled out in various documents and by certain philosophers. As to population limitation (eugenics, ZPG, etc), these notions had not come to any engaged and organized fruit. In truth, the ever-present danger of popular revolt led to the expansion of entrepreneurship, in everything from navigation to commerce.

(b) Freedom in Europe meant a distillation of the mind, and creativity abounded. As the population grew, inefficiencies in the marketplaces (even within tyrannies) became obvious. Invention soon sprang from its mother, necessity. Such improvements to daily living were encouraged by particular protections, including the contract and the patent. Technology advanced human society, and the economic engine of nations soon depended on who could develop the next big thing. As a result of demand, resources of all types were conscripted from the farthest corners of the Earth. Thus, navigation and commerce expanded not by the whim of concentrated piles of wealth but in direct relation to a free and fair market. Yes, capitalism was also refined by such ventures but as long as governments did not interfere, everyone benefited.

(c) The printing press, an entrepreneurial Hall of Famer, enabled formerly ignorant peasants to have their own Bible, read philosophy, spread pamphlets, and circulate news. This enriching of a growing population caused minds to open and hearts to sing. Ideas were spread easier by publishing. Mail service became the norm, letter-writing a new art form, the invoice a standard of business transaction. Credit was thus able to expand, creating wealth where none was before. A loan was as good as gold. Banking started to increase, and the transfer of property was established in greater stature by the mortgage.

These are only some of the highlights of human development between 1400 and 1850 which Karl Marx chose to omit from his historical dialectic.

2. Since Marx’s view of history was so stilted and static, the Victim-Oppressor-Savior triumvirate was essential for the success of The Communist Manifesto. Though capitalism triumphed, the utopian ideals could still fan the flames of frustration, class envy, and nationalism. Thus, the concept of larger entities swallowing smaller concerns fed into the conspiracy theory (basically) that capitalism was no more than an endless progression of exploitation and ruthlessness, ending when the biggest fish finally swallowed the next-biggest.

As previously discussed, Marx blamed Judaism for capitalism. Thus, according to Marxism, the Jew is always to be blamed for the collapse of any economic system that depends on big fish and smaller fish. The inequities of talent, outcome, and societal structure (for example, between men and women) are also a symptom of this universe. Simply, Marx took the natural and self-existent differences of life, and forged that certain human organizational constructs either caused or exacerbated these differences. The Christian religion, for example, Marx accused as aiding and abetting capitalism, and therefore the destruction of society.

In economic terms, the church facilitated societal inequities in countless ways. For example, tithing is not progressive and therefore does not care sufficiently for the poor, instead permitting those with more to keep what they have. The progressive tax system is a manifestation of this thinking. Should anyone, however, believe Marxism in this (or any other) regard has some meritorious ground on which to stand, it should be noted that a progressive tax or tithing system is corrupt and sinful, encouraging both coveting and stealing (it is no excuse that the organization is committing the sin, for it takes people to implement the organization’s policies).

The Communist Manifesto takes this methodology to an absurd extreme. When the Oppressor guild was destroyed by an incoming manufacturer, that guild moved to the Victim pile. By the time the historical process reached the level of global multinational, everyone but a fortunate few were Victims. It became a case of the 99% vs. the 1%, not a new concept or slogan.

But if the global multinational Oppressor is removed, the industrial giant, once a Victim of the global multinational, becomes itself the Oppressor. This reversal of exploitative relationships and machinations regressively continues until there are no more Victims and no more Oppressors. The revolution is therefore won. The victory is a state with no rulers but also, by design, no work ethic, no technology, no religious Law (Torah), a destroyed infrastructure, and other ills. Communism is thus to be viewed as a return to barbarism, crudity, and darkness. For when the revolution ends, and all are equal, any person who should dare to be an individual, an inventor, a builder, an entrepreneur, or an explorer shall either be subsumed by the mediocrity of nothingness, enslaved to the will of a dictatorship, or eliminated. Deviation in utopia is a crime.

3. The retention of capitalism is by Marx seen as by a police state. According to this way of thinking, in the police state, in order to keep the exploited happy, many pleasures are encouraged. Order is kept by force.

It should be obvious that, in many parts of the world , Marx’s view is correct. Military dictatorships and other tyrannies constantly monitor the population for dissent. Yet, it is almost always true that such repression takes place in collectivist, particularly Marxist, countries (I consider Sharia Law to be Marxist, not religious, ideology).

In contrast, where capitalism is the mainstay, happiness is a by-product of liberty, and order is most often self-imposed for the sake of keeping the peace. Where there is prosperity and/or liberty, riots do not often break forth. It takes an ideological rabble to protest wealth for its own sake, stirring up hatred and envy from those parts of society which may be neglected. It takes a committed radical element to overload a system of government for the goal of collapse and subsequent overthrow to power, the coup. In all such instances, the “grievance” is organized for mob power, and the Victim-Oppressor-Savior game is played to its fullest.

The game itself is known as “Communism vs. Fascism.” That is, the collectivist organizes protests and other vehicles to ostensibly deliver a message, the less coherent the better. Slogans become more important than facts. Buildings and parks are occupied as if a war is being waged, with individual battles (as for the Brooklyn Bridge). The communist wields the mob like a weapon, striking first here, then there. Collateral damage is expected and considered part of life (“oh well”). The police at first are ordered to remain peaceful, and to arrest only those most rowdy, destructive, or violent (these are often not the communist leaders but only patsies). As the communist taunts become unlimited and property destruction begins, the police are then given freer reign. Some of the police are by this time pent up, and some may go on a rampage, mainly from overwork but sometimes from a personality disorder. The communist media immediately broadcasts the plight of the downtrodden, and the public chimes in with compassion and sympathy. Cries of “Fascism!” are spread, and our peace-keepers are soon perceived to be the enemy.

The game ends in one of two ways: (a) some portion of the collectivist-driven mob is killed in a skirmish, scaring away most of the others, relieving the situation and retrieving the peace, or (b) the mob continues to grow until its size is unmanageable, thereafter being used to block food and energy deliveries, and finally to seize those in power and desecrate their bodies, leaving society in chaos and ruins. The first manner has been recently witnessed in America at Kent State. The second manner is a description of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and every other like these, as well as of the pogrom.

Next week: More than you ever wanted to know but without which cannot survive the future.

Lesson 9: The Communist Manifesto, Part 1

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

Synopsis of Week 9 Meeting:

We begin The Communist Manifesto.

1. The preface from Engels is rife with historical analysis, briefly from the period prior (which we have ravenously studied), extensively thereafter until 1888 (when Engels set his thoughts to paper). Of particular note is the insistence to distinguish between Socialism and Communism, the former labeled a “middle class movement,” the latter a “working class movement.” The distinction is self-conscious but it is also expedient, for not only had Communism been in retreat until perhaps 1874, but also a decision had at some point been made to abandon any hope that the middle class might “see the light” regarding capital and profit (that is, as pure exploitation and, worse, as evil). Therefore, Communism is necessarily to be viewed from this point forward as exclusively the struggle of the working class. Communism would not subsume the middle class; it would destroy it “for its own good.”

The preface also notes that Marx/Engels and Darwin had unknowingly been working towards some common goal. Whether or not these were in communication with each other is a moot point; the greater truth is that the 20^th century would see such a conflagration, with horrible consequences.

Engels furthermore makes the Hegelian argument – that a Synthesis does not depend much on linear or rigid guidelines, but instead on ever-changing tactics to suit particular environments and times. In other words, communism espouses social and economic guerrilla, even terrorist, warfare. By such stratagem, no structure is safe from Marxist (communist) subversion.

Finally, Engels dictates that the Manifesto is “a historical document which we no longer have any right to alter.” Besides the contradiction apparent in such a statement, it is instructive to observe also the method to the madness. For Engels is not knowingly lying as much as he is knowingly utilizing Hegelian dialectic. Revolution is only a means to an end. The idea that the Manifesto is only a document from history belies that at any time the communist may retrieve whatever method achieves its goal.

2. The preamble to Chapter 1 is no more than a declaration, and for the communist a quite open announcement. This I think is more related to objectification of a movement than for any semblance of order.

3. From the very start, we encounter error and manipulation. Chapter 1, entitled “Bourgeois and Proletarians,” is already a misdirection, not only for the class warfare inherent but also for its limitation in defining the movement of money, the production of goods, and the value of labor. In his entirely static view of economics, Marx sees technology as only a tool to further enslave those he presumes enslaved (we accept that Marx believes his own ideology). Thus, “capitalists,” “owners of the means of social production” (families, schools, religion, etc), and “employers of wage labor” are viewed as Oppressors; and those who sell “their labor power in order to live” as Victims.

The “genius” of Marx is in this limitation. However, the same may be said for Joe Montana as a quarterback. Simply that a man can overpower all competition at one position does not mean that the same man holds any competency whatsoever when outside the box; and therefore I would not let Joe Montana coach a football team based solely on his functional genius, nor would I allow Karl Marx to dictate terms for an entire society or economy based on his ability to identify certain behavioral irritants (envy, dishonesty, untruth) already forbidden by God’s Law.

4. The error continues, extrapolated from The German Ideology, that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” As must be painfully obvious, this statement is only sensible when enclosed in the aforementioned limitation(s). It is to me disappointing that in general the human race is given over to such sweeping statements, especially when the grandeur is not matched by attendant factual basis. The most glaring deficiency in this regard has already been established in our synopses for The German Ideology. Briefly, the history which Marx encapsulates is specifically middle-European, and it excludes even from this harsh boundary many facets of human behavior and conduct which would otherwise explode his opening premise/gambit.

Amusingly, the error is addressed in footnote form (at least in my reading copy) that by “history” Marx is referring to “written history.” The joke is on us. For not only will Marx forbid the value of oral history, anecdote, and common sense, but the written history will naturally be according to the necessity of simple (doltish) communism, not complexity. In a way, Marx has given permission to those with more than an agenda to discontinue any more reading of the Manifesto. Having confessed then that the rules to this game are already rigged, and the odds tilted heavily in favor of the house, only the most foolhardy should venture forth seeking some form of social or economic truth.

All that The Communist Manifesto shall henceforth bequeath is the center of communism, that is, the grievance, and to entreat those who agree to collect and huddle under the banner of a Savior known as collectivism. Such agreement shall constitute that the entirety of human foible lay in the pursuit and/or accumulation of wealth. The Marxist is therefore in opposition to God’s Law, Torah, which states that private property is by contract sacred, trespass of such a sin, and envy the root of it all.

5. Having dispensed with reality or discretion, Marx in the next paragraph actually uses the words “oppressed” and “oppressor” to instantly infiltrate the language and inculcate the wayward. The freeman is the enemy of the slave, the lord foe of the serf, and so on. But more zealous for division is the emotional reaction that these are in “constant opposition to one another, carried on in an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight...” Certainly, no person who is in a struggle for achievement has any truck with such inflammation - and this is the point - in Marx’s world, there are no neutral beings, only friends and enemies.

Immediately after this, Marx makes the obsequious gesture that such battles “each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.” This unseemly pedestal completely ignores the American Revolution (though Marx was well aware of it), wherein there was neither a reconstitution of society at large nor a common ruin. Instead, the Revolutionary War enshrined the same English law, based on Judeo-Christian foundation, which reigned over pre-Constitutional America. There are, of course, caveats to my own sweeping generalization, but not to any excess which neutralizes it. Conclusively, especially for the student of American history, the United States is the anomaly for which communism cannot account and which it must dismiss, even to its own internal and external destruction.

6. The Manifesto’s next paragraph makes abundantly clear that America shall be saved for a later and weaker attack. Here, Marx cites the Roman Empire to plead his case, but this is already an ineffective argument (see synopsis for The German Ideology).

7. One paragraph forward, Marx is pontificating again in generalization, probably a deliberate move to solidify emotionally where he lacks in facts and logic.

8. The next paragraph is, to me, the most important thus far. Within it reads, “Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great classes directly facing each other – bourgeoisie and proletariat.” There are two pieces to this:

(a) That the middle class is disappearing. Have you heard this before? Of course you have. In every election cycle, a politician is sure to utter it. But whether or not you agree with the statement, or the specific candidate or office-holder, it is pure Marxism.

But for the sake of the argument, let’s say Marx is correct: the middle class is disappearing. He wrote this in (circa) 1847. Has the middle class been disappearing for 164 years? If so, they are quite resilient and hardy. If not, it’s about time to retire this overused chestnut. Yet, despite the illogic, the public-at-large seems to buy such dangerous corn. Why?

Simply, Marx’s genius was in discovering an eternal and universal grievance: the wealth barrier. Thus, “the middle class is disappearing” appeals to (1) the poor who have struggled valiantly (or not) and grown to envy, (2) the middle class who are inconveniently slipping backwards, and (3) the rich who have either over-compassion for those below, or guilt for their own achievement.

Clearly, once this strong (deep and wide) grievance is established the reason for it can be attributed to the most tenuous of causes. Therefore, the Victim-Oppressor-Savior diadem, even that redistributed by evil intent, though excruciatingly and plainly sinful and venomous, works.

(b) If one replaces “bourgeoisie and proletariat” with “1% and 99%” the recognizable branding of Marxism unfolds before our eyes. The players change, the sloganeering modernizes, but the grievance is the same. Here, however, the focus is placed not on the disappearing middle but on the confrontational ends. Distinctly, without the middle class to muddy the waters of Marxism, class warfare reigns. It is only for Marxism to erase the middle class from view; then, all which follows, even violent upheaval of society’s fabric, becomes a relevant possibility.

(This is I think the reason the Left has always managed to capture the heart whereas the Right is aimed to the head. Sadly, it is the victory of emotion over facts and logic which places each person everyday in danger to lose life, liberty and property).

The counter-argument comes that capitalism is blind and blinding but Marxism is awake and eye-opening. Yet, as we’ve studied to this point, the spiritual hooks which Marx early instituted relied on blaming religion, especially Judaism, and the family for teaching and metastasizing capitalism. Thus, capitalism, as explained by Marx, is hardly revelatory, instead relying on destroying basic Law (Torah), excoriating fundamental principles (upbringing), and spreading hatred. Marxism is in no manner “natural” either, for it seeks to infect and demolish those truly natural establishments of human interaction: the family (blood), the community (economics and safety), and the church (explanation of the unknown), among others. To this end, the Marxist must seize control of education, social services, and psychology in order to remodel innate behavior.

The deeper issue is whether collectivism is itself innate. The family, community, and church are models of group thinking, depending on peer pressure and common thought. Nevertheless, it is the introduction of coercion which turns a small-L libertarian assemblage into a haven of inescapable doctrine. The happy family estate may become a horror house of mental or physical abuse; the sedate town has possibility to be ruled by despots or criminals; and the church has been in times past a hotbed of inquisition. Nevertheless, these are the exception, not the rule. The collectivist, on the other hand, normally runs his dominion with an iron fist, and true liberty is unknown.

We therefore as legitimate beings must choose not “the greater good” but individual liberty, for if we deny it to others (even under such guise as “general welfare”) we have no right to think ourselves exempt from such oppression. This is the danger for us all: That Marxism shall pronounce the collectivism of liberty “hypocritical” while at the same time using that leverage to empower its own enslavement of society and individuals (the true double standard).

Under this simplest extrapolation, it should be nearly impossible for any except the most indoctrinated or envious to accept the underlying precepts for The Communist Manifesto.

Lesson 8: The German Ideology, Part 3+

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

Synopsis of Week 8 Meeting:

Concluding our study of Marx’s The German Ideology.

(1) Wikipedia writes:

“To illustrate this theoretical framework, Marx draws on his formulation of base and superstructure. Historical development is the reflection of changes in the economic and material relations of the base. When the base changes, a revolutionary class becomes the new ruling class that forms the superstructure. During revolution, the revolutionary class makes certain that its ideas appeal to humanity in general so that after a successful revolution these ideas appear natural and universal. These ideas, which the superstructural elements of society propagate, then become the governing ideology of the historical period. Furthermore, the governing ideology mystifies the economic relations of society and therefore places the proletariat in a state of false consciousness that serves to reproduce the working class.”

The “base” is the economic infrastructure, which essentially is defined by resources and labor. Resources are used to manufacture goods, build homes and other structures, and for trade. Labor is the available manpower from durable population.

The “superstructure” is the political and/or ideological framework. Currently, the United States enjoys a capitalist ideology which has been the driving force in transforming the world from primarily agrarian to the technological and health marvel it is today (I suggest you read The 5000 Year Leap by Skousen). The political extrapolations have reduced to Republican (representative rule), Democrat (“people power”), Libertarian (individual rule, close to anarchy, via morality), with other parties/powers being either negative against predominant American principles (for example, Communist Party) or else derivative denominationally (for example, Green Party).

Marxism teaches that control over the base and superstructure comes by some combination of hard force, that is, fascism (police state, military dictatorship) and/or soft coercion, that is, manipulation (control over the media, education, social workers, psychology, etc). According to this teaching, both the proletariat (worker class) and the bourgeoisie (ownership class) are “alienated” from all things, including the society, each other, and the self. Naturally, all such dialogue is one-sided, as the Marxist use of Hegelian dialectic demands. That is, only capitalism, never Marxism, is accused of these means and ends.

As noted last week, Marx in The German Ideology goes to great lengths to complicate the historical view of societal economic development. He includes such generalizations and assumptions as the “latent slavery” of the family, the distended slavery of tribal compartmentalization, and static attitudes within medieval feudal society which exclude obvious differences in worldwide cultures and religions as well as distinctions between various individuals and smaller conclaves which eventually have made some major impact (for example, Quakers).

Marx’s deceit would be rather bland and disposable were it not for his zealous followers, who are blind not only to their master’s errors but also to the actual history of socialism and attempted communism. One of the worst offenses (as noted in Synopsis #1) is to say that “we’ve not truly ever seen communism.” This “timeout” mentality (only available to Marxists, mind you) would have us believe that those dictatorships and slaughters which grew out of so-called democratic revolutions (French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, and so on) were not collectivist, not Marxist, not communist, or else not failures. As such, Marxists are not idealists but viciously dangerous blind ideologues.

Marxist “revolution” is a change in superstructure which removes capitalism in its every form, from political to economic to ideological and even to the individual level. For if any person should be permitted to spread the idea of capitalism ever again, it is well-understood that the dreaded “selfish motivation” would unveil Marxism as no more than the “hard force/soft control” monstrosity it is. As concrete evidence, let us observe that in every place where Marxism has been implemented it is the freedom of the press and the freedom of assembly which must first be forbidden and expunged. Those who would publish any different idea from Marxism, whether in print or in congregation, must be held down to the ground and removed from sight. In contrast, the capitalist society has at least the principles of free press and free assembly embedding in its governmental contract, the constitution (whether or not you believe such things are in fact maximally flexed).

Marxism uses the revolution to push its agenda, that is, societal and economic change through a “scientific” synthesis of countervailing forces. According to the Marxist, the force known as capitalism (read: Jew, American, business owner, banker) makes primary the security of private property. Therefore, the Marxist, uncaring for that fabric, has the advantage in any anti-capitalist revolutionary conflict, whether that be an argument, fistfight, protest march, or insurrection. This is again Marx’s “static attitude” philosophy at work, and it is both blind and wrong. First, fear or inaction is not per se the reaction of the capitalist but only of the human being who desires no more than peaceful enjoyment of natural rights (including life, liberty, and personal property, the pursuit of happiness) and an expectation of their protection through government agencies (police, military) paid by taxes, sweat, and patriotism. No different thought process should be expected from the entrenched Marxist. Second, Marx neglects to account for those more fearsome capitalist counter-revolutionary forces, among them independent agents, individual militarists, constitutional defenders, family protectors, and those who comprehend between slavery and liberty.

The Marxist principle that the revolution is merely an acknowledgement of an inherent hunger in society for transformation is based upon, for the most part, psychology. This includes incessant media bombardment, education of youth from an early age, and generous entitlement programs designed to bribe emotions, if not votes. According to the doctrine, once the revolution succeeds, the psychology is so firm that any dissension back to “the way it was” (capitalism) will be met with, first, fierce doctrine impervious to any contrary notion and, second, an internal secret police force guided by peer pressure and tattling.

When the dust settles, the former proletariat become the new working class who ostensibly self-govern their new society. Ironically, “self-government” is exactly that which is overthrown in favor of Marxism, the antithesis of self-government. Theoretical Marxism is thus selling a constitutional government without any of the protections inherent in a constitutional government! Marxism brainwashes to hate the very society it promises! Why? So that when (not if) in the new utopia complaints are lodged regarding unfulfilled Marxist promises, the accusers can at any time be named as enemies of the state and forthwith removed from sight.

In sum, Marxism is not scientific in the least, but merely observational and quite subjective in its conclusions. It is what it needs to be in order to manifest itself. This is the Hegelian dialectic at its “best.” Marxist revolution is therefore a fake and a fraud. Only through agitation is it made to appear that democracy approaches when in fact tyranny is brewing. For modern, action-oriented individuals, beware these things: (1) Occupy Wall Street and other such gatherings which are meant to lead to general strikes, food shortages, and eventual martial law and military rule, (2) overthrow of Middle Eastern governments which lead to the rise of Marxist organizations such as Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood (tyranny, not freedom), and (3) re-consolidation of the European Union as well as the strikes/demonstrations in opposition, either of which may lead to collectivist fascism.

(2) Wikipedia reads:

“Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness no longer retain the semblance of independence; they have no history and no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with their real existence, their thinking and the product of their collective thinking. This approach allows us to cease understanding history as a collection of dead facts or an imagined activity of subjects.”

In brief, Marxism teaches that all things invisible (morality, religion, metaphysics, etc) are slavery and their adherents slaves. Marx believed that each of these invisible things were individualistic, with no cohesive collective consciousness through history or material (that is, sensory) basis, and therefore useless. Men (that is, not mice) “alter” (through revolution) their thinking to respect only the collective ideology.

Marx, however, is no Nostradamus but only a reporter, blandly stating the obvious. There is no doubt that, once a societal revolution has taken root, people will congregate their thoughts to collective messaging (such as in religion, business, government). It is the way of all things that fear and greed rule the human mind. Thus, Marx’s communications are sophistry, meant only to deceive.

His true message is that communism is the savior of man from himself. You need communism. This indicates that Marx had and Marxism has a messiah complex. Not that this is unusual in the annals of human behavior, but it makes Marxism no less dangerous. Communism is not a societal evolution, not cool, not cute, not a grand experiment.

But for the sake of argument, let’s say capitalism is a terrible system. Why does that naturally lead to communism as the solution? Why is a stateless utopia the proper remedy? Marx in his “goodness” has given you the answer: that all ruling class systems are inherently corrupt (in modern parlance, suck). What he doesn’t tell you is that Marxism, despite the stated ideology, is and must lead to a ruling class. Bakunin, the anarchist, and Marx’s friend and contemporary (see Synopsis #5), said exactly this of Marx’s authoritarian socialism:

“If you took the most ardent revolutionary and vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.”

Considering the source, this is perhaps the most damning and convincing of all statements against Marxism (but lest you think Bakunin worthy of your respect, read his works).

(3) Marx followed The German Ideology with The Poverty of Philosophy (1847), a response to French anarcho-socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's The Philosophy of Poverty and a critique of French socialist thought in general. In the history of Marx's thought and Marxism, this work is pivotal in the distinction between the concepts of utopian socialism and what Marx and the Marxists claim as scientific socialism. For scientific socialism, the most one could say is that socialism, e.g. Marxism, has, at least historically, been a current which finds expression in various scientific disciplines such as mathematical economics and sociology. Socialism and Marxism are thus better described as theoretical frameworks for understanding and analyzing the social, economic and political world. But utopian socialism is based on ideas much more than “materialism” (that is, what can be seen and measured).

Despite the philosophy, Marx actually had very little scientific basis for this claim, for it is that his Marxist socialism would be stamped out at every turn in his life, whether in Prussia, France or elsewhere. Marx’s calculations were entirely theoretical. This did not, however, stop Marx from separating himself from what he called utopian idiocy. But, in the final analysis, Marxism is a utopian (not scientific) socialism (Leninism would prove this).

(4) Next week, we begin The Communist Manifesto. Although one might have expected our scholarship to have been initiated with this document, I assure you that your insight into it would be only superficial without our previous studies.

Gregory Ip: Occupy Wall Street Not Coddled Enough

This Sunday morning, I turned on the television and tuned in C-Span channel. There, during a call-in show, I heard Gregory Ip, a prognosticator from The Economist, say the most amazing things.

First, he astounded me by making the claim that “underwater” homeowners were largely there by absolute happenstance and through no fault of their own. Specifically, he blamed low wages as the catalyst. By accepting such paltry wages, these homeowners were “forced” (this he actually says) to take out mortgages far beyond their capability to repay in order to keep up their standard of living. Being somewhat involved in another activity, I turned to the television screen and uttered, “What?” but there was no response other than Ip continuing on. He thereupon added that not only were these new mortgages forced but they were of the most “exotic” type. By now my eyes were bugged out of my head. Let me get this straight – a certain expected standard of living could not be supported by low wages and therefore we blame the wage and not the expectation? It was to me a slap in the face that the C-Span host did not interject such a retort. Let me reiterate this for clarity: Ip conveyed to a national audience that human beings have no responsibility to live in reality, and that essentially we ought to blame the business-owner for the plight of his worker. I will now state the obvious: (1) no one forced that worker to take that job for that wage, (2) no one forced that worker to remain at that job for that wage, (3) no one forced that worker to buy a home based on future expectations of wage growth or climbing home value, (4) no one forced that worker to remain in that home when it became apparent that wages were not going to rise, (5) no one forced that worker to take a second or third mortgage, and certainly not of any “exotic” variety. I am of all things livid at the use of the word “exotic” because it places in the mind an image of a very haughty and mean-spirited banker coercing into bankruptcy a helpless mortgagee.

Ip’s ideology is worse than misguided, for it enables the shirking of personal responsibility. Up to this day I cannot recall any person saying that the worker/homeowner did not share at least some of the blame for his or her actions. This begins a new paradigm of which I predict you will see more televised, and you will be angered and appalled that many “underwater” homeowners will begin protesting their own actions but placing the onus and blame on mortgagors. Is it now the fault of others for actions we as free will beings take? Was it not under the worker’s power to find a better job? No? Then was it not under the worker’s power to find a smaller home? No? Then was it not under the worker’s power to find individuals in like situations and to band together for a concerted financial power? If the answer is No here, it indicates only one thing: that these workers/homeowners expect to maintain a certain standard of living without the commensurate wage, and that is not a demand but a pipedream.

This leads to the next step, which is Marxism. Notice that Ip has tapped into the “grievance,” the heart of Marxist power. How many workers have wages too low for their expectations? How many homeowners believe they were tricked into signing “exotic” paperwork? Since the answer is “Many, many,” the Marxist has his power bloc of aggrieved Victims. The Oppressor class is expanded from merely bankers now to business owners, which fits the Marxist template. If you will recall from our previous Synopses, it is the superstructure of capitalism which forces the worker to accept wages too low for the production he provides. Capitalism is therefore slavery. The final piece of the puzzle, the Savior, is provided in anti-capitalism, that is, socialism, the economic arm and power of communism.

Ip is therefore in this respect a pure Marxist.

Second, Ip turned to Occupy Wall Street and made the obvious topical connection: that these “folks” (protesters) were angry that they had borrowed tens of thousands of dollars for an education which they now find to be useless in their current endeavor to secure work. A few things here: (1) keen competition for scarce jobs will cause anyone, even without a college education, to become frustrated, (2) the proliferation of non-technical degrees (such as “classical studies”) causes an overabundance of wrongly-skilled college graduates in the work marketplace, (3) didn’t Ip say only moments before that wages were anyway not going to meet current standard of living expectations?

I am not here going to comment on the factual economic “bubble” as a cause of frustration. It is in many ways tangential to the argument in that (1) the “magical thinking” caused by such bubbles is not normally a universal phenomenon, and (2) magical thinking is normally cured by bubbles bursting. We currently have a burst bubble and yet the magical thinking continues! Where is the necessary brass-tacks thinking necessary to survive this economic phase?

It seems to me that even sensible leadership in the political and business arenas are in this respect being ignored. Those who are pushing for personal responsibility and belt-tightening as a commonsense attitude for the present situation are being mocked. In fact, they are being vilified for having the temerity to remain successful while others have no such outlook. What should these leaders do – surrender their wealth so that the mob will not tear them to pieces? Apparently that is not only the attitude of various manic crowds, including Occupy Wall Street, but also of certain pseudo-intellectuals, such as Gregory Ip, who have decided to turn the anger of the mob towards anything which smells of stability. The motivations of those who misdirect in this fashion is not certain but seems to boil down to three: (1) ignorance of mob mentality and the dangers thereof, (2) use of mob mentality as a method of revenge against ideological enemies (whether that means against capitalists or simply competitors in the marketplace, it makes no difference to the bloody outcome), and (3) use of mob mentality as a method of diversion. Of this third type, one might count as a member Barack Obama, who with great problems of his own seeks to deflect attention away from his administration’s blunders and intentional missteps; or one might cite Roseanne Barr, who has called for guillotines in the streets while she herself is a multi-millionaire with a great mansion in Hawaii.

But perhaps the most jaw-dropping of Ip’s conclusions is that since both the standard of living and the educational dreams of college students are (currently) beyond their grasp, their sin of envy must be immediately forgiven, even as atrocities stemming from such sin are daily being committed. In other words, those of us cozy in our homes watching our society’s fabric being undone should not judge the actions of any OWS protester at any time because their anger is justified. Is it? I submit that their expectations far exceed their money-making abilities, both for the economic environment and their educational choices, not to mention their lack of competitive fire. Furthermore, they choose not camaraderie, not even commiseration, in their morass but a socialized environment where those capitalist attitudes which just months ago were fire in the belly have now turned to putrid elements to be purged, and in vile, non-constructive ways.

Ip is the worst of the lot. He does not actually join their protest. He possibly laughs behind their back. Yet he uses them as a backdrop for his economic precepts which have no value in the real world, thus exacerbating the frustrations of the protester. His ideas about fairness in matters of wages and home prices are entirely communist and thus antithetical to so-called fair demands (they are not) against greedy capitalists (they are not). Ip is the Trojan inside the Trojan horse; a moldy prize inside a long-expired box of Cracker Jacks. He is the communist behind the uninitiated. He is a puppeteer.

We should not, however, dismiss Ip as a dolt. His message is well-structured and well-delivered to a group long receptive. Our counter-message has been poisoned by his kind. Our promise of liberty has been tainted by his accusation of unfairness. Our Tea Party has been called racist while theirs has not been called rapist. I am sorry to report that they are winning the message war with their propaganda. This means our youth, in some cases our own children and grandchildren, blame us directly for their problems. They take no personal responsibility, are easily led to Oppressors, and seek desperately for a Savior.

We must provide them with one, and not Karl Marx or of his disciples.

Anti-Communist News for November 5, 2011

An Article You Must Read.

Occupy Wall Street is anti-Torah, pro-Covet.

http://jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby110311.php3

Anti-Communist News for November 4, 2011

Obama adviser urges 'militancy' in nationwide Occupy protests

Board member of groups that crafted laws for health care, 'stimulus' says 'we've got to start a resistance movement'

_________________________________________________________

Posted: November 04, 20111:00 am Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WND

NEW YORK – Three days before an Occupy Oakland protest turned violent, United Steelworkers international president Leo Gerard, an adviser to President Obama, called for "more militancy" in Occupy movements across the U.S.

Gerard serves on the board of a number of groups funded by billionaire George Soros, including organizations that reportedly helped to craft Obama's "stimulus" and health-care laws.
In an interview with progressive radio host Ed Schultz on Monday, Gerard stated, "I think what we need is, we need more militancy."

"Red Army: The Radical Network that must be defeated to save America" exposes the extremists behind Occupy Wall Street along with the radical socialist network that seized political power in Washington over decades, shaped Obama's presidential agenda and threatens the very future of the U.S.

"I think we've got to start a resistance movement. If Wall Street occupation doesn't get the message, I think we've got to start blocking bridges and doing that kind of stuff," stated Gerard, according to a transcript provided by Newsbusters.org.

As WND was first to report, the tactic of blocking bridges, already used by Occupy Wall Street to hold up the Brooklyn Bridge last month, was institutionalized by Stephen Lerner, a controversial anti-capitalist SEIU organizer.

Lerner has visited the White House four times, while his former boss, Andy Stern, SEIU's recently retired president, was the most frequent White House visitor in 2009, according to presidential visitors logs. Obama himself once trained SEIU in the 1990s.

Gerard has a history of direct-action protests. During the 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle that turned violent, Gerard and United Steelworkers Vice President Tom Conway were caught on film dragging two large concrete planters into an intersection near the Washington State Convention and Trade Center in an attempt to help protesters block access to the WTO meetings.

A WND review of Gerard's rhetoric during the past year finds scores of statements implying an Occupy onslaught against U.S. capitalism.

In February 2010, the People's Weekly World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA, quoted Gerard and another United Steelworkers leader, Fred Redmond, as stating, "It's time to stand up and be heard," they said. "It's time to mobilize online and in the streets. Together, let's tweet, facebook and text. Let's rally, vote and, where necessary, sit-in."
In an August posting on the Firedoglake website, Gerard calling for an "uprising of hope and anger. There's plenty of anger out there."

He went on to quote Frances Fox Piven, writing that the radical professor "counsels in her book ... that hope is crucial, that constructive change arises from the mix of hope and anger."
Pivin, a member of the Progressives for Obama group, is co-author of the Cloward–Piven strategy, which calls for overloading the U.S. economy to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty."

Gerard, meanwhile, was appointed in September 2010 to Obama's Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations.

He also serves as a vice president of the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest union.

Gerard further serves as co-chairman of the BlueGreen Alliance, whose partner is the Apollo Alliance. Gerard is also an Apollo board member.

The Apollo Alliance is run by a slew of radicals, including Obama's former "green jobs" czar, Van Jones; Jeff Jones, who heads Apollo's New York branch and is a former top leader of the Weather Underground terrorist organization; and Joel Rogers, a founder of the socialist New Party.

WND previously reported Apollo helped to craft portions of Obama's "stimulus" bill.
Gerard is also on the board of two major Soros-funded groups, the Campaign for America's Future and the Economic Policy Institute.

WND reported last week Health Care for America, the centerpiece of the Economic Policy Institute's Agenda for Shared Prosperity, is the foundation for Obama's health-care plan.

Read more: Obama adviser urges 'militancy' in nationwide Occupy protests http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=363693#ixzz1csSLB2Z3

_________________________________________________________

My Response

They are counting on no resistance to their tactics. It MUST be discussed if not taught that, when and if bridges are blocked, protesters go in the drink. Will this occur? The difficulty is that any blocked road will be filled not only with these idiots but also supporters and sympathizers, as well as those afraid to act. The police will likely intercede on their behalf.

Solution?

All those who Occupy and are sincere in their wish to change things ought to leave the premises and not be dragged through the mud or into this useless battle. This will leave only the troublemakers, a minimal percent. The problem here is that idiots are often led to the fray without knowing what's going on, and then it's too late. They too are trapped on the bridge.

In cities, armed resistance will likely be absent: gun laws, wussy attitudes, etc. In our neck of the woods, look out!