Socialism is the precursor to Communism. Many countries went through this phase. Poland is an example. Communism and or Socialism, once installed within a country they are very difficult to remove. Poland was a quasi communist country even after the Russians controlled it for forty five years. It was in transition from a socialist utopia to a communist one. It took a revolution to stop the progression. Even after the return to a democratic form of government in December 1989, it will take another thirty or forty years to dismantle the socialistic reforms that were put in place in former times.
I have worked in communist countries for thirty years. These countries included Poland, Russia and Belarus – all communistic countries. During that time, I have observed the machinations that the communists have used to achieve their objectives. It struck me that their methods and policies are no different than those employed by the Democratic Party in the United States. The unresolved question is: do the communists and the Democrats have the same objective? That is, do they want to convert our Republic into a totalitarian state?
The following is a brief summary of the steps taken by communists and Democrats (in my opinion) to obtain control of a country. I would appreciate your comments.
COMPARISON OF COMMUNIST AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY AGENDAS
Control of the Educational System
The key to installing communism was to educate the public with regard to the communist philosophy. This was difficult to do with adults. They had lived under a different form of government and could discern the difference between what was being offered and what they had. The communists could only brainwash the young. The adults would soon die off. They had patience. To build their cadre of future communists, they took control of the educational system and taught the way of communism.
The Democrats already have control of the public schools and in general control what is being taught. They will not support school vouchers or choice of schools for the public. Thus the public, should it choose to send children to private schools, suffer a double expense. They not only pay for the private school, they also subsidize the public schools through their taxes. This insures that most children will be educated in public schools. With but few exceptions, the elites send their children to private schools.
Rewrite National History
To the communists nationalism, with regard to an individual country, had to be destroyed. A country’s past heroes had to be eliminated from history. They had to be transformed into evil persons that only wanted to subjugate the people. Patriotism belonged to the communists and not to their original sovereign state. History books were rewritten accordingly.
The history books used in our high schools today are the start of this process. Our founding fathers are looked upon as slavers. The United States is portrayed as an Imperialistic country. “Too often, students are taught more about America’s failings than its successes. Absent are those “mystic chords of memory” that Abraham Lincoln believed held our country together.
The teaching of American history should include America’s great public documents and speeches, and books with compelling narratives. The period of the American founding should be emphasized at all levels, including high school, by teachers who have majored in history. Students should first be taught about America’s great heroes, dramatic achievements and high ideals so they can put its failings in perspective. Meaningful, balanced history best prepares young people for informed democratic participation.”[1]
Eliminate God from the Public
To the communists, God was an anathema. God was a unifying concept that tied people together in a way that ran counter to their objectives. The communists were the rulers. Anyone outside of their sphere of influence such as priests, rabbis or ministers that could alter the communist philosophy being taught to the public could not be tolerated. Try as they might this was one influence they could not entirely eliminate, but it was entirely removed from public schools and government offices.
In the United States, public officials have removed God from the public schools and governmental offices. They are at about the same stage as the communists were. God is a difficult concept to remove from the public’s mind.
Centralized Planning
Centralized planning is essential to the communist system. Only the government knows what is good for its population. This provided a way for them to control salaries, production, distribution, health and every other function of a society. It was introduced into Poland in stages as the people did not readily accept total control over their lives.
In the United States, the Democratic Party has already started this process. They now dictate operating terms, and in some cases salaries, for banks, auto and the oil industries. Soon, they may even control the health care system.
Eliminate Nationalism
Nationalism and pride of country had no place in communism. This did not insure loyalty to the ultimate communist authority. A nation undergoing transition was taught to only have pride in the much greater and grander union of communist countries.
The mantra of the Democratic Party is that we are a multicultural and multiethnic melting point. We are not one homogeneous melting pot called Americans united by a common language. In fact they tend to marginalize that concept. Senator Inhofe (Republican) introduced legislation to make English the official language. The Democrats strongly opposed it. However he did get his bill passed with the following modification: the word official was changed to national. What is the difference between the words “official” and “national”? Official would have meant that bilingual language schools would not exist, government documents would be in English and immigrants would have to learn the language. Why would the Democrats oppose such a proposal that would bring immigrants into the mainstream of American life? Why would they want to keep the immigrants separate and ignorant of the English language? The answer is simple – votes and particularly the Spanish vote. National is a feel good word and causes the Democrats to appear as fostering a common language but it leaves things as they are. Even so, most Democrats opposed Inhofe’s legislation[2].
“Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid[3] of Nevada said the legislation struck him as invidious—if not in motivation, then in result. “While the intent may not be there, I really believe this amendment is racist,” he said. “I think it’s directed basically at people who speak Spanish.””
Censorship
Censorship of radio, TV, the internet, newspapers, books and even everyday speech was high on the list of communist requirements. This was the only way in which they could control the main themes of their agenda. If all the populace could read or hear was government propaganda, then adherence to their credos was assured. With no dissenting opinions allowed, the populace would never know if they had it good or bad.
The Democratic Party is slowly leading us in this direction with the “Fairness Doctrine” and the newly appointed diversity “czar” at the Federal Communications Commission. The Democrats already indirectly control most of the major multimedia outlets as they are slanted toward the liberal viewpoint.
A similar situation could happen if the “Fairness Doctrine” is passed by a Democratic controlled white house and congress. The doctrine is assumed to apply only to radio and not to television stations and newspapers. The doctrine requires that the radio stations give equal time to both liberal and conservative views because of preponderance of commercially successful conservative radio talk shows. If this assumption is true, why are TV and newspapers not included? Answer: because they are already biased toward the left so the Democratic politicians do not want to change that. A recent study by a political scientist at UCLA[4] found that “Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center…” in terms of media bias. They tended to present the Democratic Party in a more favorable light. Yet most of these outlets will not fall under the jurisdiction of the “Fairness Doctrine”.
If the “Fairness Doctrine” becomes law during President Obama’s term, conservative voice, which dominates radio talk programs, will be essentially eliminated. Why is this so? Because conservative radio programs are listened to by a large number of Americans and generate advertising revenue. This revenue sustains the program host. Liberal radio talk programs, even when supported by private funds, tend to fail because of the lack of listeners[5]. This must bother the Democratic Party to no end. As a consequence, the consumer be damned. If the customer does not want to listen to Democratic gibberish, the Democrats will force them to listen. They have managed to do it with public radio and public television so why not go for the private sector. The “Fairness Doctrine” becomes the mechanism for doing so. The Democrats already have most of the major television and newspaper media in their pockets so why not corral the rest. If the “Fairness Doctrine’ becomes law, we will hear only what the Democrats want us to hear. With the appointment of a communications diversity officer (czar) the “Fairness Doctrine” may not be needed. As Newsmax reports[6] “Sen. Chuck Schumer and his fellow Democrats are promising an all-out attack on talk radio.” “Their weapon: a revived Fairness Doctrine, which would once again require stations to air divergent points of view — a clever ruse that makes station owners leery of airing controversial talk-radio hosts fearing law suits and federal sanctions.”
National Public Radio (NPR) is supported by taxpayer funds and private donations. The Democrats always push for government funding of this program. The Republicans claim that NPR is a liberal news outlet[7]. A study by researchers at UCLA and the University of Missouri found that[8] “By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's.”
This statement may be somewhat biased and understated coming from the liberal college UCLA. It is well known that Time, Newsweek and U.S, News & World Report are all liberal and hence it is unremarkable that the study found that NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news. The authors say that they spent considerable effort to ensure that the report was unbiased or give the appearance of the same. The co-authors remarked as stated by Meg Sullivan8, “I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."” (Underlining mine) I would have gone one step further and said Democrats instead of politicians.
The authors used the scale developed by the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) which tracks how many times a politician voted for liberal positions. A score of 100 is defined as most liberal and 0 is most conservative. The average Democrat has an ADA score of 84. Senator Joe Lieberman (Democrat) has an ADA score of 74. The magazines cited are said to be less liberal than Lieberman. How much less I do not know. But if less is anywhere close to a score of 74 then I say that NPR does not tilt or lean to the left but has fallen left.
NPR is partially supported by your tax dollars. Yet instead of presenting fair and balanced news, it is biased to the left. The Democrats clamor to remove Rush Limbaugh from the Armed Forces Radio station because he is right wing and Armed Forces Radio is supported by taxpayer dollars. Yet they will not use the same criteria and apply them to public radio or public television.
It appears to me that the Democrats are emulating the communists.
Welfare State
The communists introduced the concept of the welfare state. The purpose was to make the citizen totally dependent on the government. From a theoretical point of view, it was a redistribution of wealth to make everyone equal. The net effect was to eliminate incentive, entrepreneurism and ambition from the psyche of the individual. They accomplished this goal and made everybody equally poor and miserable, except for the governing elites. The elites had an exception for everything including health care, autos, salaries, housing, pensions, food and other privileges. They had nothing but the best, whereas the populace had to take what the government would give them.
In the United States, we already have social security, housing allowances, food stamps, energy doles, government sponsored health care, etc. and more to come.
Class Warfare
The communists with their planned economy and welfare state eventually eliminated all types of class warfare except one. They maintained a constant campaign against capitalism. To them, the struggle for utopia was the constant battle between the capitalists and the proletariat (working class).
The Democratic Party cannot just focus on one type of class warfare because they have not yet achieved there primary goal of totalitarianism. Instead they have to focus on a number of diverse groups and apply specific techniques to unite them into one cohesive unit. Thus they pit men against women, poor against the rich, race against race, religious against atheists, workers against employers and the list goes on. If they can satisfy all of these varied classes, if only with words, they will gain the power they seek.
Constitutional Changes
Here the communists wasted no time. Once they took control of a country, they quickly abolished the state’s previous constitution. A new constitution was put in place that was in line with communist dogma.
In the United States, the Democratic Party favors the interpretation of our Constitution as a living document. They do not consider in terms of the law as a legal document. Rather it should be interpreted according to the times. This is only the first step to abolishing it altogether.
Gene Pelc
[1] The Bradley Project on America’s National Identity, June, 2008. http://www.bradleyproject.org/epureportfinal.pdf
[2]http://senate.gov/legislative/lis/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00131#top
[3]J. Garrido, American Hispanics Move to Democrats, May 23, 2006. http://www.hispanic7.com/american_hispanics_move_to_democrats.htm
[4] M. Sullivan, Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist, Nov. 28, 2008, http://newsroom.ucla.edu
[5] Air America Radio Files Chapter 11, Oct. 13, 2006, http://www.msnbc.msn.com
[6] http://w3.newsmax.com/a/jan08/?promo_code=29f5-1
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/national_public_radio#allegations_of_liberal_bias
[8] M. Sullivan, Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist, Nov. 28, 2008, http://newsroom.ucla.edu
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)