In the book, “1984,” George Orwell wrote that “the most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history”
writes
Tom Tillison in the
BizPack Review.
Even more compelling, Orwell said of the future:
“Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.”
It is hard to dispute that the progressive left has a stranglehold on
pop culture in America. Firmly entrenched in media, academia and the
entertainment industry, and more emboldened than ever, it controls the
present.
Our history has long been under assault, particularly in
universities, but never as aggressively as we see in a 10-part Showtime
documentary produced by Oliver Stone, “Untold History of the United States.”
Commenting on Stone’s latest work in a FrontPage column,
David Horowitz calls it “a ludicrous encapsulation of the Kremlin’s
view of the Cold War, amplified by the Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Daniel
Ortega, Hugo Chavez, Hamas version of the post-Communist decades.”
… Stone’s rewriting of history is being widely embraced by far-left
zealots who have nothing but contempt for this country and by the
progressive culture in general.
Such rewriting is not just relegated to Hollywood. A professor at
Montclair State, a public university in New Jersey, can be seen in a YouTube video
denying that Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin was responsible for the
murder of millions, saying he has “yet to find one crime – one crime
that Stalin committed.”
More importantly, and this matters because it’s coming from someone
who grew up in that culture — the very same culture that Barack Obama
cut his teeth on — Horowitz suggests “Untold History” is the coming out of the communist left.
“I consider the reception of this latest Stone travesty to be a
significant cultural event signifying a final coming out of the closet
of what can only be termed the Communist left,” Horowitz wrote.
Over at the Patriot Post,
Mark Alexander adds a quote by Britain's greatest prime minister and finishes with a quote from Pravda that syncs with
Tom Tillison's opening thought.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries. ... Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." --Winston Churchill
Today, I have a new entry for the political lexicon to categorize the latest ideological iteration of Marxists in America: "Neo-Communists" or the abbreviated version, "NeoComs."
… At the other end of the political spectrum from the Ronald Reagan NeoCons are the NeoComs -- modern-day socialists who have risen, in the last decade, to dominate the once-noble Democrat Party. They have modified old Marxist doctrines and adapted them to current political platforms and policies 
using leftist propaganda more compatible with contemporary culture. Chief among these is the Democrat Party's tried and true "divide and conquer" disparity rhetoric, which foments discontent and division based on income, race, ethnicity, gender, education, occupation, etc.
However, bull pucky by any other name is still bull pucky. Democrat Socialism, like Nationalist Socialism, is nothing more than Marxist Socialism repackaged.
The objective of today's NeoComs is, as you by now know, "fundamentally transforming the United States of America," in order to "peacefully transition" from our constitutional republic and its free-enterprise economy to a socialist republic with a state-organized and regulated economy.
Ideological adherents of the American Communist Party made few
political gains under that banner in the last century because the label
"communist" was and remains "distasteful" to most Americans. Thus,
NeoComs have infested the once-noble Democrat Party and are using it as cover for socialist policy implementation.
The political genes of the current cadres of NeoComs establish them
as the direct descendants of the statist policies of Franklin Delano
Roosevelt and the programs he implemented under cover of the Great Depression.
Roosevelt, like most of today's wealthy liberal protagonists, was an "inheritance-welfare liberal"
-- raised in a dysfunctional home and dependent on his financial
inheritance rather than that essential spirit of self-reliance, which
forms the core of American Liberty. Consequently, the "dependence ethos"
irrevocably shaped by FDR's privileged upbringing is virtually
indistinguishable from the dependence ethos of those who have been
raised or inculcated with belief that they are reliant upon welfare
handouts from the state.
Though markedly dissimilar in terms of their political power, the
underlying difference between inheritance liberals and welfare liberals
is, the former depend on investment and trust distributions while the
latter depend on government redistributions. But they both support
socialist political and economic agendas based on Marxist collectivism.
Endeavoring to transform our Republic into a socialist state, FDR set about to replace our authentic Constitution with the so-called "living constitution" by way of judicial diktat, thereby subordinating the Rule of Law
to the will of his administration. Anticipating Supreme Court rulings
against many of his patently unconstitutional policies, which he later
arrogantly outlined in his "New Bill of Rights,"
FDR attempted to expand the number of justices on the High Court,
thereby allowing him to flood the bench with his nominees in order to
win majority rulings.
Despite his failed attempt to pack the High Court, over the course of
FDR's three full terms, he infested American politics with socialist
programs and policies, and brought the nation perilously close to being
ruled by an avowed Marxist, his vice president, Henry Wallace.
Prior to 2008, the closest the U.S. had gotten to an openly socialist
president was after FDR's then-vice president, John Garner, broke with
Roosevelt over FDR's effort to pack the court. In 1940, Roosevelt tapped
his secretary of agriculture, Henry Wallace, to replace Garner as his
new running mate. Wallace's allegiance to Marxist doctrine was well
established. However, near the end of World War II, Roosevelt feared
that he could not get re-elected to a fourth term with an open Communist
on the ticket, so he tapped the more moderate Harry Truman and demoted
Wallace to Secretary of Commerce -- where he could further his Marxist
agenda.
FDR, of course, died in office just a month into his fourth term. But
had he retained Wallace instead of opting for Truman, America would
have had its first communist president by succession.
… And a prophetic footnote: FDR also wrote in his Bill of Rights,
"People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which
dictatorships are made."
Like Roosevelt, Obama was raised in a dysfunctional family, but
unlike FDR, Obama inherited a socialist political legacy rather than
wealth. However, neither Roosevelt nor Obama "let a serious crisis go to
waste."
Obama, the NeoCom-in-Chief and our first openly socialist president, was elected and re-elected on his progressive "fair share" rhetoric,
which he often frames as "spreading the wealth around." That, of
course, is merely a new riff on an old FDR proclamation: "Here is my
principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is
the only American principle." However, that "American principle" is
merely a paraphrase of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, in which he
declared, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to
his needs."
Obama's political storm troopers are led by the largest subgroup of
congressional Democrats, the 76 declared members of his Congressional
Progressive Caucus, who have made "progressive taxation" the top
priority of their "redistributive justice" agenda.
Rep. Paul Ryan properly summed up Obama's progressive agenda as "a
dull journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned
life, a country where everything is free but us."
Obama and his American Communist Party-endorsed NeoComs are crafting
their progressive economic policies using the subtle Cloward-Piven
model, a socialist strategy that outlines how to overload the national
entitlement delivery system, what we call the ObamaNation Plantation, in order to generate a severe economic crisis and ultimately break the back of free enterprise. Obama is using so-called "stimulus and bailout" plans (including his most recent "Fiscal Bluff"),
ObamaCare, cap-n-trade, international climate change treaties, and the
like, to take our country to the edge of that precipice.
Sometimes, however, the NeoCom agenda is not so subtle, as was the
case this week when Jeffrey Immelt, an ardent Obama supporter who also
chairs Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, said of Red China's
economy, "The one thing that actually works, state-run communism, may
not be your cup of tea, but their government works."
NeoComs outside the U.S. are even less subtle.
In a recent newspaper column in "Pravda," the old Soviet propaganda
rag ("The Truth") now published by post-Soviet era conscripts of the
Communist Party of the Russian Federation, a popular writer, Xavier
Lerma, had this observation on our most recent presidential election:
"The Communists have won in America with Obama. ... Obama has been
re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society."
Putin said: "We are reducing taxes on production. We are optimizing
state expenses. We must avoid excessive interference into the economic
life of the country and the absolute faith into the all-mightiness of
the state. Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit and accumulation
of the national debt are as destructive as an adventurous stock market
game. During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in
economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total
non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I
am sure no one would want history to repeat itself. We must seek support
in the moral values that have ensured the progress of our civilization.
Honesty and hard work, responsibility and faith in our strength are
bound to bring us success."
Lerma concluded, "Who could ever [have] imagined anyone so willing to
destroy [capitalism] like Obama, much less seeing millions vote for
someone like Obama. They read history in America don't they? Alas, the
schools in the U.S. were conquered by the Communists long ago and
history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist president."
Indeed, who could have imagined?
