Connect with us

Culture and Religion

This is EXACTLY what socialism is: Part 1 of 2



That is not real socialism!

Part 1: The Proletarian Revolution

“We have trampled underfoot the principles of democracy for the sake of the loftier principles of a social revolution.” ~ Leon Trotsky

Socialism requires a dictator. Clearly, this has been achieved in Venezuela.

In the midst of the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, a rallying cry can be heard: But! That is not real socialism! Presently, those belonging to the Directorate of Delusion and Denial, the legions of socialist apologists, are at full attention. We are told that the tragedy which is presently occurring in Venezuela is not real socialism. This claim is nothing more than a “Hey! Look over there and not at me!” tactic; a method of diverting attention away from one’s own guilt, enabling the retention of one’s own foolish pride and sanctimonious sense of moral high ground.

As such, I wish to offer a thorough repudiation of the not real socialism denials regarding Venezuela’s present economic destruction, political corruption, social upheaval, and widespread human misery. Although Karl Marx did not himself conceive of communism, he is idolized and revered as communism’s supreme theorist and the father of the communist movement. His writings inspired revolutionary movements around the globe, beginning in 1917, with the Bolshevik revolution in the Soviet Union which was led by Vladimir Lenin. The collectivist dream then spread to Latin America via the Soviet Union during the cold war as a tactical way to weaken the United States of America’s foreign relations and to weaken US influence in South America.

Practically speaking, there are three phases of socialism:

  1. the Proletarian Revolution
  2. the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and
  3. complete communism (a classless society which has fully abolished the State).

This article will focus on the first phase in socialism: the Proletarian Revolution.

Socialism is a macro-philosophy (lacking specifics, inadequate in guidelines). Since socialism lacks details, socialists have been able to swim around in perpetual fluidity, skirting any and all responsibility for peddling a mortiferous ideology. Thus, it is important to measure how “socialist” a country is against the philosophy of Karl Marx, the communists’ god.

The following is a point by point comparison of Marx’s theory of socialism, as shown through his writings, with both Lenin’s Soviet regime and the Chavez-Maduro Venezuelan regime.

A   Seizure of Power: the overthrow of the “Have’s” by the “Have-nots” (group struggle) to end capitalism
Socialist Theory via the Writings of Karl Marx
The Proletarian Revolution: In The Communist Manifesto, Marx (and Engles) theorized a revolution in which the working class (proletariat) from across the globe would rise up and destroy the capitalist (Bourgeoisie) society, ushering in a new age of transition from capitalism to communism. Thus, the immediate goal for communists is “formation of the proletariat into a class, [the] overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, [and the] conquest of political power by the proletariat.” In Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx re-emphasized his belief that “It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle.”
B   Disregard for Democracy: democracy viewed as a tool to achieve power; a general disregard for democracy as being a systemic feature of the bourgeoisie social structure
Socialist Theory via the Writings of Karl Marx
Democracy is Bourgeoisie: In Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Marx stated that “In a really rational state one could answer, ‘Not every single person should share in deliberating and deciding on political matters of general concern’…” In his Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx laments “…vulgar democracy, which sees the millennium in the democratic republic, and has no suspicion that it is precisely in this last form of state of bourgeois society that the class struggle has to be fought out to a conclusion…” Marx continued, criticizing the Socialist German Workers Party’s emphasis on human rights as containing “nothing beyond the old democratic litany familiar to all: universal suffrage, direct legislation, popular rights, a people’s militia, etc. They are a mere echo of the bourgeois…” Marx continued, “They are all demands which, insofar as they are not exaggerated in fantastic presentation, have already been realized. Only the state to which they belong does not lie within the borders of the German Empire, but in Switzerland, the United States, etc.” Marx believed that true democracy wouldn’t not be born until the communist age had arrived in completed form. As such, he stated that democracy was, in actuality, the absence of all opposition to socialism.
Soviet Russia – Lenin (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
A provisional government was formed in March 1917, after a brief Russian Revolution. Lenin and his socialist Bolshevik party then urged the Provisional government to hold election for a new Constituent Assembly (legislature). Many groups spread the idea of democracy and of representative government of the people of Russia through fliers in anticipation of the upcoming election. The Bolsheviks, however, only received just under one-quarter of the votes in the November 1917, elections. The Socialist Revolutionary Party won a majority of assembly seats. On January 6, 1918, assembly members arrived to find the radical Kronstadt sailors, Lenin loyalists, had locked all doors, claiming the assembly had been dissolved by the Council of the Soviets. Lenin announced in a speech he and the soviets had “taken all of the power and rights into their own hands. The Constituent Assembly is the highest expression of the political ideals of bourgeois society, which are no longer necessary in a socialist state.” Hugo Chavez was elected President of Venezuela in 1998. In April of 2002, nineteen anti-Chavez protestors were killed and hundreds more wounded. That year, a referendum vote, which ultimately failed, was held to remove Chavez from office. 2004 marks a major turning point for democracy in Venezuela: from 2004 onward there has been evidence of election rigging by the Chavez-Maduro regimes. In addition to ending limits on the number of terms he could serve as President, Chavez sent one Presidential challenger into exile. “For nearly 14 years, Hugo Chavez labored with tireless energy, undeniable charisma, and ruthless design to destroy the opposition, silence critics, and intimidate skeptics, all while leaving the Potemkin façade of a “democracy,'” stated a 2013 article in The Atlantic. Nicolas Maduro is no better. Since being “elected” after Chavez’s 2013 death. In 2016, the loyal high court pressures several opposition members of Venezuela’s National Assembly to resign, ensuring Maduro’s socialist party remains in power. The high court also declares legislation passed by opposition members to be unconstitutional and, thus, invalid. In March of 2017, the high courts stripped all power from the National Assembly, effectively dissolving the legislature. After international condemnation, the courts reverse their decision just three days later. Changing strategies, Maduro held a national “election” at the end of July to establish a Constituent Assembly tasked with creating a new constitution. The assembly has been packed with Maduro cronies.
C   Revolutionary Dictatorship: establish a revolutionary dictatorship for society’s transitional period from capitalism to communism
Socialist Theory via the Writings of Karl Marx
Dictatorship of the Proletariat: Marx new that Capitalism wouldn’t transform into Communism overnight. He wrote of the need for a strong, central power to keep the forward momentum of the revolution. “What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges,” explained Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme. “Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat,” wrote Marx. Clearly, he understood that many would resist the revolution and cling to their capitalist ideals. Karl Marx elaborated on this matter in the Communist Manifesto, stating that the Communists are “the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others… they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.” Thus, the Communists must (with the governmental club) force society into submission. Only after society is subdued and the residue of capitalism washed away can the true socialist utopia emerge; the final stage of communism in its completed form.
Soviet Russia – Lenin (1917-1924) Venezuela – Chavez/Madura (1999-present)
With Lenin’s Bolshevik seizure of power in January of 1918, so ended the Russian people’s brief chance at the representative democratic form of government of which they had dreamed, and the age of the Bolshevik dictatorship began. A civil war ensued. Rival socialist parties were subsequently banned, and their members were threatened into submission, imprisoned, or killed.   Lenin instituted a special police force know the Cheka to crush uprising and enforce citizen compliance, always on the lookout for those who wish to undermine the Proletarian Revolution. This marked the beginning of the Red Terror. Any individual or even and entire group or entire families. During the civil war, in July of 1918, the Bolsheviks convene, creating a new Soviet constitution. In August of 1918, Lenin is shot in the face, but ultimately recovers from an assassination attempt. During the war, Lenin ordered the confiscation of the peasant’s grain supply, leading to mass starvation. The civil war end in victory for the Bolsheviks in November of 1920. Lenin and the Bolsheviks have secured their Dictatorship of the Proletariat. A later uprising in 1921, of the once-loyal, radical Kronstadt sailors, in response to letters from their starving families back home, was quickly quashed. Chavez began his mission to secure a Dictatorship of the Proletariat not long after taking office. His aggressiveness in this arena only increased over time. Chavez shut down radio and TV stations which didn’t coo in adulation for the Chavismo, stripped land and businesses from political opponents, and imprisoned political opponent and any judges who issued rulings against him. In March of 2005, laws are passed instituting large fines and prison terms for anyone who slanders (criticizes) public officials. In 2009, term limits of elected officials are abolished. In 2012, stricter gun control laws are put into place, with Chavez stating that the ultimate goal in the future the elimination of firearm ownership from all citizens. Shortly thereafter, private gun ownership was banned. In 2013, Maduro’s regime begins using the military to control citizen crime. Maduro continues Chavez’s pattern of imprisoning political opponents. In 2016, Maduro forces confiscate firearms and crush them in a public square in Caracas. Then, in April of 2017, Maduro began issuing some 400,000 weapons to Chavismo loyalists. With the July 30 creation of the Constituent Assembly, Nicolas Maduro is one step closer to establishing the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Venezuela. The world will continue to watch in angst.

Based on the information above, alongside Karl Marx’s own words, is there any evidence to suggest that the first stage of socialism has not been completed in Venezuela? The Proletarian Revolution has since passed into time, ushering in the next stage of Venezuelan history: the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Socialism requires a dictator. Clearly, this has been achieved in Venezuela.

Next, I will examine Venezuela’s diktatura. I will present the ten planks of communism and the regime’s adherence to each therein.

Part 2 will publish tomorrow.

Paige Rogers is a Christian artist and author, and a former professional practitioner in the field of Early Childhood Development. She is the creator of, a blog offering Christian reflection, exhortation and discernment alongside various artistic techniques visually documented through Paige's unique artistic endeavors. A lover of learning, Paige is an avid enthusiast of history, civics, political geography and human nature, physical geography and the sciences. She is an incurably inquisitive and chronically creative “egghead.” Paige is a strong supporter of America's service members and veterans.

Continue Reading
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Pingback: Scrap Socialism, Part II – #Logic Wins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

When have the Enemies of Liberty on the Left ever compromised on the 2nd amendment?




The history of freedom always has been one of it’s enemies slowly ratcheting it down with restraints in the name of equality or security.

Everyone knows the drill by now, a ‘Serious Crisis’ takes place, the Left immediately demands the surrender of more human rights forcing the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty. Meanwhile, those who dare defend those rights are pilloried with almost every pejorative in the book.

The history of Liberty Control has always been one of unending incremental infringements on our rights. The enemies of Liberty on the Left always follow the same progression. They begin with spurious claims over the ‘easy access to guns’, getting whatever they can, after which they reset the sequence for the next go around.

The Left’s idea of ‘progress’ is always one direction, with demands that the pro-liberty side give up as yet more of their freedom. Each time around it’s the same story, with only ever worsening regularity. But why is this the case? When have the Liberty controllers on the left ever compromised on the common sense human right of self-defence, or any other liberties for that matter?

Liberty Control down through the ages.

The dirty little secret of Liberty control is that it has it’s roots in racism, epitomised in the infamous United States Supreme Court case DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, (1856):

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Please note that it specifically mentions “the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”, as the partial rationale for the decision.

Further on, the past century has saw an inexorable sequence of infringements with the examples ranging from the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 to the Brady act of 1993.

In some rare cases, the Republican party spearheaded some partial relief of earlier infringements, but these were always accompanied with other restrictions. The overall trend has always been ever intensifying restrictions on the rights that are supposed to be free from infringement.

The Left’s idea of ‘compromise.’

It should be obvious by now that the enemies of Liberty on the Left do not want anyone to have the basic human right of self-preservation. They have made that clear in many articles, editorials and videos on the subject of repealing the 2nd amendment or outright gun confiscation.  Consequently, it can be presumed that anything short of that immediate goal is a ‘compromise’ to them.
The win-win eventuality for them is that their ‘compromise’ positions sets up for their ultimate goal none the less. Asserting government control over everyone’s private property with ‘Intergalactic’ Background Checks followed on with the governmental permission requirements in gun registration that will eventually lead to gun confiscation. They would also like to control free-speech with the expedient of ‘Political correctness’ or entirely undefined ‘Hate speech’. But for now they merely want to get people used to these restrictions on Liberty.

The Takeaway

The Left’s increasing stridency towards Liberty has intensified as of late, which is quite odd given that they supposedly support the concept with the self-labeling as “Liberals”. The Left has become single-minded in their pursuit of gun confiscation(and it’s precursors), to the point of rejecting measures that would actually serve to protect the children. As is typical of the nation’s Left, they self-label their obsession with taking guns away from the innocent as being ‘reasonable’. Meanwhile, they vehemently oppose workable solutions to the problems they caused in the first place.

Their latest tactic is to exploit the victims of mass murder in a bid to shut down debate and impose their unworkable ‘solutions’ to the exclusion of anything else. Do they even sound ‘reasonable’ or ‘Liberal’ for that matter? They incessantly complain that the proponents of Liberty won’t surrender their principles and once again yield to their demands, but when will they ever compromise and defend liberty?



Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

An open letter to Sen. Lamar Alexander, US Senate on the nomination of Chai Feldblum



The Honorable Lamar Alexander

Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee

United States Senate

CC United States Senators

March 17, 2018


Dear Senator Alexander,

It has come to my attention that President Trump has re-nominated Chai Feldblum to her position as commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This news has brought me grave concern.

On behalf of the American people, it is up to you and the rest of the Senate to remedy this unfortunate situation.

As you are aware, the EEOC deals with cases of workplace discrimination; having the power to enforce federal laws, investigate discrimination complaints, regulate and pursue legal charges against private businesses, and influence public opinion. It is imperative that any federal agency entrusted with such powers be steered by the conscientious counsel of unbiased leadership.

A former college basketball coach once said, “Offense is not equal opportunity.” However, since her appointment by former President Obama in 2010, Ms. Feldblum has exploited her position at the EEOC to offensively further her own fanatical advocacy goals at the expense of religiously-oriented American citizens, the Bill of Rights be damned.

Religious liberty, inviolable and protected from governmental infringement by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, is richly ingrained in our country’s values, having been secured by the blood of our ancestors. In fact, religious liberty, often referred to by the Founders as freedom of conscience, was considered by early Americans to be so precious that, even in the midst of America’s fight for independence, conscience objections were considered sacrosanct.

Consider the words of America’s first President, George Washington, in a letter to Benedict Arnold during America’s Revolutionary War:

“While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable.”

For Chai Feldblum, however, religious freedom must be subjugated with the full force of the government’s ugly fist.

She is, in a word, tyrannical.

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines tyranny as “a rigorous [strict] condition imposed by some outside agency or force,” as imposed by a tyrant.

A tyrant is defined as “one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power.”

Ms. Feldblum has made several deeply troubling statements that betray her tyrannical intentions, wholly at odds with America’s founding principles:

  • “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win… Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner (emphasis mine).”
  • “I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if ‘pockets of resistance’ to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people (emphasis mine).”

Ms. Feldblum’s seditious statements are in dramatic contrast to what Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1774, in Emblematic Representations:

“The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy (emphasis mine)”

In addition, Ms. Feldblum’s thesis on the proper role of government is unequivocally incompatible with the words spoken by President Thomas Jefferson during his first inaugural address, 1801:

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

Chai Feldblum’s offensive advocacy through the EEOC is so extreme and outside of Constitutional bounds that, in 2012, the usually divided Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously against Feldblum’s EEOC attempt to void the “Ministerial Exemption,” which allows leeway for religious organizations to carry out routine, religiously-related matters of hiring and terminating employees.

While Ms. Feldblum claims to represent the LGBTQ+ community, she speaks only for a small, yet loud portion of the demographic; one comprised almost entirely of radical LGBTQ+ activists.

In truth, Ms. Feldblum’s fanatical, extremist, ideologically-driven agenda only serves to marginalize a significant portion of sexual minorities, in addition to women and countless Americans of religious orthodoxy.

Ignoring the conservative, sexual minorities who disapprove of the forced subjugation of religious Americans, Ms. Feldblum propagates stereotypes of the various people she claims to represent, and actively encourages neighbors to go to war with neighbors.

Feldblum insists on a “zero-sum” game, where religious Americans and members of the LGBTQ+ community are incapable of living peaceably side-by-side. As the architect of former President Obama’s Transgender executive order, Feldblum further victimizes traumatized women and children, insisting they must tolerate an unsafe existence, as grown men are ushered into their locker rooms and bathrooms in the name of “progress.” Feldblum insists on subjugating religious, yet same-sex attracted business owners in the private market, drastically hindering their pursuit of happiness through economic independence. Feldblum insists that all LGBTQ+ Americans think as she does.

Ms. Feldblum is a tyrant; wholly unworthy of another five years at the helm of the EEOC.

Speaking on the sacredness of religious liberty in America, Samuel Adams stated, August 1, 1776:

“Driven from every other corner of the earth freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.”

The responsibility, Senator Alexander, now rests with you and the Senate to protect religious liberty as vigorously and as confidently as our Founding Fathers.

If you fail to perform this duty, this great test of your legacy as one of the leaders of the free world, may the words of Samuel Adams haunt you for the remainder of your days:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”


Most sincerely,


Paige Rogers, Tennessee

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video: The Racist roots of Liberty control – Who doesn’t like certain people getting rights?




In honour of #NationalWalkoutDay let’s look at those who really don’t like certain people getting rights – specifically the common sense human right of self-preservation.

This is NationalWalkoutDay [Who would have thought that kids would want to skip school?] With one of the most important human rights in the spotlight, it would be a good idea to examine the reasons why this has been suppressed in the past. To begin, consider Hillary Clinton’s statement smearing most of the country:

So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward, and his whole campaign, Make America Great Again, was looking backwards. “You don’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs, you don’t want to see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are, whatever your problem is, I’m going to solve it.”

So who really is opposed to the certain people getting their common sense human rights? The following video from Colion Noir details that Liberty (gun) control has it’s roots in racism:

Gun Control’s Racist History

Interestingly enough, the same people who claim to care about ‘the children’ but whole heartily support Planned Parenthood are the same folks who want to deprive the people of their basic human rights. Who would have thought that was the case?


Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.