Hillary Is a Menshevik

The Bolshevik/Menshevik crisis we saw in the first stages of the Russian Revolution is bubbling to the surface in our country through the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party today reflects an updated version of the Bolshevik/Menshevik split of the early 20th century.  In 1903, the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party (communist) split into two opposing groups, the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks.  Vladimir Lenin, leader of the pro-dictatorial Bolsheviks, defined the difference between the two groups, as one being "hard" (Bolsheviks) and the other being "soft," led by Leon Trotsky, Georgi Plekhanov, Julius Martov, and others.  Both were for the overthrow of capitalism and of the Tsarist regime, but the Mensheviks would allow for a somewhat broader range of views within the communist apparatus.  Ironically, the meeting that sealed this split was held in London, a center of capitalism, where differences could be aired, and even revolutionary groups could meet without fear of reprisal.

After the outbreak of the Russian Revolution, Russia withdrew from WWI, and a long civil war raged between the two parties, which the Bolsheviks won.  A dictatorship of the proletariat was happily introduced by Lenin, but because of weak production, particularly in agriculture, there was some modification in the direction of private ownership under Lenin's New Economic Policy.  When Lenin died, the dictatorial confiscation of private property was reinstated under Josef Stalin, Lenin's successor.  Trotsky had to escape to Mexico, where one of Stalin's hired assassins murdered him.

Stalin's policy was to purge, purge, purge.  The revolution had to be purified.  You see, some prosperous peasants in Ukraine, the kulaks, were not happy turning over their land and their equipment – in short, their small agri-businesses – to this vicious ideologue who was intent on collectivizing agriculture.  Many kulaks were murdered.  Others left their homes and fled as far as Siberia.  Their properties and possessions were confiscated.  It was one of the most horrible episodes in the history of humankind of a government dispossessing and brutally enslaving and killing its own people.

The Menshevik opposition was crushed in Russia, but it lived on elsewhere as a communist ideal, violently opposed to capitalism, albeit anti-Stalinist.  So when we saw the collapse of communism in the USSR, we saw the collapse of Bolshevism, but Menshevism has lived on all these decades and is now the order of the day in the Democratic Party.

What are the parallels between then and now?  With the followers of Bernie Sanders, we see the essence of the Menshevik pattern.  It is solidly anti-capitalist and Marxist in its foundation.  Bernie's willingness to relinquish his microphone to Black Lives Matter was a symbol of his willingness to accommodate to the more thuggish and violent elements of the Democratic Party.  Under the rubric of listening to "the people's voice," Bernie and friends will give ground to the violent voices.  At the convention, we hear speakers like Leon Panetta, Tim Kaine, and Joe Biden being drowned out by the Sanders Menshevik group at various point in their speeches.  Meanwhile, outside the hall, other communists were burning flags and screaming their pro-communist obscenities.  This violent (Stalinist) voice will continue to accompany the mainstream Menshevik voice, since both are ideologically on the same page.

Many news articles noted that terrorism was barely discussed during the convention.  The reason is that the left is united ideologically with the Islamist terrorists in their bid to destabilize the U.S. and the West and to overthrow capitalism using the Islamists' strategically to accomplish long-run goals, intending to dispense with them at the right time.  Of course, the Islamists, in a parallel fashion, are using their left-wing sympathizers to accomplish their goals to destroy the infidels and their governments.  At the right time, we can be sure that they intend to put the left-wing infidels in their place as second-class, jizya-paying infidels. 

Hillary is also a Menshevik, albeit a more subtle Menshevik than Sanders.  She selects the impressive Tim Kaine as her running mate.  He, like Hillary, does not openly and boastfully speak of their identification with Marxist philosophy, but instead speaks of his commitment to "social justice."  Kaine boasts of his Catholic upbringing (remember, Josef Stalin attended a seminary for a while to become a priest in the Russian Orthodox Church).  Kaine doesn't say he is vigorously pro-life.  But he portrays himself as a warrior of the caring wing of Catholicism like Pope Francis – all for one and one for all.  All religions are peaceful.  We all have much more in common than the perceived differences would seem to suggest.  The convention theme is "Together."

Also, in a strange way, Hillary's old-school corruption, where she is bought by Wall Street and foreign individuals and entities, creates the impression that she is simply greedy and not really a threat to our freedom or to capitalism.  How could somebody who benefits so much from a parasitical relationship with capitalism be opposed to capitalism?

You see, Hillary is a disciple of the community organizer Saul Alinsky, just like Pres. Obama.  Consider this quotation from Alinsky's classic book about community organizing, Rules for Radicals: "If I were organizing in an orthodox Jewish community I would not walk in there eating a ham sandwich, unless I wanted to be rejected so I could have an excuse to cop out. My 'thing,' if I want to organize, is solid communication with the people in the community. Lacking communication I am in reality silent; throughout history silence has been regarded as assent — in this case assent to the system" (my italics). 

If you are one of the more intelligent promoters of Alinskyism, you will realize that Hillary's engagement with the big money moguls both domestic and foreign is a twofold strategy.  Her selfishness and corruption from taking bribes and contributions can be (falsely) perceived as her assent to capitalism, to the system of high-level corruption which Sanders claims to oppose and which Trump jokes about as necessary in order to do business.  But what did Alinsky write?  If you want to organize orthodox Jews, you cannot eat ham in front of them.  If you want to organize America, you have to seem to be putting money first.  This is not the country of high-minded Christian ethics it was at our founding.  Hillary's character flaw, greediness so-called, is part of her Menshevik Alinsky strategy – to seem committed to the very system that in fact she is dedicated to destroying.

By taking the money, she seems to be assenting to capitalism; however, in fact, she wants to bring down the system, which we see from her commitment to protecting the Islamists in the Middle East and in the U.S., like Obama, by avoiding the rhetoric of "Islamic terrorism."  Also, she has put herself foursquare on the side of exponentially expanding the scope of the federal government's role in the economy and in our private lives.  Further, instead of supporting the family and the individual, she supports the "global village" concept, the pro-abortion movement, and the expansion – not the reduction – of people's dependence on governmental welfare programs.  In short, she is as much of a Menshevik as Sanders, only she has learned the Alinsky method at a deeper level than Sanders.  

The Bolshevik/Menshevik crisis we saw in the first stages of the Russian Revolution is bubbling to the surface in our country through the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party today reflects an updated version of the Bolshevik/Menshevik split of the early 20th century.  In 1903, the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party (communist) split into two opposing groups, the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks.  Vladimir Lenin, leader of the pro-dictatorial Bolsheviks, defined the difference between the two groups, as one being "hard" (Bolsheviks) and the other being "soft," led by Leon Trotsky, Georgi Plekhanov, Julius Martov, and others.  Both were for the overthrow of capitalism and of the Tsarist regime, but the Mensheviks would allow for a somewhat broader range of views within the communist apparatus.  Ironically, the meeting that sealed this split was held in London, a center of capitalism, where differences could be aired, and even revolutionary groups could meet without fear of reprisal.

After the outbreak of the Russian Revolution, Russia withdrew from WWI, and a long civil war raged between the two parties, which the Bolsheviks won.  A dictatorship of the proletariat was happily introduced by Lenin, but because of weak production, particularly in agriculture, there was some modification in the direction of private ownership under Lenin's New Economic Policy.  When Lenin died, the dictatorial confiscation of private property was reinstated under Josef Stalin, Lenin's successor.  Trotsky had to escape to Mexico, where one of Stalin's hired assassins murdered him.

Stalin's policy was to purge, purge, purge.  The revolution had to be purified.  You see, some prosperous peasants in Ukraine, the kulaks, were not happy turning over their land and their equipment – in short, their small agri-businesses – to this vicious ideologue who was intent on collectivizing agriculture.  Many kulaks were murdered.  Others left their homes and fled as far as Siberia.  Their properties and possessions were confiscated.  It was one of the most horrible episodes in the history of humankind of a government dispossessing and brutally enslaving and killing its own people.

The Menshevik opposition was crushed in Russia, but it lived on elsewhere as a communist ideal, violently opposed to capitalism, albeit anti-Stalinist.  So when we saw the collapse of communism in the USSR, we saw the collapse of Bolshevism, but Menshevism has lived on all these decades and is now the order of the day in the Democratic Party.

What are the parallels between then and now?  With the followers of Bernie Sanders, we see the essence of the Menshevik pattern.  It is solidly anti-capitalist and Marxist in its foundation.  Bernie's willingness to relinquish his microphone to Black Lives Matter was a symbol of his willingness to accommodate to the more thuggish and violent elements of the Democratic Party.  Under the rubric of listening to "the people's voice," Bernie and friends will give ground to the violent voices.  At the convention, we hear speakers like Leon Panetta, Tim Kaine, and Joe Biden being drowned out by the Sanders Menshevik group at various point in their speeches.  Meanwhile, outside the hall, other communists were burning flags and screaming their pro-communist obscenities.  This violent (Stalinist) voice will continue to accompany the mainstream Menshevik voice, since both are ideologically on the same page.

Many news articles noted that terrorism was barely discussed during the convention.  The reason is that the left is united ideologically with the Islamist terrorists in their bid to destabilize the U.S. and the West and to overthrow capitalism using the Islamists' strategically to accomplish long-run goals, intending to dispense with them at the right time.  Of course, the Islamists, in a parallel fashion, are using their left-wing sympathizers to accomplish their goals to destroy the infidels and their governments.  At the right time, we can be sure that they intend to put the left-wing infidels in their place as second-class, jizya-paying infidels. 

Hillary is also a Menshevik, albeit a more subtle Menshevik than Sanders.  She selects the impressive Tim Kaine as her running mate.  He, like Hillary, does not openly and boastfully speak of their identification with Marxist philosophy, but instead speaks of his commitment to "social justice."  Kaine boasts of his Catholic upbringing (remember, Josef Stalin attended a seminary for a while to become a priest in the Russian Orthodox Church).  Kaine doesn't say he is vigorously pro-life.  But he portrays himself as a warrior of the caring wing of Catholicism like Pope Francis – all for one and one for all.  All religions are peaceful.  We all have much more in common than the perceived differences would seem to suggest.  The convention theme is "Together."

Also, in a strange way, Hillary's old-school corruption, where she is bought by Wall Street and foreign individuals and entities, creates the impression that she is simply greedy and not really a threat to our freedom or to capitalism.  How could somebody who benefits so much from a parasitical relationship with capitalism be opposed to capitalism?

You see, Hillary is a disciple of the community organizer Saul Alinsky, just like Pres. Obama.  Consider this quotation from Alinsky's classic book about community organizing, Rules for Radicals: "If I were organizing in an orthodox Jewish community I would not walk in there eating a ham sandwich, unless I wanted to be rejected so I could have an excuse to cop out. My 'thing,' if I want to organize, is solid communication with the people in the community. Lacking communication I am in reality silent; throughout history silence has been regarded as assent — in this case assent to the system" (my italics). 

If you are one of the more intelligent promoters of Alinskyism, you will realize that Hillary's engagement with the big money moguls both domestic and foreign is a twofold strategy.  Her selfishness and corruption from taking bribes and contributions can be (falsely) perceived as her assent to capitalism, to the system of high-level corruption which Sanders claims to oppose and which Trump jokes about as necessary in order to do business.  But what did Alinsky write?  If you want to organize orthodox Jews, you cannot eat ham in front of them.  If you want to organize America, you have to seem to be putting money first.  This is not the country of high-minded Christian ethics it was at our founding.  Hillary's character flaw, greediness so-called, is part of her Menshevik Alinsky strategy – to seem committed to the very system that in fact she is dedicated to destroying.

By taking the money, she seems to be assenting to capitalism; however, in fact, she wants to bring down the system, which we see from her commitment to protecting the Islamists in the Middle East and in the U.S., like Obama, by avoiding the rhetoric of "Islamic terrorism."  Also, she has put herself foursquare on the side of exponentially expanding the scope of the federal government's role in the economy and in our private lives.  Further, instead of supporting the family and the individual, she supports the "global village" concept, the pro-abortion movement, and the expansion – not the reduction – of people's dependence on governmental welfare programs.  In short, she is as much of a Menshevik as Sanders, only she has learned the Alinsky method at a deeper level than Sanders.