Why I Carry a Gun?
By Matthew Llewellyn, Founder
America's Conservative Movement
www.Myspace.com/USAConservativeMovement
I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid about the government, I carry a gun because my government is paranoid about me.
I don't carry a gun because I know people will listen to me, I carry a gun because when I cry for help, I know in this world those walking by will not listen.
I don't carry a gun because I think the police can't do their jobs, I carry a gun because when precious seconds count, the police are minutes away.
I don't carry a gun because I can't wait for the moment to shoot someone, I carry a gun because criminals can't wait for the moment to shoot us.
I don't carry a gun because I want to be a road side hero, I carry a gun so if I come by a criminal overpowering one of our brave police officers, I can quickly save their life.
I don't carry a gun because I don't care about my families safety with a gun in the home, I carry a gun because I do care about my families safety in the home.
I would like you all to know that the "I don't carry a gun ... " idea was not mine. I read it and I decided rather than copy someone else's work, I would base it on my own beliefs and spin them onto the "I don't carry a gun because ..." methodology.
So why do I carry a gun? The true answer is, I am protecting individuality. I am protecting the very existence of the individual itself.
When someone is taking away your gun, when they are saying you can't have one, they are not protecting others from you, they are protecting themselves from you because they know they have a reason to fear you.
If any of you have children and they are receiving their government brain washing at one of our fine government indoctrination centers (aka public schools), the I am going to ask you to do two things.
1) Pull your head out of your donkey and get your children out of those schools!
2) Call your child's principal and ask them, "If my child is being physically bullied, and they stand up for themselves and physically defend themselves, what will happen to them?"
I'm going to tell you what will happen because I already know, I've seen it, read about it and heard about it thousands of times.
Your little boy or girl is going to be punished. It doesn't matter that your child did not start the fight, because your child took part in a fight, and fighting is wrong, they are going to be punished.
Side note... the school is right. Fighting is wrong. Kicking someones butt in defense of your own is not. Murder is wrong. Shooting a punk, thug criminal in the head before they get a chance to kill you or an innocent person around you is not wrong.
So why are the government schools now punishing kids for defending themselves? For the same reason they are trying to, and in some instances have, unconstitutionally taken away our guns.
When you deny someone the right to defend themselves you deny them their freedom. When you deny that most basic of our founding, God given tenants, to defend ones own self against the onslaught of another, you deny their individuality.
Why would someone want to deny, or, eradicate, the individual? Very simple.
It is impossible to have a government which rules over the people with unquestioned supremacy if the people are individuals. Being an individual means having the right to own land, having the right to start a business, having the right to invest in capital interests and have a capital return. It means having the right to choose what faith to believe, to choose how to educate your children, to have the freedom to say "yes" or "no." It means being 100% free to decide how to live your life. It means you answer to no one but your God, yourself and the court. Being an individual means having the ability to be owned by no one, to be guided in life, within the letter of moral law, by your own hearts desires. And, it means, if a force comes against you, and your neighbors, you know you have the right to kick the crap out of the person doing it to protect your freedom, your, individuality.
The men who formed our country were not fools. They understood this very well. Because we have not grown up with an (openly) tyrannical government, most of us do not understand the preciousness of individuality. We take for granted these things held so dear to the founding fathers hearts, that they were willing to be hanged to defend them.
Those men knew what it was to have your freedoms taken away, to have your individuality threateneded. The King saw the freedom in the colonies, the growing commerce through capitalism, the growing power of the colonies because of it; and he didn't like it. The King wanted to control it, he wanted to own it. He tried things like imposing more and more laws against the people's rights in the name of protecting the general public. He imposed tighter regulations on free trade; capitalism. He imposed taxation without representation (this means, the people were not represented in government, had no one speaking for their interests or to say what could and could not be done with their collected taxes) and he raised the taxes higher and higher. There was no way to stop him.
He placed standing armies among the people during this time to control anyone who might cause dissensionon within the colonies against the King. He recognized early on, as anyone of that time did, that he can control the masses and capitalize off of them basically through enslavement through legislation, but only if he could do away with those pesky rebels, those horrible, traitorous, unholy radicals, who believed in freedom of the individual, and a God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For they knew in order to have these things, the government can never be more powerful than the people. The acts of the people had to benefit the people first and if the people so desired, the government second. They knew this was the only way to protect themselves from having their monies wrongly taken away, from having one human force which all men must answer too without question, and from religious persecutionon, particularly, the movement of the Catholic church to do away with Protestant faiths through forced government religion) ...
(I know, I know, I know... every single one of my Catholic friends and family are going to want to react to that... I can't blame you, I just said something about your faith. Please keep in mind, I am not speaking of you, or the Catholic church today. I am speaking of a particular time within the churches history in which it shouldn't be real proud of. And, because people like me let no one forget things like this, the church honorably dedicated itself to removing those within its ranks that desired to oppress people unto one forced religion. ALL... note again... ALL religions, cultures, etc, have moments in time which they are not proud of. Don't take it personally, take it as it is, historical knowledge. If, by some chance, you weren't aware of this, simply google "protestant oppression; 18th century" and make sure you have time to read. Again... those who know not history are damned to repeat it.) Moving on...
Our founding fathers were individuals. They were every single definition of the word individual and they believed in individuality with resolve unseen in most of today's world. So what did they believe the individual had to do when they saw a tyrannical government coming at them, when they saw their very freedom, and potentially their existence, for believing in this freedom being threatened? Let's go to the Declarationon of Independence for that answer... (I've copied and pasted the second paragraph, except the last sentence which basically says "here's why.")
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. (pay attention here!!!) But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States....
There it is from the horses mouth. You will note I placed in "red", those areas which you really needed to pay attention too, and, those in blue were showing how often "rights" comes up as a word with these men who believed in freedom, in, individualism.
One of the first actions of the King, as all my fellow historians will know, was to disarm the colonies. Why? If the people don't have weapons equal to or superior to the government's, the people can not defend themselves. His next decree was that all the rebels be rounded up, charged as traitors and executed as such. Why? Inflict fear on enough people and remove those who know how to rally the people and sure enough, you'll find yourself to be a King.
Personally, the only King I will bow my knee to is the one who's temple was torn down and rebuilt in three days... Can I get an amen?
Why I carry a gun... the title of this column. I carry a gun because I recognize that there is evil in this world. I carry a gun because I know there are people in power who want to have absolute control over our lives. I carry a gun because I know that my carrying a gun scares these people. Because they know their history, and they know that people with a gun also have the ability to, and most certainly will, defend themselves against tyranny.
I don't carry a gun because I hope to use it, I don't carry a gun because I want to battle my government. In no way, shape, form or manner is that why I carry a gun.
I carry a gun to remind those in power who have become power hungry, that I, and people like me, have those guns. And I pray, that so long as we keep reminding them we have the power to defend ourselves, that we will ultimately never have to.
I hope my gun, your gun, and all the guns in the country, will be just like you and I, peaceful to the day we are laid in our graves... hopefully, at a ripe old age.
Showing posts with label Freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom. Show all posts
Saturday, December 13, 2008
The Communist Manifesto: A Close Examination
The Communist Manifesto: A Close Examination
By Matthew Llewellyn, Founder
America's Conservative Movement
www.Myspace.com/USAConservativeMovement
For simplification, the manifesto is in "black" text, and my writings are in "blue." Please keep in mind, the paragraphs contained herein from the manifesto are merely bits and pieces. The entire manifesto, if printed, I would guess to be about 60 pages. I recommend you read the entire work. But, these are the highlights to get you motivated and I hope, educated about what has been and is going on.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
Let's first understand some words here... That's always a good beginning. The "proletariat" are the lower class of society. But actual, true definition, these are those in society which are very poorly educated, do not possess advanced labor skills and have achieved no gain in life. "Bourgeois" but actual, true definition, are the middle and upper class of society. They are moderately to highly educated individuals who, through the obtaining of property and employment of the unemployed, have fruitfully gained wealth and power." These are the translations of those words that the communist manifesto is using. They are indeed, factual translations.
So what is this paragraph saying? Communism wants the lower class, the poor and uneducated, the people who have shown they can achieve nothing in life by their own hands, who have shown zero responsibility with their own lives, to overthrow those who have shown to be productive, well meaning and providing members of society. Let us not forget, without the evil bourgeois, the entire world would still be in the stone ages. Marx could have never distributed the manifesto as widely as he did, without the years and research by the bourgeois, thus providing the world new technology.
The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
Communism is, by admission, social equality and unity by destroying the right to private property. Marx is saying private property, in the hands of the achieving members of society, is what causing the various classes of society to be at arms. He notes the exploitation of the many by the few. Honestly, I don't see any other way for the world to work. Rome was not built in a day and it was the many who built it under the direction of the few. King Solomons temple had only a few Master Masons in charge. Under those Master Masons were thousands of fellowcrafts and apprentices. Do we look back at history and say King Solomon exploited the masses?
Marx's intention is that this creates an evil in the world. He contends that development of industry, (whereby few employ many and those at the top have more than those at the bottom) is what causes the world to be at odds with its neighbors. He believes it causes unfair political power to be thrown to the few. There is no doubt, that statement is true, well, except for the "unfair" part. Those at the top, who came from the same place those at the bottom did, have shown to society they are trustworthy of power.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
Does this statement scare the hell out of you too? There is so much more being said here than you can even imagine. To really understand what "abolition of private property" means, you really need to have a good understanding of history, economics, etc. You need to have a strong knowledge going back thousands of years. However, since I know many of you (no offense) where educated in government indoctrination centers, I will sum it up for you. (Again, no offense. I dropped out of government schools and educated myself, thus, my FAR superior intellect.)
Abolition of private property has nothing to do with property. Not a thing. Abolition of private property has about as much to do with property as telemarketers have to being the first thing you want to hear in the morning.
While private property rights are abolished, it's more than just property. When you eliminate the right of the individual to own property, you eliminate the individual. You tell the individual that they are no longer an individual, they are merely a member of the collection of the masses. They are not to be free thinkers, they are not to try to achieve more than their neighbor, they are not to gain wealth, power, status and they are not to defend. Why are they not to defend? If you have nothing, what's worth fighting for? (That's a very good question that we will get to in a later paragraph on the manifesto.)
Abolishment of private property is abolishment of the individual. Abolishment of the individual is the abolishment of freedom. How so? If an individual can not attain property, that individual is not free. If you can't own property, you ARE property. The contention of confederacy in the history of the United States was that black people were not individuals. Their idealogy was that the white race was superior to the black race (See confederacy vice presidential speech for more.) They believed the blacks were made to be nothing be property, thus, they were not bestowed with individual rights, such as the freedom to choose where they live, to purchase property or to even choose what clothes to wear. Thus, they were bought and sold the same as a piece of farming equipment.
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property.
Yes we are... How could we not be? Understanding what that means, who wouldn't be horrified. Incidentally, in Communism, there is one powerful dictator at the top, who, GASP, profits all his power by the income generated by the government owned businesses which run by the labors of the people. Perhaps Marx didn't really mind the masses created power for the few, so long as he was the only one doing it.
From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.
You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
This relates completely to everything we've seen in America over the past decades. Revolutionary, freedom minded individuals, such as myself, have warned that democrats are communist who just don't quite have the standing yet to come out and say it. REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. This is the tenant of democrat beliefs. Take from the rich, give to the poor. That way, the poor are as equal in standing as the rich. That way, no one is unfairly at the top benefiting from the labors of those at the bottom. This democrats tell you this creates fairness and equality among the masses. They even go as far to quote Marx and say the few can't just exploit the masses at the bottom, we have to put an end to it. Marx believed that ability of individualism, the ability to purchase property, create jobs, gain income, create investments, in order for one person to rise to power above everyone (because that is communist government) then these things had to be done away with.
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.
This is very misleading to anyone with a poor education, i.e., lower class. By "appropriate the products of society" he does not mean gain wealth, buy a house, buy a car, etc. This means he has no problem with the masses ability to go the the market and obtain needed items from the government stores, such as food and water.
He goes on to admit that communism abolishes freedom. "..deprive him of the power...", when you deny a man the power to employee others to create investment and capital gain (which is what subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations means), you literally deny his freedom.
It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.
The accusation, which Marx did not include in his manifesto, is that when government owns all property, ALL property, this includes homes as well as businesses, and all people live in them for free, provided by the government, because everything is provided for free (I'll explain momentarily), that the people would become lazy. The people would no longer get out and work because really, honestly, why should they? If you came to me and said "Matt, I just built a mansion for you and all you have to do is move into it. Whenever you get hungry, go to the store and get food, it's free." I would be all over it. Actually, since there's always a catch, and I know the catch, I probably wouldn't. Anyway... moving on.
You might not completely understand how communism works. Everything is free. There is no money, except at the very top. For communism to work, it can only be in a few places, it can't be everywhere. In communism, money is obtained at the top by the sell of goods to capitalist areas. Ideally, a communist society is the perfect enterprise, there is no overhead whatsoever. You would outsell the competition every day of the week. The government owns everything... everything. The people all work for free. Their homes are provided, their food is provided (google stories about russian markets and see how well that works out for you) and the one person at the top (Mark wanted it to be him) would profit every single penny. And THAT is what Communism is about. It isn't about equality, it isn't about fairness, it is about fooling the people long enough to take complete control and right to everything in the nation, including the people, and then gaining as much power in the world as you can.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
You don't know this yet, but if I wrote here, later in this column, I would become redundant, so I'll move on. But keep in mind, this is a topic worth covering.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
To answer Marx, YES, education in the home was based on society in the moment. Children were educated with every single skill and bit of knowledge they would need to survive in the world. They were taught how to "plant seeds" and be fruitful in their labors.
Marx is completely misleading, again, the uneducated masses. People called his idea of making government schools (public schools) socialist. What he has done here is take the word "social" and play off of it. In all reality, home education was completely based of the social needs at the time. However, that is NOT what is intended by socialist education (public schools.)
The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.
Oh how evil we are. Modern industry, you know, that little thing that brought about cures to diseases, the ability to travel thousands of miles in hours instead of years, the ability to read and write, etc, how dare they... I said it louder... HOW DARE THEY choose to educate their children based on the current ability of society. I suppose when the wheel was invented it was wrong of people to choose to teach their children to make a wheel. Perhaps when hand washing was discovered as a means to prevent the spread of disease by Nostradamus during the black plaque, those evil parents shouldn't have taught that either. Or perhaps, when society was really starting to push forward, and discover the ability to chemically test the body, to research it, to find cures for diseases, or when we learned maybe we could send a man into space, perhaps those evil parents should have taken a second thought.
How dare they choose to educate their children in the current industry. Do they not see what they did? By educating their child in the do's and dont's of the current industry which drove the world, they gave their children the ability to provide a good life for themselves and potential families. They gave them the ability, if they so choose, to invest wisely, become comfortable, to eat and not struggle wondering where food would come from. They gave them the ability to never have to rely on anyone for anything except for themselves. They gave them the ability to become the future leaders of the free world. MY GOD! These parents were blasphemers! They should have been hanged!
I hope you could read that and feel the same sarcasm I was trying to put into it. Moving on.
The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to
another will come to an end.
Well this is obviously the only true statement Marx made. When all of the masses are equal, when no one person can rise above what they are, peace and harmony will overtake the face of the earth. Kind of like the Hatfields and the McCoys, remember how harmonious they were? Or maybe like the current lower class of society, we all know how harmonious and peaceful they are. They certainly don't fight among themselves, have driveby shootings on each other, rape each other, battle for gang territory... that kind of stuff NEVER happens once people are all equally at the same level. Oh wait... CRAP... Marx was wrong again. Moving on...
Wait... I've decided I'm not done yet. Do you know WHY lower class kids join gangs, shoot each other, kill each other over gang territory, do you know why? BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING! They don't own property, they don't have adequate income because either they or their parents are too poorly educated. Everything they do have is provided to them by the government. Their housing is free, their food is free, their clothes are free. At the end of the day nothing they have is really theirs. They have the same desire within them that every corporate VP has. They desire to be something more than they are, have something more than what is offered in front of them, and to become respected.
They key to creating peace in society does not start with communism, it does not start with everyone being equal because the government provides everything. We can go to the lower income region of any city and see that. The answer IS capitalism. When people have nothing of their own, they will, be natural instinct, find a way to have more. Sadly, children, and some adults, turn to gang life. Perhaps we should all take a long read through google about the gangs created in the former soviet union. You think America has gangs... these gangs would tuck tail and run in they were confronted with what used to exist in Russia. Capitalism is the only answer. It provides EVERYONE the ability to become something more than they are, have something more than they have, and gain the respect of those in the community.
The charges against communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
Very short response... I find it hilarious that Marx's answer to people questioning him is the same answer the democrats give when we question them today. It was the democrats who said "The working man doesn't need to sit around all the time worrying about what's going on in government."
When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
It amazes me how absolutely blunt Marx was. He is speaking of course of the King of England and the American Revolution. (18th century, remember, the century is always ahead of the calendar number, i.e., 20th century during 1900's. This is because the 1st century on calender started with year 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. The 2nd century started with year 100.)
Marx calls the American Revolution a death battle. And what did it get us? Religious freedom and the ability of individuals to obtain the ability to compete by obtaining knowledge. He actually says it. Today's democrats are a LOT more concealing than Marx. At least he told it like it was I guess.
"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."
Simply put, Communism intends to do away with all freedom. You are not to think, you are not to discuss, you are not to debate, you are to live subordinate among each other in peace and harmony. If there is no religion, if there is no philosophy, if there is no freedom among these tenants of life, there can be no ideas which might offend anyone and agitate the various states of society.
Wait just a minute... haven't the democrats been trying gain control over via use of the FCC over anything that might offend anyone? They've spent 30 years pushing new laws that prevent people from offending each other, by reducing your ability to speak freely. If you offend someone with your beliefs, they can Sui you and win, simple as that. In many cases, you could even go to jail.
I wonder, are democrats just trying to create peace among the masses, or are they all hoping to be the next leader of the communist world?
We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
What Marx just said is the government must, to create communism, gain government possession over corporations. He always says its the people at the bottom gaining power politically, it's not, that's just to keep the people thinking they are involved somehow where they are just pawns. What he means in the people, in democracy, must vote into power the ones who will do this. Those people must then find ways to do it.
Over the past 40 years the democrats have literally, step by step, destroyed this nations economy. The idea of unions creating fairness and equality in the workplace is the very reason the big 3 are in Washington begging for money.
The democrats are just about there folks, they have almost got everything in place. They have already started purchasing the companies. Hell, when the government instituted "imminent domain" (which is the right of the government to seize your property if they believe it profitable for a business that wants to move in, or even if they just want to put up a power station) they started to do this. The democrats are buying businesses up left and right. It's happening folks, right in front of our faces, and we can't do a damn thing about it.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
And now we arrive at what I always use as key examples to the democrats really being closet communist. You look at the democrats plans for the nation, you look at everything they have done, and now you read the 10 step process to becoming a communist nation. Let's not forget, these have already been applied and worked before.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Government possession of all private property. The government will assign housing to the people and provide businesses with property it sees fit. The democrats already do this in America. Welfare housing, imminent domain.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
The democrats and their crazy taxes. They have historically raised taxes to the highest levels in history every time they have majority control.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Wait a minute? Would that be anything like the death tax the democrats passed which requires the government to seize 50% of all inheritance? Bet you didn't know that did you?
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Let's face it, you can't have a communist society if those pesky little rebels have property to use against you. I wonder if that happens to apply to outlawing guns so people who believe in freedom won't use them against the government?
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
WALL STREET BAIL OUT! I wish I had a microphone to record and scream that so you could hear how loud it is in my head. The democrats already did this too.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
The government controls what goes where and when it goes there. They don't quite have this in place, but they're getting there. Simple things you would never think about like a bill of lading, all the regulations over truckers delivering goods around the country, these are all little steps.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
This seems okay, you know, cleaning up the place a little bit, if it weren't for the fact that the State is making sure it owns everything, thus, communism. You have to pay attention... this is how Communism works folks, this is how they gain their power.
Kind of like the democrats have been doing for decades now. They talk about improving the quality of this and that, and cleaning up this and that, and they get you to take more of your money to do it, to create bigger more powerful government. Imagine how many jobs would be created if free market was doing these things and the government didn't have ownership into the programs.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Obviously this isn't talking about an army as you might be thinking, it's just talking about a huge mass of people being forced to work... oh wait... there's another word for that... it's coming to me... right on the tip of my tongue... Oh that's it... SLAVERY.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
Here it is folks, YOU ARE PROPERTY! The government will decide where you go, when you go there, what do you and how you do it. If one areas is too dense the government will shift some people around.
This is why I have been telling you that the abolition of private property rights if the abolishment of freedom.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
I'm not oppossed to kids working in factories, I just have to be honest. Think back to videos you see from the early industrial times in America. What did those kids do in factories? Were they operating the dangerous machinary? No. Where they running the company? No. They were sweeping the floor. As they swept the floor they watched the workers, they learned trades, skills, etc. The children were still educated at home. When they were done for the day it was off to work. Children were taught from an early age to be responsible, to apply themselves, to put in a hard day's work and get your hands dirty.
But, they also saw what that earned them. We can go back in history and find young boys pushing brooms in factories and later becoming the President of the company.
Have you ever noticed the elders of our generation, those who are wealthy who we come along in public and while talking to them they say "Yep, retired as senior vice president of the company, course, I was there 45 years, started our pushing a broom when I was just a pup." There is a reason those people got where they did in life.
I take the example of my Dad and his twin brother. They both own their own companies, they aren't filthy rich, but they are comfortable. They both had very old style upbringings. I know they didn't push a broom in a factory but they pushed one at home (so to speak.) They were taught to work hard at a young age, they were taught to push forward, they were taught to thrive, to be something more than what they are. Niether may Dad or Uncle have college educations yet they are two of the most successful people I know. Honestly, I wish I was more like them than I am. (You're not going to get me to admit that ever again Dad so I recommend you print this column.)
Marx knew to take over a country the government must control the people's education, simple as that. If the people are allowed, as stated above referring to the American Revolution, to have free power to obtain knowledge, communism will never work. But if the government controls knowledge, if it decides what you will and will not know, then that government owns you.
The democrats are the ones who created public schools, (in reality, government indoctrination centers.)
Now... knowing everything you know, and believe me, this was a very brief summary, if you keep voting democrat, and keep believing their lives, and never seek out an education greater than the one they gave you, how long do you think it will be before you are their property?
I bid you good day.
By Matthew Llewellyn, Founder
America's Conservative Movement
www.Myspace.com/USAConservativeMovement
For simplification, the manifesto is in "black" text, and my writings are in "blue." Please keep in mind, the paragraphs contained herein from the manifesto are merely bits and pieces. The entire manifesto, if printed, I would guess to be about 60 pages. I recommend you read the entire work. But, these are the highlights to get you motivated and I hope, educated about what has been and is going on.
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
Let's first understand some words here... That's always a good beginning. The "proletariat" are the lower class of society. But actual, true definition, these are those in society which are very poorly educated, do not possess advanced labor skills and have achieved no gain in life. "Bourgeois" but actual, true definition, are the middle and upper class of society. They are moderately to highly educated individuals who, through the obtaining of property and employment of the unemployed, have fruitfully gained wealth and power." These are the translations of those words that the communist manifesto is using. They are indeed, factual translations.
So what is this paragraph saying? Communism wants the lower class, the poor and uneducated, the people who have shown they can achieve nothing in life by their own hands, who have shown zero responsibility with their own lives, to overthrow those who have shown to be productive, well meaning and providing members of society. Let us not forget, without the evil bourgeois, the entire world would still be in the stone ages. Marx could have never distributed the manifesto as widely as he did, without the years and research by the bourgeois, thus providing the world new technology.
The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
Communism is, by admission, social equality and unity by destroying the right to private property. Marx is saying private property, in the hands of the achieving members of society, is what causing the various classes of society to be at arms. He notes the exploitation of the many by the few. Honestly, I don't see any other way for the world to work. Rome was not built in a day and it was the many who built it under the direction of the few. King Solomons temple had only a few Master Masons in charge. Under those Master Masons were thousands of fellowcrafts and apprentices. Do we look back at history and say King Solomon exploited the masses?
Marx's intention is that this creates an evil in the world. He contends that development of industry, (whereby few employ many and those at the top have more than those at the bottom) is what causes the world to be at odds with its neighbors. He believes it causes unfair political power to be thrown to the few. There is no doubt, that statement is true, well, except for the "unfair" part. Those at the top, who came from the same place those at the bottom did, have shown to society they are trustworthy of power.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
Does this statement scare the hell out of you too? There is so much more being said here than you can even imagine. To really understand what "abolition of private property" means, you really need to have a good understanding of history, economics, etc. You need to have a strong knowledge going back thousands of years. However, since I know many of you (no offense) where educated in government indoctrination centers, I will sum it up for you. (Again, no offense. I dropped out of government schools and educated myself, thus, my FAR superior intellect.)
Abolition of private property has nothing to do with property. Not a thing. Abolition of private property has about as much to do with property as telemarketers have to being the first thing you want to hear in the morning.
While private property rights are abolished, it's more than just property. When you eliminate the right of the individual to own property, you eliminate the individual. You tell the individual that they are no longer an individual, they are merely a member of the collection of the masses. They are not to be free thinkers, they are not to try to achieve more than their neighbor, they are not to gain wealth, power, status and they are not to defend. Why are they not to defend? If you have nothing, what's worth fighting for? (That's a very good question that we will get to in a later paragraph on the manifesto.)
Abolishment of private property is abolishment of the individual. Abolishment of the individual is the abolishment of freedom. How so? If an individual can not attain property, that individual is not free. If you can't own property, you ARE property. The contention of confederacy in the history of the United States was that black people were not individuals. Their idealogy was that the white race was superior to the black race (See confederacy vice presidential speech for more.) They believed the blacks were made to be nothing be property, thus, they were not bestowed with individual rights, such as the freedom to choose where they live, to purchase property or to even choose what clothes to wear. Thus, they were bought and sold the same as a piece of farming equipment.
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property.
Yes we are... How could we not be? Understanding what that means, who wouldn't be horrified. Incidentally, in Communism, there is one powerful dictator at the top, who, GASP, profits all his power by the income generated by the government owned businesses which run by the labors of the people. Perhaps Marx didn't really mind the masses created power for the few, so long as he was the only one doing it.
From the moment when labor can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolized, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.
You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
This relates completely to everything we've seen in America over the past decades. Revolutionary, freedom minded individuals, such as myself, have warned that democrats are communist who just don't quite have the standing yet to come out and say it. REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. This is the tenant of democrat beliefs. Take from the rich, give to the poor. That way, the poor are as equal in standing as the rich. That way, no one is unfairly at the top benefiting from the labors of those at the bottom. This democrats tell you this creates fairness and equality among the masses. They even go as far to quote Marx and say the few can't just exploit the masses at the bottom, we have to put an end to it. Marx believed that ability of individualism, the ability to purchase property, create jobs, gain income, create investments, in order for one person to rise to power above everyone (because that is communist government) then these things had to be done away with.
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.
This is very misleading to anyone with a poor education, i.e., lower class. By "appropriate the products of society" he does not mean gain wealth, buy a house, buy a car, etc. This means he has no problem with the masses ability to go the the market and obtain needed items from the government stores, such as food and water.
He goes on to admit that communism abolishes freedom. "..deprive him of the power...", when you deny a man the power to employee others to create investment and capital gain (which is what subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations means), you literally deny his freedom.
It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.
The accusation, which Marx did not include in his manifesto, is that when government owns all property, ALL property, this includes homes as well as businesses, and all people live in them for free, provided by the government, because everything is provided for free (I'll explain momentarily), that the people would become lazy. The people would no longer get out and work because really, honestly, why should they? If you came to me and said "Matt, I just built a mansion for you and all you have to do is move into it. Whenever you get hungry, go to the store and get food, it's free." I would be all over it. Actually, since there's always a catch, and I know the catch, I probably wouldn't. Anyway... moving on.
You might not completely understand how communism works. Everything is free. There is no money, except at the very top. For communism to work, it can only be in a few places, it can't be everywhere. In communism, money is obtained at the top by the sell of goods to capitalist areas. Ideally, a communist society is the perfect enterprise, there is no overhead whatsoever. You would outsell the competition every day of the week. The government owns everything... everything. The people all work for free. Their homes are provided, their food is provided (google stories about russian markets and see how well that works out for you) and the one person at the top (Mark wanted it to be him) would profit every single penny. And THAT is what Communism is about. It isn't about equality, it isn't about fairness, it is about fooling the people long enough to take complete control and right to everything in the nation, including the people, and then gaining as much power in the world as you can.
But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
You don't know this yet, but if I wrote here, later in this column, I would become redundant, so I'll move on. But keep in mind, this is a topic worth covering.
And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not intended the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
To answer Marx, YES, education in the home was based on society in the moment. Children were educated with every single skill and bit of knowledge they would need to survive in the world. They were taught how to "plant seeds" and be fruitful in their labors.
Marx is completely misleading, again, the uneducated masses. People called his idea of making government schools (public schools) socialist. What he has done here is take the word "social" and play off of it. In all reality, home education was completely based of the social needs at the time. However, that is NOT what is intended by socialist education (public schools.)
The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.
Oh how evil we are. Modern industry, you know, that little thing that brought about cures to diseases, the ability to travel thousands of miles in hours instead of years, the ability to read and write, etc, how dare they... I said it louder... HOW DARE THEY choose to educate their children based on the current ability of society. I suppose when the wheel was invented it was wrong of people to choose to teach their children to make a wheel. Perhaps when hand washing was discovered as a means to prevent the spread of disease by Nostradamus during the black plaque, those evil parents shouldn't have taught that either. Or perhaps, when society was really starting to push forward, and discover the ability to chemically test the body, to research it, to find cures for diseases, or when we learned maybe we could send a man into space, perhaps those evil parents should have taken a second thought.
How dare they choose to educate their children in the current industry. Do they not see what they did? By educating their child in the do's and dont's of the current industry which drove the world, they gave their children the ability to provide a good life for themselves and potential families. They gave them the ability, if they so choose, to invest wisely, become comfortable, to eat and not struggle wondering where food would come from. They gave them the ability to never have to rely on anyone for anything except for themselves. They gave them the ability to become the future leaders of the free world. MY GOD! These parents were blasphemers! They should have been hanged!
I hope you could read that and feel the same sarcasm I was trying to put into it. Moving on.
The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to
another will come to an end.
Well this is obviously the only true statement Marx made. When all of the masses are equal, when no one person can rise above what they are, peace and harmony will overtake the face of the earth. Kind of like the Hatfields and the McCoys, remember how harmonious they were? Or maybe like the current lower class of society, we all know how harmonious and peaceful they are. They certainly don't fight among themselves, have driveby shootings on each other, rape each other, battle for gang territory... that kind of stuff NEVER happens once people are all equally at the same level. Oh wait... CRAP... Marx was wrong again. Moving on...
Wait... I've decided I'm not done yet. Do you know WHY lower class kids join gangs, shoot each other, kill each other over gang territory, do you know why? BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING! They don't own property, they don't have adequate income because either they or their parents are too poorly educated. Everything they do have is provided to them by the government. Their housing is free, their food is free, their clothes are free. At the end of the day nothing they have is really theirs. They have the same desire within them that every corporate VP has. They desire to be something more than they are, have something more than what is offered in front of them, and to become respected.
They key to creating peace in society does not start with communism, it does not start with everyone being equal because the government provides everything. We can go to the lower income region of any city and see that. The answer IS capitalism. When people have nothing of their own, they will, be natural instinct, find a way to have more. Sadly, children, and some adults, turn to gang life. Perhaps we should all take a long read through google about the gangs created in the former soviet union. You think America has gangs... these gangs would tuck tail and run in they were confronted with what used to exist in Russia. Capitalism is the only answer. It provides EVERYONE the ability to become something more than they are, have something more than they have, and gain the respect of those in the community.
The charges against communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.
Very short response... I find it hilarious that Marx's answer to people questioning him is the same answer the democrats give when we question them today. It was the democrats who said "The working man doesn't need to sit around all the time worrying about what's going on in government."
When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.
It amazes me how absolutely blunt Marx was. He is speaking of course of the King of England and the American Revolution. (18th century, remember, the century is always ahead of the calendar number, i.e., 20th century during 1900's. This is because the 1st century on calender started with year 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. The 2nd century started with year 100.)
Marx calls the American Revolution a death battle. And what did it get us? Religious freedom and the ability of individuals to obtain the ability to compete by obtaining knowledge. He actually says it. Today's democrats are a LOT more concealing than Marx. At least he told it like it was I guess.
"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."
Simply put, Communism intends to do away with all freedom. You are not to think, you are not to discuss, you are not to debate, you are to live subordinate among each other in peace and harmony. If there is no religion, if there is no philosophy, if there is no freedom among these tenants of life, there can be no ideas which might offend anyone and agitate the various states of society.
Wait just a minute... haven't the democrats been trying gain control over via use of the FCC over anything that might offend anyone? They've spent 30 years pushing new laws that prevent people from offending each other, by reducing your ability to speak freely. If you offend someone with your beliefs, they can Sui you and win, simple as that. In many cases, you could even go to jail.
I wonder, are democrats just trying to create peace among the masses, or are they all hoping to be the next leader of the communist world?
We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
What Marx just said is the government must, to create communism, gain government possession over corporations. He always says its the people at the bottom gaining power politically, it's not, that's just to keep the people thinking they are involved somehow where they are just pawns. What he means in the people, in democracy, must vote into power the ones who will do this. Those people must then find ways to do it.
Over the past 40 years the democrats have literally, step by step, destroyed this nations economy. The idea of unions creating fairness and equality in the workplace is the very reason the big 3 are in Washington begging for money.
The democrats are just about there folks, they have almost got everything in place. They have already started purchasing the companies. Hell, when the government instituted "imminent domain" (which is the right of the government to seize your property if they believe it profitable for a business that wants to move in, or even if they just want to put up a power station) they started to do this. The democrats are buying businesses up left and right. It's happening folks, right in front of our faces, and we can't do a damn thing about it.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
And now we arrive at what I always use as key examples to the democrats really being closet communist. You look at the democrats plans for the nation, you look at everything they have done, and now you read the 10 step process to becoming a communist nation. Let's not forget, these have already been applied and worked before.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Government possession of all private property. The government will assign housing to the people and provide businesses with property it sees fit. The democrats already do this in America. Welfare housing, imminent domain.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
The democrats and their crazy taxes. They have historically raised taxes to the highest levels in history every time they have majority control.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Wait a minute? Would that be anything like the death tax the democrats passed which requires the government to seize 50% of all inheritance? Bet you didn't know that did you?
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Let's face it, you can't have a communist society if those pesky little rebels have property to use against you. I wonder if that happens to apply to outlawing guns so people who believe in freedom won't use them against the government?
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
WALL STREET BAIL OUT! I wish I had a microphone to record and scream that so you could hear how loud it is in my head. The democrats already did this too.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
The government controls what goes where and when it goes there. They don't quite have this in place, but they're getting there. Simple things you would never think about like a bill of lading, all the regulations over truckers delivering goods around the country, these are all little steps.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
This seems okay, you know, cleaning up the place a little bit, if it weren't for the fact that the State is making sure it owns everything, thus, communism. You have to pay attention... this is how Communism works folks, this is how they gain their power.
Kind of like the democrats have been doing for decades now. They talk about improving the quality of this and that, and cleaning up this and that, and they get you to take more of your money to do it, to create bigger more powerful government. Imagine how many jobs would be created if free market was doing these things and the government didn't have ownership into the programs.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Obviously this isn't talking about an army as you might be thinking, it's just talking about a huge mass of people being forced to work... oh wait... there's another word for that... it's coming to me... right on the tip of my tongue... Oh that's it... SLAVERY.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
Here it is folks, YOU ARE PROPERTY! The government will decide where you go, when you go there, what do you and how you do it. If one areas is too dense the government will shift some people around.
This is why I have been telling you that the abolition of private property rights if the abolishment of freedom.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
I'm not oppossed to kids working in factories, I just have to be honest. Think back to videos you see from the early industrial times in America. What did those kids do in factories? Were they operating the dangerous machinary? No. Where they running the company? No. They were sweeping the floor. As they swept the floor they watched the workers, they learned trades, skills, etc. The children were still educated at home. When they were done for the day it was off to work. Children were taught from an early age to be responsible, to apply themselves, to put in a hard day's work and get your hands dirty.
But, they also saw what that earned them. We can go back in history and find young boys pushing brooms in factories and later becoming the President of the company.
Have you ever noticed the elders of our generation, those who are wealthy who we come along in public and while talking to them they say "Yep, retired as senior vice president of the company, course, I was there 45 years, started our pushing a broom when I was just a pup." There is a reason those people got where they did in life.
I take the example of my Dad and his twin brother. They both own their own companies, they aren't filthy rich, but they are comfortable. They both had very old style upbringings. I know they didn't push a broom in a factory but they pushed one at home (so to speak.) They were taught to work hard at a young age, they were taught to push forward, they were taught to thrive, to be something more than what they are. Niether may Dad or Uncle have college educations yet they are two of the most successful people I know. Honestly, I wish I was more like them than I am. (You're not going to get me to admit that ever again Dad so I recommend you print this column.)
Marx knew to take over a country the government must control the people's education, simple as that. If the people are allowed, as stated above referring to the American Revolution, to have free power to obtain knowledge, communism will never work. But if the government controls knowledge, if it decides what you will and will not know, then that government owns you.
The democrats are the ones who created public schools, (in reality, government indoctrination centers.)
Now... knowing everything you know, and believe me, this was a very brief summary, if you keep voting democrat, and keep believing their lives, and never seek out an education greater than the one they gave you, how long do you think it will be before you are their property?
I bid you good day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
