It was a very interesting and revealing evening. Both President Trump and the response by Stacy Abrams gave better than respectable deliveries. The close of the State of the Union by President Trump was an inspirational call to patriotism to everybody, regardless of political party. It was very well crafted and very well delivered.
There were, however, very telling moments that showed a great divide that must be bridged for the good of the country. President Trump had just referred to the devastation currently taking place in Venezuela brought about by the socialism started by Chavez and continued by Maduro. President Trump then did something I do not remember any President doing in any speech, much less the State of the Union, when he declared that the United States must never succumb to that evil that is socialism. Those on the right stood and cheered while those on the left sat with no clapping and with angry looks on their faces.
Abrams in her response, while being divisive in her rhetoric, called for social programs through government, just as Chavez did in Venezuela, as the solution for any and all problems, real or perceived. She also used the same call that has been used by collectivists (Marxists, communists, socialists, progressive, Democrat – all virtually the same) always. That is that they are the party of the people and all should be allowed to vote with no restrictions including being a United States Citizen or an illegal alien, whether dead or alive, or whether voting once or numerous times. Elections of this nature are easily manipulated and bring about the results of those willing to manipulate an election as we saw throughout the country but especially in California in 2018. This type of election manipulation has always ended with people becoming servants, serfs, and slaves to a Marxist tyrannical state.
The other telling moment during the State of the Union was when President Trump called upon congress to pass a law that prohibited the killing of a baby after that child had been delivered. That a President would have to even do this in the United States is appalling. The reaction by those on the left was nothing short of atrocious. Again, they sat, no applause, frowns on most of their faces, but a despicable smirk on the face of Chuck Schumer. My reaction was to wonder if this was the same smirk Josef Mengele had on his face as he did his “experiments”. Schumer’s smirk was nothing short of demonic, as I would imagine was Mengele’s.
That the United States President would be compelled to call for the United States to refute socialism and to not participate In the Satanic practice of infanticide is frightening. We can only hope that the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) will take a moment from their hateful criticism of President Trump and reflect on three of their most dangerous positions; their demand to murder babies from the time of conception to sometime (not defined) after their birth, to fundamentally transform the United States into a socialist society, and to insist on having open borders with no distinction between legal citizen and illegal alien.
The United States was founded on the basis that law and not a king would be our ruler; we would be a nation that adhered to rule of law and not arbitrary law as it is when a country is ruled by a monarch or dictator. What the King, the Emperor, the Czar or dictator says is the law. The King, the Emperor, the Czar, or dictator are not a protector of the people but a protector of themselves. If the King, the Emperor, the Czar, or dictator suspects some action, even if there is no real basis for the suspicion, or if the King, the Empower, the Czar, or the dictator does not like somebody and wants to punish them, they can proceed with that punishment, even if it meams manufacturing evidence for some kangaroo court. This is commonly referred to as arbitrary law or tyrannical law.
The founders were so insistent that arbitrary law or tyrannical law not be practiced in the United States they added the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights which made it a part of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government. However, the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures. The government must have probable cause before a warrant is to be issued. Probable cause is defined as a reasonable belief that a person has committed or will commit a crime. For probable cause to exist, a police officer must have sufficient knowledge of facts to warrant a belief that a suspect is committing a crime. The belief must be based on factual evidence, not just on suspicion.
Notice, within the definition of probable cause, just a suspicion is specifically precluded as would be distrust of or dislike for an individual or the policies of an individual. Suspicion and dislike are applicable under arbitrary law but not under rule of law.
What we are witnessing in the United States is the total breakdown and disregard for rule of law by the deep state of the United States Government and the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Party. The Russian investigation was begun on suspicion and dislike. An investigation was not made into the Clinton Foundation, the Uranium Sale, and the disregard for classified information by Clinton. Probable cause has been shown time after time.
Recently, the Trump Inauguration Committee received a subpoena from the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York because Trump’s inaugural committee raised a truly astonishing $106.7 million, double the previous record set by Barack Obama’s 2009 inaugural, and there have long been many questions about where that money came from, and where it went. This is suspicion and dislike for an individual and the policies of the individual. This is a textbook case of arbitrary law and a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) have told us over and over that they want to change the Constitution of the United States or at least consider it a living document so it can mean what they want it to mean. They have already done so by violating every section of the Constitution and every right guaranteed to the people under the Bill of Rights. We, the people, must understand that we are no longer a country that adheres to rule of law but are now a tyranny under the rule of a tyrannical ruler, The Dictator of the Proletariat or the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Party.
Soak the rich? Americans say go for it. Surveys are showing overwhelming support for raising taxes on top earners.
Surveys are showing overwhelming support for raising taxes on top earners, including a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll released Monday that found 76 percent of registered voters believe the wealthiest Americans should pay more in taxes. A recent Fox News survey showed that 70 percent of Americans favor raising taxes on those earning over $10 million — including 54 percent of Republicans.
A plan from first-term Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Marxist/Progressive Democrat NY) to slap a 70 percent marginal rate on income earned over $10 million clocked in at 59 percent support in a recent Hill/HarrisX poll.
FDR proposed a 100 percent top tax rate. Roosevelt told Congress in April 1942, “no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year.” That would be about $350,000 in today's dollars.
Karl Marx called for a heavy progressive or graduated income tax in the Communist Manifesto.
In the Critique of the Gotha Program Marx addressed the ages old question, “What is fair”. Marx concluded that what was fair was, “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” All proceeds would go to the state who would then distribute based on what they determined was the need.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, on the cusp of a likely campaign for president, introduced legislation to vastly expand the reach of the federal estate tax.
His bill would raise $2.2 trillion by applying the tax to the riches of "the top 0.02 percent of Americans," according to Sanders' office. It would apply to the estates of those who inherit more than $3.5 million, compared to the $11 million threshold that exists now.
For estates worth more than $1 billion, the tax rate would be 77 percent on inheritance over that amount. The first $3.5 million of any estates would be exempt from the tax.
Karl Marx called for the abolition of all rights of inheritance, or a 100% death tax, in the Communist Manifesto. The Marx reasoning was that all assets rightfully belong to the collective or the state and not to an individual. The 100% death tax was just returning the assets to their rightful owner, the collective or the state.
The United States was founded on the principle that everyone had an equal opportunity to pursue their happiness. The individual was not to be limited by their social position at birth; nobility or serf. Equal opportunity did not mean equal results. Equal opportunity did not mean that happiness was to be defined by the state.
The collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, Democrat – all virtually the same) takes the position that the definition of happiness and the results of the quest for happiness by the individual is to be not only approved of by the state but is to be defined by the state based on what the state believes to be fair and just.
The United States is in the midst of a tremendous clash of ideals, should the individual decide what their life and thoughts are to be or should the state determine what is best for all and then dictate to the individual what their life and thoughts are to be.
History has proven that the road of individualism, that road upon which our nation was founded, leads to prosperity and freedom for all while the road of collectivism (Marxism, communism, socialism, progressive, today's Democrats - all virtually the same) leads to social decay and financial collapse. The road to collectivism is called the road of Hope and Change, the road of social justice, the road of fairness and equality, and yet it always ends in tyranny.
JUST WHAT IS FAIR - INDIVIDUALISM OR COLLECTIVISM
Please Freedom Loving Americans, do not fall into this trap; the same trap into which Tucker Carlson has fallen.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson said he believes Congress should pass legislation banning kids from owning smartphones, citing research showing that smartphone use is harmful to children's development.
Carlson compared the hypothetical ban to age restrictions for purchasing cigarettes, saying that smartphone addiction in children can even be life-threatening.
"Smartphone use makes your kids sadder, slower, and more isolated, and over time, can kill them," Carlson said
The issue is not the use of smartphones. I have no reason to argue with the study Carlson quotes. The harm smartphones seem to be causing could be spread to areas beyond those sited by Carlson. The issue is; whose responsibility are these children, the parents or the governments.
The collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, Democrat – all virtually the same) have advocated from their inception that children are the responsibility of government and not the parents. The collectivist takes this position because they know the responsible party will also be the party whose principles and ideals the child is most likely to absorb as their own.
This is the reason the collectivist movement has always advocated for child care from the earliest possible age. Yes, the collectivist claims their intentions are altruistic, but history shows their intentions are to be able to indoctrinate the child into believing that collectivism is good, and individualism is bad.
The American public has come to accept that the government has a larger and larger role in the upbringing of a child while the role of the parents is less and less. This is exactly what Marx and Lenin advocated. Marx and Lenin understood that to bring about the classless society they desired, conformity of the people to the collectivist ideology was critical. If they controlled the child, they could bring about their desired classless and conforming society. If the parents played the intended role of the parent, children would grow and have different ideas on the role government should play in society. This freedom of thought results in is a society with differing beliefs. This is critical for individualism, a society of free and independent people, and it is death to those aspiring for the collectivist society that must be totally conforming and totally equal.
What Carlson is advocating is another step to lessen the critical role parents should be playing in their child’s growth and augmenting the role of government. The position of replacing the role of the parent by increasing the role of government is detrimental to a free and independent people and aids the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) movement to fundamentally transforming the United States into a Marxist totalitarian state.
Carlson should be using the study to alert the parent to the negative aspects of the overuse of smartphones by their children and encouraging the parents to play their intended role in molding their children and maintaining the family as the primary unit for the development of children.
The role of government must be a limited role if we are to be a free and independent nation. Our founders did not include the raising of children as one of the powers of government. The raising of children was one of the powers that were retained for the people per the 10h Amendment. We the people, must play our role while the government must play its limited role per the constitution if we are not to be fundamentally transformed into a Marxist totalitarian state under the control of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
In 1913 the income tax amendment was ratified and became a part of the United States Constitution. The Progressives called upon citizens to "cheerfully support and sustain this, the fairest and cheapest of all taxes. . . ."
Less than 1% of the population then paid federal income tax.
A normal income tax and an additional tax were levied against the net income of individuals, as shown in the following table:
Income Normal rate Additional rate Combined rate
0 1% 0 1%
$20,000 1% 1% 2%
$50,000 1% 2% 3%
$75,000 1% 3% 4%
$100,000 1% 4% 5%
$250,000 1% 5% 6%
$500,000 1% 6% 7%
There was an exemption of $3,000 for single filers and $4,000 for married couples. Therefore, the 1% bottom marginal rate applied only to the first $17,000 ($374,400 in 2010 dollars) of income for single filers or the first $16,000 ($352,300 in 2010 dollars) of income for married filers
Franklin Roosevelt, who had known communists in his cabinet and administration, proposed a 100 percent top tax rate. At a time of “grave national danger,” Roosevelt told Congress in April 1942, “no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year.” That would be about $350,000 in today's dollars. Roosevelt went on to claim that this was fair and just.
You know the history. The progressive income tax is as Karl Marx said, the best way to share the wealth. The Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Party is today proposing another way to spread wealth so they can gain more power by making servants, serfs, and slaves, of even more Americans to the government.
2020 presidential candidate for the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Party, Elizabeth Warren, , is proposing a new “wealth tax” on Americans with more than $50 million in assets, as well as other measures that include a significant hike in funding for the Internal Revenue Service.
"We need structural change. That’s why I’m proposing something brand new – an annual tax on the wealth of the richest Americans. I’m calling it the 'Ultra-Millionaire Tax' & it applies to that tippy top 0.1% – those with a net worth of over $50M,"
This measure goes beyond confiscation of current income of Americans and now calls for the theft of the property of Americans, even though our Declaration of Independence asserts that property – pursuit of happiness- is a natural right granted to us by our Creator and thus cannot be taken from the citizen by government.
The history of the theft by the government of the property of the American citizen has not as yet been written. It has been written in Russia, later the Soviet Union, member of the Soviet bloc, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba, and is currently being written in Chavez’s Venezuela. The ending has always been the same; social decay and financial collapse. We were told by Einstein that insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
After 4 Officers Shot, Furious Police Union Pres. Lays into Media, Antifa-Types. ‘Sick & Tired of Dirtbags Trying To Take Our Lives… the Ones Spreading Rhetoric That Police Officers Are the Enemy…’ Included in the category of Dirtbags would be Obama and Holder.
Houston Police Officers’ Union President Joe Gamaldi slammed “dirtbags” who spread anti-law enforcement rhetoric after four Houston police officers were shot Monday night during a drug raid. The shootout took place while officers were investigating a drug case the southeast section of the city, according to ABC News. They were met with gunfire as soon as they reached the door of the home they were targeting. Four were wounded immediately, with two shot in the neck, according to CNN. Two suspects were found dead at the scene. Initial reports indicated five officers had been shot, but CNN reported that the five had suffered a knee injury.
Speaking at the hospital, Gamaldi exploded on those who support anti-cop rhetoric. “We are sick and tired of having targets on our back,” he said. Police officers have been under fire from the left in recent years, especially with protests from so-called antifa thugs and NFL players like Colin Kaepernick. The media only fuels the left’s outrage by zealously reporting on alleged incidents of police brutality.
This war on our police, the war that the left claims is justified, began in earnest when Obama and Holder declared that any action by police against non-whites was racist. Hours before the murders of five police officers in Dallas, Texas, Obama was again spouting false claims about racism by the police. He sees racism whenever there is any disparity in outcomes, no matter what the cause. Obama, Holder, and others inflame passions, but take no responsibility, and instead use events to push for more gun control. Yet, shouting racism can endanger the lives of police officers. The Dallas police chief told us one of the shooters “wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”
After the Trayvon Martin case, there were numerous cases around the country of blacks attacking whites and invoking Martin’s name. Let’s not forget that NYPD cops Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were executed by a black man who was angry about the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.
Obama, Holder, and the Obama regime spoke out repeatedly on the Martin and Brown cases. They repeatedly claimed racism was involved, but in fact there was no evidence of that in either case.
Obama was also wrong to infer racism from higher arrest rates or prison-sentence lengths. “African Americans are arrested at twice the rate of whites,” he said. What he failed to note is that blacks commit murder at almost six times the rate whites do.
“African-American and Hispanic population, who make up only 30 percent of the general population, make up more than half of the incarcerated population,” he added. But Obama ignores the facts put out by his own Department of Justice. The FBI claims that gangs commit 80 percent of crimes in the US, and the National Gang Center estimates that 82 percent of gang members are black or Hispanic.
And the war on police, a war fueled by the outrageous and false statements of Obama, Holder, and others whose goal is to bring chaos into our society, grows and grows with constant and consistent justification for the killing of these Americans who have accepted the role of protecting the public.
Negotiations succeed when two sides or two people want the same outcome. We see this happen in real estate negotiations where both sides want the same outcome; that is a successful transfer of property. Price and terms are negotiated with both sides willing to compromise because one side wants to purchase the real estate and the other side wants to sell the real estate; that is, they both want the ownership of the property to be transferred. The negotiations fail when one side determines a successful completion of the transaction is not in their best interest and both sides no longer have a common goal.
Marriages can be saved when both sides want the same outcome; that is, they want their marriage to succeed for various reasons; the children, they still love each other, or because they view a divorce as failure and refuse to fail. Negotiations take place and there are compromises made by both partners. The negotiations fail when one partner truly wants the marriage to succeed while the other partner claims the same to look good to others, but in truth wants to be free of the bonds of marriage for whatever reason.
Negotiations were successful when our founders negotiated to draft and ratify a new agreement now called the United States Constitution, to replace the existing agreement, The Articles of Confederation. These negotiations succeeded because both sides had a common goal and that goal was to form a nation that would be founded on principles that would enable the nation to function in their time and well beyond. Both sides agreed that our basic rights, life, liberty, and property, were natural rights that were under the sovereignty of our Creator and not government. They both also agreed that the United States should be a sovereign nation that was based on individualism, rule of law, limited government, and the people were to be sovereign and government was to serve that sovereign. Because both sides understood and deeply revered these common goals, the many compromises necessary to achieve these goals were made.
When two people do not have common goals, negotiations can take place, but they will fail because the necessary compromises will not be made. There is no common ground. This is the situation in which the United States now finds itself. We have the one side that continues to adhere to the fundamental principles of our founders; our natural rights of life, liberty, and property, are rights given by our Creator and not by government or man, that individualism or the rights of the individual are not to be subordinated to the subjective demands of the collective, that we will adhere to rule of law, limited government, and sovereignty of the people.
The other side no longer has as its goal the principles upon which our nation was founded. They now hold collectivism or the subjective good of the collective superior to the rights of the individual. This collectivism (Marxism, communism, socialism, progressive, Democrat – all virtually the same) demands that all rights are granted by government and thus can be extended or diminished by government. The collectivist believes that government is to dictate to the individual how they are to live their lives and what their thoughts are to be (conformity to one way of thought). Therefore, the collectivist government must have arbitrary law, it must have a large dictatorial bureaucratic government, and government must be sovereign with the people as unquestioning servants.
The border wall or border security negotiations that are supposed to take place cannot succeed if both sides are true to their core beliefs. There is no common ground. The individualist believes that a nation is defined as a group of people with common beliefs and heritage living on a defined property. The individualist beliefs it is the primary purpose of government to protect its citizens from outside enemies while protecting the individual rights of the citizen internally.
The collectivist beliefs everyone is to be a servant of and dependent of the government. The primary allegiance of the individual is first and foremost to the ruling class or the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The collectivist does not believe in nations, but believes that all should be able to move freely without any artificial restrictions called borders. All are citizens of the world and all have the right to be dependents under any collectivist government. The collectivist has as their goal to eliminate all nations and have a One World Collectivist Government.
When the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) say they are for border security, they are lying. They want open borders so the Dictatorship of the Proletariat can be fully established in the United States and then have the United States join the One World Collectivist Government. Open borders is just a part of their strategy, but it is an important part.
AN OBAMA JUDGE WILL CLAIM THIS TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL – HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS SHOULD HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF OUR GOVERNMENTRead Now
A bill that passed the Indiana Senate would require all students to pass the U.S. citizenship exam, usually administered to immigrants, in order to graduate from high school. Indiana state senators proposed the legislation after growing frustrated with high school students knowledge of government and the legislative process. As part of Senate Bill 132, students would be required to pass the U.S. citizenship exam by getting at least 60 out of 100 questions correct. If they are not able to do so, they would be denied a high school diploma even if they have satisfied all other graduation requirements.
If the proposal is passed the bill would go into effect at the beginning of the 2020 school year. "We have many young people in our country, and in the state of Indiana, who do not know a lot of simple information on our government and on our country and some of our history,” one senator said.
One Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) senator said he is against the proposal because it would force another graduation requirement on students and add another mandate to teachers. "Some students are just not excellent test-takers,” he said.
A current requirement to graduate from high school in Indiana is that the student successfully complete 3 credits that include U.S. History, Economics, and Government. To add as a part of the standard curriculum the successful completion of the US citizenship exam would seem to be very simple. I have personally taken this exam, and the questions asked on it should have been taught in any U.S. History and U.S. Government class.
The real question to ask is why an Obama judge will and this Marxist/Progressive senator does object to students being able to pass the very simple US citizenship exam. The answer is obvious. The collectivist movement, which includes Marxists, communists, socialists, progressives, Democrats – all virtually the same, wants all people to understand as little as possible as to how the individualist movement, the movement upon which the United States was built, differs from the collectivist movement, the movement supported by the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) party.
The answer is straight forward. The Individualist movement advocates for a self-reliant citizen who is encouraged to achieve in their chosen field. The Individualist movement requires freedom for all. Capitalism is always a part of individualism. The Individualist movement is a creative movement that understands that achievement and wealth are infinite, and that the success of one means potential for all. The rising tide of capitalism and individualism has always raised the living standard and freedom for all.
The Collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, Democrat – all virtually the same) movement is built on a government reliant mentality. The collectivist movement believes in subjugating the desire and ambition of the individual to the limits set forth by the collective. The collectivist movement believes that wealth and creativity are finite and thus have to be allocated as they believe to be in the best interest of the collective. This limiting mentality always caters to the lowest common denominator which always causes social decay, financial collapse, social devastation, and hopeless societies. This is what collectivism has done in Venezuela.
Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Obama, Holder, Jarrett, and all comrades understand that when the truth of individualism and the truth of collectivism are presented in a fair manner, even though collectivism may have a short-term appeal for the jealous and petty individual, individualism will always prevail in the long run. The collectivist comrades understand that indoctrination, lying, propaganda, and manipulation are critical to them gaining power over the people so the comrades can achieve their goal of dictating to all how they are to live their lives and what their thoughts are to be.
This type of requirement for high school graduation should be adopted by all states. This type of requirement should be required for all voters, along with voter identification. The freedom and independence promised by the United States Constitution is a right that should be cherished by all. The requirement to understand our system and history is not unreasonable for all who wish to participate.
The Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Party of today advocates the very same policies used by and touted by Lenin. When I say the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Party is an advocate for collectivism (Marxism, communism, socialism, progressive – all virtually the same), this is not conjecture. It is founded on the basis of the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Party promoting the exact same polices put forth by Marx and implemented by Lenin. Yes, Americans, if we continue down the road of “Hope and Change” as put forth by the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats), we will arrive at that same place all collectivist societies arrive; state of social decay, state of financial collapse, state of devastation, state of despair, state of no hope.
Following are quotes of Lenin and policies implemented by Lenin. These quotes and policies have been stated by the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Party members and proposed as policies for the United States. If you take the time to read these and apply them to current happenings, you will see the congruity.
To permit such operations (abortion or murder of an unborn child) to be made freely and without any charge in Soviet hospitals, where conditions are assured of minimizing the harm of the operation.
“Income Inequality Is the Great Economic and Moral Crisis of Our Time.” The successful are ““bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who fatten on famine.”
Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the Socialized State.'
And so, in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority.
It is the duty of the revolution to put an end to compromise, and to put an end to compromise means taking the path of socialist revolution.
Democracy is indispensable to socialism
The goal of socialism is communism
The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted
Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism
He embarked on providing free education
A commission to fight counter-revolution and espionage was also established. It was a secret police force. A secret police force is used by a government that seeks to intimidate and suppress political opposition by means of police force.
Collectivists (Marxists, communists, socialists, progressives, Democrats – all virtually the same) despise all that built the United States, which was the principles of individualism. Individualism stresses the freedom of the individual while collectivism advocates the subjugation of the individual to what they define as the good for all.
Among the goals of collectivism, according to “The Communist Manifesto,” is that it “abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality.” The family “will vanish as a matter of course.” So why would collectivism want to destroy these values and traditions, particularly the family?
To understand this, we need to understand the nature of traditional views on hierarchy as well as what makes a society, and how collectivism aims to usurp these systems. In traditional cultures, there were different tiers of power within a society. In ancient China, it was said that the people follow the emperor, and the emperor follows heaven. The lowest form of government was the county magistrate, and below that were fraternal organizations and families.
Collectivism aims to subvert all institutions so as to seize control of them and gather all power to itself. When it comes to the family, collectivism aims to destroy it so as to seize control of the lowest level of social order. And destroying the family advances other objectives of collectivism: wiping out morality, traditions, and religious belief.
After it has gained control of the government, collectivism wants to destroy the family in order to turn all allegiance toward the collectivist ruling party. To do this, it creates various social movements that push for the destruction of marriage, thus inciting struggle between men and women, and inciting children to rebel against their parents.
In order to subvert the family, collectivism turns children against their mothers and fathers. It pushes to take children out from under the control of the family and places them under state-controlled education systems. Thus, the mother no longer has control over her children, no longer passes on the culture of the society to her children, and no longer teaches her children as has been done in society for thousands of years.
Then collectivism turns the mother against the father. By turning women against men, it is able to destroy the household. Once the household is destroyed, the family is broken. The child often loses a parent and begins to act out, and the collectivist system then has control.
Collectivism has led women down this path of believing men are an evil force to struggle against. It has done this by framing traditional feminine virtues as being forced on women by men, and thus as things that should be opposed. In this way, feminism is very much an anti-women ideology. It argues that feminine virtues are evil and that the right path for women is to fight against men in order to seize for themselves the traditional domains of men.
Meanwhile, the role women once played in society has largely been abandoned and replaced by state-run education, unhealthy diets, and disposable lifestyles. Feminism latches itself onto sometimes legitimate issues, like respecting women, but in reality, it practices the opposite of what it preaches. It opposes feminine virtues, the traditional roles of women, and the inner strength and gentle wisdom that women once possessed and knew how to wield.
Men in the past used to respect women for their gentleness, beauty, purity, wisdom, and patience, in the same way that women respected men for their strength, solidity of character, decisiveness, and accomplishments in the broader society. Women in the past understood that helping their husbands succeed in the world would also enrich their own lives.
And while women were respected for values including gentleness, beauty, and purity, feminism has taught them to be the opposite. It tells them that they should be impure, that they should not make themselves look nice, and that doing so would be going along with a male-driven archetype—that the “patriarchy” is making them be this way. It attempts to convince women mentally to rebel against their own inner natures.
In traditional cultures, it was understood that men and women have different powers. Part of the concept of yin and yang is the division between gentleness and strength. A woman’s power is in gentleness, and a man’s power is in strength. Through the influences of collectivism, many women today have lost touch with the power of gentleness, and many men only understand strength on a shallow level.
The Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) Party, which is advocating the collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, Democrat – all virtually the same) movement continues to fundamentally transform the United States to a Marxist totalitarian state, as promised by Comrade Obama. The Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) party is abolishing eternal truths, all religion, and all mortality. A critical element in their endeavor is the destruction of the family.