Trickle Up Poverty (10 page)

If you care about your future, if you love your country as much as I do, you owe it to yourself to listen carefully as Doc Savage lays this out for you in plain English. Better brace yourself. The next chapter provides the crash course on socialism they never taught you in school. And, in the end, I promise the scales of liberalism will fall from your eyes. You’ll see I’m right when I say that Barack Obama is a naked Marxist. You’ll understand how and why Obama intends to use trickle up poverty in order to garner even more power and control for the multicultural, ruling elite.

Are you ready for the Savage truth?

Then read on.

Spending Other People’s Money

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

—George Santayana1

The other day I was watching a movie on television about Rocky Graziano, a great middleweight Italian boxer from New York. You might say he was the original Rocky. This guy was one of the greatest knockout fighters in the history of boxing. I think he ranked in the top twenty or so. Doesn’t matter. What really caught my eye were the street scenes from New York City. It was a different time. I was fascinated to see kids gliding down the sidewalks on homemade scooters because I had one.

As I watched, I remembered making a wooden scooter with my father out of scraps of wood. Since we couldn’t afford to buy one, we took whatever was lying around, and made it work. About all I could scrounge up was a six-foot length of a 2×4, one roller skate, an orange cart, some handles from who knows what, and a few rusty nails. If you were creative, it was enough.

Dad took the board and, on one end, we attached the front wheels of the roller skate. On the opposite end, we hammered on the back set of wheels from the skate. We nailed those wheels on as you put a horseshoe on a horse. With that done, we took the wooden orange crate and fastened it to the front end of the board. We nailed two handles on top of the orange crate.

Presto! I had an instant scooter.

Some kids would build a go-cart out of wood using the wheels from a baby carriage. They were inventive and, while these toys weren’t necessarily beautiful in the traditional sense of the word, we loved them because we had made them ourselves. The point of the story is that I come from a time in America when kids made toys because they didn’t have the money to buy them. They made them out of scraps of wood, nails, a hammer, and sweat. What a different time it was.

If we wanted something but couldn’t afford it, we knew we had to make it ourselves, work to buy it, or learn to do without it. Which is why I have serious problems with Barack Obama’s entitlement and redistributing of wealth scheme. I don’t care what Marx the Slacker preached. No man, woman, or child is entitled to benefit from the fruit of another man’s labor—unless that worker decides to be charitable.

Why do naked Marxist-Leninist politicians like Obama ostensibly take from the middle class to give to the rich and poor? Because they understand the power of a well-placed handout to buy off the people and to further their real socialist agenda—a cycle of dependency on the government from cradle to grave and to diminish the “bourgeoisie,” the middle class. Make no mistake. This Marxist-Leninist president is converting America into a socialist nation step by step, the same way Mao Zedong did it on the Long March in China.

I’ve said this president is a revolutionary socialist.

I’ve said he’s a naked Marxist-Leninist.

I’ve said these things because I know what I’m talking about.

My interest in this topic of Marxism, Leninism, and socialism goes back to my own heritage. I am the son of an immigrant. My grandfather fled Communism, Marxism, and the Red Revolution. He came to New York right after 1917 to find a new life for himself in a free society. Thanks to him, I was steeped in anti-communist philosophy from the earliest age. I was taught to cherish the freedom of the American experience. I was told how sacred and fragile liberty is and how I should always work to protect it.

Taking advantage of his newfound freedom, my grandfather opened a little tailor shop of his own and was proud of the suits he designed and made for his customers. He died young of a heart attack because he worked with a passion seven days a week. Naturally, I wanted to know why this man traveled thousands of miles away from his home, family, and friends to start over here in America. Which is why I’ve studied Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot—all of them, since I was eighteen years old.

I didn’t read them because I worshipped them or saw them as possessing the answer. I studied them because I was a college student who didn’t want to repeat the mistakes of history. It’s not as though I just started reading this stuff yesterday so I could be on Fox News with a blackboard lecturing everyone. I’ve studied revolutions for over forty years. I know what’s going on with this president and Americans would, too, if they had not been inculcated with socialism in America’s public schools.

That said, a few questions are in order.

Do the Tea Party movement and the middle class have any basis to be suspicious that President Obama’s true agenda is to spearhead a socialist revolution? Or, are these fears nothing more than unfounded rumors raised by rabble-rousers? Is Barack Obama operating within the grand traditions of America? Or, is he philosophically aligned with the traditions of the European socialist theories of Marxism-Leninism, as many suspect? Is Obama simply an idealist and not an ideologue? Or is he a “Manchurian candidate”?

I think we have to approach these questions almost clinically.

Before we get started, I must warn you of something. I have no gray zone when it comes to this topic of Marxism-Leninism. This discussion is going to disturb the old sixties hippies who still cling to their Leninist illusions. The same goes for the unenlightened leftists who have been in therapy for twenty years, the Woody Allen types hooked on Marx and medical marijuana.

The Head of the Snake

Entire books have been written about Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin, the Three Stooges of Communism. These men thought they had invented a better economic and philosophical system upon which to build a nation. All three couldn’t have been more mistaken. Like their TV and film counterparts, Marx, Lenin, and Stalin were always working on a new angle to pull the wool over the sheeple’s eyes—although their results were far from a laughing matter.

My purpose here is not to rehash in detail what we know of these dangerous radicals, whose beliefs led to the enslavement and deaths of tens of millions of people wherever communism has been tried. No, this is a simple crash course in Marxism-Leninism, upon which communist socialism was built. This brief examination will include how it’s being marketed today by our Marxist-Leninist president who, as we established in the last chapter, studied Marxism in college.

We begin with the granddaddy of communist thought, Karl Marx.

In an odd way, it could be argued that Karl Marx was the original hippie.

Why do I say that? Like the hippies in the sixties, Marx was a counterculture-type who sought a cultural and political revolution in his native Russia. While he may never have worn flowers in his scruffy hair, Marx spent countless hours drinking and smoking his pipe in contemplation and the pursuit of enlightenment—and a benefactor who’d support him. He found one in Friedrich Engels, the son of a successful business owner in Prussia who, for the better part of twenty years, did what he could to subsidize Marx.

You see, although Marx was born into an educated family—his father, Heinrich Marx, was a lawyer—Karl Marx turned out to be a negligent bum of the lowest order. His was a hand-to-mouth existence. He detested manual labor, preferring to dream up ideas about mooching from others and spreading their wealth around.

Does that sound harsh?

How’s this for harsh: His own family was evicted from their apartment in London and faced extreme hunger from their impoverished state because Marx apparently cared more for his lofty ideas than his obligation as a father and husband to provide.2 One historian, whose name is unimportant, described the pitiful conditions of his home life:

… his family bore a burden of poverty far heavier and more unbearable than the one carried by the average proletarian family in those days. There were days in the Marx household when the stove was cold, the frost biting, the pantry empty and hunger upon the bill of fare; when the impatient landlord stormed and threatened, and the children’s starved faces and beseeching glances seemed to accusingly form themselves into a veritable indictment against their father.3

Marx was so driven in the pursuit of his fledgling communist theories, so consumed by his interaction with fellow intellectuals while collaborating with Engels on The Communist Manifesto, that he neglected the needs of his own family. He lost sight of the fact that his primary responsibility was to provide food and shelter for his children.

But there’s more.

His obsession led to a personal tragedy glossed over by the fawning professors of Marxism; namely, that with a diet primarily of bread and potatoes, three of his seven children died before age ten and one died in infancy before he had been named.4 In other words, they were malnourished and “literally starved to death.”5 Marx was so destitute he couldn’t afford medical care for his children when they fell sick and was unable to scrape together enough money to purchase a small coffin for one of his daughters.6 When his one-year-old son Guido died, Marx told his friend and financier, Friedrich Engels, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, that little Guido was “a sacrifice to bourgeois misery.”7

A sacrifice? I told you liberalism is a mental disorder.

What kind of father would place the pursuit of his fanciful musings over the welfare of his own flesh and blood? What kind of dad wouldn’t put his kids first? Why didn’t Marx get a job as a professor of philosophy and provide for his household as any man would do? After all, Marx obtained his Doctorate of Philosophy at Berlin University, which means at the very least he was qualified to teach gym class at the local elementary school.

In 1852, a police agent from Prussia was dispatched to spy on the Marx family who were, at the time, living in a cramped, two-room flat in one of the worst sections of London. Although Marx’s wife, Jenny von Westphalen, was the sister of the Prussian Minister, the agent wasn’t sent because he wanted to know how Jenny was doing. Rather, the background information was sought because Marx was “the moving and active spirit, the real soul of the [Communist] Party.”8 According to the report filed by this agent, the thirty-four-year-old Marx could have easily passed as a homeless bum:

In his private life he is a highly disorderly, cynical human being and a bad manager. He lives the life of a gypsy, of an intellectual Bohemian; washing, combing and changing his linen are things he does rarely, he likes to get drunk. He is often idle for days on end…. There is not one clean and solid piece of furniture to be found in the whole apartment: everything is broken, tattered and torn … in one word everything is topsy turvy…. When you enter Marx’s room, smoke and tobacco fumes make your eyes water so badly, that you think for a moment that you are groping about in a cave…. Everything is dirty and covered with dust. It is positively dangerous to sit down. One chair has only three legs. On another chair, which happens to be whole, the children are playing at cooking.9

Look, I’m not saying that just because Marx was eccentric, his political theories should be discounted. By all accounts, Albert Einstein was eccentric, too. At least Einstein’s theories actually worked when put into practice. The same cannot be said of the things Marx dreamed up at the expense of his family.

Not to be too cynical, his actions were consistent with his advocacy. As he wrote, “The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.” I’d say he did a pretty good job of that one with his own family. What’s more, history has shown that his ignoble theories impoverished millions of families around the world. I have no idea how anyone can call him the “creator of the most important political movement of the 20th Century.”10

Marx believed the reason poverty exists is because wealthy fat cats (the bourgeoisie) are giving the working class (the proletariat) a raw deal. We can only assume he was referring to the working class who actually held down a regular, full-time job, something he never did. The rich are the oppressors, while the poor are the victims of oppression. That’s number one. Then, in the interest of fairness, Marx believed the only solution to the problem was to redistribute the wealth (socialism).

It’s the classic “makers versus the takers” mind-set.

The rich have something the poor want—primarily money and possessions. Rather than work harder to realize his dreams, as my grandfather did, Marx’s behavior demonstrates he preferred to look for a handout. Not surprising, he believed it’s the government’s job to redistribute the wealth and end the inequality between the classes—which, in a nutshell, is Marxist thinking at the core. In the end, Karl Marx died a pauper. If only his dangerous ideas had died with him.

If they had, the people in the Marxist-Leninist country of Cuba wouldn’t be in such misery. Due to Cuba’s “disastrous state-run agriculture industry,” 11 widespread shortages of food and food rationing abound forcing Cuba to import 80 percent of its food.12 What’s more, inadequate housing and deteriorating living conditions are the norm,13 and Cubans are not permitted to switch jobs unless the government grants them permission.14

Other failures of Marxism-Leninism were the formation of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which dissolved as a socialist state after less than fifty years in 1992; the People’s Republic of Poland, a centrally planned socialist state with a failed economy, widespread impoverishment, food rationing, and martial law; and the Socialist People’s Republic of Albania, which collapsed in less than fifty years when, in 1992, the communists were booted from power in a national election.

Are you starting to get the picture?

There are twenty-seven examples where a nation was built specifically upon the principles of Marxism-Leninism, yet ended up on the ash heap of history. Of the five countries still operating with an allegiance to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, namely, China, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, and the aforementioned Cuba, personal freedoms are restricted, poverty abounds as the typical worker makes less than a dollar a day, and access to modern consumer goods is outside of the reach of the majority of the citizenry.

Only Hollywood idiots such as actor Sean Penn dream of living there.

A Better Marxist Mousetrap?