Advertisement

Editors Note: This is the first in a multipart series by guest contributor Robert Patrick Lewis. 

People often wonder how a vegan starving artist with only one testicle spurred the passions amongst a first-world nation and convinced them to commit genocide on a global scale.

But Hitler did, and we’re watching the answer to that question explain itself in real-time.

The greatest irony of this current push to dehumanize and label conservatives as undesirables and attack us through de-platforming, cancel culture, getting people fired, shunned, arrested, shrugging off violent attacks on President Trump’s supporters and any other number of things in this terrible slipping slope is completely lost on those who should be paying the most attention.

You see, we’re in the middle of a cultural revolution, and anyone who’s studied those from the past can see the telltale signs, as they often follow the same template on the way to tyranny.

Cultural Revolutions erase history, destroy infrastructure, vilify religion, remove hope, redistribute land and wealth, outlaw free speech and reverse prosperity for one goal: absolute power for those cunning enough to sell their movement to people who will vote for them, or to their groups of brownshirts and subversives who bring them to power through violent chaos.

And as the popular adage goes, “you vote your way into socialism and communism, but you have to shoot your way out.”

(note: as the leftists continue their never-ending attempts to repeal the second amendment, the above adage should be remembered now more than ever).

Once the dictatorial tyrant’s power is attained, maintaining that power becomes the only thing that matters. So, of course, they don’t want a group of subversives hanging around who’ve proven their ability to enact a counterrevolution.

This leads to an interesting historical fact, in that most of these dictators execute or imprison the very subversives who created the chaos that waged enough fear in their nations for the tyrants to slip into absolute power.

Especially once the mask is off and the “hope and change” propaganda used to sell the revolution is dropped, and everyone finally realizes it was never about anything more than centralized, absolute power.

The current slate of “resisters” who fancy themselves intellectuals would be wise to study up on that part of history – but we all know they’ve chosen to ignore it.

I want to use this article to walk you through the historical steps taken in each cultural revolution throughout history and their glaring similarities to what we see going on around us today. Not only will it help you make sense of the craziness going on all around us right now, but perhaps it will help save us from the “those who forget history” fate.

Socialism vs Communism: Fruit of the Same Poisonous Tree

Many people tend to be confused about the difference between socialism, communism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, and the multitude of other “isms” and social paradigms out there which have led to massive misery, political imprisonment, and death on a scale hardly comprehensible.

As Stalin famously said, “One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.”

But he was far from the most murderous, cold, and calculated cause of statistics that the dark history of the path to communism and fascism have brought us.

It’s important to remember that Stalin committed Democide (the intentional killing of an unarmed or disarmed person by government agents acting in their authoritative capacity and pursuant to government policy or high command) on an estimated 30 million of his own people, while Mao did the same to an estimated 60 million.

But at their base, the -isms are far less complex than most try to make them seem.

Communism and socialism are really nothing more than centralization of power, and Marx believed that socialism was a necessary step on the way to communism (he called socialism the first phase in the “Two Phases of Communist Society.”)

Take a moment to really contemplate what that means today, with the entirety of the Democratic party making a full-court press to put us on the path to socialism – which is the path to communism, inevitably.

Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, and the rest are all much more similar than you would think, in that all of these leaders based their views and political paradigms on Marxism but added their own touch of flair, most not varying too far from Marxism.

Do you know what’s interesting? The leaders of Black Lives Matter have proudly and loudly exclaimed that they are “trained Marxists.”

Take that in context with the current Democrat party’s push towards socialism, and you can begin to understand where we are today.

It’s additionally important to remember that each of these murderous dictators fully understood the power of and need to control the media, which is another disturbing similarity that we see between tyrants of the past and the leftists of today.

How many murderous Marxist tyrants from the past got their start and training for propagandizing their peoples by working in the media? Most of them.

Although it would be hard to imagine a “Dear Leader Acosta” or “Der Fuhrer Stelter,” the stunning level of disinformation and propaganda levied on our people by the media is quite alarming when you look into the ties and connections between the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton campaign and major US media networks, whether through marriage or blood.

This article will help to clear up any further questions you may have about what the Democrats have in store for us, should they get their wishes.

It Always Begins with Scapegoats and Violence

Hitler’s policy of painting Jewish people as scapegoats for everything ailing Germany in the years before and during his rise to power is quite well known. But what is perhaps much less known, is something that is a very disturbing trend one finds when they research the entire list of murderous dictators together: like many pages from the Marxist “blueprint towards tyranny,” they all did it.

We have to remember the place that the nation of Germany was in during Hitler’s rise to power to understand how he enacted his power grab and murderous regime.

Post-WWI, Germany was in financial straits. Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles was called the “War Guilt” clause and was meant to not only force Germany to pay reparations for their part in starting a war that demolished the continent, but also to prevent the landlocked nation from being able to wreck that sort of havoc again.

Just more proof that bureaucracy and adding new laws rarely stop people determined to enact criminality and harm others (take note, pro-gun control people).

Article 231 required Germany to disarm their military, make substantial territorial concessions (including the Sudetenland, one of the first territory prizes Hitler reclaimed) and pay massive reparations for the damage they had caused.

This caused great consternation among the Germans, many economists feared that it would harm Germany so much that it would be counterproductive, and in hindsight, others even believe that it led to Hitler’s rise to power.

How would a treaty meant to keep Germany from starting another world war be seen as one of the reasons Germany started another world war?

Aside from his well-known anti-Semitic rants used to rile the German people up and show himself as the only “man with a plan” to restore Germany to her past glory, Hilter also frequently used the treaty as a scapegoat with which to direct the anger of the German people outward, leading to the German leadership signing more and more power over to him until he ruled the land with an iron fist.

Hitler was far from the only Marxist despot to use racism and genocide to form their own power base. The term “fascist” gets thrown around quite loosely these days, but I would wager a healthy sum that most who use the term don’t actually know what it means, nor know much about Mussolini’s rise to power with his fascisti government in Italy.

Mussolini, who would later partner with Hilter to try and make territorial gains for the Italian people, placed their conquests on his desire for spazio vitale (“living space”), a concept very similar to Hitler’s Lebensraum (also “living space.”)

Mussolini believed that there was a “natural law” for stronger peoples to dominate and subjugate weaker peoples of the world. He argued that Italy had a right to follow his imperialist policy in Africa, because he saw all black people as “inferior” to whites, but had the same view of Slavic peoples, whom he called “inferior and barbarian.”

He saw the higher birth rates in Africa and Asia as a threat to the “white race,” and frequently called attention to this in his speeches, attempting to rile up support for his desired conquests of the world and constant desire for more power in his own land.

Pol Pot, from Cambodia, had a scapegoat of his own. Starting off as a guerilla leader (a trait which he shares with Mao), Pol Pot used the USA’s bombings of Cambodia as a constant drumbeat to add soldiers and supporters to the ranks of his Khmer Rouge.

Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge, and Genocide in Cambodia

As the US dropped more than three times the bombs and ordinance on Cambodia as we had on Japan in World War Two, in combination with the brutal nature of the regime Pol Pot was fighting to replace against their own people, swelled the ranks of the Khmer Rouge during Pol Pot’s rise to power.

Lenin, the first in the line of major Marxist ideologues to seize power, had scapegoats as well. Lenin was fighting against the Czar, the ruling class of Russia before he changed the seat of power to communism. As any good subversive, Lenin focused his attacks on the ruling party while Russia was torn apart by chaos.

His nation was angry that their soldiers were still dying in World War One, despite previous promises from the czar to withdraw their support for the war. Lenin focused on three main points of attack against the czar in his speeches to drum up support for his revolution:

 

  • Peace: an end to Russia’s involvement in WWI (the Czar finally abdicated because of the peasant’s anger over-involvement, but the provisional government and Petrograd who took over after the czar refused to get them out, adding popularity to Lenin’s proposals)
  • Bread: there were massive bread shortages in Russia and a “bread riot” resulted in the Russian army killing several peasants
  • Land: Lenin promised to give land to the peasants, another act the provisional government post-Czar had failed to do

It will be noted again later, but it should be remembered as often as possible that, in quite the Orwellian turn of events, each of Lenin’s three main talking points were made much, much worse under his rule.

This always happens when Marxists seize control, which is the basis of the Orwellian “doublespeak” featured in 1984 (and seen today in the way Democrats name extremely harmful legislation with rosy-sounding titles to fool their followers who refuse to seek any more information than news bytes).

Mao is no stranger to scapegoats, either. As any good Marxist, Mao focused much of his efforts and propaganda on wealthy landowners, greedy capitalists and corrupt politicians (but only on the other side of the aisle, of course). In the early days of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Mao instituted the “Three-anti” and “Five-anti” campaigns, designed to root out corruption and give power and land back to the people. Or so he said.

Neither of which actually happened, of course. The Three-anti campaign merely consolidated power for Mao by labeling his political opponents as “enemies of the state” and “enemies of the revolution” and the Five-anti campaign targeted capitalists, which was his first step in destroying the economies of the big cities in China.

Tying It to Today

If you’re reading this article rather than merely attempting to smear it without having read a single word or trying to get the site blacklisted from Google and social media, it’s fair to assume you know who the current “undesirables,” “enemies of the state” or targets of today’s “tyrants in wait” aka leftists are: conservatives, Christians and white people, especially white Christian males.

Much like Mao’s rise to power, today’s left has focused on slogans like “eat the rich,” and “we are the 99%” in their attempt to subvert the populace and turn as much hate and vitriol against their political enemies as possible.

And like any good little Marxists, it never seems to dawn on them that both the owners and employees of the biggest companies in America today (the infamous FAANG companies) are all solidly leftists. Nobody ever said these people were smart or observant.

Robert Patrick Lewis is a Green Beret OIF/OEF combat veteran with 10th SFG(A), CMO of Heroes Media Group, entrepreneur, MBA and award-winning author of Love Me When I’m Gone: The True Story of Life, Love and Loss for A Green Beret In Post-9/11 War, The Pact and The Pact Book II: Battle Hymn of the Republic. @RobertPLewis on Twitter