A Beginner’s Guide To American Communist Parties: Part 1


The ideology of Communism has always been a threat to the Founding Fathers’ vision of a Republic accountable to WE THE PEOPLE, Liberty, and Biblical Moral principles forming the backbone to make America good (of interest on a Biblically moral America: HERE and HERE). With that in  mind Noisy Room is posting Trevor Loudon’s exposé on contemporary Communism in the Democratic Party today.

 

JRH 1/25/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

********************

A Beginner’s Guide To American Communist Parties: Part 1

 

By Trevor Loudon

Originally posted: The Epoch Times

January 24, 2019

Noisy Room

 

US Democratic Representative from New York Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (L) speaks with Democratic Representative from Michigan Rashida Tlaib at the Capitol in Washington, DC, on January 16, 2019. Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

 

It’s been this author’s experience that most American journalists, politicians, police officers, and even intelligence officers have minimal understanding of America’s contemporary communist movement.

 

The average American voter, naturally, has very few outlets available that acknowledge the continued existence and influence of contemporary communism. Yet, communism is currently the single most important political and cultural influence in the country. Therefore, thumbnail sketches are provided here that outline the more significant domestic communist organizations currently working to undermine the Constitution and impose socialism on the American people.

 

A word on communism versus socialism: Socialism is a euphemism for communism. They are two peas in the same pod and all lead to tyranny. Communism is socialism, and those who want you to believe otherwise are attempting to indoctrinate you. Period.

 

There are two American “lefts”: Communists willing to work with and inside the Democratic Party to achieve their goals; and communists who regard the Democrats as a hopelessly “bourgeois” “capitalist” party.

 

The first group are more organized, realistic, and dangerous. The second group, like the first, often work with foreign communists and are more likely to engage in street-level violence.

 

Part 1 of this article will deal with the communists who work with the Democratic party, as a matter of policy. These organizations are the most subversive and dangerous in America.

 

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

 

Despite their public regular protestations, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is a communist organization. Many of their 55,000+ members are indoctrinated college students, but most of their leaders are hard-core Marxist revolutionaries.

 

Currently the United States’ largest Marxist organization, the DSA was formed in 1982 out of two similar groups. The larger was the “Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee” that mainly consisted of older activists from the rapidly imploding Socialist Party USA. The smaller was the “New American Movement” that consisted of young Vietnam War-era “Students for a Democratic Society” members and a group of older radicals who split from the Communist Party after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.

 

The most enduring influence in the DSA is Antonio Gramsci. An Italian communist theoretician, Gramsci believed in promoting socialism through patient infiltration of all political and cultural institutions before resorting to revolutionary violence.

 

Americans of all political persuasions may be surprised to learn that the DSA was initially very influential in the Democratic Party. The DSA helped establish the Congressional Progressive Caucus in 1991 with long-time ally Bernie Sanders and was successful in electing hundreds of Democratic Party officials, many local politicians, and several congressmembers.

 

Currently serving Congress members Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Danny Davis (D-IL), and Jerry Nadler (D-NY) have all been dues-paying DSA comrades at some point. In the last election, the DSA elected more than 20 local and state officials and two additional Congress members, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).

 

DSA influence waned through the early 2000s and by 2015, the organization was down to about 6,000 members, only about a third of whom were active.

 

Bernie Sanders changed all that. The DSA has backed Sanders since at least 1990. When he ran for president, the DSA became the backbone of his team. As Sanders took off, so did the DSA. When President Donald Trump got elected, DSA membership exploded, and is only now starting to slow, and in some places reverse.

 

The DSA now has more than 200 chapters in all 50 states. DSA strongholds are Boston, New York, Washington, DC, Chicago, Detroit, Seattle, Portland, Oregon, the Bay Area, and Southern California, but almost every significant city in America — and many small towns — now have DSA chapters. New York City’s DSA branch boasts more than 3,000 dues-paying members; Austin, Texas, claims 700, and Portland, Oregon, has 800. These numbers have given the DSA huge ability to penetrate the Democratic Party in almost every state.

 

The DSA also controls an organization that gives backing to hard-left candidates called “Our Revolution,” which boasts 100,000 members working vigilantly to carry on the Sanders movement. Our Revolution’s door-knockers and phone bankers give the DSA the ability to elect comrades to Democratic committees and leadership posts all over the country. In July 2018, the Washington Post reported that the DSA “has never had more adherents or more clout.”

 

The DSA has a Religious Commission featuring many pastors, church officials, theologians, and religious academics vigilantly indoctrinating malleable minds that Christianity and socialism go hand-in-hand.

 

The DSA is also huge in the colleges. In the early days, nearly a third of DSA members were academics. Today, the youth-wing of the DSA is known as the YDSA and is featured on campuses across America.

 

For most of its existence, the DSA was formally affiliated with the Socialist International (SI), an alliance of more than 100 socialist and social democratic political parties. At their annual conference in Chicago in 2017, the DSA officially pulled out of the SI based on them being too moderate, allying instead with several European communist-oriented parties. The DSA is particularly close to Die Linke (The Left), which is the direct ancestor of the old Stalinist East German Communist Party.

 

In the 1980s, the DSA worked closely with Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, who eventually became the socialist president of Brazil. “Lula” then worked with Cuban president Fidel Castro to elect socialist governments across most of Latin America, known broadly as the “Red Tide.”

 

Prominent DSA members have included theologian professor Cornel West; the late father of the socialized healthcare movement and former Obama family doctor Quentin Young; Obama immigration adviser Eliseo Medina; actor Ed Asner; feminist Gloria Steinem; Muslim activist Linda Sarsour; and convicted East German spy Kurt Stand.

 

Communist Party USA (CPUSA)

 

The Communist Party USA (CPUSA) was started in 1919 in Chicago, where it is headquartered today. In the 1940s, the CPUSA had over 100,000 members. With only 5,000 comrades, the CPUSA is not as large as it once was, but is still a political force with clout.

 

While the CPUSA has comrades in every state, it’s strongest in Boston, New York, Connecticut, Philadelphia, Missouri, Chicago, Detroit, Northern and Central Texas, Arizona, and California. The party has considerable influence in organizations such as the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, the U.S. Peace Council, Jobs with Justice, Alliance for Retired Americans, and dozens of smaller local front groups. The CPUSA is very active in the labor, environmental, and the “racial justice” movements. The CPUSA has systemically worked to recruit black pastors to cement their influence over the Democratic-voting black population.

 

The Democratic Party has long-since stopped expelling communists from their ranks. Consequently, in some parts of the country—Connecticut; West and South Chicago; Northeast Ohio; St. Louis, Missouri; Tucson, Arizona; Houston, Texas — the CPUSA controls some Democratic precincts.

 

In Connecticut, the CPUSA has relationships with the governor, both senators, all five Congress members, and multiple state, county, and city elected officials. In Texas, one CPUSA member, Sema Hernandez, ran on the Democratic ticket for the U.S. Senate and got 250,000 votes.

 

For decades, the CPUSA was a wholly-owned and subsidized Moscow franchise. Today, the CPUSA owes allegiance to China, but also maintains close ties to the communist parties of Russia, Vietnam, Cuba, Great Britain, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Mexico, Canada, and Brazil.

 

The party still participates in all the still-existing Soviet-era international communist front organizations: World Peace Council, World Federation of Trade Unions, Women’s International Democratic Federation, and the World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY). In 2017, the CPUSA sent a youth delegation to a WFDY festival in Sochi, Russia, to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. Russian President Vladimir Putin personally secured the venue and then addressed the estimated 30,000 attendees.

 

Prominent modern CPUSA members include Party Chairman John Bachtell (once the precinct captain for then-Senate candidate Barack Obama), Judith LeBlanc, a Native-American activist who trained the protesters at the 2015 Dakota Access Pipeline stand-off, and perennial Cleveland Democratic Party candidate Rick Nagin.

 

The CPUSA also has some cross-membership with the DSA.

 

Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS)

 

The CCDS began in 1991 when approximately one-third of the CPUSA’s then 3,000 members split from the party to form a new organization. The ex-communists were quickly joined by dissident Maoists, Trotskyists, anarchists, and “democratic socialists.”

 

In 2000, the Committees of Correspondence (CoC or CofC) became the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS).

 

The organization quickly grew to 2,000 members and was poised to become what the DSA is today — a mass-based, multi-tendency socialist organization. However, in recent years the CCDS has dwindled to about 400 mainly older members.

 

The CCDS is headquartered in the Bay Area, and is strongest in Chicago, New York, Boston, Western Pennsylvania, Louisville, Kentucky, the Carolinas, and Mississippi. The organization has some electoral influence through its close work with the DSA.

 

Prominent members include Mississippi Democratic State Rep. Kathy Sykes and South Carolina labor leader Donna Dewitt. Iconic communist Angela Davis and folk musician Pete Seeger were early members, as was current California Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

 

The CCDS very strongly supports China and Vietnam, as well as Cuba and Venezuela.

 

The CCDS has some cross-membership with both the DSA and CPUSA.

 

Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO)/LeftRoots

 

The Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO) grew out of the Maoist student movements of the 1960s, ’70s and early ’80s.

 

Formed in 1985, the FRSO drew together the Proletarian Unity League and the Revolutionary Workers Headquarters, and later the Organization for Revolutionary Unity, Amilcar Cabral-Paul Robeson Collective, and the Socialist Organizing Network. In 2000, the anarchist group Fire by Night joined. The FRSO also picked up members from the long-defunct Communist Workers’ Party, League of Revolutionary Struggle, Line of March, and Communist Party USA (Marxist-Leninist).

 

In 1999, the FRSO split in large part over the main faction’s willingness to work with the Democratic Party. The group that broke away — the Freedom Road Socialist Organization/Fight Back! division will be covered in part 2 of this series.

 

The FRSO doesn’t openly affiliate with China any longer, but many members work or live in China, or do solidarity work with Chinese organizations. Some members also work with pro-North Korean groups, or support Cuba, Venezuela, officially designated terrorist groups, the Communist Party of the Philippines, or the popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

 

The FRSO is extremely secretive about membership, but this author estimates that it has 2,000 to 3,000 active members. The FRSO is concentrated in the Bay Area and New York City, with significant centers in Los Angeles; Portland, Oregon; Seattle; Boston; Philadelphia; Ohio; Missouri; Tennessee; North Carolina; Atlanta, Georgia; Austin, Texas; New Orleans; Southern Florida; and New Mexico.

 

The FRSO has some cross-membership with the DSA and CCDS.

 

Like all Maoist-derived groups, the FRSO delves heavily into racial and gender politics. The organization is comprised predominantly of “people of color,” at least 50 percent female, heavily gay, and comparatively young.

 

Black Lives Matter and the Marxist concept of “white privilege” comes from the FRSO orbit, along with the leftist fetish for using gender “neutral” pronouns.

 

Unlike most older Maoist groups, the FRSO is actively involved in electoral politics. The FRSO controls several voter registration/electoral front groups including the New Virginia Majority, the New Florida MajorityMemphis For All and Stand Up Nashville (both Tennessee), Durham For All (North Carolina), Lancaster Stands Up, and 215 People’s Alliance (both Pennsylvania), which have been pivotal in the elections of many local and national politicians.

 

The FRSO has deliberately targeted Southern states and areas with high black and Latino populations.

 

The FRSO also runs a plethora of well-funded front groups around the country including the Chinese Progressive Association (San Francisco), Chinese Progressive Association (Boston), Highlander Research and Education Center (Tennessee), Miami Workers CenterRight to the City (New York City, with affiliates nationwide), Showing Up for Racial Justice (chapters nationwide), Southerners On New Ground (Atlanta/Birmingham), Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Causa Justa: Just Cause (Bay Area), and Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education (Los Angeles).

 

LeftRoots was formed in 2014 by Steve Williams, a former member of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), and N’Tanya Lee, an FRSO affiliate. In essence, LeftRoots is an adjunct to the FRSO with a little bit of DSA input.

 

LeftRoots has about 500 members with branches in Miami, Philadelphia, the Bay Area, Los Angeles, Boston, and New York.

 

Left Inside/Outside Project

 

All of the above groups work together in the Left Inside/Outside Project, which was established in early 2017 to coordinate infiltration and eventual takeover of the Democratic Party.

 

Many of these groups receive significant funding from the Ford Foundation, Open Societies Foundations, Tides Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and similar groups. Taxpayer funding additionally is often given to the front groups of socialist organizations in the form of grants and tax-exempt status. Unions often prop up front groups financially, and with logistics and training as well.

__________________

Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker and public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist and terrorist movements and their covert influence on mainstream politics.

 

© 2019 NoisyRoom.net

 

Donate to NoisyRoom.net Support American Values…

 

So … Conservatives are an Outside Group among Republicans


RINO Republican caricature

John R. Houk

© January 9, 2014

 

In the Republican Party the GOP Elitists wield the power and the Tea Party Conservatives get out the grassroots urging voters to vote favorably for pro-Republican issues. A marvelous revelation is beginning to emerge among Conservative activists and voters active within the Republican Party. That revelation is that Republican Elitists are only on board with Conservative principles of limited government and fair taxes only when it suits the Elitists to gain political power.

 

Let’s be honest in the USA political power is attained by eligible voters participating in America’s constitutional process in selecting candidates for Office in the Legislative Branch and in the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch on a Federal Level pertains to the Office of President of the United States (POTUS) and on a State and Local Level for such Offices as Governor, Lieutenant Governor, perhaps a few State-level Cabinet positions, County Commissioners, Sheriffs and Mayors.

 

The goal of political power to achieve political ends is for a Political Party to control the Office of POTUS primarily. The political ends are attainable when a Political Party controls both Houses of Congress. AND supposedly the political power dream is for a Political Party to control POTUS, the Senate and the House. AND it is considered favorable if the Political Party controlling the Office of POTUS is able to select Judiciary Branch Judges that favor a Political Party’s political agenda especially the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

 

Here is the political reality of 21st century American politics. There is a Left and Right agenda. This two-sided coin of agendas is all about how to interpret the U. S. Constitution. The 21st century American Left desires to interpret the Constitution under the reasoning of a Living Constitution.

 

In general a Living Constitution is interprets law on the basis of the greater good of society’s overall belief system. What is good for society uses the Constitution as a template to launch legal change to conform to society’s perceived norm.

 

In general the Right agenda is to interpret the U.S. Constitution under the Original Intent of America’s Founding Fathers as a foundation for law that is changed by the will of the voters rather than imposed by government to remold society’s belief system.

 

The Left-Right political ideals have roughly been translated in America’s development of a Two-Party political system in which neither extreme view attains absolute political power constitutionally but through the vision of the Founding Fathers’ vision of protecting American citizens from oppressive and/or corrupt government Checks and Balances were to be the hallmark of governing in the American Republic.

 

In the first 100 years or so of the American Republic a Left-Right political gap was nearly non-existent. The emerging political struggle in the USA seemed to center on the economic principles Big Business urbanization and the disparity with the one-time backbone of early America the economy centered upon rural industry such as family farms. People of property were the original enfranchised voters of the American Republic. The un-propertied citizens were not considered capable of participating as a political influence in government on a Local, State and especially a Federal level. The Civil War was as much about the rural political Elites of the South sensing a threat to their economic base from the Big Business urban Elites of the North. And within the North those Elites of power were centered in the North East (New York, Pennsylvania and the New England States). The backbone of the rural Southern economy was slave labor. The abolition of Slavery became the spark that ignited conflict between the agendas of Northern Elites and Southern Elites. Thank God the immorality of slavery was abolished even though the actual struggle was with Northern and Southern economics and power control. It is my opinion that President Lincoln’s obstinacy in preserving the Union of all the States in the American Republic is what led to the possibility of the USA becoming a super power today.

 

Thanks to a godless German Karl Marx and urbanized labor producing even Bigger Business in the Western World a new political disparity began to emerge between the working class and Industries’ Wealthy Elites. As the working class replaced the family farm as the backbone of the economy in Western Society, voting enfranchisement began to be extended to all voting age males and by early 20th century to include all voting age females. This began the change of the political dynamics in Western nations in which moral consciences began to enforce better living conditions and labor safety issues that affected the new backbone of the Western Economy. BUT still the wealthy Elites were the actual power brokers politically with votes becoming a restraint upon excesses of political Elitist agendas.

 

Marx’s bitter vision of the less wealthy working class rising up to forcefully appropriate industrial control the utopian dream of spreading the wealth caught emotions of the Western World’s better educated people which ironically ultimately influenced a significant people from the wealthy class to begin spreading the power in better equity among voting citizens. And those that became dedicated to the Marxist vision adopted an activism to change society by force. Hence the success of Vladimir Lenin and his cadre of followers that infected Russia’s poorest of the poor in the still existing Russian Serfs of the early 20th century. The successes of Lenin to instill a new power Elite in Russia replacing the Boyer (Nobles) led Monarchist Elites would soon lead to Russian disillusionment. The Serfs that indeed experienced a better living circumstance had to yield to the all-pervasive power structure of the top-down Soviet-Communist State. Eventually the Soviet vision of Communism was adopted by China’s Mao Zedong who adopted Leninist-Marxism to conform to Chinese culture but still making utopian promises to China’s extreme have-nots.

 

Before the 21st century came to be it became clear that Soviet Communism was just another form of absolute power corrupting absolutely. The USSR incentiveless economy could not bring the kind of economic liberation that the more Capitalistic Economies of the Western World brought to an entrenched Middle Class that had a better life than Marx’s so-called oppressed working class would be doomed to experience. Thanks to a Reagan-led revolution of an emphasis of a Market Economy and the incentives that prospered American ingenuity, the USA was able to outspend the Soviet economy. In the 1960s Khrushchev threatened to bury America. In reality Reagan’s America buried the Soviet Union forcing its collapse without a single actual military confrontation.

 

But the call of Communist utopianism and the elusive promise of an egalitarian society in which people attain a humanistic equality absent the restraining instruments of religious (in my case Biblical) morality has reared its head in stealth. Since forced Marxist-Communism has been demonstrated to be a failure with the demise of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), how can these lovers of a Communist society transform the world?

 

The stealth paradigm for the new Communist agenda to transform the world moves away from Leninist-Trotskyist-Stalinist principle of armed revolution. The new Communism is societal infiltration on a cultural level. The prime mover of this new Communism (maybe neo-Communism) was an Italian who died just before the beginning of WWII. At one time this Italian was considered the father of Eurocommunism. In the 1970s and 80s Eurocommunism was making serious inroads politically in Western Europe. The various national Communist Parties of Western Europe were actually gaining electoral support on a national basis in European nations. The greatest inroads accomplished by Eurocommunism were primarily in Italy and France. Eurocommunism has since receded as a political force in Western Europe. Without further study my guess for the lack of electoral interest in Eurocommunism is largely due to Western Europe adopting a Socialist political paradigm separate from Marxist-Leninist revolution.

 

Even so the Western European Socialist paradigm is part and parcel of the Italian person considered the father of Eurocommunism – Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci died in 1937 after years of incarceration for his Marxist political beliefs. Gramsci’s Marxist theories essentially postulated that Communism triumphs over a Capitalist society more by slow a transformation than an instant armed revolution. It is good speculation that Gramsci’s slow transformation paradigm was influential on Obama-Hillary hero Saul Alinsky. Here is an excerpt from DTN that gives a snapshot of the Alinsky methodology:

 

After completing his graduate work in criminology, Alinsky went on to develop what are known today as the Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power. In the late 1930s he earned a reputation as a master organizer of the poor when he organized the “Back of the Yards” area in Chicago, an industrial and residential ethnic neighborhood on the Southwest Side of the city, so named because it is near the site of the former Union Stockyards; this area had been made famous in Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel The Jungle. In 1940 Alinsky established the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), through which he and his staff helped “organize” communities not only in Chicago but throughout the United States. IAF remains an active entity to this day. Its national headquarters are located in Chicago, and it has affiliates in the District of Columbia, twenty-one separate states, and three foreign countries (Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom).

By the late 1960s, the Black Power movement would drive Alinsky and his organizing crusades out of the projects in African-American neighborhoods, leaving him no choice but to shift his focus to white communities. For this purpose, he established the Citizens Action Program (CAP), in 1970. As Stanley Kurtz writes in his 2010 book Radical in Chief: “Alinsky was … convinced that large-scale socialist transformation would require an alliance between the struggling middle class and the poor. The key to radical social change, Alinsky thought, was to turn the wrath of America’s middle class against large corporations.”

In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” — a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted — a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse — to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed. (Saul Alinsky; By John Perazzo; Determine The Networks; April 2008)

 

Hillary Clinton’s 1969 College Essay on Saul Alinsky shows his influence on her. Alinsky’s influence on Obama was a bit more indirect than Hillary’s but perhaps also a bit more hands on in applying the Alinsky Method. Check this out from David Horowitz:

 

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama never personally met Saul Alinsky. But as a young man, he became an adept practitioner of Alinsky’s methods. In 1986, at the age of 23 and only three years out of Columbia University, Obama was hired by the Alinsky team to organize residents on the South Side [of Chicago] “while learning and applying Alinsky’s philosophy of street-level democracy.”10 The group that Obama joined was part of a network that included the Gamaliel Foundation, a religious group that operated on Alinsky principles. Obama became director of the Developing Communities Project, an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, where he worked for the next three years on initiatives that ranged from job training to school reform to hazardous waste cleanup.

 

 

Three of Obama’s mentors in Chicago were trained at the Alinsky Industrial Areas Foundation,12 and for several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method.13 One of the three, Gregory Galluzo, shared with Ryan Lizza the actual manual for training new organizers, which he said was little different from the version he used to train Obama in the 1980s. According to Lizza, “It is filled with workshops and chapter headings on understanding power: ‘power analysis,’ ‘elements of a power organization,’ ‘the path to power.’ … The Alinsky manual instructs them to get over these hang-ups. ‘We are not virtuous by not wanting power,’ it says. ‘We are really cowards for not wanting power,’ because ‘power is good’ and ‘powerlessness is evil.’”14

 

According to Lizza, who interviewed both Galluzo and Obama, “the other fundamental lesson Obama was taught was Alinsky’s maxim that self- interest is the only principle around which to organize people. (Galluzzo’s manual goes so far as to advise trainees in block letters: ‘Get rid of do-gooders in your church and your organization.’) Obama was a fan of Alinsky’s realistic streak. ‘The key to creating successful organizations was making sure people’s self-interest was met,’ he told me, ‘and not just basing it on pie-in-the-sky idealism. So there were some basic principles that remained powerful then, and in fact I still believe in.’” On Barack Obama’s presidential campaign website, one could see a photo of Obama in a classroom “teaching students Alinskyan methods. He stands in front of a blackboard on which he has written, ‘Power Analysis’ and ‘Relationships Built on Self Interest,…’”15 (Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model; By David Horowitz; Discover The Networks; © 2009 – PDF Document)

 

Both Hillary and Obama had a Middle Class upbringing with Left oriented families. There is no surprise that Hillary and Obama radicalized toward the Left both being attracted to activism pointed toward the underprivileged. In the 1950s and 60s such activism typically led to an attraction to Marxist principles to transform America to an egalitarian utopia.

 

We Conservatives like to call Republicans with a diluted to nonexistent Conservatives as Republicans in Name Only (RINO). How much diluted Conservatism do we accept as Conservative before we bend our ears back and shout RINO? Let’s take Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and former GOP Vice Presidential Nominee in 2012. After perusing OnTheIssues.org Ryan definitely has a Conservative pedigree. And yet Tea Party Conservative express vitriol towards Ryan for coming up with a give-n-take Budget that obviously only places a dent in the Budget instead of putting a Budget together that exudes Less Government, Less Government Spending and better taxes. Frankly it will be impossible to pass a Budget that will make Conservatives happy with a Socialist minded President and a Dem Party Senate dominated by the principles of Marxist-Socialism. Regardless of the criticism some movement is better than zero. My concern about Paul Ryan rather than defending his Conservative pedigree he may be joining the Republican Establishment to vacate Tea Party Conservatives from the GOP.

 

Tea Party Conservatives believe the GOP Establishment should excised from the Republican. Obama’s Left Wing fringe is praying (to whoever the ungodly pray to) the Republican Establishment ejects Tea Party Conservatives, Social Conservatives and those known as the Religious Right. I found a guy that is a homosexual Leftist that actually the Conservative Wing of the GOP as the Fringe Right. The reality this ungodly dude exemplifies the Fringe Left dominating the Democratic Party. Check out this support for the Republican Establishment:

 

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) finally told Tea Party extremists to jump in a lake. He was incensed by reflexive criticism from outside pressure groups that bitterly opposed a new budget deal negotiated by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc) and Sen. Patty Murray, (D-Wash). The Ohio Republican realized that these implacable “conservatives” had their own agenda that did not include what was best for the American people. So radical was their position, that they would risk another government shutdown, which would be a calamity for the Republican Party.

 

 

In my view, the Republican brain trust should abandon its reliance on social conservatives and Tea Party activists. They haven’t already done so out of fear that it would be political suicide that would cost them their base. However, by dumping these extremists, the GOP would almost immediately gain new credibility with Independent voters. They would also put conservative Democrats into play who lean right, but won’t vote for GOP candidates because of their retrograde views on social issues.

 

 

Dumping the Tea, as well as the Religious Right, would also increase the Republican odds of winning the presidency. In the last couple of election cycles, the GOP primaries attracted two types of presidential candidates: Those who are crazy (Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann) and those who abandoned their principles and pretended to be insane in order to win (John McCain and “severe conservative” Mitt Romney). The influence of radical elements in the primaries produced flawed candidates who appeared plastic and insincere. A worst-case scenario was the drafting of the unqualified Sarah Palin for Vice President, which badly damaged McCain’s credibility.

 

… (John Boehner Should Stop Fishing In the Tea Party Piranha Stream; By Wayne Besen [Leader of group Truth Wins Out]; Falls Church News Press; 12/17/13 4:16 PM)

 

So if the Fringe Left views the Republican Establishment as an ally in the sense of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, why indeed should Tea Party Conservatives remain a part of a Political Party in which the power structure does not desire Conservative Principles or Conservative Values? My God my fellow Americans! The Republican Establishment is calling the Conservative base that retook the House in 2012 is being vilified as fringe outside groups and basically must discover their pecking order within the GOP.

 

JRH 1/9/13

Please Support NCCR

Gramsci the Eurocommunist and Obamunism


Antonio Gramsci

John R. Houk

© April 2, 2013

 

In my college days (1979 – 1981) I toyed with the idea to minor in political science. I studied a bit about the Italian Communist Party (PCI) and the then described father of EurocommunismAntonio Gramsci.

 

It is my opinion Gramsci is of huge importance today because modern Marxists are using his ideas about Communism to build a Marxist world. President Barack Hussein Obama was influenced by the prince of community organizing in Saul Alinsky. Alinsky’s agenda to transform society could have been ripped and copied from the pages of Gramsci’s written works. Below is a quote from a bio of Gramsci at Determine The Networks:

 

Specifically, Gramsci called for Marxists to spread their ideology in a gradual, incremental, stealth manner, by infiltrating all existing societal institutions and embedding it, largely without being noticed, in the popular mind. This, he emphasized, was to be an evolutionary, rather than a revolutionary, process that, over a period of decades, would cause an ever-increasing number of people to embrace Marxist thought, until at last it achieved hegemony. Gramsci described this approach as a “long march through the institutions.” Among the key institutions that would need to be infiltrated were the cinema and theater, the schools and universities, the seminaries and churches, the media, the courts, the labor unions, and at least one major political party. According to Gramsci, these institutions constituted society’s “superstructure,” which, if captured and reshaped by Marxists, could lead the masses to abandon capitalism of their own volition, entirely without resistance or objection.

 

Think of the above paragraph every time you hear or read about Obama’s agenda to ‘Change’ America. Obama’s agenda is a Marxist agenda.

 

Earlier post on Gramsci:

 

The Gramsci Influence on Alinsky

 

JRH 4/2/13

Please Support NCCR

___________________________

ANTONIO GRAMSCI

 

DiscoverTheNetworks.org

 

Antonio Gramsci was born in Sardinia on January 22, 1891. After graduating from the Dettori Lyceum in Cagliari, he won a scholarship to the University of Turin in 1911; by this point in his life, he was ideologically a socialist. Four years later he became an active member of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) and began a journalistic career that saw him develop into one of Italy’s most influential writers. In the Turin edition of Avanti! (PSI’s official organ), Gramsci wrote a regular column on various aspects of the city’s social and political life. Also active in educating and organizing Turin’s workers, Gramsci in 1916 began speaking periodically at workers’ study-circles on such topics as the French and Italian revolutions and the writings of Karl Marx. When Russia’s Bolshevik revolution broke out in 1917, Gramsci embraced the goal of spreading socialist transformation throughout the capitalist world.

In the spring of 1919, Gramsci co-founded L’Ordine Nuovo: Rassegna Settimanale di Cultura Socialista (The New Order: A Weekly Review of Socialist Culture), which became an influential periodical among Italy’s radical and revolutionary Left. Meanwhile he continued to devote much of his time and energy to the development of the factory council movement, which sought to advance the cause of a proletarian revolution in Italy.

In January 1921 Gramsci aligned himself with the Communist minority within PSI at the Party’s Livorno Congress, and soon thereafter he became a central committee member of the Italian Communist Party (PCI).

From May 1922 to November 1923, Gramsci lived in Moscow as an Italian delegate to the Communist International. In 1924 he relocated to Rome and was named general secretary of PCI. He also began organizing the launch of PCI’s official newspaper, L’Unità (Unity).

In 1926, Italy’s Fascist government enacted a host of “Exceptional Laws for State Security,” designed to suppress political opposition. On November 8th of that year, Gramsci was arrested in Rome and was sentenced to 5 years in confinement on the island of Ustica. In June 1928, his prison sentence was increased to more than 20 years, including a stint in solitary confinement.

Gramsci’s health deteriorated badly during his incarceration, and in November 1933 he was transferred to a medical clinic in Formia, where he stayed, under constant police guard, until August 1935. At that point he was transferred again, still under perpetual guard, to the Quisisana Hospital in Rome. Gramsci eventually died there, of a cerebral hemorrhage, on April 27, 1937.

During his years as a prisoner, Gramsci filled 32 notebooks (containing almost 3,000 pages) with his political and philosophical meditations on how Marxist theory could be applied practically to the conditions of advanced capitalism. The notebooks, which were smuggled out from Gramsci’s prison cell, were eventually published in Italian several years after World War II, more than a decade after Gramsci’s death. They were not published in English, however, until the 1970s.

In his writings, Gramsci accepted Marx’s assertion that perpetual struggle between the ruling class and the subordinate working class was the driving mechanism that ultimately made social progress possible. But he rejected the notion that direct physical coercion by police and armies was the method of choice for achieving and maintaining victory in that struggle. Rather, Gramsci held that if a population at large could, for a period of time, be properly indoctrinated with a new “ideology”—specifically, a set of values, beliefs, and worldviews consistent with Marxist principles—a Marxist system could be sustained indefinitely and without coercion or force. In short, Gramsci held that Marxists needed to focus their efforts on gaining “hegemony” (i.e., control or dominion) over the core beliefs of non-Marxist societies; to change the population’s understanding of what constitutes basic “common sense.”

Such a development, said Gramsci, would never occur naturally as a result of some inexorable, unseen, “historical laws” that Marx had accepted as axiomatic. Rather, Gramsci asserted that Marxism’s potential for transforming society was wholly dependent upon the willful initiative of activists committed to using a “reversal strategy” designed to establish a “counter hegemony”—i.e., an alternative dominant worldview—in opposition to the existing capitalist framework.

Specifically, Gramsci called for Marxists to spread their ideology in a gradual, incremental, stealth manner, by infiltrating all existing societal institutions and embedding it, largely without being noticed, in the popular mind. This, he emphasized, was to be an evolutionary, rather than a revolutionary, process that, over a period of decades, would cause an ever-increasing number of people to embrace Marxist thought, until at last it achieved hegemony. Gramsci described this approach as a “long march through the institutions.” Among the key institutions that would need to be infiltrated were the cinema and theater, the schools and universities, the seminaries and churches, the media, the courts, the labor unions, and at least one major political party. According to Gramsci, these institutions constituted society’s “superstructure,” which, if captured and reshaped by Marxists, could lead the masses to abandon capitalism of their own volition, entirely without resistance or objection.

In this regard, Gramsci’s views bore a great resemblance to those of the famed godfather of community organizing, Saul Alinsky, who likewise viewed revolution as a slow, patient process requiring the stealth penetration of existing institutions that could then be transformed from within.

——————————————-

Gramsci the Eurocommunist and Obamunism

John R. Houk

© April 2, 2013

_______________________

ANTONIO GRAMSCI

 

Copyright 2003-2012: DiscoverTheNetworks.org