Archive for ‘History’

November 26, 2012

Obama Begins Euthanasia on Sick and Disabled

In October of 1939 amid the turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitler ordered widespread “mercy killing” of the sick and disabled.

Code named “Aktion T 4,” the Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate “life unworthy of life” at first focused on newborns and very young children. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation, physical deformity, or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry.

A decision on whether to allow the child to live was then made by three medical experts solely on the basis of the questionnaire, without any examination and without reading any medical records.

Each expert placed a + mark in red pencil or – mark in blue pencil under the term “treatment” on a special form. A red plus mark meant a decision to kill the child. A blue minus sign meant meant a decision against killing. Three plus symbols resulted in a euthanasia warrant being issued and the transfer of the child to a ‘Children’s Specialty Department’ for death by injection or gradual starvation.

The decision had to be unanimous. In cases where the decision was not unanimous the child was kept under observation and another attempt would be made to get a unanimous decision.

The Nazi euthanasia program quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. Hitler’s decree of October, 1939, typed on his personal stationery and back dated to Sept. 1, enlarged “the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.”

Questionnaires were then distributed to mental institutions, hospitals and other institutions caring for the chronically ill.

Patients had to be reported if they suffered from schizophrenia, epilepsy, senile disorders, therapy resistant paralysis and syphilitic diseases, retardation, encephalitis, Huntington’s chorea and other neurological conditions, also those who had been continuously in institutions for at least 5 years, or were criminally insane, or did not posses German citizenship or were not of German or related blood, including Jews, Negroes, and Gypsies.

A total of six killing centers were established including the well known psychiatric clinic at Hadamar. The euthanasia program was eventually headed by an SS man named Christian Wirth, a notorious brute with the nickname ‘the savage Christian.’

At Brandenburg, a former prison was converted into a killing center where the first Nazi experimental gassings took place. The gas chambers were disguised as shower rooms, but were actually hermetically sealed chambers connected by pipes to cylinders of carbon monoxide. Patients were generally drugged before being led naked into the gas chamber. Each killing center included a crematorium where the bodies were taken for disposal. Families were then falsely told the cause of death was medical such as heart failure or pneumonia.

But the huge increase in the death rate for the disabled combined with the very obvious plumes of odorous smoke over the killing centers aroused suspicion and fear. At Hadamar, for example, local children even taunted arriving busloads of patients by saying “here comes some more to be gassed.”

On August 3, 1941, a Catholic Bishop, Clemens von Galen, delivered a sermon in Münster Cathedral attacking the Nazi euthanasia program calling it “plain murder.” The sermon sent a shockwave through the Nazi leadership by publicly condemning the program and urged German Catholics to “withdraw ourselves and our faithful from their (Nazi) influence so that we may not be contaminated by their thinking and their ungodly behavior.”

As a result, on August 23, Hitler suspended Aktion T4, which had accounted for nearly a hundred thousand deaths by this time.

The Nazis retaliated against the Bishop by beheading three parish priests who had distributed his sermon, but left the Bishop unharmed to avoid making him into a martyr.

However, the Nazi euthanasia program quietly continued, but without the widespread gassings. Drugs and starvation were used instead and doctors were encouraged to decide in favor of death whenever euthanasia was being considered.

The use of gas chambers at the euthanasia killing centers ultimately served as training centers for the SS. They used the technical knowledge and experience gained during the euthanasia program to construct huge killing centers at Auschwitz, Treblinka and other concentration camps in an attempt to exterminate the entire Jewish population of Europe. SS personnel from the euthanasia killing centers, notably Wirth, Franz Reichleitner and Franz Stangl later commanded extermination camps.

Copyright © 1996 The History Place™ All Rights Reserved

via The History Place – World War II in Europe Timeline: October 1939 – Nazis Begin Euthanasia on Sick and Disabled.

November 22, 2012

The Pilgrims’ Short Lived Experiment in Communism

Why the Pilgrims Abandoned Communism

Many have credited Karl Marx with inventing what we now know as communism in the middle of the 19th century. The concept of communal living and dependence, however, came long before The Communist Manifesto. Over the centuries, the concept has been applied by different people in different places. While the reasons for applying the communal approach varied as widely as the people who attempted it, one thing did remain constant: failure. From Roman latifundiae to the Soviet Union, communism time and again proved the failure inherent in its concept. Americans do not need to look to distant lands and little known peoples for evidence of the failure of communism. They simply need to look back at one of the most celebrated groups of people in their history: the Pilgrims.

As most educated Americans know, Puritan Separatists, or Pilgrims, landed in Massachusetts in 1620. What many don’t realize is that the original economic system of their colony, Plymouth Plantation, was a form of communism. There was neither private property nor division of labor. Food was grown for the town and distributed equally amongst all. The women who washed clothes and dressed meat did so for everyone and not just for their own families. This sounds like the perfect agrarian utopia envisioned by Marx and Lenin. What happened to it? To find the answer to that question, one must turn to Of Plymouth Plantation by William Bradford. Bradford served as Governor of Plymouth Colony from 1620 to 1647 and chronicled in great detail everything that happened in the colony.

By 1623, it was obvious the colony was barely producing enough corn to keep everyone alive. Fresh supplies from England were few and far between. Without some major change, the colony would face famine again. In his chronicle, Bradford described what was going wrong and how it was solved (pardon the King James English):

All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advise of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of the number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

With weak crops and little hope of supply, the Pilgrims divided the parcels among the families and told them to grow their own food. They found that those who would pretend they couldn’t work due to infirmity, weakness or inability (sound familiar?) gladly went to work in the fields. Corn production increased dramatically and famine was averted because communism was eliminated. Bradford’s account doesn’t end here; he goes on to describe why he believed the communal system failed. Understanding the reasons for the failure is just as important, if not more important, than learning about the failure itself. Governor Bradford wrote:

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter than the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours, victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.

The communal system failed because it treated the older and wiser the same way as the young and brash. It failed because it rewarded the less productive as much as the more productive. It failed because members of the community found that they could do less and still get the same benefit. All of these problems arose in a very religious community in which gluttony and laziness were considered sins and drunkenness was rare. How much more would communism fail in a larger society where such problems are rampant! By returning to a system in which the older and wiser are respected, and by reorganizing so that one’s benefit was directly tied to his production, the Pilgrims ensured the survival of their colony. Governor Bradford, however, ultimately attributes the failure of the “common cause” to something much deeper:

Upon the point all being to have alike and to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.

Governor Bradford is basically saying that communism failed because of the corrupt nature of humans. People are imperfect and sinful. The utopia Marx and Lenin dreamed of could only work if it were filled with perfect people- and no such infallible people can be found in this world. Furthermore, the communal system undermines the relations God instituted among men- marriage and family. With husbands growing food for other people’s children, wives washing other men’s clothes, and children doing chores for other families, the basic foundational social unit of society is undermined. Without that, no society can hope to survive.

“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life.” – John F. Kennedy

August 2, 2012

The Qualifying Factor In The Civil Rights Legacy and the American Chattel Slave

Ted Hayes, Voice of the American Descendants of Chattel Slaves

Ted Hayes: I Am Purging The Term Black From My Vocabulary

In a profound disrespect that tramples upon the U.S. Constitution, the following ‘illicit proponents’ of illegal immigration, particularly that of the fabricated, radical, neo “Brown-Bronze” La Raza Hispanic/Latino populations; the Islamic Jihad-Muslim incursion; those of the Sodomite or homosexual-lesbian and transgender movements, and Barack Hussein Obama and his socialist agenda masters, are usurping the sacred benefits and special protections of the Civil Rights laws legislated by Congress specifically for the American Chattel Slaves and their descendants.

In special notice to the La Raza radicals, who hatefully mock the American Chattel Slaves and their descendants; this message is for you.

EXPERIENCE: The Primary Factor

All these perverse claims to Civil Rights benefits are rebellious to the Constitution because Congress did not grant them based on skin-color, i.e., racial characteristics, cultural ethnicities, minority/majority status, sexual preference, nor religious beliefs, but rather their unique EXPERIENCED entry into the United States as the primary factor.

Too often, these ‘illicit proponents’ use our U.S. Civil Rights as a tool to cover their selfish “American Dreaming” and/or a means by which to change the very fundamental foundations of the United States into something that is more like European socialism, the Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah, or an Arab-Islamic Religious-Sharia Caliphate.

As a result of these ‘illicit proponents’ use of the Civil Rights laws, meant for the freed Chattel Slaves and their descendants, I am purging out from my vocabulary the term “black” and “minority” as the description or identity of the Hametic peoples of Africa (of which I am) within the United States of America.

Descendants of Chattel Slaves

While a bit lengthy, I am opting for the term of “Descendants of Chattel Slaves” (DOCS) which identifies a people based not on race, but rather a unique EXPERIENCE that sets them apart from all other ethno-racial nationalities, classes and status (minority-majority) within the United States.  See “Meaning of Chattel Slaves” [HERE]

After chattel slavery in the United States was abolished, the Radical Republican Congress codified into the US Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which is the progenitor of the 14th Amendment that granted federal (not individual States which came later in 1964) citizenship to the freed slaves and their children’s descendants.

By claiming the benefits and equal protection laws of the Constitutional Civil Rights Act of 1866, these ‘illicit proponents’ shout that the dominate ‘White’ Americans, are treating them like Blacks were treated, which in so many ways is an blatant, mocking lie.  All those who support, embrace and promulgate this disgusting policy will eventually be shamed to derision for it.

Of course, this accusation cowers the intimidated, guilt-ridden White American Liberals, and unfortunately too many ‘un-convicted’ conservative Patriots, even certain “African-Americans” into submission to the agendas of the enemies of free peoples and domestic rebels against the Constitution.

The Fatal Flaw of the Usurpers

Thanks to GOD, because Annuit Septis (“HE Has Favored Our Undertaking”), in that, herein lays the fatal flaw in the usurpers disrespect for the DOCS as well as their cruel, selfish, destructive, bastardization of the Civil Rights benefits, despite whatever tragic sufferings and struggles they endure, these usurpers nevertheless have no grounds or STANDING to legitimately equate theirs “experience” with those of the DOCS.  See “STANDING” [HERE]

In fact, to do so, is not only constitutionally forbidden, but is also a contemptible, racist and deliberately malicious act, with hateful, spiteful and evil intent against the American Chattel Slaves whose skin color and racial characteristics happen to be “black”.

To remove all doubt, the beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Legacy are specifically for those Americans who EXPERIENCED the lineage of being brought into the United States via the Transatlantic Slave Trade, i.e., the exiled Africans who became Chattel Slaves, as well as their descendants being “Jim Crowed” into another form of ownership.

Whereas, all other ethno-racial-nationalities or minorities do not have that unique American experience, but rather, one of a “willing” immigration or/and sexual preference, thereby evidently demonstrating theirs as ineligible to be equated with that of the  descendants of the Chattel Slaves.

The Differences

All ethno-racial-nationalities, including certain minorities came to America as “willing” immigrants on the metaphoric, “Mayflower”, particularly those of the early British colonial times, whereas, the Chattel Slaves arrived as “unwilling” immigrants on the metaphoric British-American Slave Ships, “The Good Ship Jesus” commissioned in 1562 by Queen Elizabeth and the “Desire,” which later sailing out of Salem, Massachusetts, in 1638.  The two experiences are not and cannot be equated! Read more: [HERE]

With this knowledge, people who have earned the right to be called an American Citizens can now as righteous, but humble Patriots, confidently stand against all these ‘proponents’ of foreign enemy invasions who have the mitigated gall to usurp our American Civil Rights as a shield to destroy our country.

Along with turning these invasions around, the victorious Patriots must, by the authority of citizens arrest laws, also begin to identify, apprehend and prosecute all federal, state, county and municipal government officials, who have sworn the oath of office in the Name of GOD, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, but instead have deliberately acted contrary to and willfully rebelled against it. See “GOD In The Declaration of Independence” [HERE]

In summation, EXPERIENCE, not race, minority/majority status, sexual preference, nor religion, is the qualification for Civil Rights benefits, which is why I am purging the term “Black” from my vocabulary, in order to end the abuse against the highest law of our beloved land.


July 23, 2012

France’s Jewish Extermination – Vél d’Hiv – The only thing new in this world is the history you don’t know.

Haaretz has written about French president Francois Hollande’s visit to the site of one of the worst cases of collaboration with the nazis during WW2:

French President Francois Hollande’s decision to speak last week at a commemoration of the single worst deportation of Jews in Western Europe during World War II is an important step toward addressing European anti-Semitism.

On an early morning in July 1942, 13,000 Jews were awakened in their Parisian homes by French gendarmes, or soldiers. They were pushed into buses and trucks and taken to one of the most popular sporting stadiums in France. Located in the heart of working class Paris, the Vél d’Hiv was the cathedral for France’s most passionate sport – cycling.

The Jews were left in the stands of this revered velodrome to swelter in the summer heat. The glass roof had been painted dark blue as part of black-out procedures, and the windows were shut tight. A single tap provided water for the victims. Children were separated from their parents. The whole operation was carried out with scarcely a German uniform in sight.

This was French anti-Semitism organized as state action by French civil servants, police officials and other public functionaries. The Jews were later taken to German extermination camps on Polish soil. But the historic importance of Vél d’Hiv is that the horrible sequence of hatred was initiated by French citizens in the name of France.

And that is why it was obliterated from official French history for decades and why Hollande’s decision, early in his presidency, to speak about the duty to remember Vél d’Hiv is so important. A recent survey showed that 60 percent of 18 to 24 year olds in France have never heard of the Vél d’Hiv mass round-up of Jews.

The related picture I’ve uploaded is from Henri Amouroux’s book Les Passions et les Haines, which shows a scene from the urban concentration camp set up by the traitors to humanity. Incidentally, while Hollande’s visit in itself is a noble act, it’s not clear whether he’s acknowledged his father’s own collaboration with the nazis at the time, and if he condemns the shame it brings upon him.

And if he keeps up the PC tactic of even remotely calling Israel an “occupier” and excusing Islam, then he hasn’t done much to distinguish himself from Jacques Chirac, who was notorious for that.


March 22, 2012

Obamacare Death Panels – Put Them to Sleep Like a Dog

Dick McDonald

President Obama and the Democrat Party successfully passed the Affordable Health Care Act in 2010. Dubbed Obamacare it mirrors England’s system of health care where the National Health Service decides who lives and who dies. Sarah Palin called Obamacare’s version the 15-man “Death Panel.”

Armed with the power to decide whether or not a person will be allowed to get life-saving procedures and medication they have the right to put you to sleep like a dog.  As we understand it they will be deciding if you are worth “their” cost to keep you alive.  In other words – it is government-run euthanasia.

If you are asking yourself how both England and America got there the answer is quite simple – socialism.  Socialism forces the government to end up running things. That is why England’s system is the third largest employer IN THE WORLD.  As Margaret Thatcher so perceptibly warned socialism eventually runs out of other people’s money which led to cost-cutting which led to death panels (NHS).

Americans on the whole have their head in the sand. The medical establishment takes 17% of our national gross profit (GDP). The percentage has been rising geometrically for several decades. With a $15 trillion GDP that means $2.25 trillion is spent every year or $15,000 for each and every household in America.  Yet 70% of Republicans polled recently want Medicare left alone.

As one-half of all Medicare expenses are incurred in the last year of life it is no wonder the socialists want to create a “death panel.” By denying treatment they cut costs.  As conservative papers in England report daily in order to cut costs the NHS puts their people to sleep just like a dog.

In America the liberal press, nighttime talk, TV and Hollywood vilify the rich. Yet in the last twenty years that group has lost $8 trillion in net worth. The rich are getting poorer fulfilling Thatcher’s promise. That is immaterial to the liberals and they continue to push the liberal unfunded spending agenda. To date that agenda has racked up $104 trillion in unfunded debt for Medicare alone or $90,500 for each and every household in America.(see )

Politically no one can address this issue or that of Social Security.  Taking away “free stuff” is political suicide.  Obama and the Democrats are fooling the folks into believing nothing is wrong and casting Republicans as heartless.  The Republicans are pushing the “freedom” agenda masking their austerity measures and agenda in patriotic rhetoric.

The folks won’t be fooled. No one is looking out for them. No one ever has. Are they resigned to die like a dog? Time will tell.

PS – Iam one of those believing there is a simple answer to these complex problems.  See for a plan to make the poor and middle-class wealthy enough to pay for their own retirement. And they finance it themselves without having to invest one dime.

December 5, 2011

A Layman’s Look at the Communist/ Democrat Manifesto

Obama's Conquest

by Jack Keller July 2001

Partially Educated

The Communist Manifesto is one of those documents I was aware of, but had never taken the time to actually read. As a woefully undereducated product of the public education system, I somehow managed to slip by the class that required reading of the old Marx and Engels classic. So, in the course of continuing liberty self-education, I found a translation on the web in order to better understand this failed canon of anti-freedom. My reaction: wow. The Communist Manifesto, written in 1848, looks a lot like the Democratic Party Positions, written in 2000.

The Pseudo-History of Class Warfare

The first chapter of the Manifesto is a rambling pseudo-history that rails against the bourgeois as the historically re-incarnated oppressors vis-à-vis the continually oppressed proletariat. I was reminded of the slave reparations, minority oppression, women oppression, and other Democratic Party class based arguments. The second chapter is a lengthy list of “Bourgeois” complaints against the generally perceived Communist aims, and the communist response to them. Among the Bourgeois complaints the manifesto defends are: abolition of family, abolition of religion, socialization of education, and abolition of nations. Does this remind us of current complaints within the political system? Interestingly, the manifesto presents the following observation regarding the abolition of nations:

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

This is a fairly prescient assessment, given the franchise-ization of the world. As an aside, I spent 9 months in various cities as part of my job in 1998. The thing that surprised me most in my tour of 30-odd medium and large American town was the uniformity. Like Edward Norton in Fight Club, I found the same hotel soaps in the same hotels, next to the same Applebee’s or Chili’s. It was Generica, not America. That, however, is a different article; one that addresses how government zoning laws and tax schemes aide and abet big business in destroying small, local competition. Back to the original point, however, I wonder what Marx and Engels saw as the downside to the vanishing of “antagonism between peoples” that bourgeoisie and freedom of commerce had brought about. I suppose it was their follow-on predication, which is wrong.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them (national differences and antagonism) to vanish still faster.

The Tyranny of Democracy

Like any wacko manifesto, the Communist Manifesto has just enough facts, just enough history, and just enough lucid observations to cover the other 90% of it, which is utter crap. One of the lucid observations in the Manifesto, is that the proletariat constitute the majority of the population. The communists realized that by organizing the proletariat politically, they could just vote themselves more power. This is one of the two the real gems of chapter two. It explains a great deal about the tyranny of democracy, and the modus operandi of our current political parties.

The Politics of Jealousy

The other gem in chapter two immediately follows the observation that the proletariat must first seize control of “political supremacy”. Once that is accomplished, well, Marx and Engels say it best: “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…” The Democrats, like the Communists, realize that by dividing people into groups, all with a chip on their shoulder against the oppressor, they can vote themselves chunks of the oppressors’ property. Let’s call this the politics of jealousy and victimhood. I suppose this explains how communism could organize itself, at least initially. There will always be people of extraordinary talent running businesses, inventing new things, and generally pushing the boundaries of science, technology, and commerce. Let’s use Bill Gates as an example of this natural elite. For every Bill Gates, there are a thousand Joe Programmers at Microsoft who are smart and talented. They are the second line of the elite, in Marx’s view, the bourgeois. For every Joe Programmer at Microsoft, there are a thousand Mary Secretaries, a thousand Bob Lawnmower, a thousand Doug Factoryworker, and Susie Government bureaucrat; these are the proletariat in the Marxian view. None of them have the combination of mental ability, circumstance, and determination that Bill Gates has, and most of them know it. However, these thousands have a lot more votes than Bill and his programmers. Those votes are political power, and the Marxists know it.

The 10 Measures of Communism

And how will the proletariat use their political clout to wrest capital away from the capitalists? With the 10 measures Marx and Engels laid out in 1848. As the master communists aver, the exact implementation will vary slightly from county to country, but will follow the general thrust of the measures. (notice how close it resembles the goals of the DNC)

  1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
  2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
  3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
  4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
  5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
  6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
  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.
  8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
  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.
  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.

Take a second to compare them with the Democratic Party Positions. Note that the communists speak in terms of oppressed and oppressor, guilty rich, and noble worker, just like the Democrats. Solely by observing the title link of the various positions, you can see the Democrats place no value on Americans in general, but play race and class warfare by dividing people into ethnic, social, gender, and special interest groups.

Observations on The Communist Goals

Here are the 10 points from the Communist Manifesto again, with a few observations.

  1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

The communist revolution is about half successful here. Private property rights are eroded daily in this country. Property Tax in most areas goes directly to fund the “public purpose” of public education. (confer #10). The US government is the single largest land owner, but instead of selling off “public” land, the government continues to acquire more under the guide of “protecting wilderness” or some other such nonsense. The land under direct federal control is not the only property held by the government. The use of executive branch regulatory edicts to put severe restrictions on private property has the effect of putting much more property in the hands of the government. Do you really own that South Florida beachfront property if you can’t build a beach house on it? As long as it’s to save the Red Mangrove, Loggerhead Turtle, and Brown Pelican, you see.

    1. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Can someone please explain how a flat tax RATE is not already graduated? A truly flat tax would be something like $500 per person per year. A graduated tax is 5% per person per year. A punitive tax on innovation and achievement is our current manipulative system. When historians look back at the United States, they will ask how, in this day and age of instant access to information and history, a people could fail to see the obvious parallels between the Gestapo, the KGB, and the IRS. They all use fear, intimidation, spying, and invasion of privacy to keep people in line. This awful agency should be abolished and replaced with nothing. The tax code is such an obvious tool of social manipulation that it absolutely disgusts me. Do you think its any coincidence that the tax code has a marriage penalty, and the number of unmarried couples living together has gone up? Check off one of the previously stated goals of the communists as partially achieved: abolition of the family.

    1. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Well, the current Estate Tax rate of 55% means we’re just over half way towards this one. Part of the communist goal of ultimate state power is the destruction of the family (outlined in chapter 2 of the manifesto). One of the ties that bind families together, as well as encourage parents to work for the betterment of their children is the promise of leaving an estate or inheritance. By legislating that the property owned and accumulated over a lifetime can’t be passed on, we help replace the idea of the parent and family with the idea of a benevolent state. Further, the idea of ownership of one’s labor and the property earned by it is undermined. One of the tests of ownership is the ability to grant a thing to another person. If you aren’t free to do that, you don’t really own something.

    1. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

The US has relatively few emigrants, but we have plenty of rebels. While assorted tax resistors and government regulatory resistors fall in the rebel category, the new favorite catch-all prosecutorial group is “suspected” drug dealers. Suppose I sell my 1986 Honda CRX for $800 cash, then drive to the bank to deposit it, get stopped on the way, searched (under duress, naturally), and the cop decides the cash might be used for drugs. Buh-bye cash. I just might be a drug dealer. I’m suspected, and suspicion is all it takes. No need to worry about due process or anything, kind of like Salem, circa 1692. This is the drug war. Police Forces can confiscate your entire house if they find one pot leaf in it. The same holds true for your car, or boat. Having a pile of money that could be used to buy drugs is suspicious.

The drug war has flown this one in under the Radar of most commie-fighting Republicans who roundly support the new prohibition, but as Marx and Engels noted “The forms these take will vary from country to country”. The Communists are ends-justify-the means kind of folks.

    1. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Done. Don’t think so? Quick, who’s Chairman of the Federal Reserve? That’s right, our good friend, Alan Greenspan. He and the rest of the board set the prime-lending rate, and control the money supply. In my Keynesian slanted Macro Economic class, they called this “fiscal and monetary policy”. After a good dose of Austrian economics, I now spot it as “Objective 5 of the Communist Manifesto – Government Command Economy” or “taxation via inflation”. Control of the banking system by the fed is so complete that Wall Street, the supposed paragon of free-market capitalism, wags up and down to the mumblings of a single un-elected bureaucrat.

    1. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

AT&T was a government sanctioned monopoly for 70 years. Thanks to the heroic Carter Phone Company making a phone other than black, and suing to break the government imposed monopoly, the communications industry has been making spectacular progress after begin stifled for three-quarters of a century, thanks to Uncle Stalin, errr, Sam. Jeremy Sapienza asks if we might not be online in 1950 if not for Intellectual Property restrictions. Given that the telephone took 67 years to get to 50% of US households thanks to the strangling effects of monopoly status, compared with 6 years for the World Wide Web to hit 50%, Mr. Sapienza may be right.

While the free market has broken the communications impasse electronically, the real world still has only one choice for “first class” mail, and the transportation system is still in the hands of the state. Think about this the next time you’re in traffic. When was the last time you went to a grocery store where the checkout lines were routinely so frustratingly long that the patrons started shooting each other. I would love nothing better than for a private company to start leasing tracts of land on the north side of Atlanta, build an outer perimeter based on profit sharing of toll revenue collected from wireless tags, and then watch the MARTA and highway planning goofballs tear their hair. What kind of organization actually plans 20 years down the road when traffic jams are driving people bonkers today? A government agency of course. Back to the communist aspects of this, the central planners love the idea that everyone has the same kind of transportation. How dare we express individuality, or class distinction based on the kind of car we drive.

    1. 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.

Governor Gray Davis of California has a few things to say about this: namely, he’s all for it. In fact, having wrecked havoc on California’s electric and utility companies through price controls, he’s proposed confiscating them and giving them to the state to run. Governor Davis, welcome to the pantheon of fellow communist confiscators: Mao, Stalin, and Castro.

    1. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Marx and Engels knew that growing food in a collective commune would require some of the very productivity advances brought about by capitalism and the industrial revolution in order to supply anything above a subsistence level. The solution for them was that everyone would work, and agriculture would use industrial techniques. In this analysis, they were correct: agriculture in the 21st century is often referred to as agribusiness. It looks a lot more like steel refining than the picturesque farmer of yore, tilling his fields behind an ox, or the post Great Depression family farmer on his tractor. Hurray for it. Getting food was the daily occupation for most of humanity for as long as we’ve been on this planet. In 1800, it’s estimated that 80% of the American workforce was involved in farming. In 1990, it’s estimated that 3% of the American workforce was involved in farming. 3% of the population provides food for the other 97%, of their own free will, without hoarding, price fixing, or the other bugga-bears of the free market.

The modern form of the industrial army is undeniably the union. Just like an army, unions use force to get their way. Sometimes its physical force, other times political force. I fully support the freedom of and freedom from association. If a group of workers wants to form a club and bargain collectively, so be it. If their employer wants to fire them all together, well, that’s fine too. Naturally, the unions, consisting of the democratic mob, have passed legislation making it legal for them to organize, but illegal for their employer to terminate them. Forward the communist army!

    1. 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.

The original aim of this communist policy seems to be melding the oppressor and oppressed classes: a mass of proletariat concentrated in the city, a countryside of peasant farmers, and a few aristocracy with massive tracts of hereditary land. Notice the reference to “equable distribution” of the populace. This can only be accomplished by land redistribution. The communists saw the distinction between city dwellers, townies, and country folk. They knew the city, filled with factory workers, was their natural base from which to mount an assault on the property rights conscious farmers and aristocratic landowners. While moving people into the countryside seems antithetical to today’s environmental movement, the two are actually after the same goal: reduction of property rights. The greens realize the communist goal by forcing the people out of the country, and into the city and suburbs. Think Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in reverse. Thus, the common thread in these nihilistic, authoritarian political movements is revealed.

  1. 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.

Well, we’ve certainly reached the education camp ideal espoused in the communist manifesto. Instead of universal access to “free” education, we now have universal compulsory indoctrination. Look at the assault on home-schoolers for further proof. I asked a friend of mine who recently graduated with an education degree what she learned in her degree major classes. The response frightened me; she had learned how to control classroom behavior. She told me it usually “takes 3 or 4 years before children are broken in to the idea of a teacher in charge”. She teaches 2nd graders. Stories of public school officials promoting political agendas are legion. Almost universally, that agenda takes its cues from the communist manifesto, and its modern keepers.

Back to point 10 of the Manifesto. The combination of education with industrial production looks exactly like the work to school programs that find such favor with our public education system. The abolition of factory slave labor, and the preservation of third world “habitat” are two verses in the same tribal chant of the neo-communist environmental movement. This is all in the name of preventing the third world country de jour in cahoots with Nike from wrecking the natural habitat of their beautiful swamps and deserts while exploiting the children, of course. The natural consequence that the now unemployed children will have to beg or prostitute themselves to stay fed is ignored by our enlightened watermelon (red with a thin green skin) protestors.


Am I suggesting some massive conspiracy to infiltrate the Democratic (and to a lesser degree the Republican) Party by the International Commune? No. What I am suggesting is that communists gravitate towards political parties that see no wrong in enforcing edicts via state control. I am also suggesting that people with authoritarian tendencies will never come out and directly say that they want to run your life. They’ll tell you to support some piece of legislation in the name of fairness, or the environment, or safety, or the children, or “our” future, or humanitarian intervention, or national security. Those who oppose are branded heartless, or selfish, or sadistic, or cowardly, or stupid, or greedy. The collectivists make the claim to the moral high ground based on the false assumption that they know what’s best for someone else, and how dare you get in the way. The worst part may be the fact that most Americans don’t realize the stated goals of communism, and the means to achieve those goals are at work in our society today. I suppose most people assume the communists will come out and say they want to run your life. No one can be enslaved all at once; no one would volunteer for it. But the incremental approach to control is insidious, and dishonest. It doesn’t speak its name, since detection would render people alert to it, and ready to destroy it. Well, folks, here’s your wakeup call. You will know the authoritarians are attempting to gain control by reading their Manifesto in their own words. It’s plain as day if you take the time to read it.

July 7, 2001

John Keller [send him mail] owns a Technology Consulting and a Real Estate business in Atlanta, GA.

via A Layman’s Look at the Communist Manifesto.

October 24, 2011

Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?


For American lawyers, the answer is simple: “The English had used their own Declaration of Rights to depose James II and these acts were deemed completely lawful and justified,” they say in their summary.

To the British, however, secession isnt the legal or proper tool by which to settle internal disputes. “What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union? Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right,” they argue in their brief.

via BBC News – Is the US Declaration of Independence illegal?.

%d bloggers like this: