Sunday, March 8, 2009


The word “Marxist” is one I use frequently to describe… well, nearly everyone at the upper levels of American government today. Whether I’m talking about our undocumented, illegal alien president, Barack Obama (where’s that birth certificate, Sonny Boy?), our senators and congressmen, our judicial activists, or our media brainwashers, I’m frequently inclined to attach the “Marxist” appellation to these scoundrels. While in the strictest sense, the word may not always be entirely accurate, I employ it not out of ignorance but for effect:

On November 5th, 2008, the day after Omama! was elected by the foolish People in this country to the presidency, I posted a Blog Bit here titled MARXIST PNEUMONIA AND THE POST-ELECTION FLU.” In that Bit, I wrote the following:

From this day forward, you can expect me to stop using the “Charmin” word [Socialism] and begin using – exclusively – the “toilet paper” term [Marxism].”

You see, I had come to realize that the American People have been so dumbed down that they no longer fully understand the meaning of “Socialism.” They do not always realize that the very concept is completely antithetical to the principles this nation was founded upon – those principles which once upon a time made America the greatest country in the world. But since the term “Socialism” no longer holds any meaning for most Americonned citizens, yet “Marxism” still seems to retain a little of that nasty taste in the mouth, I have decided to call all of our Socialist masters “Marxists.”

However, for the sake of clarity, I’m going to take a moment here to briefly explain what sort of Socialism currently drives this country. First take note: While all Marxists are socialists, not all socialists are Marxists. As far as Socialism in general goes, I think Rene Wormser probably said it best in his very important 1958 book FOUNDATIONS: THEIR POWER AND INFLUENCE:

“[I]t is difficult to mark the line beyond which socialism becomes communism. The line may be between methods of assuming power, communism being distinguished from other forms of socialism by its intent upon establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. But this line is by no means clear. Socialism has the same ends as communism, though with an allegedly democratic approach. The Communist Manifesto of 1848 is the basis of all socialist parties the world over. Marx himself did not distinguish between socialism and communism...”

Now, for the remainder of this brief examination, I am going to quote from one of the two greatest political books I’ve ever read, and yes, I’ve read a ton of political books. (You read sixteen tons and what do you get? A load of frustration and deeper in debt!) The following comes from the masterpiece NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON: 25 YEARS LATER by Mr. John Stormer. This is the 1990 updated version of his original 1964 political classic. Let’s look into Chapter XII; ‘Economics And Government’:

Government contol has been the ultimate goal of the collectivist thinkers who have been infiltrating every segment of American life for 60 years. In government, as in every other field, the collectivists have first infiltrated quietly, and then grabbed for control. …


As collectivists have grabbed for control of the federal government they have skillfully used the “economic” theories of John Maynard Keynes, a British Fabian economist, as the vehicle for buying the votes and support of the masses with their own money.

Today’s advocates of Keynes and his theories present him respectably as the “last hope for saving free enterprises” in the typical Fabian fashion of “never calling socialism by its true label.” However, no less an authority than Norman Thomas, six-time Socialist candidate for President of the United States, writing in ‘A Socialist’s Faith’, said:

“…Keynes has had a great influence and his work is especially important in any re-appraisal of socialist theory. He represents a decisive break with laissez-faire capitalism.”

The Keynes brand of socialism differs from the Marxist variety in that it advocates strict control of the means of production and the supply of credit and money rather than government ownership. On the theory that when control is possible, ownership is not required, the Keynesian theories are particularly suited to the Fabian goal of “change everything except the outward appearance.” The national socialist movements headed by Hitler and Mussolini recognized the beauties of control rather than ownership and adopted Keynes theories in Germany and Italy.

John Strachey, a one-time Communist who entered the British Fabian Society in 1943 and became War Minister in the Labor Government of Great Britain in 1950, explains Keynes theories this way:

“The positive part of Keynes’ work was a demand that capitalism should now be regulated and controlled by a central authority. … The principal instruments of its policy should be variations in the rate of interest, budgetary deficits and surpluses, public works and a redistribution of personal incomes in equalitarian direction. This positive side of Keynes’ work requires an authority to do the regulating, and that authority can be, in contemporary conditions, nothing else but the government of a nation state.”

Strachey hints to his socialist followers the ultimate possibilities in Keynes’ theories. He says:

“Was it not apparent that Keynesism had only to be pushed a little further and a state of things might emerge in which the nominal owners of the means of production, although left in full possession of the legal title to their property, would in reality be working not for themselves, but for whatever hands grasped the central levers of social control? … Might not the end of the story be that once proud possessors of the means of production would find themselves in effect but agents and managers on behalf of the community?”

Strachey cold-bloodedly admits the falsity of the “saving capitalism” mantle wrapped around Keynesian theories:

“…the capitalists have really good reasons for their reluctance to be saved by Keynesian policies.”

Taking into consideration recent movements toward nationalizing the banking industry, the medical industry, and the housing market, along with every other aspect of American life, it’s perfectly clear that the Keynesian system of socialization is being followed to the letter K. Comrades, let’s look at more from the same chapter of Stormer’s masterpiece:

Dr. William Wirt, the superintendent of schools from Gary, Indiana, was invited to dinner at the home of a government employee while in Washington to attend a school administrators meeting in September 1933. After dinner, the hostess, Alice Barrows, an employeee of the Department of Education, and other guests disclosed that Communists had infiltrated and taken control of the New Deal. Four of the dinner guests were government employees. The fifth was the Washington representative of Tass, the Soviet news agency. Wirt summarized what was said at the meeting… :

“Brain Trusters insist that the America of Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln must first be destroyed so that on the ruins they will be able to construct an America after their own pattern. … They wish to put the common man back into the feudal society of the Dark Ages. … I was told they believe that by thwarting our then evident economic recovery they would be able to prolong the country’s destitution until they had demonstrated to the American people that the Government must operate business and commerce. By propaganda they would destroy institutions making long-time capital loans – and then push Uncle Sam into making these loans. Once Uncle Sam becomes our financier he must also follow his money with control and management.”

Hmmm… Amerika 2009, anyone? If I, with my limited knowledge of economic theories, am able to clearly discern through basic logic that the monetary path our current puppet masters have chosen to follow will lead us to a complete debasing of and thus ultimately the ruination of the American dollar, then you can be sure that those socialists in Washington D.C. know it, too. And unless you, Blog Reader, can see this just as plainly, then you must openly confess to being less intelligent than I am. (And that would be a pretty sad admission, because – Lord, help me! – I’m just not that bright.) Let’s get back to the book, my fellow Amerikeynes. On page 272, Mr. Stormer describes the “spend your way to prosperity” concept as “Keynesian.” (Whose theories is our illegal alien in the White House following? Anyone? You there, Billy! Put down that cell phone and answer the question!) And then Mr. Stormer goes on to write:

Not many Americans are comfortable with the ideas of the political arm of the Fabian Society. But as president, John Kennedy appointed 40 members of this political under-world to high government posts.

For example, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., a Harvard professor and ADA-founder, is Kennedy’s special assistant. In 1947, Schlesinger wrote:

“If socialism … is to preserve democracy it must be brought about step by step in a way which will not disrupt the fabric of custom, law and mutual confidence upon which personal rights depend. That is, the transition must be piecemeal… There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals. Socialism, then, appears quite practical within this frame of reference, as a long-time proposition. It’s gradual advance might well preserve order and law. … The active agents in effecting the transition will probably be, not the working classes, but some combination of lawyers, business and labor managers, politicians and intellectuals, in the manner of the first New Deal.”

In these three short paragraphs, Schlesinger confirms vividly what good Americans are called right-wing extremists for saying: That the Fabians (gradualists) are socialists; that Keynesian economic policy is the path to socialism; that goals of communism and socialism are essentially the same; that New Deal welfare state proposals whether enacted by Democrats or Republicans are socialistic; that establishment of socialism will result in a curtailment of freedom; that socialism and communism appeal, not to the working class or the poverty stricken masses, but to the “liberal” intellectual, the college professor, and the turncoat businessman.

So there you have it, a short and simple explanation of the basic differences between Marxist and Keynesian economic theories. It’s clear that since Marxism, because of its bloody history, could probably never be forced upon the Americonned People, a different method had to be employed. Through the decades, and regardless of whether they referred to themselves as Conservatives or Progressives (liberals), Republicans or Democrats, Capitalists or Communists, our traitors in high places have surreptitiously followed the path of Keynesian socialism, steering this country there through legislation and judicial rulings. So, now ya know! The names may change, the labels may change, the party in power may change, but the slow march to a socialistic global government remains the same. Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama: Keynesians all!

And the Endgame is this: wreck the American economy and replace the dollar with the “Amero," a new form of money for the planned North American Union (Canada, the U.S., and Mexico). This will move us one step closer to the goal of a world government with a single global monetary system and the end of national sovereignty – a “New World Order.”

As Newsweek magazine boldly proclaimed on its cover recently: “WE ARE ALL SOCIALISTS NOW.” Indeed. But this did not happen by accident nor because free enterprise Capitalism doesn’t work. It happened because unpatriotic Elitists sold us out in an attempt to consolidate power for themselves. And it happened because you, Mr. and Mrs. and Miss and Ms. Amerikeyne, didn’t turn off your TV and wake up to what was happening and vote for strict Constitutionalists (like Ron Paul) to government office. YOU voted for Socialism instead of The American Way. Good goin’! In this country, ya gets what ya votes for!

In closing, I want to say a few more words about the book I quoted from here:

A lawyer where I work is now leaving the company, and knowing she would soon have considerably more downtime, asked if I would compile a list of recommended books for her to explore. I tailored the list specifically for her, based upon my slight knowledge of her interests, but a few titles which I included, I would have placed on a recommended book list for ANYONE. And one of those publications was NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON: 25 YEARS LATER by John Stormer. Here is how I described the book on her list:

The original 1964 classic on Communism and Liberalism updated [in 1990]. Every bit as relevant today as it was in ’64. It’s comprehensive, thoroughly researched and referenced. Its importance is impossible to overstate… Along with THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND: A SECOND LOOK AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE, it is A MUST-READ! (Be sure you get the updated version with the “25 Years Later” subtitle added.)

But to put it even more forcefully, I will say that, in my opinion, no one’s political education is near complete until he or she has read NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON: 25 YEARS LATER. There is only one political book as good and none better. (Bear in mind when reading it that the first 14 of its 27 chapters were penned in ’64, so a few details in those chapters are no longer in effect. For instance, the Gold Standard has since been utterly abandoned… for obvious, underhanded reasons. So read the original portion of the book with modern changes in mind.)

That’s all, folks!
Goodbye for now, Blog Reader.
Adios forever, America! (You voted yourself to death.)

~ Stephen T. McCarthy


  1. I'm putting this on my myspace blog. It's great and you get full credit as the author of course.

  2. .
    Glad ya "digged" it, Br'er Marc. THANKS!

    OK, youz gotz my permission.

    And now ya un'erstan' why I said last night in our phone conversation that I was ticked that I lost the whole danged thang when I clicked da wrong blasted button. Anytime da stupid computer axe ya: "Does ya wanna save dis?" da answer is alwayz: "Hell yez!"

    Uhp! I'm an idiot!

    Yak later, Br'erz.

    ~ STMcC
    <"As a dog returns to his own vomit,
    so a fool repeats his folly."
    ~ Proverbs 26:11>

  3. The Traveling Willboy #6May 2, 2010 at 11:58 PM

    OK, now this is one that I read before in real time, and thought "I agree with all this stuff, and it is quite familiar to me." I had not and still have not read NDCIT, but I actually own two copies. I will read it soon, after I finish Jekyll Island.

    This piece - I recall now - was one that made me:

    1) think "he's preaching to the choir"
    2) remind me of the sort of detail included in Ayn Rand's philosophical stuff, and got me to re-reading some of her musings
    3) well, this third one would just sound like effusive pandering to you enormous ego. But, it is good. Too bad I am not writing it.


    Well, I hope the copies you own of Stormer's book are the updated version containing the subtitle "25 YEARS LATER". That's the one ya wanna read.

    As for the remarks you placed behind #3)... I couldn't quite figure out if that was meant as an insult or a compliment. Maybe something down the white line in the road, eh?

    ~ Stephen
    "As a dog returns to his own vomit,
    so a fool repeats his folly."
    ~ Proverbs 26:11

  5. Sadly, Stephen, as we recently discussed, I refute your assumption that the average American has any idea what the principles this nation was founded upon are, or what "Communism" even means beyond the fact that "Communism" is "bad" and "America" is "good."

  6. DISCMAN ~
    Actually, that was not the nature of our discussion.

    Nowhere will you find me writing or saying that I think Americans have an understanding of their country's founding principles. In fact, I have often said that their ignorance of this is our primary problem in this nation.

    Our discussion centered on your belief that Americans generally approve of Socialistic programs. And it is THAT which I said I could not reasonably dispute.

    Yes, I agree, by and large, our people seem to have no aversion to blatant Socialism. And by and large, they seem to have no comprehension of the fact that Socialism is antithetical to our Founding Dad's founding principles.

    So, we - you and I - are in agreement on both counts.

    ~ Stephen
    "As a dog returns to his own vomit,
    so a fool repeats his folly."
    ~ Proverbs 26:11

  7. Stephen-

    I kind of blended our conversation and this post in my comment, albiet unclearly.

    It is in this post where you seem to give the Americonneds a little more intelligence than they may warrant:

    >They do not always realize that >the very concept is completely >antithetical to the principles >this nation was founded upon

    I knew we are in agreement and this was not meant as a slur on you, but a jab at the American people who seem to just let their rights get trampled.

    I'm hoping that a casual reader of this blog may feel the desire to not be included under the "Americonned" umbrella and find his or her way to some of the books you recommend.

    Yes, I know it is a hope viewed through red-white-and-blue tinted glasses, and probably one in vain, but without real hope, I may as well just help myself to some of the Obama kool-aid!

  8. No, problem, Brother. I did not at all take your comment as a slur directed at me. I just figured that the heart of the matter which we were discussing had merely slipped your mind. (But at least you have one. Mine stepped out for a cigarette 15 years ago and hasn't been seen since.)

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'


All submitted comments that do not transgress "Ye Olde Comment Policy" will be posted and responded to as soon as possible. Thanks for taking the time to comment.