We are witnessing a coup. This is a communist coup to overthrow the Republic our founders established. This Republic was based on a sovereign people with a government that served this sovereign. In order to accomplish and maintain this ideal, our founders understood it was critical that we always maintain a limited government and maintained a society that adhered to rule of law.
Principles of the Rule of Law Supremacy of the Law: For the laws made to govern the actions of government. The Principles of Equality before the Law: This implies that everybody is equal in the eyes of the law. The Principle of individual Rights: Laws are made in a country to protect the interest of the citizens.
It is so critical we understand that our founders understood the biggest threat to freedom was government, or what Marx called the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Our Constitution was written with this understanding, but the founders stated that it was not enough to just have the limitations placed on our government defined within the Constitution, but we must specifically state that natural rights granted to us by our Creator could not be infringed upon by government, so they added the Bill of Rights as a part of the Constitution.
What we must understand is that the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) oppose the idea that support the concepts of limited government and rule of law and instead embrace the belief of Marx and Lenin that the people should be under the tyranny of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) are stating this belief, are practicing this belief, and are adhering to this belief in their coup attempt to overthrow a duly elected president, an action which they understand will overthrow, our Constitution, our principle of peaceful transfer of power, and place government as sovereign of the people.
I do not state these facts lightly. However, when I study the beliefs and practices of Lenin, and compare them to the beliefs espoused by Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) candidates for president and when I compare the practices of Lenin to the practices of Pelosi and Schiff in their now stated coup attempt (that is right, this is a coup and not impeachment), a reasonable person can come to no other conclusion.
A special logic governs the Leninist (and Marxist/Progressive or Democrat) approach to morality, legality, and rights. In his famous address to the Youth Leagues, Lenin complains that bourgeois thinkers have slanderously denied that Bolsheviks have any ethics.
We reject any morality based on extra-human and extra-class concepts. We say that this is a deception. We say that morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the proletariat’s class struggle. That is why we say that to us there is no such thing as a morality that stands outside human society; that is a fraud. To us morality is subordinated to the interests of the proletariat’s class struggle.
When people tell us about morality, we say: to a Communist all morality lies in this united discipline and conscious mass struggle against the exploiters.
In short, Bolshevik morality holds that whatever contributes to Bolshevik success is moral, whatever hinders it is immoral.
Imagine someone saying: “my detractors claim I have no morals, but that is sheer slander. On the contrary, I have a very strict moral code, from which I never deviate look out for number 1.” We might reply: the whole point of a moral code is to restrain you from acting only out of self-interest. Morality begins with number 2. A moral code that says you must do what you regard as your self-interest is no moral code at all. The same is true for a code that says the Communist Party is morally bound to do whatever it regards as in its interest.
Regarding law: If by law one means a code that binds the state as well as the individual, specifies what is and is not permitted, and eliminates arbitrariness, then Lenin entirely rejected law as “bourgeois.” He expressed utter contempt for the principles “no crime without law” and “no punishment without a crime.” Recall that he defined the dictatorship of the proletariat as rule based entirely on force absolutely unrestrained by any law. His more naïve followers imagined that rule by sheer terror would cease when Bolshevik hold on power was secure, or when the New Economic Policy relaxed restrictions on trade, but Lenin made a point of disillusioning them. “It is the biggest mistake to think that nep will put an end to the terror. We shall return to the terror, and to economic terror,” he wrote. When D. I. Kursky, People’s Commissariat of Justice, was formulating the first Soviet legal code, Lenin demanded that terror and arbitrary use of power be written into the code itself! “The law should not abolish terror,” he insisted. “It should be substantiated and legalized in principle, without evasion or embellishment.”
So far as I know, never before had the law prescribed lawlessness. Do as you wish, or else. Lenin had ascribed the fall of the Paris Commune to the failure to eliminate all law, and so the Soviet state was absolutely forbidden from exercising any restraint on arbitrary use of power. Indeed, officials were punished for such restraint, which Lenin called impermissible slackness and Stalin would deem lack of vigilance.
The same logic applied to rights. On paper, the Soviet Constitution of 1936 guaranteed more rights than any other state in the world. I recall a Soviet citizen telling me that people in the USSR had absolute freedom of speech—so long as they did not lie. I recalled this curious concept of freedom when a student defended complete freedom of speech except for hate speech—and hate speech included anything he disagreed with. Whatever did not seem hateful was actually a “dog-whistle.”
Lenin’s language, no less than his ethics, served as a model, taught in Soviet schools and recommended in books with titles like Lenin’s Language and On Lenin’s Polemical Art. In Lenin’s view, a true revolutionary did not establish the correctness of his beliefs by appealing to evidence or logic, as if there were some standards of truthfulness above social classes. Rather, one engaged in “blackening an opponent’s mug so well it takes him ages to get it clean again.” Nikolay Valentinov, a Bolshevik who knew Lenin well before becoming disillusioned, reports him saying: “There is only one answer to revisionism: smash its face in!”
And so here we are today, the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) embracing all that Lenin embraced. Lenin brought about a tyrannical government of terror under the rule of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) under the leadership of Pelosi and Schiff are attempting a coup to bring about this same tyranny under the leadership of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Leave a Reply.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.