slug.com slug.com
3 2

San Francisco Bicycle Coalition says not to call police about stolen bikes because it hurts 'Black and brown' people

The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition wrote about their dedication to anti-racism in 2020 and have held panels on the intersection of race and bicycles and promised to end the systemic bicycle white supremacy.

News Analysis Sep 12, 2022 Source: The Post Millennial 09/12/2022

[thepostmillennial.com]

"It's part of their ideology that their political opponents should be killed."

I spoke with Alex Stein about Antifa's idolization of violence, murder and murderers. Watch the full interview here:

Krunoslav 9 Sep 12
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

"Already in his Swiss exile, which ended in 1917, Lenin began to split the European socialist parties. Now he set up a new, a Third International which he controlled in the same dictatorial manner in which he directed the Russian Bolshevists. For this new party Lenin chose the name Communist Party. The communists were to fight unto death the various European socialist parties, these 'social traitors', and they were to arrange the immediate liquidation of the bourgeoisie and seizure of power by the armed workers. Lenin did not differentiate between socialism and communism as social systems. The goal which he aimed at was not called communism as opposed to socialism. The official name of the soviet government is Union of the Socialist (not the communist) Soviet Republics. In this regard he did not want to alter the traditional terminology which considered the terms as synonymous. He merely called his partisans, the only sincere and consistent supporters of the revolutionary principles of orthodox Marxism, communists and their tactical methods communism because he wanted to distinguish them from the 'treacherous hirelings of the capitalist exploiters', the wicked Social Democratic leaders like Kautsky and Albert Thomas. These traitors were anxious to preserve capitalism. They were not true socialists."

Ludwig von Mises in "Socialism" Epilogue, pg. 549 1953 edition.

I will add some more info to this in order to put it in more context.

What Was the Third International?

In 1919, two years after forming the Soviet government in Russia, Lenin established the headquarters of the Third (Communist) International in Moscow. The Communist International (Comintern for short) is known as the “Third” because two other international socialist organizations of workers had previously been set up. These were the First (Workers&rsquo😉 Inter-national, organized in 1864 by Friedrich Engels, collaborator of Karl Marx, and the Second (Socialist) International, formed in 1889 with headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.

Before it was dissolved in May 1943, the Third International was composed of representatives of communist parties, in over 50 countries. Theoretically, the Russian Communist Party was only one of these 58 communist parties. Actually, however, the Russian Communists played a dominant role in the Third International from the day it was organized. This was partly due to the fact that the Third International had its headquarters in Moscow. But most of all it was because the Russian Communist Party was the only one which, since 1919, had succeeded in establishing and maintaining political control of a country—and this country a great power.

The proclaimed objective of the Third International, as set forth in its. program, was to replace world capitalist economy by a world system of communism—through force and violence if need be.

Changing role of Third International

In the early years of their regime the Soviet leaders used the Third International to promote world revolution (which among other things would give security to revolutionary Russia). There seemed to be hope of communist revolts in other countries, and Russia itself was diplomatically, economically, and militarily weak.

Finally, hope that revolutions would soon break out elsewhere grew dim, and the Soviet government turned its main efforts to the tasks of “building socialism” in Russia. Stalin and his associates thereupon used the Third International to advance their version of communism—or socialism—as opposed to the versions of Trotzky and other dissenting communists.

Later, when the rise of Germany under Hitler began to threaten both communism and Russia, the Kremlin openly used the Third International as an instrument of Russian foreign policy. For several years before 1939 communists everywhere filled the air with demands for a united front against the Nazi-Fascist menace. Many comrades had to scramble when signature of the Stalin-Hitler pact in August 1939 caught them out on a limb. From then until the Ger-man attack in June 1941 called for another flip-flop, the communist line in the Western democracies was to denounce the war as an imperialist scheme. But when Russia itself was invaded by Germany, communists called on all peoples to fight the Germans.

After the Red army had turned back the tide of Nazi con-quest, Russia’s diplomatic and military position was immensely strengthened and the Third International was no longer a useful weapon for the Soviet government. On the contrary, it threatened to become a serious stumbling block to effective collaboration between Russia and the Western powers. Con-sequently it was dissolved in May 1943 by its executive committee, which urged communists everywhere to join in the efforts of their respective nations to crush Germany.

[historians.org]

"Third International, also called Communist International, byname Comintern, association of national communist parties founded in 1919. Though its stated purpose was the promotion of world revolution, the Comintern functioned chiefly as an organ of Soviet control over the international communist movement.

The Comintern emerged from the three-way split in the socialist Second International over the issue of World War I. A majority of socialist parties, comprising the International’s “right” wing, chose to support the war efforts of their respective national governments against enemies that they saw as far more hostile to socialist aims. The “centre” faction of the International decried the nationalism of the right and sought the reunification of the Second International under the banner of world peace. The “left” group, led by Vladimir Lenin, rejected both nationalism and pacifism, urging instead a socialist drive to transform the war of nations into a transnational class war.

In 1915 Lenin proposed the creation of a new International to promote “civil war, not civil peace” through propaganda directed at soldiers and workers. Two years later Lenin led the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia, and in 1919 he called the first congress of the Comintern, in Moscow, specifically to undermine ongoing centrist efforts to revive the Second International. Only 19 delegations and a few non-Russian communists who happened to be in Moscow attended this first congress; but the second, meeting in Moscow in 1920, was attended by delegates from 37 countries. There Lenin established the Twenty-one Points, the conditions of admission to the Communist International. These prerequisites for Comintern membership required all parties to model their structure on disciplined lines in conformity with the Soviet pattern and to expel moderate socialists and pacifists."

[britannica.com]

"Lenin did not differentiate between socialism and communism as social systems. The goal which he aimed at was not called communism as opposed to socialism. The official name of the soviet government is Union of the Socialist (not the communist) Soviet Republics. In this regard he did not want to alter the traditional terminology which considered the terms as synonymous."

I am not sure this is correct. Socialism was seen as a stage before communism. A kind of administrative state , the dictatorship of the preliterate, before reaching the most refined version of socialism called communism. That was according to Marx and Lenin, established Marixst-Leninism doctrine because Marxism as stated in Communist Manifesto was not something that could be practically applied. Lenin added his own ideas and it was called Marxist-Leninism. That was the official doctrine of the Bolsheviks. His Vanguard party

The Leninist Concept of the Revolutionary Vanguard Party

The revolutionary party, based on the Leninist concept of the vanguard party and composed of the class conscious vanguard fighters of the working class, is the sole historical organ of revolutionary consciousness. This conscious strategy and vanguard instrument for the preparation and leadership of the socialist revolutions across the world. Lenin attempetd to establish these Vanguard Parties to teach Marxist-Leninist doctrine and create Socialist Revolution. That is what happned in China for example.

The Russian Revolution of October 1917 meant simultaneously the victory of the Leninist concept of the revolutionary vanguard party and the smashing defeat of the Menshevik theory of the broad “Marxist” party. The Mensheviks held that the working class “spontaneously” develops towards revolutionary consciousness and that therefore the task of Marxists was to organise a party that would reflect this development.

By relying on spontaneous militancy for the development of revolutionary consciousness, the Mensheviks delegated the historical tasks of the revolutionary vanguard onto the spontaneous historical process and inevitably built an opportunist party that eventually betrayed the socialist revolution.

By contrast, Lenin, understanding that revolutionary consciousness did not develop “spontaneously” but had to be constantly fought for, set out to build a vanguard party capable of fighting for the Marxist program and transforming the revolutionary potential of spontaneous militancy into revolutionary consciousness.

The working class develops towards political consciousness through the clash of rival leaderships and the political conflict between parties. Revolutionary consciousness can only develop by means of the dialectic between revolutionary theory and revolutionary practice, (praxis) formulated in the program and developed only by means of the vangard revolutionary party .

The task of the revolutionary party is to win the majority of the working class to the revolutionary banner by means of the fight for the transitional program: that is, to transform the revolutionary potential of spontaneous militancy into revolutionary communism and defeat all middle class misleaderships active in the workers’ movement.

To turn aside from the Leninist theory of the vanguard party to the Menshevik strategy of reliance on spontaneous militancy means in reality to turn aside from the socialist revolution. The working class cannot “spontaneously” develop towards revolutionary consciousness even under the most revolutionary conditions.

Revolutionary consciousness develops only through the fight for the revolutionary party. Revolutionary consciousness will not appear “spontaneously” in a revolutionary situation and the revolutionary party cannot be improvised on the basis of this “spontaneous” consciousness. To base the strategy of the workers’ vanguard on this assumption in the 1990’s is criminal abstentionism. The socialist revolution is only made possible when the revolutionary party prepares the revolution: that is, when the preparatory period is used for the formation a Leninist vanguard party.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin writes: “The goal of Socialism is Communism.

When the workers of a single factory or of a single branch of industry engage in struggle against their employer or employers, is this class struggle? No, this is only a weak embryo of it. The struggle of the workers becomes a class struggle only when all the foremost representatives of the entire working class of the whole country are conscious of themselves as a single working class and launch a struggle that is directed, not against individual employers, but against the entire class of capitalists and against the government that supports that class. Only when the individual worker realizes that he is a member of the entire working class, only when he recognises the fact that his petty day-to-day struggle against individual employers and individual government officials is a struggle against the entire bourgeoisie and the entire government, does his struggle become a class struggle.

We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance almost constantly under their fire. We have combined, by a freely adopted decision, for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not of retreating into the neighbouring marsh, the inhabitants of which, from the very outset, have reproached us with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and with having chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of conciliation. And now some among us begin to cry out: Let us go into the marsh!

And when we begin to shame them, they retort: What backward people you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the liberty to invite you to take a better road! Oh, yes, gentlemen! You are free not only to invite us, but to go yourselves wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think that the marsh is your proper place, and we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there. Only let go of our hands, don't clutch at us and don't besmirch the grand word freedom, for we too are "free" to go where we please, free to fight not only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning towards the marsh!

The task of a truly revolutionary party is not to declare that it is impossible to renounce all compromises, but to be able, through all compromises, when they are unavoidable, to remain true to its principles, to its class, to its revolutionary purpose, to its task of paving the way for revolution and educating the mass of the people for victory in the revolution.

Capitalism in its imperialist stage leads directly to the most comprehensive socialisation of production; it, so to speak, drags the capitalists, against their will and consciousness, into some sort of a new social order, a transitional one from complete free competition to complete socialisation. Production becomes social, but appropriation remains private. The social means of production remain the private property of a few. The general framework of formally recognised free competition remains, and the yoke of a few monopolists on the rest of the population becomes a hundred times heavier, more burdensome and intolerable.

An oppressed class which does not strive to learn to use arms, to acquire arms, only deserves to be treated like slaves. We cannot, unless we have become bourgeois pacifists or opportunists, forget that we are living in a class society from which there is no way out, nor can there be, save through the class struggle. In every class society, whether based on slavery, serfdom, or, as at present, wage-labor, the oppressor class is always armed. Not only the modern standing army, but even the modern militia - and even in the most democratic bourgeois republics, Switzerland, for instance - represent the bourgeoisie armed against the proletariat. That is such an elementary truth that it is hardly necessary to dwell upon it. Suffice it to point to the use of troops against strikers in all capitalist countries.

A bourgeoisie armed against the proletariat is one of the biggest fundamental and cardinal facts of modern capitalist society. And in face of this fact, revolutionary Social-Democrats are urged to “demand” “disarmament”! That is tantamount of complete abandonment of the class-struggle point of view, to renunciation of all thought of revolution. Our slogan must be: arming of the proletariat to defeat, expropriate and disarm the bourgeoisie. These are the only tactics possible for a revolutionary class, tactics that follow logically from, and are dictated by, the whole objective development of capitalist militarism. Only after the proletariat has disarmed the bourgeoisie will it be able, without betraying its world-historic mission, to consign all armaments to the scrap-heap. And the proletariat will undoubtedly do this, but only when this condition has been fulfilled, certainly not before.

We ourselves, the workers, will organize large-scale production on the basis of what capitalism has already created; we shall rely on our own experience as workers, we shall establish strict, iron discipline supported by the state power of the armed workers, we shall reduce the role of the state officials to that of simply carrying out our instructions as responsible, revocable, moderately paid "managers" (of course, with the aid of technicians of all sorts, types and degrees). This is our proletarian task, this is what we can and must start with in carrying out the proletarian revolution. Such a beginning, on the basis of large-scale production, will of itself lead to the gradual "withering away" of all bureaucracy, to the gradual creation of an order, order without quotation marks, which will be different from wage-slavery, an order in which the functions of control and accounting—becoming more and more simple—will be performed by each in turn, will then become a habit and will finally die out as the special functions of a special stratum of the population.

Complete self-government for the province [gubernia and region], district and community through bureaucrats elected by universal suffrage; the abolition of all local and provincial authorities appointed by the state.

What a waste that we lost Mussolini. He is a first-rate man who would have led our party to power in Italy. [Addressing to a delegation of Italian socialists in Moscow after Mussolini's March on Rome in 1922]

― Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Lenin was educated and articulate, but: “We are all susceptible to the pull of viral ideas. Like mass hysteria. Or a tune that gets into your head that you keep humming all day until you spread it to someone else. Jokes. Urban legends. Crackpot religions. Marxism. No matter how smart we get, there is always this deep irrational part that makes us potential hosts for self-replicating information.” ― Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash

“In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.” ― Leon Trotsky

“The difference between communism and socialism is that under socialism central planning ends with a gun in your face, whereas under communism central planning begins with a gun in your face.” ― Kevin D. Williamson, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism

“When the Bolsheviks came to power they were soft and easy with their enemies . . . we had begun by making a mistake. Leniency towards such a power was a crime against the working classes. That soon became apparent ...

When there's a person, there's a problem.
When there's no person, there's no problem.
Death is the solution to all problems.
No man - no problem.
A single death is a tragedy;
a million deaths is a statistic.

You cannot make a revolution...
with silk gloves.

― Joseph Stalin

Social democracy, political ideology that originally advocated a peaceful evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. In the second half of the 20th century, there emerged a more moderate version of the doctrine, which generally espoused state regulation, rather than state ownership, of the means of production and extensive social welfare programs. Based on 19th-century socialism and the tenets of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, social democracy shares common ideological roots with communism but eschews its militancy and totalitarianism. Social democracy was originally known as revisionism because it represented a change in basic Marxist doctrine, primarily in the former’s repudiation of the use of revolution to establish a socialist society.

Socialist come in many forms, those that tried to achieve change by peaceful slow reforms, Marx called them "Utopian Socialists" , trying to mock them and elevate his brand of socialism that uses revolution to overthrow "capitalist" rule. He asserted that his way is scientific, so he try to give himself legitimacy by calling his brand of socialism "scientific socialism".

In economics Keynesian economics , also Keynesianism and Keynesian Theory, is based on the ideas of twentieth-century British economist John Maynard Keynes. According to Keynesian economics the public sector, or the state, can stimulate economic growth and improve stability in the private sector—through, for example, interest rates, taxation, and public projects.

Something we have now in most of western society, or actually we have even worse version of neo Keynesianism or modern monetary theory.

Keynes made his mark in history—as Marx made his. But while Marx wanted to destroy capitalism, Keynes wanted merely to reform it. Both wanted to enlist, and really to unleash, the power of the state, although where Marx spoke of "the liquidation of the capitalists" Keynes spoke of the "liquidation of the rentiers" (Peterson 1959).

Marx wanted total socialism, an eventually communism, or, as he himself called it, "scientific socialism." Keynes wanted some "socialization of demand," and "a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment." Clearly, Keynes was no friend of laissez faire capitalism:

But unlike Marx he was not calling or predicting for revolution.

is that all the warring sects believe, who claim to be the faithful. From the gospels you cannot deduce the history of Christianity, nor from the Constitution the political history of America. It is Das Kapital as conceived, the gospels as preached and the preachment as understood, the Constitution as interpreted and administered, to which you have to go.” ― Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion

“Hence a communist society would have a new ethical basis. It has been claimed – by Lenin among others – that Marxism is a scientific system, free from any ethical judgements or postulates. These are the essential points of ‘the first Marxism’. It is manifestly not a scientific enterprise in the sense in which we understand science today. Its theories are not derived from detailed factual studies, or subjected to controlled tests or observations.” ― Anonymous

"That Marxism is not a science is entirely clear to intelligent people in the Soviet Union. One would even feel awkward to refer to it as a science. Leaving aside the exact sciences, such as physics, mathematics, and the natural sciences, even the social sciences can predict an event—when, in what way and how an event might occur. Communism has never made any such forecasts. It has never said where, when, and precisely what is going to happen. Nothing but declamations. Rhetoric to the effect that the world proletariat will overthrow the world bourgeoisie and the most happy and radiant society will then arise.” ― Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Warning to the West

By the time Lenin showed up on the scene there were few problems. Marx never said when the revolution would happen, he simply said that working class will become aware of their situation and they will than transformed into proliferate class. Enlightened working class. And they will eventually overthrow bourgeoisie class and sleaze the means of production via violent revolution. Eventually they would not need the state anymore and they would all be equal in utopian society, called communism. The state would resolve and would end up as large prehistoric communist primitive society with willing cooperation and no competition or coercion.

In the Communist Manifesto (1848), Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels defined communists as “the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others.” This conception was fundamental to Leninist thought. Lenin saw the Communist Party as a highly committed intellectual elite who (1) had a scientific understanding of history and society in the light of Marxist principles, (2) were committed to ending capitalism and instituting socialism in its place, (3) were bent on forcing through this transition after having achieved political power, and (4) were committed to attaining this power by any means possible, including violence and revolution if necessary. Lenin’s emphasis upon action by a small, deeply committed group stemmed both from the need for efficiency and discretion in the revolutionary movement and from an authoritarian bent that was present in all of his political thought. The authoritarian aspect of Leninism appeared also in its insistence upon the need for a “proletarian dictatorship” following the seizure of power, a dictatorship that in practice was exercised not by the workers but by the leaders of the Communist Party.

So communist party is those that aspire to communism. Socialist states are states that are not yet reached the utopia called communism. Analogy, might be Christians who have not yet reached Heaven at the end of days.

@Krunoslav

I am not sure this is correct. Socialism was seen as a stage before communism.

That is correct. Socialism was always the goal. Communism was only a term to differentiate between Marxism, its revolutionary method and tactics and other brands of socialism that were not committed to the cause of socialism.

Communism, as shaped by Karl Marx (German 1818 – 1883), is defined as the abolition of private property and a market seeking profit with a new system of collective control of the means of production and resources that is perfect to the point of resulting in perfect society where inequality and poverty and racism is abolished.

During the decade of the 1840s the word "communist" came into general use to describe those who hailed the left wing of the Jacobin Club of the French Revolution as their ideological forefathers. This political tendency saw itself as egalitarian inheritors of the 1795 Conspiracy of Equals headed by Gracchus Babeuf. The sans-culottes of Paris which had decades earlier been the base of support for Babeuf — artisans, journeymen, and the urban unemployed — was seen as a potential foundation for a new social system based upon the modern machine production of the day.

The French thinker Étienne Cabet inspired the imagination with a novel about a utopian society based upon communal machine production, Voyage en Icarie (1839). The revolutionary Louis Auguste Blanqui argued in favor of an elite organising the overwhelming majority of the population against the "rich," seizing the government in a coup d'état, and instituting a new egalitarian economic order.
One group of Germans in Paris, headed by Karl Schapper, organised themselves in the form of a secret society known as the League of the Just (Bund der Gerechten) and participated in a May 1839 rebellion in Paris in an effort to establish a "Social Republic." Following its failure the organisation relocated its centre to London, while also maintaining local organisations in Zürich and Paris.

Revolution was in the air across many of the monarchies of Europe.

The Communist Manifesto, originally the Manifesto of the Communist Party (German: Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei), is an 1848 pamphlet by German ideologues; Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Commissioned by the Communist League and originally published in London just as the Revolutions of 1848 began to erupt, the Manifesto was later recognised as one of the world's most influential political documents. It presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and then-present) and the conflicts of capitalism and the capitalist mode of production, rather than a prediction of communism's potential future forms.

Marxist theory was developed in the 1800s by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The Marxist ideology includes a philosophy of man, a political and economic program, and a theory of history. Marx's ideas were changed and altered after his death to suit the needs of those subscribing to them, and were changed further to accommodate communism as practiced by Vladimir Lenin in the Soviet Union in the beginning of the twentieth century. The hybrid created by Lenin is commonly called Marxism–Leninism, communism, or socialism, depending on the source. Marxism is a special brand of communism, specific to the time of Karl Marx. It was instrumental in forming the ideology of modern communism as well.

Marx's philosophy of man is that humanity is defined by its ability to meet its needs. It does this by laboring on natural materials. Man does this labor for the species as well as for himself. Marx explained that all human creations, including houses, governments, food, and art, combine to create the human world which is made from the productivity of man. He argued that the entire species should benefit from this production, rather than just the producers. .

Marx and Engels wrote and published The Communist Manifesto in 1848. It explains the class struggles and the historical problem between the exploiters and the exploited. Their ideas were novel in that they felt history was fueled by the changes in means of production, where other historians had written only of battles, treaties, inventions, and discoveries.

CHRONOLOGY

1818: Karl Marx is born.
1848: Marx and Engels complete The Communist Manifesto.
1867: The first edition of Karl Marx's Das Kapital is published
1883: Karl Marx dies.
1889: The Second International is founded.
1902: Lenin publishes What Is to Be Done?
1917: Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, gain control in Russia.
1919: Founding of the Third International.
1922: Stalin becomes the Communist Party's general secretary.
1924: Lenin dies; Stalin takes control of Russia.

The Marxist doctrine was refined and changed, especially after Marx's death. Engels changed the revolutionary propaganda into a more peaceful patience and a quiet confidence of the evolutionary victory of a classless society. Under Vladimir Lenin, Marxism became more removed from the proletariat. According to Lenin, the workers could not organize their own revolt and needed leaders to plan and lead the revolution. Lenin also felt that revolution could and should occur in non–industrialized and non–capitalist nations. Lenin's version of Marxism is commonly referred to as Marxism–Leninism. Joseph Stalin further altered Marxism to fit his vision, and so did others, like Mao in China, sometimes called Maoism.

Communism and Terminology

The term communism only became common in the 1840s. Even after that, the word communist—in the sense of emphasizing community and common control—was applied to other kinds of social projects, like experimental communities or communes.

An Evolving Tradition

Communism featured both continuity and change. Additionally, once in power, communist regimes revealed internal contradictions, which stressed their systems. When it comes to communism, five contradictions in particular are notable.

1 - The first has to do with the role of the individual in history. Marx presented a powerful vision of history being made by masses of people. By contrast, individuals played less of a role. However, with communism, it is the case that decisive leaders loom up again and again, starting with Marx himself.

2 - The second contradiction involved geography. Although communism was meant to be global, Marx expected it to evolve first in the most industrially advanced countries. Thus, in the imagination of communists, the real prize was Germany—a leading industrial power. However, against expectations, communism’s greatest influence came in less developed countries, beginning with Lenin’s rise to power in Russia.

3 - A third problem was that communism never entirely settled its relationship to nationalism. Predating communism, nationalism as an ideology was another powerful model of community and an idea about belonging. Marx deplored nationalism; however, communist regimes tried to co-opt nationalist sentiment to use it to reinforce their power. This saw mixed and sometimes contradictory results.

4 - A fourth contradiction was the way in which the communist project turned into a tradition, even when it promised radical breaks with the past. Communism became a tradition full of historical echoes, venerable precedents, time-honored rituals, and original texts that held nearly sacred status.

5 - Finally, a fifth contradiction appeared that had everything to do with commitment to communism as a faith. While it promised scientific certainty and discarded religious dogma, communism also drew on and mobilized faith or even fanaticism. This occurred to the point that many observers have called communism a political religion.

  • The Rise of Communism From Marx to Lenin by Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius

@FrankZeleniuk "Socialism was always the goal. Communism was only a term to differentiate between Marxism, its revolutionary method and tactics and other brands of socialism that were not committed to the cause of socialism."

No. Communism was the goal of Marxism. Marx advocated for communism as the end goal. Marxism was term given originally after the Paris Commune.

Commune of Paris, 1871 was insurrection of Paris against the French government from March 18 to May 28, 1871. It occurred in the wake of France’s defeat in the Franco-German War and the collapse of Napoleon III’s Second Empire (1852–70).

The National Assembly, which was elected in February 1871 to conclude a peace with Germany, had a royalist majority, reflecting the conservative attitude of the provinces. The republican Parisians feared that the National Assembly meeting in Versailles would restore the monarchy.

To ensure order in Paris, Adolphe Thiers, executive head of the provisional national government, decided to disarm the National Guard (composed largely of workers who fought during the siege of Paris). On March 18 resistance broke out in Paris in response to an attempt to remove the cannons of the guard overlooking the city. Then, on March 26, municipal elections, organized by the central committee of the guard, resulted in victory for the revolutionaries, who formed the Commune government.

With the quick suppression of communes that arose at Lyon, Saint-Étienne, Marseille, and Toulouse, the Commune of Paris alone faced the opposition of the Versailles government. But the Fédérés, as the insurgents were called, were unable to organize themselves militarily and take the offensive, and, on May 21, government troops entered an undefended section of Paris. During la semaine sanglante, or “bloody week,” that followed, the regular troops crushed the opposition of the Communards, who in their defense set up barricades in the streets and burned public buildings (among them the Tuileries Palace and the City Hall [Hôtel de Ville]). About 20,000 insurrectionists were killed, along with about 750 government troops. In the aftermath of the Commune, the government took harsh repressive action: about 38,000 were arrested and more than 7,000 were deported.

During this period of Paris Commune, some journalist somehow connected writing of Karl Marx with the Commune. Even though they were not connected, it made the connection and journalist dubbed the term Marxism.

Later after the death of Karl Marx, Lenin and others took his writings and in his honor it was called Marxst Lenininm. Some call it marxism and some leninism for short. But officially it was reffered to as Marxist Leninism. Marx fundation with Leninist revisions.

The definition of social-ism is: the government controls the means of production.

Tehre were various version of term socialism, some wanted change by reforms others by revolution. Marx called his version of socialism "scientific socialism" and he called others "utopian socialism"

Commun- ism: the government owns the means of production, and the government is supposedly the people.

Socialism - Public rather than private, ownership of control of property

Communism - Meant to signify a higher, or full form, of socialism.

Marxism was originally terms given to Paris commune period by a journalist and later, even to this day it is usually term used to describe Marxist inspired versions of similar movements or so called Classical Marxism, original Marx version, mainly as written in Communist Manifesto and other writings.

Communist Manifesto Excerpt

It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself.

To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto...

...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths.

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois (middle-upper class/owner of property) family, based? On capital, on private gain.

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got.
“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..."
The proletariat (lower worker class) will use its political supremacy to wrest (remove), by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State...
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic (authoritarian) inroads (attacks) on the rights of property...
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

  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. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank...

  6. Centralisation 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 liability (responsibility) 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 labour in its present form.

@Krunoslav

No. Communism was the goal of Marxism. Marx advocated for communism as the end goal. Marxism was term given originally after the Paris Commune.

Agreed. Communism was supposedly, as you note, "scientific" socialism. It therefore was the superior form of socialism, all other forms were inferior. Lenin said that socialism in its final stage would wind up being called communism.

@FrankZeleniuk Yes. Exactly. That's it.

Because communism was never reached, after all it is utopia, utopia meaning no place, its impossible. Some who want to believe in it, still would make common argument. But real socialism was never tried. Implying that if only we can try it again and perfect it , we would reach communism stage. Hence the attempt to reach it remains a mission of many even today,

@FrankZeleniuk

nomenklatura - we are all equal, but some are more equal than others.

“No society has succeeded in abolishing the distinction between ruler and ruled... to be a ruler gives one special status and, usually, special privileges. During the Communist era, important officials in the Soviet Union had access to special shops selling delicacies unavailable to ordinary citizens; before China allowed capitalist enterprises in its economy, travelling by car was a luxury limited to tourists and those high in the party hierarchy Throughout the 'communist' nations, the abolition of the old ruling class was followed by the rise of a new class of party bosses and well-placed bureaucrats, whose behaviour and life-style came more and more to resemble that of their much-denounced predecessors. In the end, nobody believed in the system any more. That, couple with its inability to match the productivity of the less bureaucratically controlled, more egoistically driven capitalist economies, led to its downfall.” ― Peter Singer, Marx: A Very Short Introduction

The political inequalities that characterized Soviet-type societies during their heyday are well documented in the literature. Many studies have shown, for example, that Communist Party functionaries and the so-called nomenklatura elite enjoyed definite social, political, and economic advantages: They attended party schools, shopped at special stores, vacationed at the most desirable holiday resorts, and had better access to decisionmaking posts (Szelényi 1987). In addition to those privileges, they were more likely to receive state-subsidized housing, purchase a car or vacation home, eat meat several times a week, and participate in cultural activities.

Such differences in the allocation of goods and resources have led many to conclude that the political sphere was central to the stratification system of socialist societies (Goldthorpe 1966; Bauman 1974). Indeed, some scholars have suggested that the political elite may well have constituted a New (dominant) Class in socialist regimes (Djilas 1957; Konrád and Szelényi 1979).

The nomenklatura (Russian: номенклату́ра, IPA: [nəmʲɪnklɐˈturə] (listen); from Latin: nomenclatura) were a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in the bureaucracy, running all spheres of those countries' activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc., whose positions were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region.

Virtually all members of the nomenklatura were members of a communist party. Critics of Stalin, such as Milovan Đilas, critically defined them as a "new class". Richard Pipes, a Harvard historian, claimed that the nomenklatura system mainly reflected a continuation of the old Tsarist regime, as many former Tsarist officials or "careerists" joined the Bolshevik government during and after the Russian Civil War of 1917–1922.

The nomenklatura formed a de facto elite of public powers in the former Eastern Bloc; one may compare them to the Western establishment holding or controlling both private and public powers (for example, in media, finance, trade, industry, the state and institutions).

Individuals with a nomenklatura background have continued to dominate economic and political life in Russia since the end of the Cold War. According to one 2022 estimate, 60% of elites in the Vladimir Putin regime had nomenklatura backgrounds.

"A clinical dissection of the Soviet system, in which a group of managers and bureaucrats (some 1.5 percent of the population) are engaged in ceaseless political maneuvering among themselves while maintaining total power, as a privileged class, over all the others. The author, who left the Soviet Union in 1977, follows his argument to its logical conclusion: the impossibility of basic change, either toward liberalization of the internal order or toward modification of an aggressive foreign policy. This study of Soviet experience since Lenin evokes Milovan Djilas's analysis of the "new class" published some 30 years ago; appropriately, Djilas contributes a brief preface to the book."

  • Nomenklatura: The Soviet Ruling Class By Michael Voslensky, Doubleday, 1984, 455 pp, Reviewed by John C. Campbell - Winter 1984/85

The Russian term is derived from the Latin nomenclatura, meaning a system of names.

The term was popularized in the West by the Soviet dissident Michael Voslenski, who in 1970 wrote a book titled Nomenklatura: The Soviet Ruling Class (Russian: Номенклату́ра. Госпо́дствующий класс Сове́тского Сою́за, tr. Nomenklatúra. Gospódstvuyushchiy klass Sovétskovo Soyúza).

The nomenklatura referred to the Communist Party's governance to make appointments to key positions throughout the governmental system, as well as throughout the party's own hierarchy. Specifically, the nomenklatura consisted of two separate lists: one was for key positions, appointments to which were made by authorities within the party; the other was for persons who were potential candidates for appointment to those positions. The Politburo, as part of its nomenklatura authority, maintained a list of ministerial and ambassadorial positions that it had the power to fill, as well as a separate list of potential candidates to occupy those positions.

Coextensive with the nomenklatura were patron-client relations. Officials who had the authority to appoint individuals to certain positions cultivated loyalties among those whom they appointed. The patron (the official making the appointment) promoted the interests of clients in return for their support. Powerful patrons, such as the members of the Politburo, had many clients. Moreover, an official could be both a client (in relation to a higher-level patron) and a patron (to other, lower-level officials).

Because a client was beholden to his patron for his position, the client was eager to please his patron by carrying out his policies. The Soviet power structure essentially consisted (according to its critics) of groups of vassals (clients) who had an overlord (the patron). The higher the patron, the more clients the patron had. Patrons protected their clients and tried to promote their careers. In return for the patron's efforts to promote their careers, the clients remained loyal to their patron. Thus, by promoting his clients' careers, the patron could advance his own power.

@FrankZeleniuk Party's appointment authority

The nomenklatura system arose early in Soviet history. Vladimir Lenin wrote that appointments were to take the following criteria into account: reliability, political attitude, qualifications, and administrative ability. Joseph Stalin, who was the first general secretary of the party, was also known as "Comrade File Cabinet" (Tovarishch Kartotekov) for his assiduous attention to the details of the party's appointments. Seeking to make appointments in a more systematic fashion, Stalin built the party's patronage system and used it to distribute his clients throughout the party bureaucracy.
Under Stalin's direction in 1922, the party created departments of the Central Committee and other organs at lower levels that were responsible for the registration and appointment of party officials. Known as uchraspred, these organs supervised appointments to important party posts. According to American sovietologist Seweryn Bialer, after Leonid Brezhnev's accession to power in October 1964, the party considerably expanded its appointment authority. However, in the late 1980s, some official statements indicated that the party intended to reduce its appointment authority, particularly in the area of economic management, in line with Mikhail Gorbachev's reform efforts.

At the all-union level, the Party Building and Cadre Work Department supervised party nomenklatura appointments. This department maintained records on party members throughout the country, made appointments to positions on the all-union level, and approved nomenklatura appointments on the lower levels of the hierarchy. The head of this department sometimes was a member of the Secretariat and was often a protégé of the general secretary.
Every party committee and party organizational department, from the all-union level in Moscow to the district and city levels, prepared two lists according to their needs. The basic (osnovnoi) list detailed positions in the political, administrative, economic, military, cultural, and educational bureaucracies that the committee and its department had responsibility for filling. The registered (uchetnyi) list enumerated the persons suitable for these positions.Patron–client relations

An official in the party or government bureaucracy could not advance in the nomenklatura without the assistance of a patron. In return for this assistance in promoting his career, the client carried out the policies of the patron. Patron–client relations thus help to explain the ability of party leaders to generate widespread support for their policies. The presence of patron–client relations between party officials and officials in other bureaucracies also helped to account for the large-scale control the party exercised over the Soviet society. All of the 2 million members of the nomenklatura system understood that they held their positions only as a result of a favor bestowed on them by a superior official in the party and that they could easily be replaced if they manifested disloyalty to their patron. Self-interest dictated that members of the nomenklatura submit to the control of their patrons in the party.

Clients sometimes could attempt to supplant their patron. For example, Nikita Khrushchev, one of Lazar M. Kaganovich's former protégés, helped to oust the latter in 1957. Seven years later, Leonid Brezhnev, a client of Khrushchev, helped to remove his boss from power. The power of the general secretary was consolidated to the extent that he placed his clients in positions of power and influence. The ideal for the general secretary, writes Soviet émigré observer Michael Voslensky, "is to be overlord of vassals selected by oneself."

Several factors explain the entrenchment of patron–client relations. Firstly, in a centralized government system, promotion in the bureaucratic-political hierarchy was the only path to power. Secondly, the most important criterion for promotion in this hierarchy was approval from one's supervisors, who evaluated their subordinates on the basis of political criteria and their ability to contribute to the fulfillment of the economic plan. Thirdly, political rivalries were present at all levels of the party and state bureaucracies but were especially prevalent at the top. Power and influence decided the outcomes of these struggles, and the number and positions of one's clients were critical components of that power and influence. Fourthly, because fulfillment of the economic plan was decisive, systemic pressures led officials to conspire together and use their ties to achieve that goal.

The faction led by Brezhnev provides a good case study of patron–client relations in the Soviet system. Many members of the Brezhnev faction came from Dnipropetrovsk, where Brezhnev had served as first secretary of the provincial party organization. Andrei P. Kirilenko, a Politburo member and Central Committee secretary under Brezhnev, was first secretary of the regional committee of Dnipropetrovsk. Volodymyr Shcherbytsky, named as first secretary of the Ukrainian apparatus under Brezhnev, succeeded Kirilenko in that position. Nikolai Alexandrovich Tikhonov, appointed by Brezhnev as first deputy chairman of the Soviet Union's Council of Ministers, graduated from the Dnipropetrovsk Metallurgical Institute, and presided over the economic council of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. Finally, Nikolai Shchelokov, minister of internal affairs under Brezhnev, was a former chairman of the Dnipropetrovsk soviet.

Patron–client relations had implications for policy making in the party and government bureaucracies. Promotion of trusted subordinates into influential positions facilitated policy formation and policy execution. A network of clients helped to ensure that a patron's policies could be carried out. In addition, patrons relied on their clients to provide an accurate flow of information on events throughout the country. This information assisted policymakers in ensuring that their programs were being implemented

The New Class

Milovan Đilas, a critic of Stalin, wrote of the nomenklatura as the "new class" in his book The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System, and he claimed that it was seen by ordinary citizens as a bureaucratic elite that enjoyed special privileges and had supplanted the earlier wealthy capitalist élites.

NOMENKLATURA"

The term nomenklatura was often used in the USSR throughout the Stalin and post-Stalin periods to designate members of Soviet officialdom. The term was not generally known in the West until the 1960s. Members of the nomenklatura included Communist Party officials (particularly Party secretaries at any level of the Party organization), government officials, and senior officers in the Soviet armed forces who were Party members. Almost all members were, in fact, Communist Party members. At a minimum, the Party controlled access to nomenklatura jobs. Most often the term was used to describe full-time professional Party officials, also known as apparatchiki, since mere rank-and-file Party members did not hold important executive posts.

No definite tally of the number of the nomenklatura was ever published officially. But Russian and Western scholars generally agree that their numbers exceeded 500,000. Yet the entire membership of the Communist Party amounted on average to only about 7 percent of the Soviet population.

Wherever they served throughout the multinational Soviet Union, most of the nomenklatura were Russians, Ukrainians, or Belorussians. Almost always, native nomenklatura members posted in any of the non-Slavic Republics among the fifteen constituent republics of the USSR were supervised ultimately by ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, or Belorussians."

An apparatchik (/ˌæpəˈrættʃɪk/; Russian: аппара́тчик [ɐpɐˈrat͡ɕːɪk]) was a full-time, professional functionary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union or the Soviet government apparat (аппарат, apparatus), someone who held any position of bureaucratic or political responsibility, with the exception of the higher ranks of management called nomenklatura. James Billington describes an apparatchik as "a man not of grand plans, but of a hundred carefully executed details." The term is often considered derogatory, with negative connotations in terms of the quality, competence, and attitude of a person thus described.

Members of the apparat (apparatchiks or apparatchiki) were frequently transferred between different areas of responsibility, usually with little or no actual training for their new areas of responsibility. Thus, the term apparatchik, or "agent of the apparatus" was usually the best possible description of the person's profession and occupation. Not all apparatchiks held lifelong positions. Many only entered such positions in middle age. They were known to receive various benefits including free holiday vouchers, free meals and accommodation. Today apparatchik is also used in contexts other than that of the Soviet Union or communist countries. According to Collins English Dictionary the word can mean "an official or bureaucrat in any organization". According to Douglas Harper's Online Etymology Dictionary, the term was also used in the meaning "Communist agent or spy", originating in the writings of Arthur Koestler, c. 1941.

Labour and social benefits

Soviet law recognized three distinct categories of employees: workers for state enterprises, employees of collective farms, and inmates in labour camps.

Under the Labour Codes, employees at state enterprises enjoyed protection against arbitrary discipline or discharge. Except during and immediately after World War II, state-enterprise employees also had the right to change jobs. Restrictions on residence permits, however, made it difficult for workers to move to major urban centres in search of employment. Employees in state enterprises were represented by weak, party-controlled “pseudounions,” and there was no legally recognized right to strike. Peasants on collective farms were long denied the identity documents they needed for moving to urban areas, were not protected by the labour code, and did not possess (until 1965) even the legal right to representation by pseudounions. The peasants thus reverted to a legal position akin to the serfdom that had existed in Russia until the mid-19th century. Labour-camp inmates, who numbered in the millions, had essentially no enforceable legal rights.

Under Soviet law, status, rather than wealth or cash income, determined living standards. A large proportion of most Soviet citizens’ real income consisted of benefits directly allocated by the state. Secret laws and regulations provided for lavish benefits for the nomenklatura—the ruling elite at the national and local level. These persons received comfortable apartments, the use of state vacation facilities, automobiles with drivers, medical care at secret high-quality clinics, preferred admission of family members to universities, access to generally unavailable food and consumer goods at low prices, possibilities for travel abroad, and generous retirement pensions. However, they could lose these privileges at any time if they were suspected of disloyalty to the regime.

Ordinary urban residents received housing from the state, but it was of lower quality and often required many years on waiting lists; they received free medical care, but it was of inferior quality; their children could receive free higher education, but only by performing well on entrance examinations or by bribing examiners; and their pensions were at a subsistence level. Collective-farm workers received free medical care but for most of the Soviet period had no right to state pensions. Labour-camp inmates often died of starvation or disease; at most they received what was necessary to keep them healthy enough to enable the camps to meet the production quotas assigned under the national economic plan.

[britannica.com]

1

"You just have to flood a country's public square with enough raw sewage, you just have to raise enough questions,enough dirt, plant enough conspiracy theorizing, that citizens no longer know what to believe. Once they lose trust in their leaders, the mainstream media and political institutions, in each other, in the possibility of truth - the game's won." - Barack Obama April 2022

Does Andy Ngo fear for his life or not?

If Antifa were correct in their position they would simply ignore him. Unfortunately, they are violent.

"Already in his Swiss exile, which ended in 1917, Lenin began to split the European socialist parties. Now he set up a new, a Third International which he controlled in the same dictatorial manner in which he directed the Russian Bolshevists. For this new party Lenin chose the name Communist Party. The communists were to fight unto death the various European socialist parties, these 'social traitors', and they were to arrange the immediate liquidation of the bourgeoisie and seizure of power by the armed workers. Lenin did not differentiate between socialism and communism as social systems. The goal which he aimed at was not called communism as opposed to socialism. The official name of the soviet government is Union of the Socialist (not the communist) Soviet Republics. In this regard he did not want to alter the traditional terminology which considered the terms as synonymous. He merely called his partisans, the only sincere and consistent supporters of the revolutionary principles of orthodox Marxism, communists and their tactical methods communism because he wanted to distinguish them from the 'treacherous hirelings of the capitalist exploiters', the wicked Social Democratic leaders like Kautsky and Albert Thomas. These traitors were anxious to preserve capitalism. They were not true socialists."

Ludwig von Mises in "Socialism" Epilogue, pg. 549 1953 edition.

Antifa are basically communists destroying the bourgeoisie, an arm of the socialist Democrats who will, if things go as planned, eventually turn on them.

@FrankZeleniuk don't leave out the beginning and end of the full quote! It might make you seem disingenuous...

"And of course, autocrats like Putin have used these [social media] platforms as a strategic weapon against democratic countries that they consider a threat. People like Putin and Steve Bannon, for that matter, understand it’s not necessary for people to believe this information in order to weaken democratic institutions. You just have to flood a country’s public square... ...the game’s won. And as Putin discovered leading up to the 2016 election, our own social media platforms are well designed to support such a mission, such a project."

Spoken during a symposium titled “Challenges to Democracy in the Digital Information Realm".

You know, as in speaking about terrible ways people use disinformation to peddle conspiracy theories to subvert democracy... sort of like QAnon, or Trump's "big lie", or things Andy Ngo does. As in decrying it and warning people about it? Not, as you might be trying to imply here, as a revelation of his strategy.

@JacksonNought Sounds like Barack knows how to win the game.

Does Steve Bannon know what the game is? I'm sure Putin does as he watches form the sidelines and sees America being "fundamentally transformed". He knows those old soviet tactics. Where is the raw sewage coming from? Who in America is calling for its "fundamental transformation". Who has to break down the extant societal structure to introduce the communist agenda?

It is rather idiotic to think that there is a conservative agenda to want to break down American democracy.

Do you feel marginalized in American society? In actuality, you will be marginalized in any society if you are allowed to even exist. America has left a place for you. Be happy and quit trying to destroy your only chance of living your lifestyle.

@FrankZeleniuk pretty sure Bannon knows and frequently contributes to the game. Hell he profits off of it, scamming Trump supporters into funneling money into his pockets with the phony premise of building a wall. He also peddles the "big lie" which is probably the biggest pit of sewage around.

I think it is rather idiotic to say that the people, like Trump and Tucker, and the lovely Conservatives in the picture below, who praise Putin every chance they get, and put Putin over their own country, and tried to overthrow the government, are the ones trying to preserve American democracy.

Hmm, just look at recent posts on this site, trying to claim that Biden's new deputy coordinator for the Monkeypox outbreak is a Satanist, and trying to run him out of town because of it. As a Satanist, yeah, you and your fellow Conservatives do make it feel marginalizing, way more than any Democrat or Progressive ever has. Trust me, it isn't the Left who will try to murder me for my religion, that'd be your camp.

@JacksonNought

Trust me, it isn't the Left who will try to murder me for my religion, that'd be your camp.

It isn't 1822, my friend. It's 2022. Only the socialists are adamant about their power and control and willing to go to those extremes. Granted, I'm sure you can find there are some psychopaths and label them right wing that need supervising. But as long as the police are funded you should have no worries.

@FrankZeleniuk the police don't have any obligation to protect people, as confirmed by the supreme court. An officer can watch you get murdered and not lift a finger - just look at Uvalde.

You are either willfully ignorant or lying. You know it's the Right trying to run non-Christians out of town. Prove me wrong, go comment and refute the nutjob complaining about Satanism from a few hours ago.

@JacksonNought Can people not complain about Satanism? Is he in danger?

@FrankZeleniuk considering the QAnon lunacy still going on, yeah, he might be in danger from some evangelical nutjob. You can find plenty of death threats. You seem to be deflecting now. Would you shrug off people saying that Christians in government should be executed?

1

Now white Democrats feel guilty about bicycling. Is there anything they don't feel guilty about?

sqeptiq Level 10 Sep 12, 2022

Killing and/or enslaving non-commie trash.

Recent Visitors 10

Photos 11,776 More

Posted by GeeMacMexico admits it is a hotbed of drug trafficking, but not of drug use, according to its top politician.

Posted by JohnHoukReprising ShadowGate Documentaries: With Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukLest YOU Are Brainwashed to be Happy in an Age of Transformation Tyranny: Videos & Commentary to Refresh YOUR Memory to at Least Awaken Personal Resistance! SUMMARY: An examination of saved videos...

Posted by Weltansichtwell....doggies

Posted by MosheBenIssacMetoo in action

Posted by JohnHoukDr.

Posted by JohnHoukConnecting the Dots! Some AI Truth – What Used to be “Playing God” is Really “Playing Devil” SUMMARY: … Satan – the foe – has only one delusional recourse: Brainwash human souls ...

Posted by JohnHoukMy Intro to Documentary, ‘Let My People Go’ SUMMARY: Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukMedical Tyranny – A Look at mRNA Danger & COVID Bioweapon Exploitation SUMMARY: Medical Tyranny has become a fact of life that the brainwashing Dem-Marxists, RINOs and Mockingbird MSM work hard ...

Posted by JohnHoukDr.

Posted by JohnHoukIrritated With Transformation Yet?

Posted by JohnHoukVOTE TRUMP – Overcome Dem-Marxist/RINO Lies – Video Share SUMMARY: The first batch of shared videos reflects VOTE-FOR-TRUMP in the midst of Dem-Marxist/RINO government LIES.

Posted by JohnHoukA Look at Mike Benz, THEN Tucker Ep.

Posted by JohnHoukLooking at ‘The Great Setup with Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukEnlightening Videos of a Corrupted Society SUMMARY: … The thing is, TYRANNY today has become very multifaceted in how the socio-political infection of CONTROL has crept into the one-time Land of ...

Posted by JohnHoukMedical Tyranny Liars A Look at CDC, Big Pharma, MSM & Social Media Cartel Owners SUMMARY: I like the Natural News Anti-Medical Tyranny stand.

  • Top tags#video #youtube #world #government #media #biden #democrats #USA #truth #children #Police #society #god #money #reason #Canada #rights #freedom #culture #China #hope #racist #death #vote #politics #communist #evil #socialist #Socialism #TheTruth #justice #kids #democrat #evidence #crime #conservative #hell #nation #laws #liberal #federal #community #military #racism #climate #violence #book #politicians #joebiden #fear ...

    Members 9,397Top

    Moderators