The Revolutionary's Catechism: a Primer for Modern American Liberalism

By BlowHard, published Nov 27, 2007
Published Content: 178  Total Views: 28,061  Favorited By: 41 CPs
Rating: 4.8 of 5
I knew I'd find it somewhere, someday. And sure enough, I picked up a biography on Comrade Stalin and began to devour it. In it I have discovered the "how-to" manual Liberals are employing in their maniacal dash for political, social and economic supremacy in the United States. It is known as The Revolutionary's Catechism.

In the biography entitled Stalin, author Edvard Radzinsky introduced his readers to The Revolutionary's Catechism by Sergei Nechaev. Nechaev's catechism was the road map used by the Reds in their grab for the power of the Russian government.

Author Radzinsky was tenacious in gaining access to the Party Archives after the collapse of the Soviet empire. He likens his foray into those archives as taking the first footsteps into the secrets of "that incorrigibly conspiratorial party," as he describes the Bolsheviks and Communists in general.

Let's examine this statement for a moment. An "incorrigibly conspiratorial party," the author stated. Taking the statement at face value Radzinsky summed up not only the practical realization of Soviet Communism as practiced for 70 odd years, but he also indicted the methods employed by the Reds in their power grab, and used to assassinate the character of various Party members as they fell in and out of favor. And that conspiracy bit sounds a lot like the conspiracy theorists we find in the US today.

By way of demonstration as to the commitment of the Bolsheviks, Radzinsky points out the Revolutionary's Catechism's admonition that "comrades are to be valued only in accordance with their usefulness to the cause."

And these practices of the Reds were not only employed upon Party members to keep them in line; these same tactics were turned loose on the countryside as well. They used the term "expropriation" to describe their methods. They justified all manner of actions as acceptable within the revolutionary's toolkit: murder and political assassination, bank robbery, extortion, you name it; the Bolsheviks used it to gain power - and to keep it.

Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 10 of 10
 
 
The first thing that communist rebels do is to point out all the ills of the society, appeal to the poorest in the country and promise distribution of wealth, and call the capitalists bad. Put simply, and boiled down to the essence, that's what the Democrats do. So what's the difference here? The motivation is actually so they can get in power -- they have a desire for power -- and that definitely describes Hillary Clinton. So again what's the difference? Your analogy is spot on.

Posted on 12/01/2007 at 7:12:00 AM

 
Jim, I enjoyed your article and your comments even more so. Your analysis of FNC, including Hannity, was dead on.

Posted on 11/30/2007 at 11:11:00 PM

 
:-)

Posted on 11/29/2007 at 3:11:00 AM

 
Jimbo..you kinda struck a nerve with this one, so I wrote a reponse article "The American Right and Russia." Check it out...as for what Jack said and your reponse, I will give you MSNBC, but only recently. And some spots on CNN. Still, I think most American media is unwilling to challenge the powers that be, especially when it might threaten their corporate sponsorships..

Posted on 11/28/2007 at 1:11:00 PM

 
Jack, you have a valid point. The media on BOTH SIDES are biased. I have to admit, that I am tired of Hannity and his magnification of every Lib issue to the point of turning me, a Cons., off. As for O'Reilly, he is truly fair. He'll bust a Rep. as quick as a Dem. I heard a Lefty on FOX last week say "There is no bias in media, but the Republicans have been trotting that one out for 20 years." I swear I almost shot the TV! I honestly feel that FOX SEEEMS biased when compared to CNN because CNN is so damn Left leaning. Remember, in a 2004 poll 89% of media employees polled ADMITTED to being Liberal. 89%. So, for one to claim FOX is biased, but CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, et al are not is a damn lie. I say we shoot 'em all!

Posted on 11/28/2007 at 8:11:00 AM

 
Come on, Jim, the U.S. media thrive on failure and fear. It's not a Left-Right thing, it's a U.S. media thing. Look at your favorites on Fox - show me an episode of the Factor when Bill-o isn't complaining about something. Heck, show me an episode when he isn't complaining about San Francisco! And during the Clinton presidency, do you remember Rush griping every single day of the week? I think we all have had a lot to complain about over the past 6 years. Regardless of whether you are for or against the war, even the most ardent conservative must admit that it wasn't handled properly the first three years. I will say one thing about the Dems though - those in Congress should indeed complain less and act more. They have a mandate, and thus far, they've failed.

Posted on 11/27/2007 at 8:11:00 PM

 
Not trying to toot my own horn or add page views, but on August 29 I posted a related article title "Intended Consequences," based entirely on my gut feeling about this situation. When I read the Stalin bio and the parts the Stalin author thought were so pertinent to the issue as to include them from the Revolutionary's Catechism, I was certain I was right. As it states, "as to sewing discontent among the populace, the revolutionary ". . . must aggravate the miseries of the common people, so as to exhaust their patience and incite them to rebel." If that ain't what's goin' on here, then I am sadly mistaken, but my gut tells me I'm dead on.http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/362949/intended_consequences.html

Posted on 11/27/2007 at 5:11:00 PM

 
Thanks Jim - I understand. Just read this http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/69830.php and it is a fantastic read.

Posted on 11/27/2007 at 5:11:00 PM

 
Agreed about the Russian people. The "slavish submission" quote was a reference to Russians, circa 1900. And I do not mean to imply that the Left are Commies. I do not believe that, nor do I believe they would favor any form of Communism. However, don't their mouthpieces promise all to all? Don't their constant gripes about EVERYTHING seem as if they are trying to sow discontent? The media rarely reports success, but never misses failure. I am 100% convinced by all I have seen since 2000 that the Left is intentionally trying to keep up a never ending litany of doom and gloom to wear down our patience, in the gambit that we will cross ideological lines and vote them into office just to end all the bickering and complaints. That was my main point; perhaps I was not clear.

Posted on 11/27/2007 at 5:11:00 PM

 
Jim, I'm conservative and worry about the redistribution of wealth as a policy advancing toward socialism, but I think this could be a stretch. Nevertheless, you have many valid points that bare watching. As an aside, if you examine Russian history it is easy to note that the Russian people have been ruled by a dictatorial system for almost a thousand years. The recent change in direction toward democratic reform and now the power grabbing by Putin that is occurring could be expected. I think the Russians need to be told what to think in many cases - perhaps a genetic predisposition after 1000 years?

Posted on 11/27/2007 at 5:11:00 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 10 of 10
 
Most Commented On