Communism - Socialism - Fascism the same - tools of the
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A.S. HERLONG, JR of Florida IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Birthing the Phoenix, Vol. 3 of 4, #224
By Gyeorgos Ceres Hatonn
A Phoenix Journal
Mr. HERLONG: Mr Speaker, Mrs Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulare opponent of Communism and until recently published the ‘De Land Courier’, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of Communism in America.
At Mrs Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals", which she identifies as an excerpt from ‘The Naked Communist’, by Cleon Skousen:
CURRENT (1963) COMMUNIST GOALS
WHO WAS ANTONIO GRAMSCI?
Antonio Gramsci helped found the Italian Communist Party. Imprisioned by Mussolini, Gramsci spent the last 9 years of his life in prison. While in prison, he wrote nine volumes of observations on history, sociology, Marxist theory and strategy. These volumes, collectively known as "The Prison Notebooks", contain a strategy that promises to win the world to Marxism voluntarily. In order to do that, Gramsci suggests that strong Western democracies can only be taken by infiltration of the organs of their culture: churches, education systems, newspapers, magazines, the electronic media, and other works of serious literature produced in those democracies. Disillusioned by the brute force of Russian Marxism, but still embracing Marxism as the correct system to be pushed on the world, Gramsci reasoned that a system enacted by force would eventually weaken, but a system sold to a people through their existing institutions would eventually be embraced and spread as if it were naturally a people's own.
STEPS IN THE PROCESS
1) Turn churches into ideology-driven political clubs.
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were students of Weishaupt and Illuminism. The 10 platforms that make up COMMUNISM are identical to the goals of the ILLUMINATI. The Communist Manifesto appeared in 1848 and Communism formed itself as a solid revolutionary movement in Russia in the early 1900's, in the form of the Bolshevik Revolution.
Its a fact that super rich Illuminated families generally get along quite well with communists, who supposedly want to take away the wealth of these men and give it to the people. However, this is only double talk designed to bolster the superstructure of delusion that communists are the enemies of all capitalists. But communists, like the super rich families, are not the enemies of monopoly capitalism: they are the foes of free enterprise." (Untitled manuscript of David Hill p.215) - from 13 illuminati families by fritz springmeier
Fritz Springmeier, author/ lecturer
American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
October 3, 2001
"Rape is a violent expression of a pattern of male supremacy, an outgrowth of age-old economic, political and cultural exploitation of women by men." Does this sound like the utterance of a radical feminist from the 1970's or 1980's? Guess again. It is taken from a pamphlet entitled "Woman Against Myth," by Betty Millard published in 1948 by CPUSA (the Communist Party of USA.)
In a new book, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation, feminist historian Kate Weigand states: "ideas, activists and traditions that emanated from the Communist movement of the 40s and 50s continued to shape the direction of the new women's movement of the 1960s and later."(154) Weigand, a professor at Smith College, writes, "second-wave feminism stands as an excellent example of a 1960's movement that blossomed from the seeds that Communist women germinated thirty years earlier." (156)
In the late 1940's, CPUSA leaders realized that their primary constituency the labor movement was becoming increasingly hostile to Communism. They began to pin their survival on women and African Americans. They hoped that addressing the problems of "male supremacy" would "bring more women into the organization and into the fight against the domestic policies of the Cold War." (80)
Women Communists, who made up 40% of the party membership, had long complained that their domestic responsibilities prevented them from attending meetings. After the publication of "Women Against Myth" in 1948, the CPUSA began to address the problems of "male chauvinism" in the Communist Party. They initiated a process of "reeducating" men, that 50 years later, we recognize only too well.
Professor Weigand follows this process in the pages of the party newspaper The Daily Worker. Feminists began a campaign against "male chauvinism" and "sexism." For example, a Mrs. Kutzik from the Bronx complained that showing women in bathing suits was demeaning and racist. "What would we think if 90% of the pictures of Negroes in our newspaper showed them in zoot suits?" A writer was roundly criticized by woman readers for a story that suggested that his wife and four daughters spent much of their time worrying about their clothes: "The editors and the author owe the readers an apology and themselves a critical evaluation of their understanding of the woman question." (92) The caption of a photo of a man with a young child read, "Families are stronger and happier if the father knows how to fix the cereal, tie the bibs and take care of the youngsters." (127)
The Party disciplined men who didn't take the woman question seriously enough by ordering them to complete "control tasks involving study on the woman question." In 1954 the Los Angeles branch disciplined men for "hogging discussion at club meetings, bypassing women comrades in leadership and making sex jokes degrading to women." (94)
The CPUSA tried to promote these values in the decadent capitalist culture. A film Salt of the Earth, which Pauline Kael called "Communist propaganda", portrayed women taking a decisive role in their husbands' labor strike. "Against her husband's wishes, Esperanza became a leader in the strike and for the first time forged a role for herself outside of her household... [her] political successes persuaded Ramon to accept a new model of family life." (132) Portrayals of strong assertive successful women became as common in the Communist press and schools, as they are in the mass media today.
Communist women intellectuals formalized a sophisticated Marxist analysis of the "woman question." The books In Women's Defense (1940) by Mary Inman, Century of Struggle (1954) by Eleanor Flexner and The Unfinished Revolution (1962) by Eve Merriam recorded the history of women's oppression and decried the prevalence of sexism in traditional customs, mass culture and language. The founder of modern feminism, Betty Frieden relied on these texts when she advocated in The Feminine Mystique (1963) that women downgrade their role as wife and mother and instead make career their first priority. With the exception of Inman (who left the Party over a doctrinal dispute) these women (including Frieden) all hid the fact that they were longtime Communist activists. When their daughters ("red diaper babies") encountered "male chauvinism" in the 1960s New Left, they had everything they needed, including the example of subterfuge, to start the Women's Liberation Movement.
Weigand has shown that modern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism. There is nothing that feminists were saying and doing in the 1960's-1980's that wasn't prefigured in the CPUSA in the 1940's and 1950's. Communists pioneered the political, economic and cultural analysis of woman's oppression. For example, in 1940, Mary Inman argued that child-rearing methods "manufacture femininity" and the "overemphasis on beauty" is used to keep women in subjection (33). Communists pioneered women's studies, and advocated public daycare, birth control, abortion and even children's rights. They originated key feminist concepts such as "the personal is the political" and techniques such as "consciousness raising." The main contribution modern feminism made was to try to eliminate heterosexuality and the nuclear family altogether. The CPUSA would never have tolerated the man-hatred and the homosexuality of second-wave feminism.
Feminism's roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but dangerous movement. It explains:
It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name. Having failed to peddle class war, Communism morphed into a movement dedicated to gaining power by promoting gender conflict. The "diversity" and "multicultural" movements represent feminism's attempt to forge "allegiances" by empowering gays and "people of color." Thus, the original CPUSA trio of "race, gender and class" is very much intact but class conflict has never been a big seller. Feminists wish to destroy a Western Civilization that is dominated by white men who believe in genuine diversity (pluralism), individual liberty and equal opportunity (but not equal outcomes). We have seen this destruction begin with the dismantling of the liberal arts curriculum and tradition of free speech and inquiry at our universities.
Many feminists are embarrassed to discover they are Communist dupes. They try to point out the differences between themselves and Marxists but these differences are matters of emphasis. Their embarrassment, however, is nothing compared to ours when we acknowledge that we have been subverted. They have taken over our minds. Feminists dominate the mass media and the education systems (both primary and secondary) and use these for indoctrination. They have great power in the legal system, many parts of government, and are currently subverting the military.
The evidence is everywhere. The term "politically correct" originated in the Communist Party in Russia in the 1920's. We use it everyday to refer to adherence to feminist dogma. Recently here in Winnipeg, Betty Granger, a conservative school trustee running for national office, made a slip of the tongue. She talked about an increase in house prices in Vancouver due to "the Asian invasion." Granger was pilloried mercilessly in the press. People sent hate letters and dumped garbage on her lawn. At a meeting of the School Board, it was acknowledged that she is not a racist. It was acknowledged that Asians have married into her family. Nonetheless, she was censured because, and I quote the Chairperson, "appearances are more important than reality." I was at the meeting and couldn't believe what I was witnessing. Betty Granger repented and voted in favor of her own censure. The atmosphere was charged. The people there were like a pack of wild dogs ready to set upon an injured rabbit. These were the champions of "tolerance." [Granger resigned from the election race but still got over 3000 votes.]
These rituals of denunciation and recantation, typical of Stalinist Russia or the Maoist Cultural Revolution, have become commonplace in America. They are "showpieces" designed to frighten everyone into conforming to political correctness. We have "diversity officers" and "human rights commissions" and "sensitivity training" all designed to uphold feminist shibboleths. They talk about "discrimination" but they freely discriminate against whomever they like. "Sexual harassment" is something they use to fetter male-female relations and to purge their enemies.
In 1980, three women in Leningrad produced ten typewritten copies of a feminist magazine called Almanach. The KGB shut down the magazine and the women were deported to West Germany. In the USSR, feminism had always been an export product. According to Professor Weigand, her "book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system [in America] as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism."(6)
Last weekend, a Canadian feminist leader, Sunera Thobani advocated that women resist the war on terrorism. She said America has "more blood on its hands" than the terrorists. She is the former head of the government sponsored National Action Committee on the Status of Women. How nice of her to make my point. Can there be any doubt? Communism is alive and well and living under an assumed name.
Henry Makow, is the inventor of the board game Scruples, and the author of A Long Way to go for a Date. He received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto. He welcomes your feedback and ideas at firstname.lastname@example.org.
COMMUNIST RULES FOR REVOLUTION(Captured at Dusseldorf in May 1919 by Allied Forces)
1. Corrupt the young; get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial; destroy their ruggedness.
2. By specious argument cause the breakdown of old moral virtues; honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness.
3. Encourage civil disorders and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of government toward such disorders. (L.A. riots were just a coincidence?!....Of course!)
4. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. (Racial differences?)
5. Get people's minds off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books, plays, and other trivialities.
6. Get control of all means of publicity. (Media)
7. Destroy the people's faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule and obloquy (disgrace).
8. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with a view to confiscation and leaving the population helpless.
This is only a partial list. It was secured and stamped with the seal of Florida State Attorney, George A. Broutigam. This material testimony was taken from someone he terms "a known member of the Communist Party". According to this Communist's testimony this strategy is still part of the Communist plan to overthrow free societies such as the United States.
The Communist Manifesto: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/26/176.html
by Gary Allen, None dare call it conspiracy
Chart 1 depicts a false Left-Right political spectrum used by Liberals which has Communism (International Socialism) on the far Left and its twin, Fascism (National Socialism) on the far Right with the "middle of the road" being Fabian Socialism. The entire spectrum is Socialist
Chart 2 is a more rational political spectrum with total government in any form on the far Left and no government or anarchy on the far right. The U. S. was a Republic with a limited government, but for the past 60 years we have been moving leftward across the spectrum towards total government with each new piece of socialist legislation.
There is an accurate political spectrum. (See Chart 2.) Communism is, by definition, total government. If you have total government it makes little difference whether you call it Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Caesarism or Pharaohism. It's all pretty much the same from the standpoint of the people who must live and suffer under it. If total government (by any of its pseudonyms) stands on the far Left, then by logic the far Right should represent anarchy, or no government.
Our Founding Fathers revolted against the near-total government of the English monarchy. But they knew that having no government at all would lead to chaos. So they set up a Constitutional Republic with a very limited government. They knew that men prospered in freedom. Although the free enterprise system is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, it is the only one which can exist under a Constitutional Republic. All collectivist systems require power in government which the Constitution did not grant. Our Founding Fathers had no intention of allowing the government to become an instrument to steal the fruit of one man's labor and give it to another who had not earned it. Our government was to be one of severely limited powers. Thomas Jefferson said: "In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the 'Constitution." Jefferson knew that if the government were not enslaved, people soon would be.
It was Jefferson's view that government governs best which governs least. Our forefathers established this country with the very least possible amount of government. Although they lived in an age before automobiles, electric lights and television, they understood human nature and its relation to political systems far better than do most Americans today. Times change, technology changes, but principles are eternal. Primarily, government was to provide for national defense and to establish a court system. But we have burst the chains that Jefferson spoke of and for many years now we have been moving leftward across the political spectrum toward collectivist total government. Every proposal by our political leaders (including some which are supposed to have the very opposite effect, such as Nixon's revenue sharing proposal) carries us further leftward to centralized government. This is not because socialism is inevitable. It is no more inevitable than Pharaohism. It is largely the result of clever planning and patient gradualism.
Since all Communists and their Insider bosses are waging a constant struggle for SOCIALISM, let us define that term. Socialism is usually defined as government ownership and/or control over the basic means of production and distribution of goods and services. When analyzed this means government control over everything, including you. All controls are "people" controls. If the government controls these areas it can eventually do just exactly as Marx set out to do - destroy the right to private property, eliminate the family and wipe out religion.
We are being socialized in America and everybody knows it. If we had a chance to sit down and have a cup of coffee with the man in the street that we have been interviewing, he might say: "You know, the one thing I can never figure out is why all these very, very wealthy people like the Kennedys, the Fords, the Rockefellers and others are for socialism. Why are the super-rich for socialism? Don't they have the most to lose? I take a look at my bank account and compare it with Nelson Rockefeller's and it seems funny that I'm against socialism and he's out promoting it." Or is it funny? In reality, there is a vast difference between what the promoters define as socialism and what it is in actual practice. The idea that socialism is a share-the-wealth program is strictly a confidence game to get the people to surrender their freedom to an all-powerful collectivist government. While the insiders tell us we are building a paradise on earth, we are actually constructing a jail for ourselves.
Doesn't it strike you as strange that some of the individuals pushing hardest for socialism have their own personal wealth protected in family trusts and tax-free foundations? Men like Rockefeller, Ford and Kennedy are for every socialist program known to man which will increase your taxes. Yet they pay little, if anything, in taxes themselves. An article published by the North American Newspaper Alliance in August of 1967 tells how the' Rockefellers pay practically no income taxes despite their vast wealth. The article reveals that One of the Rockefellers paid the grand total of $685 personal income tax during a recent year. The Kennedys have their Chicago Merchandise Mart, their mansions, yachts, 'planes, etc., all owned by their myriads of family foundations and trusts. Taxes are for peons! Yet hypocrites like Rockefeller, Ford and Kennedy pose as great champions of the "downtrodden." If they were really concerned about the poor, rather than using socialism as a means of' achieving personal political power, they would divest themselves of their own fortunes. There is no law which prevents them from giving away their own fortunes to the poverty stricken. Shouldn't these men set all example? And practice what they preach? If they advocate sharing the wealth, shouldn't they start with their own instead of that of the middle class which pays almost all the taxes? Why don't Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Ford II give away all their wealth, retaining only enough to place themselves at the national average? Can't you imagine Teddy Kennedy giving up his mansion, airplane and yacht and moving into a $25,000 home' with a $20,000' mortgage like the rest of us?
We are usually told that this clique of super-rich are socialists because they have a guilt complex over wealth they inherited and did not earn. Again, they could relieve these supposed guilt complexes simply by divesting themselves of their unearned wealth. There' are doubtless many wealthy do-gooders who have been given a guilt complex by their college professors, but that doesn't explain the actions of Insiders like the Rockefellers, Fords or Kennedys. All their actions betray them as power seekers.
But the Kennedys, Rockefellers and their super-rich confederates are not being hypocrites in advocating socialism. It appears to be a contradiction for the super-rich to work for socialism and the destruction of free enterprise. In reality it is not.
Our problem is that most of us believe socialism is what the socialists want us to believe, it is a share-the-wealth program. That is the theory. But is that how it works? Let us examine the only Socialist countries according to the Socialist definition of the word extant in the world today. These are the Communist countries. The Communists themselves refer to these as Socialist countries, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Here in the reality of socialism you have a tiny oligarchial clique at the top, usually numbering no more than three percent of the total population, controlling the total wealth, total production and the very lives of the other ninety-seven percent. Certainly even the most naive observe that Mr. Brezhnev doesn't live like one of the poor peasants out on the great Russian steppes. But, according to socialist theory, he is supposed to do just that!
If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes the logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite. The plan of the conspirator Insiders then is to socialize the United States, not to Communize it.
How is this to be accomplished? Chart 3 shows the structure of our government as established by our Founding Fathers. The Constitution fractionalized and subdivided governmental power in every way possible. The Founding Fathers believed that each branch of the government, whether at the federal, state or local level, would be jealous of its powers and would never surrender them to centralized control. Also, many phases of our lives (such as charity and education) were put totally, or almost totally, out of the grasp of politicians. Under this system you could not have a dictatorship. No segment of government could possibly amass enough power to form a dictatorship. In order to have a dictatorship one must have a single branch holding most of the reins of power. Once you have this, a dictatorship is inevitable.