Rules for Revolutionaries

Twenty-First Century Rules for Revolutionaries - American Thinker

“There are ten rules to explain what the radical left is planning.” Caren Besner

Twenty-First Century Rules for Revolutionaries

Caren Besner, American Thinker, January 10, 2021

Since George Floyd’s death, events seem to be spiraling out of control. For weeks, Americans were bombarded, almost on a daily basis, with reports of large protests in major cities, accompanied by rioting, looting, burning, assaults, and even murders.

Observing these events unfold, average U.S. citizens, watching TV from the purported safety of their home, might be bewildered by these transformative events, the purpose of which is nothing less than a “re-imagining” of America. To better understand exactly what is happening, let’s take a cue from my 21st Century Revolutionary Handbook. There are ten rules to explain what the radical left is planning.

#1: Inertia is fatal to a revolutionary movement.

The overtures of the late 60s movement are eerily similar to what is happening today. The problem for leftists was that, back then, the revolution centered around the anti-Vietnam War Movement. Once peace came, the revolution’s impetus died out. The 2008 Occupy Wall St Movement had the zeal, but cold winter months in New York were not conducive to this type of protest.

The lesson: choose your cause carefully. Today’s cause célèbre is “systemic racism” and its offshoots. Racism can be recycled perpetually. Recently, for example, the Mayor of Louisville, Kentucky, declared racism to be a public health crisis.

#2: Do not identify your ideology by name, nor state exactly what you will do after you are in power. Speak only in vague generalities and use simple two- or three-word phrases the public can identify with.

Terms such as “Socialist,” “Communist” or “Marxist” generally have a negative connotation and, while millennials like them, the population at large does not. Do not look to antagonize ordinary Americans more than is necessary. The revolution will need its army of “useful idiots” for the future.

Instead, use terms such as “progressive” or “social justice warrior” to describe yourself. These are far less threatening to the average American. Fidel Castro initially identified himself as a “humanist.” Only after he felt secure in his new position did he announce to the world: “I am a Marxist Leninist.”

#3: The revolution must get control over mass media and the education system.

Truth is defined by whatever the revolution says it is, and anyone who dares speak out is immediately silenced. Only information advancing the revolutionary cause may be heard and taught. Once the revolution gains control over mass media, it controls all the information that is disseminated, and once the revolution gains control over the education system, it controls the future.

#4: All the apparatus of the state: the ministries, civil service, justice system, military, and law enforcement must be brought under control.

This rule is simple. Whatever the revolution cannot control could eventually be used against it. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all dealt with the problem of possible anti-revolutionary activists through purges aimed at crushing all potential opposition, which extended even to family members. Stalin allegedly remarked that it was fine if innocents were punished along with the guilty, because “that sends an even stronger message.”

#5: All vestiges of the old must be destroyed in order to build the new. This includes all history, traditions, culture, and iconography that cannot be made to conform to the new ideals.

“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, 1984

In the late 1950s, Mao unleashed the cultural revolution on China. It repudiated what Mao called the “four olds”: old ideas, customs, habits, and culture. Estimates vary as to the number of people killed but it was most certainly in the millions. Coming as it did after the disastrous policies of the “Great Leap Forward,” China was left an economic and cultural wasteland.

#6: Conventional ideas about religion and family are anathema to a revolutionary movement.

Absolute loyalty to the revolution must come first; this extends to one’s family. Children are encouraged to inform on their parents if they hear anything that can be interpreted as “counter-revolutionary. Organized religion must also go. The revolution cannot have loyalty to God supersede loyalty to the state.

#7: The revolution can only succeed in times of extreme economic, political, and social unrest.

This is an important point. A generally content, gainfully employed, and prosperous populace is not likely to support a revolutionary movement aimed at overthrowing the government, party, or individual that has provided these benefits. For the revolution to be successful, the population must be brought low and kept in a state of abject misery. Years ago, former White House Chief of Staff and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel stated: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Activist/actress Jane Fonda brought this up when she noted: “COVID is God’s gift to the left.”

#8: Ultimate victory in the revolution will go to that segment of the revolutionary body that is the best organized, best financed, and most ideologically dedicated.

A revolutionary movement can be composed of many divergent groups, each of which has a peeve with the central government. In our country we have, among others, minorities, LGBTQ, and feminists all rubbing shoulders with liberals, socialists, anarchists, globalists, Islamists, and hardcore Marxist revolutionaries. The last group is the best organized and funded. They are completely devoted to the “righteousness” of their ideology and even have their own para-military group – Antifa. Their goal is the complete destruction of the American political and economic system.

#9: You don’t need a majority to force your will on an entire population.

Most people assume that any revolution must have popular support to succeed. This may have been true in some cases, but not all. The Bolsheviks swept into power in Russia in Nov 1917 with a simple slogan: “Peace, Land, Bread.” Although one cannot be certain of the precise number of hardcore committed Communists among the masses of disaffected citizenry, it would have been comparatively small. The Nazis, for their part, never got more than 38% of the popular vote.

#10: After victory, the revolution will turn in directions not initially anticipated.

In addition to exacting revenge on their opponents, revolutions usually turn on many of the very people who were their most ardent supporters. One only must look at Hitler’s “Night of the Long Knives,” Stalin’s “Gulag Archipeligo, and Mao’s “Cultural Revolution, for examples.

Some of the above rules already apply to America; others will soon. There is no doubt that as a society we have made enormous strides in the last half-century, yet we are still struggling to come to grips with our past.

Sixty years ago, electing an African-American with the unlikely name of Barack Hussein Obama to the highest office of the land would have been impossible. The same is true about the minorities and women now seated in the House, Senate, and even Vice President-elect’s position.

Do we now throw all that away and adopt the failed economic and political system of our former Cold War adversaries? I hope not.

There is no perfect economic or political system, but there are systems that generally work better for more people than others. As imperfect as it is, capitalism works better than communism. Capitalist systems encourage innovation, individualism, personal responsibility, and independence.

Marxist systems mandate conformity of ideas, thought, belief, and speech. As always, they admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-charges, and in the final analysis, double down on their ideology. Whatever our many problems, allowing the left to implement the Rules for Revolutionaries, overthrowing our entire system, is not the answer.

 As for the revolution itself, George Bernard Shaw stated it best when he wrote: ”Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny; they have only shifted it to another shoulder.”

Caren Besner is a retired teacher who has written articles published by American Thinker, Sun-Sentinel, Dr Swier, News With Views, The Front Page, The Published Reporter, Washington Examiner, The Algemeiner, Jewish Journal, Independent Sentinel, Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva, San Diego Jewish World, The Times of Israel, The Moderate Voice, IsraPost, The Jewish Voice, Joo Tube, The Florida Veteran, and others.

IMAGE: Lenin 1919.

Pilgrim’s Socialism

“They [the Pilgrims] were the first to establish socialism in North America.” Gary Gindler

Socialist Plymouth 400 Years Later

By Gary Gindler, American Thinker, December 16, 2020

Precisely 400 years ago, on December 16, 1620 (according to the Gregorian calendar, December 26), the ship Mayflower anchored in Plymouth Bay in the New World, and on December 18 (28), daredevils landed on a deserted, cold coast, which is now in the state of Massachusetts. The Plymouth Rock now symbolizes the approximate landing site. The city of the same name still exists, as, in fact, does the country founded by the Puritans: the United States of America.

One hundred and two people set off by ship from Plymouth in the Old World, but on the way, one man died and one boy was born. One of the team members also died. Among the travelers were the Puritans, religious dissidents, adventurers, and merchants. All the passengers of the Mayflower were daring and brave people. They can be safely referred to as the pioneers – but not only in the geographical sense.

They were the first to establish socialism in North America.

The word “socialism” had not yet been invented, but we know all the details of the Puritans’ socialist epic from the diaries of William Bradford, one of the Plymouth colony leaders for a third of a century. By the time the pilgrims landed, Thomas More’s Utopia had already gone through dozens of editions (the English translation of Utopia was published in 1551), and ersatz-socialist ideas were widespread in Europe. As it is known, Utopia’s hypothetical state was based on the primitive idea of the monastic community. While still in exile in Holland before sailing to the New World, the Puritans had already begun introducing commune elements. They arrived in the New World with a clear plan for a collective community.

The Spaniards, who established colonies In the New World long before the British, also made several attempts to extend communal monastic rules to their territories in South and Central America. The Spaniards viewed the discovery of America as Divine Providence, and it was America that was to become the place for the creation of the ideal, utopian-like state-community. All such communities they established have sunk into oblivion, but the idea itself persists. That may perhaps explain why South America still has a disproportionate number of leftist regimes.

The Puritans had signed an agreement on what the community would be like before landing. The Plymouth colony’s beginning was traditionally socialist – anyone who refused to sign the document was prohibited from landing. There is nothing extraordinary in this one-page document by modern standards, but it was the first document establishing democratic self-government in the New World. The Puritans agreed that the power in the community should belong to the Law. However, the problem was which laws were adopted in this utterly democratic way.

Understanding why the colonists chose the socialist way of organizing the commune is pretty straightforward; it should be noted that after Thomas More, the ideas of the commune spread so widely in Europe that many of his followers and many other utopian models were born. For example, in 1619, even before the Puritans’ landing, Johann André’s Reipublicae Christianopolitanae (known as Protestant Utopia) was published, and in 1623 – The City of the Sun by Tommaso Campanella.

These utopias bore all the features that were fully manifested when the wave of socialist upheavals swept the planet in the 20th century – total control, brutal social engineering, political power that belongs to the intellectual elite, and forceful egalitarianism (which, of course, did not extend to the elite).

Like the Spaniards, the Puritans viewed America as the second Promised Land. From a religious point of view – from the Anglican and Catholic churches’ perspective – they were dissidents. Still, their initial beliefs on society’s economic structure did not go beyond the commune with its primitive collectivism.

In the Plymouth Colony, collective ownership of everything except women was established, and the concept of private property did not exist at all. The harvest and prey of the hunters were distributed equally among the colonists. Women were required to cook for all men and wash all their clothes, and men had to work to provide for other people’s wives and children.

For the next two years, each colonist worked for everyone else and not for himself. Labor productivity was disastrously low, and the result was not long in coming – by the summer of 1621, about half of the colonists had died of hunger and disease.

It should be noted that this experience is not unusual in human history; it has been endlessly and unsuccessfully repeated, and with the same devastating results – for example, collective farms in Russia and the first kibbutzim in Israel. The statistics here are unambiguous – all egalitarian communes have collapsed sooner or later. Nevertheless, the Plymouth collective farm differs from all the others in that the Puritans realized and corrected their mistake rather quickly, in a few years, unlike other social experiments that lasted for decades.

In the spring of 1623, after two and a half years of hunger, poverty, and despair, the colonists’ wives rebelled. They did not want to cook food for the husbands of other women anymore. They regarded the forced service of other men as de facto slavery. As a result, after a lengthy debate, the colonists made a decision that laid the foundation for modern American society – each family received its piece of land. Furthermore, only 70 years after these events, John Locke intellectually substantiated the right to private property.

As soon as the colonists abandoned collectivism and allowed private property, prosperity came. The first harvest in 1623 was a celebration of abundance. The colony became so thriving that it even welcomed a new wave of emigrants. Contrary to the myth, it was not the Indians who fed the colonists in 1963, but the colonists saved the Indians from starvation. Thanksgiving, which America now celebrates every year, is, in fact, the 1623 harvest festival of the Plymouth Colony based on private property.

As a religious people, the Puritans believed Divine Providence showed them the right way out of a difficult situation. Therefore, Thanksgiving Day is not as much gratitude for a bountiful harvest as gratitude for the pointing out from Heaven the correct economic solution to the problem.

If the Plymouth Colony’s rejection of socialism was almost instantaneous on a historical scale, then the reverse transformation – from capitalism to socialism – has been brewing in America for precisely 400 years. If Donald Trump loses his quest for the second term, then the transition to a socialist America seems inevitable.

The commune planned for America is by no means as primitive as the Plymouth Plantation. The commune in America is intended as an American version of Maoism, which allows for the temporary coexistence of private, collective, and government enterprises. However, all of them will have to be under the control of the “intellectual elite” – the Communist Party in China — that  operates in America under a completely different name.

In America, of course, there are communists, but they prefer Marxist-Leninist, not Maoist, positions. Therefore, the road to power in openly pro-Chinese Washington is closed to them, but for the so-called “Democrats” (like Joe Biden), doors are wide open. The second serious attempt in the past 400 years to introduce the religion of collectivism in America is the exclusively  the work of “Democrats.”.

Has Donald Trump stopped America’s slide into oblivion, or has he barely slowed it down? The answer to this question depends on who will reside in the White House for the next four years. The phrase many attributed to Churchill best describes the current moment: “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they have tried everything else.”

Gary Gindler, Ph.D., is a conservative columnist at Gary Gindler Chronicles and the founder of a new science: Politiphysics. Follow him on Twitter and Quodverum.

The Gender Fraud

The Slowly Boiled Frog: 2020

“ln the name of ‘diversity’ schools now celebrate a Transgender Day of Remembrance.” Eileen F. Toplansky

“You can change your gender identity not merely once or twice or a handful of times, but you can keep changing it over and over, daily if you’d like, or even hourly.” lbid

Transgenderism and the Equality Act

By Eileen F. Toplansky

In June 2012 George Soros’ the Center for American Progress (CAP) published an 84-page document whose introduction asserts that “[e]very day gay and transgender employees face alarmingly high rates of discrimination in the workplace. CAP actively seeks to advance the Democratic Party agenda.

From 2015 on, many LGBT rights advocates moved to support the Equality Act, that would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity not only in employment, but also housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and jury service.

What is gender identity?  To the left, it means at least 71 possibilities. Paul Kengor notes that the “newest project by the progressive left is transgenderism. Like their reinventions of marriage and family and sexuality, leftist human-nature redefiners are now remaking gender in their own image — many genders[.]”

In New York City, for example, “employees are free to fluidly fluctuate among various male-female combinations and derivations. You can change your gender identity not merely once or twice or a handful of times, but you can keep changing it over and over, daily if you’d like, or even hourly — and the government will legally support you in your whims and fancies.”

And for those “New York-based businesses that do not accommodate the ‘gender’ choice, they risk six-figure fines under rules established by the city’s Commission on Human Rights. In fact, if you dare not refer to a transgender person by his or her preferred pronoun, regardless of the person’s XX or XY chromosomal reality, there are a bunch of angry New York progressives who would fine you and shut you down — in the name of  ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity[.]’

Ryan T. Anderson at Heritage notes that even liberals with concerns about the transgender agenda are being shunned by the radical left wing.

The leftwing agenda is bent on ensuring that ‘children as young as three years old are being started on hormone treatments to restore their identified gender.’ Thus, ‘gender identity’ refers to an individual’s inner sense of being a man or a woman or both or neither. It exists along a spectrum and can be fluid. It’s entirely arbitrary and self-disclosed. And rather incoherent, as it’s not at all clear what it means to ‘feel like’ a woman, or how I would know if I felt like one, or why my feeling like a woman (whatever that means) would make me a woman.

This video encapsulates genuine concerns from groups who would normally have nothing to do with the Heritage Foundation but who are horrified by the transgender epidemic.

Science is shoved aside as “gender affirmation or gender confirmation” becomes the new mantra, despite the damage done to  young people’s minds and bodies.  There is a documentary titled “Transhood” that depicts parents propagandizing their children in radical gender theory.  In a guidebook for schools, teachers are told that gender neutral pronouns should be ze,  hir, hirs, e.g., This is my friend Sam. Ze came to my house today.  I borrowed a book from hir.  This book is hirs.”

Lesbians who publicly disagree with transgenderism and object to dealing with males who claim to be women are now pariahs.

Always ready with counterarguments, transgender advocates posit the following: “So who decides if a student is transgender?  What is to prevent a boy from coming to school one day and simply declaring that he is a girl and changing in the girl’s locker room?”

Schools all over the country are supporting transgender students in these ways and this issue simply does not come up. A transgender student is very different from a young person who is claiming to be a different gender for some improper purpose.

Any student pretending to be transgender would be easily identified in the planning processes we have established.  Our policy of treating transgender students consistent with their gender identity does not permit a student of the opposite sex to enter into the wrong facilities.

It is now proven that boys who identify as girls are destroying women’s athletic functions as they win female athletic competitions. 

As these ideas gain more traction, it affects legal and health records.  For example Joshua M. Ferguson of Canada received Ontario’s first non-binary birth certificate.

Most destructive is “when bad medicine becomes mandated as a civil right, and good medicine becomes outlawed.  Thus, “Sari van Anders, chair in social neuroendocrinology, sexuality and gender/sex at Queens’ University asserts that “[t]he idea of female and male brains is outdated and never reflected the science.”

If we see these ideas to their logical conclusion, then when Henrietta identifies as Henry, when she sees her doctor, will she be given a pap smear or checked for PSA levels?

Far too many children and teenagers are undergoing permanent damaging surgery to change their sense of self.  Too late, these young people deeply regret what they have done to themselves.

If the Equality Act becomes law, “women and girls will no longer exist as a coherent category worthy of civil rights protections. Sex-segregated spaces and women’s rights will utterly disappear.”

These are rarely mentioned as the radical left continues its daily destructive drumbeat to make itself the arbiter of all things.  Disparage the nuclear family unit, ignore the reality of biology, demean religion, dismiss any debate, and obliterate women and girls as distinct groups who require safeguards.

Mistaking intolerance for empathy “some religious people give support to these narratives, when they agree to support ‘gender identity’ laws, provided they get a religious exemption.”  That won’t last long. Recollect how hard the Little Sisters of the Poor had to fight for their religious freedom.  Consider the more recent case where radical leftwing governors shut down church services under the guise of health concerns for others. 

In the name of “diversity” schools now celebrate a Transgender Day of Remembrance with a panel of all-trans individuals to commemorate those lost to violence against transgender people.

Moreover, Chuck Schumer endorses Biden’s  plan to force public schools to allow males in female bathrooms.  Biden has stated he will “enact the Equality Act to end legal discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, expand economic opportunities for LGBTQ+ people, reform [the] treatment of transgender and gender non-conforming individuals in [the] criminal justice system, ensure access to accurate identification documents, and improve government data collection to better track violence against the transgender community.”

Moving forward, the Equality Act will be an unmitigated disaster that will harm many people. As always, it is not about rights; it is about raw power and Soros and his ilk will be gleeful.

Eileen can be reached at

Image: Ted Eytan

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook