The Woke Movement is Modern Sovietism

Here are 10 symptoms of Sovietism. Ask yourself whether we are headed down this same road to perdition.

1) There was no escape from ideological indoctrination—anywhere.

2) The Soviets fused their press with the government.

3) The Soviets surveillance state enlisted apparatchiks and lackeys to ferret out dissidents.

4) The Soviets educational system sought not to enlighten, but to indoctrinate in proper government-approved thoughts.

5) The official Soviets was run by a pampered elite, exempt from the ramifications of its own radical socialist ideologies.

6) The Soviets mastered the rewriting and airbrushing away of history to fabricate present reality.

7) The Soviets created a climate of fear and rewarded stool pigeons to root and rat out all potential enemies of the people.

8) Soviets law, state prosecutors, and courts were weaponized according to ideology.

9) The Soviets doled out prizes on the basis of correct Soviet thought.

10) The Soviets offered no apologies for extinguishing freedom. Instead, they boasted they were advocates of equity, champions of the underclass, enemies of privilege, and therefore could terminate anyone or anything they pleased.

Someone please explain how that is different from the current Democratic Party.

Exchange Woke and Woke-ist for Soviet. They are exactly the same.

Equality -~Liberal Madness and all but Impossible






There is no such thing as equality in nature. Only bureaucracies and liberal government can bring about a semblance of faux equality. And that for only a short period of time. Equality is the unique madness of liberalism.

This madness destroys any culture it infects.

Then…the barbarians arrive.





I would say that Communism seeks to make property communal with all peoples equal. 
This is impossible. 
There are no humans who are this honorable, selfless, altruistic.  Communism fails not because it is a bad system. Communism fails because humanity has no ability to cooperate in such a system.

Before the Cult of the Nazarene became the perversion that is Romanized Christianity, the earliest “Christians” operated on this communal principle. All gave what they had and all shared. If someone held back and gave only halfheartedly to the community, that person was ostracized and expelled.

Communism is a valid theory. It is not a valid system. Not because it is inherently good or evil but because humanity is inherently egotistical, exploitative, self-centered. For most of us, it takes great tragedy for us to lift our eyes from our own struggles, trials and tribulations and to aid or care for the other. For communism to work, humanity would have to completely and collectively unclasp their egos and join hands. This is all but impossible.

The Freedom Fighter

John Brown was a mad man. Of that, I have no doubt. Was he a Freedom Fighter? He died in the cause of freedom. He died fighting to end the oppression of the American Slave.

It’s all the rage today and for the past decade to attempt to label the people fighting for  a cause as FREEDOM FIGHTERS.

What is a Freedom Fighter?

Is a Freedom Fighter anyone fighting against a superior force?  Is a freedom fighter anyone willing to fight against perceived oppression no matter the ideals for which that group is fighting?

Were Bolsheviks freedom fighters?  Are Palestinians freedom fighters?  Were the Viet Minh freedom fighters?  Are the Taliban freedom fighters?  Are Sunni insurgents who are backed by al Qaeda freedom fighters?  Are the Hezbollah soldiers backed by Iran in the fight against Lebanese Christians and Israelis fighting for freedom?  Are they freedom fighters?

They fit the definition of Wikipedia.   Yet, are they fighting for freedom or the freedom to oppress as they see fit to oppress.

Hezbollah is an arm of the Iranian Revolution.  They are fighting to establish an extension of the Shi’a form of Iranian oppression over the people of Palestine to include the Jews and Christians of the area.  They would impose the Iranian Revolutionary form of governance over the people of Palestine.  Hamas, Fatah and the PLA would impose their form of governance which would be Sharia Law on all and sundry in the area.  Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Expression and Speech would be on the same level as that of Iran and Saudi Arabia if these folks win.  Yet, many consider these groups to be “Freedom Fighters.”

I would make the assumption that to be labeled a Freedom Fighter, one must be fighting for freedom.  Freedom being defined as:

: the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous

Being released from something onerous.  The absence of coercion or constraint.  I would say destroying a nation that allows free speech and freedom of religion in favor of imposing a Religious Ideology would not qualify as fighting for freedom.  We may as well reach back into history and call Hitler or Napoleon Freedom Fighters.

Geronimo fought for the way of life of his people. Freedom Fighter?

Che Guevara was called a Freedom Fighter.  Some went so far as to call Fidel Castro a Freedom Fighter.  Simon Bolivar WAS a freedom fighter even though in the end he attempted to establish himself as an Imperial Ruler.  He fought to liberate the people of South and Central American from the Colonial oppression of Spain and other European Powers such as Portugal and the Catholic Church.  George Washington could be categorized as a Freedom Fighter.  He fought for Independence.  He was offered absolute power and turned it down in favor of freedom and liberty.  The Haitians during the Presidential Administration of Woodrow Wilson could be labelled such without stretching the term.

Woodrow Wilson who championed Self Determination was absolutely not a fighter in the cause of freedom.  He championed Freedom and Self determination but only so long as you were White, Anglo Saxon and, preferably, Protestant.  Ho Chi Minh, regardless of where he wound up, began as a Freedom Fighter.  When Uncle Ho approached Woodrow Wilson, he was in the fight against colonial oppression.  He fought for the liberation of Indo-China from French, then Japanese and then, once again, French Colonial control.  Once Uncle Ho became the power in North Vietnam, he was no longer a Freedom Fighter.  Not because he was “the MAN,” but because he sought to enslave his fellow Vietnamese with the yoke of Communism.

I would posit that no person who fought for Communism could ever be labeled a Freedom Fighter.  Communism is a form of coercion.  It is a form of constraint.  It is enslavement of mind, body and soul.  One can not fight for freedom and simultaneously fight for the cause of Communism.

Ho Chi Minh ~ fought against colonial oppression of both the Japanese and France then led North Vietnam in the fight to impose communist rule over the soveriegn people of the nation of South Vietnam. Freedom Fighter?

There are many confused folks out there who are wont to use the term Freedom Fighter when speaking of fighters in the cause of Allah.  People fighting for the right to darken a land with the laws of Islam.  Sharia Law.  The imposition of Sharia law is the imposition of a set of laws that enslave mind, body and soul of whole peoples.  The choice of religion is taken away.  Nearly all choice is taken away in the lands of Sharia law.  One must be Muslim or pay a tax for not being so.  That’s no choice.  One can not choose to leave Islam.  The Sentence for leaving Islam is Death.  Once one becomes a Muslim, to depart from the Umma is apostasy.   Apostasy is a crime punishable by death.  The plight of women in Islam is well known.  It matters not if it is cultural or religious or a combination thereof.  Women are chattel property in Islam.  Women have no true rights.  They must dress, act and think as the Patriarch demands.  They must marry whom they are told to marry.  They must act in accordance with the whims of men.

With this in mind, how can a Palestinian be called a Freedom Fighter.  The man who fights for Palestine is fighting to impose Islamic Law over a people who may not want to have Sharia Law imposed on them.  I’m sure the Christians of Palestine will not be content to live under Sharia law.  The Jews of Palestine will not wish to live under Sharia law. Yet, this is the avowed goal.  Palestinian Muslims wish to return Palestine to Islam.  All of Palestine.  The destruction of the Jewish State and the implementation of Islamic Law over all.  Islam uber alles, so to speak.

The Maoists in Nepal and Tibet.  Are these folks freedom fighters?  I think not.  They wish to impose Maoist Communism on the people of these two States.  Having been successful in Tibet with the “assistance” of the Maoist Chinese, they fight on in Nepal by kidnapping tourists and holding them for ransom.

Mahatma Gandhi ~ led the non-violent cause of India towards independence from Britain. India then became a Communist Nation. Freedom Fighter?

We, in the West, too often support a cause based on faulty perceptions.  Someone labels a group Freedom Fighters.  Suddenly and without thought, Westerners jump on the bandwagon.   We should put a little thought into our support of these groups.  What group would you support in Iran if you were to choose?  There are secularists groups in Iran.  Secular Socialists.   Secular Communists.  Secular Islamists.  These are the Islamists themselves who are moderate Muslims and wish for Iran to have a Secular Government and Religion to be extracted from the political sphere.

Who would we support if it came down to it?  I think our government would be fooled again.

Personally, I’d rather have Saddam Hussein and his Ba’athist Party in control of Iraq than the fools emplaced by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfield and George Bush.   Anyone who espouses religious control of the people is a murderer in waiting.  Pat Robertson as Imperial Christian Leader of the Christian States of America would be no different than the Ayatollah Khomeinii.  Of that, I have no doubt.  He would tell us that GoD ordered that all non-believers, heretics, infidels should be put down and we’d have Americans who would understand and obey those orders.  I could see an American Basijji being imposed on us as well under a Christian Administration with the power to do so.  Chastity police roaming the streets of LA, New York, Miami and New Orleans.

With that in mind, Freedom Fighters need to maintain their vigilance right here in America.  We need not imagine or find foes outside of our borders.  We have enemies of freedom right here in America.

Che Guevara ~ led the peasants of South America against the oppressive landlords and governments. Went on to fight for Fidel Castro and Communism. Freedom Fighter?

The Obama Administration is pushing hard to end internet freedom.  That is, however, a bi-partisan issue.  Members of both parties wish for this power.  The same power held by Communist China.  The power to shut down the internet on the mere suggestion of a threat to national security.  Republicans are in on the scam to end internet freedom.  They lie and say that they aren’t for it even as they were poised to vote for PIPA and the similar bills.  Then the American People spoke out on the issue.  The people of the United States who love their freedom spoke out and the people’s representatives, by some miracle, listened and acted accordingly.  The Big Money of MGM, Sony, Virgin and the other Entertainment Moguls who would have stifled freedom in the name of profit were defeated.  But!  It’s only round One.  They’ll come around again with their greed and demagoguery in the name of Profit and Greed.

Can America be considered to have fought for freedom over this past decade?  We fought the Taliban in Afghanistan only to have a Sharia Constitution  imposed on the people of Afghanistan.  We destroyed the Ba’athist Regime of Saddam Hussein only to install a Constitution in Iraq that is based on Sharia Law.  We installed a Government in Iraq via crooked elections that is full of infighting Thugs who are consolidating power into one or two people.  I would be surprised by another Iraqi election.  Afghanistan elected Hamid Karzai to continue his corrupt associations with Warlords and Muslim Thugs.

Was that “freedom fighting?”  If it was freedom, it was short lived.  It ended the moment that Religion took precedence over the will of the people.

All we did was throw out the dirty bath water and, then, jumped in the mud as we marveled over the immaculate mud around our ankles.

Freedom Fighters?

Was there ever a true instance of Freedom Fighters?  I can not think of many instances in history wherein the people were truly fighting for universal freedom.  The American Colonies fight against Britain?  The Irish against Britain?  Gandhi against Britain?  Eastern European revolutions against the Soviet Union?  The Arab Spring?  All of these were marred by instances of people fighting for freedom while enslaving or oppressing  others.  The American Colonies fought to be liberated from the British Empire while enslaving millions and importing millions more from Africa to be enslaved.

I just thought this picture was cool. A Freedom Fighter should fight in the cause of FREEDOM. Fighting in the cause of oppression does not earn one the title of Freedom Fighter.

How can Americans, then, have been called Freedom Fighters?  We fought for White Male  Liberty while simultaneously enslaving millions, committing genocide and denying equality to Women.  Americans destroyed and oppressed whole tribes of peoples across the North American continent.  Is that Freedom Fighting?  We then warred on Mexico because we wanted to take their land.  Freedom Fighters?  We then stole Hawaii and warred with Spain to take control of Spanish Colonies.  Freedom Fighting?

But all of those instances pale in comparison to the fools who called the Communists Freedom Fighters.  There were people in America who supported Mao and Lenin and Stalin and Ho Chi Minh.  There were probably some misguided fools who supported Pol Pot.

Mao was at times called a Freedom Fighter.  Stalin’s minions were called Freedom Fighters in Greece, Italy, South America among other places.  These men enslaved millions and slaughtered and starved millions more.  Unfortunately, FDR and Churchill had us fighting alongside that murderous Thug Stalin in World War II.  We fought Germany to free Eastern European nations from Fascist oppression only to leave them to Communist Enslavement behind the Iron Curtain.  In World War II, we allied ourselves with Satan in order to fend off beezlebub.

Were the Soviets who fought Nazis Freedom Fighters?  Were Nazis who fought the Soviets Freedom Fighters?

These labels that we place on people are idiotic.  No label can nicely and roundly fit a whole group of people.  It’s no different using the label “hero” for all Service Members who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I can tell you for a fact that not all of them are heroes.  A hero is someone who goes above and beyond duty.  A hero is supposed to be someone extraordinary.  A person who sits in an office on Camp Eggers or NKC for 12 months in Kabul, Afghanistan is no more extraordinary than a person who sits in an office in New York City for 12 months.  I don’t care if they wear a uniform or a pair of cut off jeans short and a t-shirt.

Heroes.  Freedom Fighters.

Is it all just nonsense?  I often wonder.  The plain fact is that if everyone is a hero, no one is a hero.  Nothing is heroic.  What do we call people who actually act in heroic manner?  Uber-heroes?

If a freedom fighter can fight for Islamic Sharia or Communism or Slavery, then there is no such thing as Freedom.  One can not freedom fight one’s way into universal bondage.

In America, it's called ObamaCare!

The Next Generation of Fighter will come from this Group. People who refuse to be wage slaves for Corporations.

Health Care, Socialism, Democracy and President Obama

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation. In Marxist theory, socialism is a transitional phase between capitalism and communism characterized by unequal distribution of wealth and compensation according to work done. [1][2][3] Contrary to popular belief, socialism is not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism.

Forerunners of communist ideas existed in antiquity and particularly in the 18th and early 19th century France, with thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the more radical Gracchus Babeuf. Radical egalitarianism then emerged as a significant political power in the first half of 19th century in Western Europe. In the world shaped by the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution, the newly established political left included many various political and intellectual movements, which are the direct ancestors of today’s communism and socialism – these two then newly minted words were almost interchangeable at the time – and of anarchism or anarcho-communism.

Capitalism typically refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in new technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor.

Democracy is a system of government in which either the actual governing is carried out by the people governed (direct democracy), or the power to do so is granted by them (as in representative democracy). The term is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía (info)), “popular government”,[1] which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos), “people” and κράτος (krátos), meaning “power” in the middle of the fifth-fourth century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.[2]

In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of ‘democracy’,[3] there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes, equality and freedom.[4] These principles are reflected by all citizens being equal before the law, and having equal access to power.[5] Additionally, all citizens are able to enjoy legitimized freedoms and liberties, which are usually protected by a constitution.[6][7]

Technically, Obama was/is engaging in a socialist act when he purchased majority shares of several organizations (banks, car manufacturing, etc).  We shall see in due time whether that was a wise act or something less.  It may have been the action that put the economy back on chart.  It may have been wasted money.  Time will reveal it’s truths.

Many in America are comparing a Political Theory with an Economic Theory.  It’s apples and oranges.  One can be both Socialist and Democratic.  One can be both Capitalist and Democratic.  One can not be a pure Socialist and engage in Capitalism or vice versa.  Though China is proving that one can be both Communist and Capitalist right before our eyes or perhaps they are simply oligarchic capitalists.

When someone states that Obama is Socialist that does not preclude him from being Democratic in political system preference.

President Obama is more Socialist than say Forbes or Reagan (perhaps).  He’s no more Socialist than Bush in my opinion.  Bush approved/extended a few programs that many might consider Socialist and if he had been able to sit for a third term, I believe, he would have acted much as did Obama.

On the question of health care, The United States must care for it’s citizens in our post-Industrial age.  The economy and capitalism is not going to do this nor are they designed in theory to do so.  Companies are attempting to cut back on expenses to improve the bottom line.  Canceling health care benefits.  Canceling pensions.  And so on and so forth.  If the United States is going to be a Nation of values and humanity going forward, it must care for it’s citizens.  Health Care is an important part of that plan.  In my opinion.  If America is truly a Nation of, by and for the people, then Health Care is and must be a priority.

It will likely mean heavier taxes.  Personally, I think some of those taxes should come from the businesses that benefit from American Capitalism, the Federal Government and from our military protectionist adventures around the world.  Some must come from the citizens themselves.

Additionally, I think in order for citizens to qualify for said health care, they should be willing to serve in some capacity the country that provides these benefits and “entitlements.”  “To whom much is given, much is expected” after all.  Some want much and expect to give nothing in return.

Welfare as we know it should be heavily reformed as a means to cut spending.  To qualify for welfare, I believe, that one should show that one is working towards something such as higher education or some sort of self improvement.  Welfare should be a graduated system rather than an all or nothing system.  If recipients are not working towards some goal, they should be willing to work in some service category such as working for an NGO or volunteer work or community service of some sort.  I’m completely against giving anyone’s tax dollars away for nothing for all or a great many years of one’s life.  Disability and ill-health should be taken into consideration, of course.  I know too many people back home in Kentucky who have never worked a day in their trailer park livin’, mayonnaise sandwich eatin’ lives.  Yet, they sit and collect tax dollars in the form of food stamps and other forms of social services.  Some of these folks sell drugs on the side or engage in other illicit activity.  Many do not.

Corporate welfare and other handouts should face heavy scrutiny as well.  Why are we giving corporations and other entities these moneys or tax breaks.  Foreign aid and foreign military support should be scrutinized in the same manner.  Why do we still have forces in Europe?  Korea?  Japan?  It’s time to pull out of these places.  Those forces could be better deployed elsewhere or home.  Why are we funding despots when we should be pressuring them to reform.  If they haven’t reformed by now, it’s not going to happen in most cases.  We have carrots with no sticks following on.

Socialism and Democracy can co-exist and America has proven this to a more or less limited degree over the past 70 or so years.  Sweden is rated the most democratic country in the world according to the links below.  It also engages heavily in social welfare.  I don’t know if larger countries can maintain that same model.  But, perhaps, it is worth the chance.