Hello again, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to another episode of Freedom's Creed. It's actually been two months since I've published my first episode of the podcast. And I've had hundreds of downloads to this point, so I thank each of you for taking the time to listen to the episodes. And my desire, my goal is to bring the best content that I possibly can so that I'm not wasting your time. So thank you for taking the time to listen to the podcasts. And I hope today that you'll find some interest in this current episode. One would think that living under the banner of our constitution would negate the need or the desire to even discuss socialism or communism, hence Marxism. But unfortunately, that's not the case today. There seem to be many people who are enamored with this idea of Marxism and how Karl Marx was some kind of revolutionary. But we know that communism and socialism grew from the seeds of Marxism. And unfortunately, a lot of young people today, and nothing against young people, my children are young, but a lot of young people today have the notion that somehow to gain a more equitable society, that there needs to be some kind of system in place that makes us all more equal when it comes to resources, when it comes to income and those types of things. However, this is not the best way to achieve that. And in reality, I don't care what system we have, there's never going to be a system in place, even capitalism, that is going to guarantee that we're all more equal. It's just not going to happen. And naturally, there are a lot of reasons for that motivation, desire, ambition, willingness to sacrifice, to work harder than the next person. These are variables that go into creating the kind of success that we see in our society. There is no other system, insofar as I'm aware, other than capitalism, that can raise the most amount of people from poverty to a level of success that they themselves define. I defy any person to find a system that is better. Looking at socialism as a way to bring people out of poverty is a futile attempt. It's a futile effort to try to discover that, oh, hey, yeah, the leaders of a socialistic form of government are going to ensure that everybody is equal, that it that equitability is prevalent in a society such as that. If you're like me, you want nothing to do with that because it's artificial and in fact it just doesn't work. Indeed, it can never work because there is no incentive living under socialism that motivates people to want to produce more, to do more, to work more, to work harder. It's never worked, and I believe that it will never, ever work, no matter who the leader is, and no matter how benevolent that a society wants to make that leader. Here's the tragic reality of Marxism. It's responsible for the deaths of a hundred million people. Now I'm aware of well-intentioned people who may have the philosophy or the belief that somehow it'll be different this time. Somehow the leaders will be more kind to the society of people that they rule over. That's just naive. In fact, I know a lot of good people, even religiously devout people, not that that necessarily means anything with respect to how one behaves, but there are people like that who seem to be or seem to have been duped by this Marxist philosophy, which is not only bandied about in certain circles, but it it's actually being advocated as a serious alternative to our form of government, number one, and number two, to capitalism as well. This notion must be completely rejected a hundred percent of the time. Period. Listen, Marxist ideology has never lifted any people to a higher standard of living. Rather, it only elevates those in power. That's the nature of Marxism. Even modern communist or socialist regimes like those in Cuba or North Korea, are glaring examples of how the people suffer under these types of regimes. Kim Jung un sure doesn't seem to be missing many meals to me. He looks pretty fit, in fact, he looks a little too fit, and maybe he'd hit the gym. And I can only imagine that the people of North Korea, when they look at him, they must be thinking, wow, this guy is eating way better than we are. But sadly, they probably think that he simply deserves to eat the finest food whatever he wants. It's just the nature of a socialistic Marxist form of government. It's simply not at all a beneficial form of government for the people. I'd like to move on and cite a couple of pieces that I've found that substantiate the things that I've been talking about. The first is a piece written by James Beauvard in writing for USA Today in 2018, where he wrote an article about not celebrating the birth of Karl Marx. He was born in 1818, and 2018 was the 200th anniversary of his birth. Mr. Beauvard makes this comment in the article by saying this quote, Marx continues to appeal to social justice warriors thanks to axioms such as from each according to his ability to each according to his need. And who determines need? The presumably omniscient, benevolent state. Marxism promised to end the class struggle. Abolishing private property left people hostage to petty government officials who punished anyone who failed to kowtow to the latest dictates. Think about this, if you would. Use your imagination, I'm sure it won't be difficult. Beauvard also makes this comment Marxist regimes felt entitled to inflict unlimited delusions on their victims, for the good of the people, or at least proletariats. East Germans were told the Berlin Wall existed to keep fascists out, even though all the killings by border guards involved East Germans heading west. Marxism promised a utopia, and that unsecured pledge sufficed to treat subjects like serfs bound to endlessly submit and obey. Anyone who tried to escape was treated as if they were stealing government property. And I think it's safe to say that we all know what it meant for someone even accused of allegedly stealing government property. It meant certain death. I mean we know of instances where even children who stole food because they were starving were shot. Beauvard concludes his article by saying this quote it was criminally naive to expect happy results from any system that bestowed boundless power on rulers. Never forget that a philosophy that begins by idolizing government will end by idolizing subjugation. In my mind, this simply validates the insidious nature of a Marxist form of government. It brainwashes people into thinking that they're worthless and that their lives have no value whatsoever. I now want to pull some highlights out of an article written last September in 2020 by Nathan Skates. It's entitled Marxism, The Good, the Bad, and Why the Good Is Actually Bad. He makes this comment Marxist philosophies are on the rise in the West both as an economic system and cultural philosophy. Marxism particularly appeals to younger generations who are angered by income inequities and other forms of oppression. Marxism looks appealing, promising equality and fairness for the downtrodden, but unfortunately, its utopian vision is a mirage. I love that imagery where he says that its utopian vision is a mirage. It doesn't exist. It's not out there, no matter how hard people look for it and try to see it. And by the way, this article by Mr. Skates comes from standingforfreedom.com. Skates goes on to say that quote, Marx believed the bourgeoisie oppressed and exploited the proletariat and that there should be a new economic system to replace capitalism. In this system, wealth would be distributed to those of the proletariat. Ultimately, his philosophy became communism and socialism. Marxist adopted the oppressor slash oppressed framework to apply to groups based on sex, race, and sexual orientation. Does this remind you of anything that may be taking place today? Well, Skates goes on to elaborate on these philosophies. He says this, quote, these became philosophies such as critical race theory, which views the oppressors as whites and the oppressed as racial minorities, particularly black people. Recently, these theories have gained popularity in the West, even in Christian circles, as has the somewhat more palatable economic system of socialism. I actually find it alarming that some of these ideas of socialism seem to be making a comeback in our society today, and that should be troubling to everybody. Let me conclude this segment by referring to a Washington Times opinion piece written in June of 2020 entitled The Matter of Marxism, Black Lives Matter is rooted in a Soulless Ideology. The writer makes this comment in comments uncovered and reprinted in the National Pulse, Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrice Cullers reveals that she and fellow co-founder Alicia Garza are followers of an ideology that could not be more foreign to the American way. We actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular, we're trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are superversed on ideological theories. But you'd be wrong. They are American citizens, insofar as I'm aware. Finally, the Washington Times opinion piece says this quote Marxism is a soulless ideology incompatible with the Judeo-Christian foundations of this nation. Americans wishing to advance the founders' struggle to form a more perfect union should forswear the clenched fists of Black Lives Matter and wield the affirmative force of forgiveness. I first saw this story in the Military Times, I believe it was, and I was appalled. And if you've not heard of it, you will likely be appalled as well. And as a veteran, this struck near and dear to my heart, and I would like to read a couple of quotes that refer to the reasons why the colonel was relieved of his command. The comments actually emanate from a book that the colonel wrote called Irresistible Revolution, Marxism's Goal of Conquest and the Unmaking of the American Military. Colonel Lohmeyer was actually on a podcast where he warned about the spread of Marxist ideology within the military and the detrimental consequences of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's agenda to push critical race theory. Let me read you Colonel Lohmeyer's words directly. He said this quote, I've been largely apolitical in most of my adult life. I participate in the political process. I don't care what the political views of my fellow service members are, the young airmen and guardians that I was a commander for. I don't care what their religious or non-religious views are because that has nothing to do with their oath to the Constitution. Frankly, they're entitled to their beliefs and their opinions. And so when we start to see within the services a break or a fracture of the force because people are being trained that certain groups are oppressors and others are oppressed, that's when it's time to speak up and identify, as the Secretary of Defense invited us to do. End of quote. So evidently the Pentagon earlier in the year had ordered this extremism stand down directive, I guess, to address concerns about extremism in the United States military. Additionally, Lohmeyer said that all the service members were asked to watch a video and in military parlance, that simply means that it was a duty or a command to do so. The content of the video was essentially the New York Times 1619 project, which obviously insists that our country is somehow evil. And it was on this basis that Lohmeyer said, quote, I reject the premise or the basis of all of our diversity and inclusion training. I'm not opposed to diversity or inclusion, although it depends on how we define those terms. The premise or basis of all that should be the foundational ideals that we have codified in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, not critical race theory, which makes race the view or the lens through which the entire world is interpreted. And so these videos that we've had to watch here at our base teach us just that. Close quote. Finally, Colonel Lohmeyer says this quote There's nothing that Xi Jinping or the Chinese Communist Party would like more than to have U.S. citizens, worst of all, U.S. service members in uniform, getting at one another's throats because they are starting to entertain divisive and competing and fundamentally incompatible narratives of American history, for example. The bottom line in all this, ladies and gentlemen, is that it is unconscionable to me that an American military commander would be relieved of his command because of his views regarding Marxism. And let's be real, I'm pretty sure, I can't prove it, but I'm pretty sure, that the reason why he was let go was because he denounced critical race theory. And believe me, I understand when it comes to the military, as Colonel Lohmeyer himself indicated, that one needs to be apolitical. But how can denouncing Marxism and also denouncing something that is derived from Marxist thinking and behavior, such as Black Lives Matter, be grounds for dismissing someone or relieving someone of their command? It seems to me that if members of the military are to be a political, that indeed the civilian who is appointed to be the leader as the Secretary of Defense should himself be a political. But what do I know? I'll tell you what I know. I know that fighting for the freedom of this country and defending it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is without equal. Countless sacrifices have been made to preserve this freedom and liberty for you and me. And with that, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to end this episode with a quote written by Thomas Paine in December 1776. He said this, These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country. But he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered. Yet we have this consolation with us that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods, and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated. End of quote.