An ancient Chinese philosopher once advised, “Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be in peril. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril.”
A good battlefield commander will choose the time and place of the fight, but long before he arrives at that decision, he must know his own strengths and weaknesses and know his opponent. What are the enemy’s goals? How does he intend to achieve them? For what purpose?
America — do you know who you are and what you stand for?
We have known the enemy’s goals for 174 years. Many of us have first-or-second-hand knowledge of the enemy’s intentions. We, our parents, or our grandparents fought the enemy for at least 72-years … and we witnessed the enemy’s defeat. The enemy then was communism. Its proponents were the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. The fight necessitated giving up thousands of our loved ones. It was a hard-fought battle that resulted in well over 100-million deaths.
The fight was started by two men who died long before any of us was born. Karl Marx (1818-1883) — a self-loathing Jew, was raised in an upper-middle-class family, wealthy enough to send Karl to the University to study law, where he whiled away his time drinking, dallying, failing, and then taking up philosophy. Marx’s partner, Fredrich Engels (1820-1895), was the scion of a wealthy industrialist. Of the two, perhaps Engels had the most significant input to the Communist Manifesto (1847), and Engels may have been the more radical of the two. Both men, while raised as protestants, later professed atheism. Their atheism makes perfect sense because these two men produced the world’s wickedest ideology. Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels laid the foundation for humanity’s worst suffering; it continues today.
Marx and Engels
Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 or China’s adoption of communism’s lighter side, its threat remains. Russia and China today remain adversaries. The leaders of these two countries have softened their approach, but many of their philosophical strategies and tactics remain unchanged.
The timetable for achieving worldwide domination has shifted, however. After the fall of the Soviet Union, communist leaders realized that it would take them much longer to achieve their goals. The delay involves a process of retooling — starting over, as it were, to convince younger generations that the murder and suffering of tens of millions of people never actually happened.
The conversation has already shifted. We no longer talk about communism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, or Maoism. We instead refer to these communist-inspired philosophies as human progress. Progressivism is less objectionable. A progressive-minded person, they argue, is admirable, worthy, caring, and humane. The success of this argument is readily apparent by the number of modern nations (having repudiated national socialism in the mid-20th century) today embrace democratic socialism: the European Union, China, Russia, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, and the United States of America.
The purpose of socialism is communism.
It does not matter how well you dress up a pig; it’s still a pig. Whether you choose to use the word “Marxism” or “Progressivism,” this scheme only works by dividing human beings into classes and then setting them against one another. Divide et impera.
The language used by Marxists tells us who they are. In the early 20th century, the communists urged and fully expected the down-trodden workers to “Rise! Seize the means of production” and “overthrow the capitalists!” Rise. Seize. Overthrow. The problem for the Bolsheviks was that there was no popular uprising of workers — not in Russia, not in China, and certainly not in the United States. There was no prevalent abandonment of life in Russia; the Russian Revolution was nothing more than a well-orchestrated coup d’état.
Nor was there a widespread abandonment of Chinese culture in 1949. Communism came to China as a combination of two things: another coup d’état combined with a general weariness of government corruption by Chang Kai-shek, the nationalist leader at the time.
And yet, the result of both revolutions was similar: unfathomable human suffering in labor camps, public show trials that served as warnings to dissidents, retribution directed toward the families of dissidents, murder on an unbelievable scale, mass starvations … and in the end, more than 100-million dead. What, then, recommends communism to anyone?
Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels were the authors of the world’s darkest days — and one would think that the world had had enough of it. Why, then, has it reemerged in the 21st century? Why, of all places, in the United States?
Communism was never compatible with American society. The only classes in the United States were those devised by pseudo-intellectual academicians and government bureaucrats to push forward their various agendas. No matter the circumstances of their birth, every American has always had the opportunity to rise above that station and pursue happiness and fulfillment as they, themselves, envisioned it. Some of us made good decisions, some of us didn’t. Some of us benefitted from education, hard work, and good citizenship, while some suffered the effects of laziness of mind and spirit, which consigned them to poverty and bitterness. Others became victims of the Democratic party’s efforts to discriminate against them because of the color of their skin.
American society has never been a utopia — and the United States’ enlightened government never claimed a utopian goal. Still, most Americans (not all, sadly) firmly believe in the American dream. This uniquely American vision is the reason so many millions came to America.
Despite the 600,000 Americans who died in the quest to free all men from the filth of slavery, and even though these freedmen overwhelmingly supported republicanism for over 70 years, American blacks were fooled by a massive shift in political strategy within the Democratic Party. It began around 1933 but went into full swing in the 1960s.
When Democrats realized black Americans would not be intimidated by the terror of white supremacist organizations, they found a new way to put the Negro in his place. Rather than relegating Jim Crow to inferior status through segregation laws, Democrats offered him “free” benefits. All Mr. Crow had to do to receive those benefits was to vote for Democratic politicians and accept their premise that blacks were in every way inferior to whites. The Democrat’s success in this effort has been overwhelming — and there are few better examples of Marxism at work inside the United States than this.
If we wanted to understand why adults behave the way we do, look no further than their family structure and how they were raised. When children grow into adulthood, their behavior reflects that of their parents. What, then, do children learn from disorganized homes? They know, and pass on to their children, all the undesirable characteristics of a stressed society: the relegation of women to roles of dependency, abandonment of children to one-parent enclaves within black-only tenements, rejection of education as a pathway to success, lack of self-respect or sense of self-worth, reliance on or addiction to harmful substances, and acceptance of the greatest discriminator of all — low expectation. Our black communities have not yet tired of this horrendous treatment; in fact, they continue to embrace it.
Beginning in the late 1960s, radical sociologists and communist agitators Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven (at Columbia University) developed a strategy guaranteed to keep blacks enslaved to the good graces of the Democratic Party. Remember, in 1966, Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. There is no better description of their intent to create racial division and destroy American society than in their own words:
“Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition … Whites – both working-class ethnic groups and many in the middle class – would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few … would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe.”
The preceding, then, was a reformulation of Marxist theory as it applied to life in the United States. Since there was no class struggle in America, Cloward-Piven created one. Gone was the original struggle between labor and capitalist industrialists, replaced with the beginning of identity (racial) politics. This work continues today, redefined as progressive ideology and democratic socialism, along with an even more recent buzz phrase: Critical Race Theory (CRT).
This new invention first appeared in the early 1990s. Initially viewed as just another academia/progressive “dingbat” theory, CRT has since become the default ideology of all of America’s institutions — from federal and state government agencies, public school systems, teacher’s colleges, and even within corporate board rooms. It’s easy enough to recognize. Since the truth of it is bothersome to most Americans, as neo-Marxism, CRT proponents instead refer to it as diversity training, inclusion training, equity training, and social justice awareness programs. Equity, for example, sounds sensible and is easily confused with the traditional American concept of equality.
There is no correlation between the two. As proclaimed in the founding documents and civil war amendments, equality demands that we afford every citizen with the same opportunities. It is the reason we have public schools, for example, and civil and voting rights legislation. CRT advocates reject this notion, however. To them, equal opportunity simply means white supremacy and the oppression of racial and ethnic minorities. Something more is needed, they argue.
Equity demands the suspension of property rights, seizing wealth from those who earned it, and distributing that wealth to people of color. One such advocate of this proposal is Cheryl Harris, a UCLA law professor; another is Boston University’s Ibram X. Kendi. These morons demand the creation of a new federal agency called the Department of Anti-Racism — an independent agency with the power to nullify, veto, or abolish any law, including our Constitutional guarantees of free speech, expression, association, religion, the right to bear arms, or any behavior deemed by the department as insufficiently anti-racist. According to Kendi, “In order to be sufficiently anti-racist, you also have to be anti-capitalist.”
Equity programs would end private property, end federalism, and subject earned income and investments to redistribution to those who just happen to have darker skin color than the rest of us. So, what have the CRT advocates done so far? Their behaviors so far have been mostly confined to brainwashing and propaganda. The Federal Bureau of Investigation began conducting workshops on intersectional theory. The Department of Homeland Security informed its white employees that they were guilty of mico-inequity and determined to re-socialize them into less “oppressive” behaviors. The Treasury Department wanted its employees to know that their whiteness contributed to racism. At the nuclear facility at Sandia Labs, white male executives were forced to attend a re-education camp where they learned that “white male culture” was comparable to the Klu Klux Klan — an institution formed, manned, and maintained by the Democratic Party.
To a real American, CRT is a bad omen for the future of American democracy, but it gets even worse in public schools, where children are systematically brainwashed to lament their own race — an indoctrination not unlike that which encourages young children to despise their natural sex. In Philadelphia, a middle school forced its fifth-grade students to celebrate “black communism.” In Seattle, Washington, one teacher in-service program informed teachers that they are guilty of black children’s spiritual “murder.”
“Give me four years to teach the children, and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”
Recognizing CRT for what it is, President Trump signed an executive order prohibiting CRT training within the federal government. Joe Biden rescinded Trump’s order on his very first day in office. Beyond President Trump’s actions, is anyone else in government pushing back against this new communist assault upon the American Republic? The official answer is, for the most part, no. I do not doubt that the good Americans subjected to this form of brainwashing will retain their core beliefs while avoiding any discussion on the merits (or lack of them) of CRT. But maintaining core values while remaining silent about this new assault on American freedom simply will not do. Not among officials, and not among everyday Americans, either.
Where is the repudiation of CRT? Are these communist morons making genuine headway toward transforming our country into a new Soviet state? While most Americans today, even conservatives, hesitate to speak openly about social, political, or racial issues, proponents of CRT have free reign to espouse their view without fear of any contradiction. Have most Americans become intimidated, or have they simply dismissed the CRT argument as hogwash? One pundit claims that the CRT bunch has constructed a rat trap argument: anyone who disagrees with CRT becomes evidence of white oppression. It is a clever strategy, but will “normal” America let it proceed unchallenged? My hope is that real Americans will loudly repudiate every notion that our nation was founded on racism and then renounce even louder every attempt to mount yet another communist coup d’état against our Constitutional form of government.
To defeat this “enemy,” — and that specific characterization of modern-day communists is accurate and proper, we must know the enemy, know their intents, and recognize their strategies for what they are. To those who would suggest that Marxism is simply another political point of view, stop and realize that America’s repudiation of communism encompasses traditional precedents. We real Americans renounce communism because of its harm to the entire world. One-hundred million dead and still counting. Fellow Americans — we are at war. There can be little question that these CRT buffoons follow the same path as Stalin, Beria, Khrushchev, Mao, and Pol Pot.
- Rufo, C. F. Critical Race Theory: What it is and how to fight it. Hillsdale: Imprimis, 2021
- Farber, D. A., and S. Sherry. Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
 There are several similar statements in this vein attributed to Vladimir Lenin. The most popular of these is “Give me a child for eight years, and it will be a Bolshevist forever.” According to Paul F. Boller, Jr., and John George at Oxford (1989), the attribution originated with J. Edgar Hoover in his testimony before Congress on 4 March 1966. Boller/George believe that “it is doubtful” Lenin ever made this statement because, since it was attributed to him in 1923, several strokes during that year incapacitated him to the point where he did no serious writing. Lenin, of course, died in January 1924. The pronouncement “It is doubtful” doesn’t discount the statement, only questions whether he made it, possibly misattributed to 1923. Since the source of the quote is J. Edgar Hoover, there is always room for doubt.
Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar