Now that it's clear that Kamala is advocating communist ideas, it's probably time to bring the younger generation up to speed on what communism really is and how it (doesn't) work. In the process, you're going to understand why I call the US a communist country, and what sort of reforms we need to no longer be communist.

If you don't want to read, then here's the summary: Communism is literally evil. Communism is when people try to hurt others who don't do what they are told. The way you defeat communism is you take away from the government ALL power, except a few enumerated ones, only those powers necessary to protect individual rights and self-determination.

OK, let's talk about the origins of communism. Go back in time to the Middle Ages, and people started to have really new and strange ideas about the world. Among these ideas were that humans could become like God and understand the things God understands. That's the beginning of the scientific revolution, or what we might call the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment was a philosophy tied to a period of time that is no longer culturally popular but you may consider yourself a part of. The ideas sort of work like this: God exists. God wants us to learn and grow and be happy. We can experiment and learn about nature. We can build machines and ideas that improve our lives. There is an abundance of everything we need because God has provided it for us, and it is up to us to learn how to manage those resources properly.

One of the fallouts of the Enlightenment is the political ideas that our country is founded on. They are roughly this: God created man. God gave man rights, things that they should do. God also told men to form governments to protect those rights. When governments protect those rights, everyone is happy. When government violates those rights, it causes problems and conflict and it is up to the people to alter or abolish the government (replacing it with a new one.)

Among the rights are the right to free speech -- specifically, the right to say what SHOULD be said, IE, the gospel, rebuke, prophecy, etc... It did not include things like degeneracy or pornography. Another right is the right to property -- to own things, to have the final say in how things you own should be used, and to trade freely with your neighbors without any encumbrance.

The key factor for a right is that it is something God told us to do, and it is something that is good for us. That's why sexual immorality is not a right and never was. It doesn't make people happy, but it destroys family, spreads disease, etc...

Anyway, after the Enlightenment came Modernism. Modernism was the idea that we should just do everything as efficiently as possible, and things like God and rights don't really matter. Modernism was prevalent in the early 20th Century, but you could see it starting in the mid 19th Century. Modernism took the bountiful blessings that the Enlightenment gave us, took God out of the equation, and then focused on profit and efficiency above utility.

The "Liberal" movement in America really started as a Modernist movement, with the "conservatives" (called "liberal" in Europe) being the Enlightenment. Really, the Enlightenment as a political philosophy pretty much died when the Whig Party failed before the Civil War.

After Modernism came Post-Modernism, rather rapidly. Now that God was dead, and nothing mattered, Post-Modernists would attack Enlightenment ideas with ad-hominem attacks. For instance, "We shouldn't listen to the ideas of Thomas Jefferson because he owned slaves." The idea is that if we can find any ounce of hypocrisy or any kind of moral weakness, we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

This kind of thinking penetrated deeply and is the foundation for the critical philosophies of today. "We don't care what you have to say unless you have no sin whatsoever. And if we ever find a sin, then we will hang you in the public square."

Marxism started here, where Marx looked at the ideas of what he called "capitalism" (which was really a philosophy based on observation about how economic systems work -- see Adam Smith) and he said, "Oh look someone somewhere is having a bad life and it's all because someone somewhere owns property."

His ideas were ultimately the idea that we shouldn't have laws or rules or any sort of moral philosophy at all, that people should just take and force others to give. It's the sort of philosophy a highway robber would have. He's not taking from the rich passengers because he is greedy, no, it's because they deserve to be taken from!

You might be wondering why anyone would endorsed Marxism, Communism, Socialism, etc... when it has been tried countless times and found to consistently cause mass suffering. The answer is really simple: Those aren't "real" Marxism / Communism / etc... Those people, they say, didn't do it right, because they had a moral failing of some sort. Maybe Stalin's mustache was too big. Maybe Pol Pot became bourgeoise. Whatever ridiculous excuse, nothing will ever satisfy a communist.

Ultimately, the goal of the communist, and they are explicit about this, is to tear down ALL power structures so that everyone is equally miserable. They want to destroy not just governments, but social structures even churches. Ultimately, they want to destroy the family itself, making no one accountable or reliable upon anyone else.

It's not really that they want government to take over, it's that they want government to do the dirty work. Governments are really good at killing people, and so if you want to kill a lot of people, what better way than to convince the government to do it for you?

Without making this too long, here are the tell-tale signs something is communist.

• Does it critically assess ideas based on who had the idea or who supports the idea? IE, "We can't do that policy because the NAZIS supported it!" Anyone who argues like this should be completely ignored if not mocked for being so retarded as to use ad hominem as a reasonable argument.
• Does it try to separate people into different groups, a group with power and group that is powerless? IE, whites vs. blacks, men vs. women, native population vs. immigrant, Christians vs. jews, etc? One of the tactics communists love to use is "divide and conquer." They especially want the "powerless" group to "rise up" against their supposed "oppressors".
• Does it condemn entire groups based on the behavior of a few individuals in that group? Communists rely on attacking entire groups of people and condemning them, rather than addressing crimes one at a time, and punishing individuals for bad choices.
• Does it fail to acknowledge, let alone protect, fundamental natural rights? If so, it is communism. But be careful -- they use the word "right" in a way it was not intended. For instance, "the right to medical care" is not a right at all, because it relies on forcing medical providers into slavery. Also, "the right to an abortion" fails to acknowledge the rights of the unborn.
• Do they rely on protests, demonstrations, riots, and violence to further their political goals? Pay attention here, because they love playing the victim. For instance, a communist will beat up a bunch of patriots, and then when a patriot fights in self-defense, they will play the victim. Always look for who initiates violence.

Going forward, we need effective tools to silence the communist, not through bans and censorship, but good argument. We need YOU to identify communist ideas and to argue effectively against them!

Also, we need to COMPLETELY remove the ideas of class warfare, injustice, etc.. from the governments. Government should focus EXCLUSIVELY on individual rights, not group rights, and should laugh people out of their halls who try to argue that group punishment is fair or deserved.

The Constitution is an effective defense against communist subversion, but it requires EACH OF US to KNOW what is in it. We should NOT allow the Supreme Court or ANYONE ELSE to tell us what it means or how it should work. And we should DEFINITELY be working to get people elected and in power who agree with our views.

For instance, I believe, fundamentally, that everyone should be free to bear arms anytime, anyplace. I do NOT want to rely on the police or anyone else to protect me -- I will protect myself. Anyone who doesn't think like this, who doesn't see the Second Amendment and say "ANY law that prohibits ANYONE from buying, owning, and carrying ANY weapon is UNLAWFUL" should not be allowed in government.

And those who are already in office -- MOCK THEM TO SHAME, point them out for who they are and how much they hate society and want to destroy it. THEY HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS every time someone didn't feel comfortable carrying arms in public and suffered for it!