Home (Post) Mobile Authors Say Anything Register Login

Thursday, June 21, 2007

The Leftists and Maoism

In his article, Mao in America, Donald Hank gives a compeling argument about how the leftist liberal dogma is patterned after the dogma of former Chinese tyrant, Chairman Mao.  Hank defines Maoism as: 

Maoism: a refinement of Marxism-Leninism wherein the disenfranchised classes are given maximum power and privileges while the former privileged classes are outlawed and divested of all power.

In Mao’s system, it wasn’t enough that the former landlord class should be abolished in favor of a classless society.  Mao wanted the former privileged class to be eternally branded and punished, not absorbed into society.

There are many examples of the parallel with leftist dogma and Maoism.

— Radical feminism.  The writings of feminist icons like Andrea Dworkin, which have had a domino-like influence, first on the feminists, then on ordinary people, then on government, reveal a deep hatred of “male culture” and all things traditional, particularly male-female marriage (which they derisively call patriarchy). As for anti-male bias, it is evident in TV ads, domestic violence campaigns, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) — which enshrines in law the notion that only males are capable of violence — and in “family” court. (See the books: “The War Against Boys,” and “Who Stole Feminism” by Christina Hoff Sommers’ and Warren Farrell’s “The Myth of Male Power” and “Father and Child Reunion.”)

— Affirmative action.  This idea has shut thousands of qualified non-minority young people out of higher education by forcing schools to admit quotas of under-qualified minorities, who in turn have suffered because the majority of them were unprepared academically. It has also cost thousands of qualified non-minority workers jobs. This concept was carried to its logical extreme when Black Panther thugs were given free reign to wreak havoc on college campuses in the 60s and early 70s.

— Open-border policies and amnesty for illegal aliens.  It is estimated that each illegal immigrant family costs the taxpayer $18,000-20,000 per year and that illegal immigrants take the lives of about 45,000 US residents annually. Yet border guards Compean and Ramos were criminalized for daring to oppose the incursion of actual criminals into our country.

- Bible believing Christians, men, sexually traditional heteros and the rich are deemed privileged and hence are demonized, while gays, women and minorities are deemed the underdog and hence awarded privileges (such as a tailor-made definition of marriage unknown heretofore anywhere in the world).

Hank concludes with

I am not suggesting that Mao had so much influence on Western culture that the Left is blindly allowing his ideas to dictate their behavior. I believe this may be a home-grown parallel phenomenon.

My point is that, because of the similarity between the modern Left and Mao, smart people should realize that we are heading for another failure similar to Mao’s and that we should do everything in our power to avoid falling over the same cliff.

Although Mao’s system proved even more disastrous than the Soviet one, the American Left are religious zealots who remain oblivious to the facts and cling tenaciously to their failed ideology.

And since they dominate the media, academia and much of government, the sheer power of their propaganda machine has overwhelmed our culture, permeating important areas of our lives, and even mentally overwhelming many “conservatives.”

Comments

John Lennon actually carried and displayed Mao’s “Little Red Book” at one time, after his conversion to feminist ideology. 

When lefties talk about “rights”, they mean entitlements, while Conservatives think about “rights” as personal responsibilities.


If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

robert108 on June 21, 2007 at 07:31 am

This umm.. person sounds or reads all good and well but from a different viewpoint there seems to be a hint of disorganized thought pattern.
To be fair, I will reserve further opinion for after I have time to read more of his articles but, I honestly believe there is something missing. I can’t decide if it’s something missing from the article or maybe Mr Hank has a vacancy in his upper loft.
I definitely get the feeling of anger and paranoia dripping from his connectors :|


flag002.gif washC.gif Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Anna on June 21, 2007 at 08:52 am

I honestly believe there is something missing.

Obviously, Anna, this is one persons opinion, which incidentally I share.  This is not the first time that leftists ideologies have been compared with marxism or some derivative of it.  What seems clear is that in order to elevate one class of people you have to lower some other class which is evident from the examples.  The big liberal lie as I see it is that they are for equaliry amoung all peoples whereas they are for elevating their choose classes at the expense of others.


You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

docdave on June 21, 2007 at 09:02 am

What seems clear is that in order to elevate one class of people you have to lower some other class which is evident from the examples.

That is the “zero-sum game” approach of Karl Marx.  It’s not true, of course.


If life doesn’t begin at conception, why do they call it birth control?

robert108 on June 21, 2007 at 09:10 am
Avatar for Eneils Bailey

If you could get a fair representation of history these days you would find that the birth of current day U.S. socialism was inspired by Mao back in the sixties.

Mao knew the masses, he studied them long and hard, let them think they had a pheasant revolution in the sixties, known as “The Great Cultural Revolution.” Oh, killing 20 million people in the process is only a minor point these days.

Every Socialist around the world took note, and learned from the experience. The masses were placated, for a while, thinking they had eradicated the budding stems of a capitalistic and free society.

Socialists worldwide still believe in his teachings, maybe not coupled with his barbarism to control the world and force their demented social and political doctrine on us.

Eneils Bailey on June 21, 2007 at 11:36 am
Avatar for Eneils Bailey

Go get a copy of Mao’s “little Red Book” and Marshall McCullan’s, “The Medium is the Message” and you will see how the current day left, in concert with the MSM keep Mao alive and well.

Eneils Bailey on June 21, 2007 at 11:53 am

Anna, are you trying to say the Democrat Left is not socialist? I don’t quite get your point.

Democrat Party members have been in the Maoist camp since the ‘50s, not the ‘60s. The Cultural Revolution turned many of them away, though thru the ensuing years they have refined his “teachings” to a more palatable, feel good sounding pile of crap.

Same same.


Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

2Hotel9 on June 22, 2007 at 05:09 am

2Hotel9, Not at all.. I am actually referring to Donald Hanks himself. When I read the original article I got the feeling that there was more to him then just the correlation of “Leftists and Maoism”. As if there was almost an alternative motive to his writings. After reading some other articles from Hanks I was able to answer my own questions. I believe although his topics are real his motive stems from serious personal issues.
I didn’t mean to give anyone the idea that I didn’t see the Democrat Left as being socialist. I do agree but I just happen to see the author differently than others.
My issue strays from the point that docdave was making and I apologize for that.  smile


flag002.gif washC.gif Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Anna on June 22, 2007 at 05:55 am
Avatar for Eneils Bailey

The sad thing about this is that many people thought Mao was trying to improve the lot of the common man, instead of trying to control them with brutality and and instilling the belief that conquering and depleting the intelligentsia of a country would benefit all.

Look at the current day dims, they speak of elevating the masses based on the destruction of another class.

The common or poor person is best served by being offered opportunity to improve their miserable existence, not destroying the class who are willing to help them and not by turning all their dreams and hopes into a socialistic government program.

Anyone remember Fidel’s promises?

Eneils Bailey on June 22, 2007 at 08:21 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses. Confirm your email address here.