TRANSCRIPT
It all began very slowly at first, almost completely out of sight, in fact. U.S. communism did not advertise itself as that, but rather as socialism. Truth be told, with the exception of some economic points of view, the two are essentially the same.
“Communism” is just the name given to the movement later. It began as “socialism.” And just as it was beginning here in the United States in the late 1800s, so too was Pope Leo XIII condemning it, since it had already gained a strong foothold in Europe.
Socialism, by its very name, presents itself as the answer to society’s woes, and communism has had a place in America since the satanic social dogma was conjured up.
Karl Marx and his comrade Friedrich Engels presented their worldview of the “haves” pitted against the “have nots,” and cleverly peppered their propaganda into printing presses at the New York Daily Tribune in the early 1850s.
And in Europe where there was not really that much of a middle class, the “rich versus the poor” message played much better there.
In the United States, however, where a middle class was developing rapidly, it was a harder sell. So the socialists associated themselves with the “worker” and pushed for unions, trying to create a wedge between rich and poor.
They called it “labor” and “management.” While some strides were made on behalf of workers, the desired class warfare never really materialized, and the socialist political party never really was able to establish itself as a standalone party.
In 1919, Lenin formed an organization called the Communist International and began funding U.S. operations. For about the next four or five years, federal and state authorities, recognizing a threat, began a crackdown on the communist agitators, many of whom were foreign-born.
After the first 40 or so years of communism/socialism in the United States, it was clear that the means for spreading the ideology in Europe were not really going to work here. So after much infighting and factioning among the commies, it became clear to them that a direct challenge to government and institutions needed to be abandoned in favor of a much more subversive nature.
The downside? It would take generations for the plan to be successful and the American communists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries would not live to see it succeed. The upside? The control of America could be achieved through much more cunning maneuvers.
So taking one for the team, so to speak, the fifth-column communists began their “long march through the institutions,” willing to die without seeing the fruits of their efforts. In choosing this path, as opposed to direct confrontation, they were following the blueprint laid out and insisted on by Italian Communist Party founder Antonio Gramsci.
He correctly understood that the West had been built up on the theological principles of Catholicism and then the spillover of those principles, genuine human rights (the right to private property, for example, but considerably more). It would have to be a long, slow course of destruction the commies would have to set upon to undo more than a thousand years of Christendom.
The goal, as it had been in the revolution, was to seize control of the government. Armed rebellion and violence had been the weapon of choice in Russia. In America, it would have to be propaganda — slowly poisoning the American mind and intellect so that a major political party could be seized.
So agents and double agents, spies, infected the U.S. government and agencies, a kind of precursor to the Obama–Biden years where they could be much more open, but not yet fully. Since the war of haves and have nots was their classic strategy, it was a very small shift to create a party that would present itself as the protector of victims.
Since the Democrats had portrayed themselves as fighting for the little man, it made perfect sense to fidget with the language a bit and switch to fighting for “victims”; it was an easy transition.
Victimhood as a political strategy was born, casting the little man as the underdog, the victim. After all, America loves a good underdog story.
From henceforth then, Democrats wouldn’t fight for the poor; they would fight for “victims” — “victims” who are denied their rights to abortion, contraception, unlimited divorce, gay marriage, student loans being canceled, government handouts, Obama phones, and on and on, you name it.
Give enough people what they want — materially, sexually, emotionally — and they will vote you into power. But that was the end game. The first step would be to undo centuries of tradition and cultural understanding of how society works.
That work slowly began in the 1920s and ’30s as various seeds were being planted in universities, seeds that would grow to full flowering within two to three generations.
Some of these ideas, with a theological twist, were also being planted simultaneously in Catholic seminaries and religious houses.
More on that this week.