The secret inner-workings of the swamp are found in the history of the revolutionary left. It is a history of treachery and greed, larceny and murder. The first secret of the swamp is hard for some to grasp; but here it is: the humanitarianism of the leftist revolutionary is a pose. His real creed is lust for power and wealth.

The first American revolutionary communist leader, Louis C. Fraina, received $386,000 from the Comintern to start a revolution in Mexico. What did he do? He spent the money on himself. The Comintern did not kill him for his bad faith, most likely because he had blackmailed other leading communists regarding their own improprieties and frauds.

American journalist John Reed was said to be a “great-souled” communist — honest and incorruptible. It is also said he died of a broken heart in Moscow because he finally realized that communism was a movement of thieves and murderers. His wife, Louise Bryant, wrote: “Jack died because of great personal disillusionment.” She explained in greater detail in a letter to Benjamin Gitlow:

Jack noticed how power and the lust for power affected the Bolshevik leaders…. He was terribly afraid of having made a serious mistake in his interpretation of an historical event for which he would be held accountable…. He blamed himself….

Reed was inconsolable. When illness gripped him, he had no desire to recover. His wife wrote, “I pleaded with him, for his own sake, not to give up. He didn’t respond.” Reed was sent to a Moscow hospital — where the care was indifferent at best. Louise wrote to Benjamin Gitlow:

I spent horrible days and nights with him, days and nights I can never forget. He raved and he cried. He spoke constantly of being caught in a trap. They were terrifying words coming from Jack. You know the rest. He died three days later….

John Reed died on 17 September 1920. His story is a tragedy of idealism gone wrong. It reminds us that insincerity in politics is no small thing. Insincerity indicates weakness of character, a predilection for deceptive practices, which should only be reserved for enemies. What are we to think, then, of an all-encompassing fraudulence? — of a dishonesty which has no real regard for its own constituents? Here is a universal malevolence. Here is a politics that destroys the foundations of polity.

When we see the present machinations of the left in Washington, many are perplexed by the insincerity of its spokesmen. But actually, this is what we ought to expect. This is who they are. Honesty was not part of their training. Revolution has an altogether different ethic.

When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asks Bernie Sanders’ supporters if they are “ready for revolution,” she is talking about creating a new system of power, a reconfiguration of haves and have-nots. She is not proposing poverty and suffering for her own party and faction. She is championing Socialist Revolution as a means of self-enrichment, with the false promise of benefits to her listeners. But in that revolution some must be despoiled of their wealth. Some must be robbed. The capitalist system brought general prosperity to America because it is based on the protection of private property. This also coincides with the preservation of liberty; for in truth, there are no rights worth protecting if property is not protected. And there can be no basis of trust for real economic growth without property rights. This tells us, up front, that the socialist revolutionary is not about economic growth or general prosperity. The whole thing is about plunder and the enrichment of a faction.

This is another secret of the swamp. Plundering the commonwealth is what all true socialist states are about. And everyone, except those attached to the ruling clique, will be impoverished at the end of the process.

The true motivations of the socialist and communist leaders is a fascinating question. In his book, The Whole of Their Lives, Ben Gitlow described the Communist movement as a devilish machine for transforming idealists into criminals.

In revolutionary politics the personal ambitions of leaders play an important role. The altruistic souls motivated by high ideals and principles are common in the rank-and-file and rare in the leadership. The struggle for power in the communist organization proceeds as bitterly as it does at royal courts.

The revolutionary demands political power to be concentrated in his or her hands. And what do the avatars of this new power do with it? The more power they have, the more they want. There is no end to their depredations. The more cynical their lies, the greater their greed, the more ready they are to destroy those who stand in their way, and steal from those who are disempowered.

They claim to be righteous, after all. They are champions of the downtrodden. All the evil they do is necessary for the sainted ends of socialism. Here is the justification for a political instrumentalism animated by zealotry; an evil admixture that can break the back of civilization and suffocate the human soul with the soft pillow of false humanitarianism. “We are saving the planet,” they shout.

No. They will wreck the planet and demoralize mankind.

The corruption that accompanies socialist idealism stems from combining the naive socialist true-believer with the psychopathic socialist leader who sees socialism as the perfect vehicle for exploiting altruistic “useful idiots.” Here is the secret formula for Hell on Earth.

The swamp is the vanguard of this Hell. Self-righteousness and corruption are its telltales. As the political battle in Washington unfolds, we can use these understandings to interpret what we are seeing, to form a clearer picture of the players.

Once you learn the secrets of the swamp, the motivation of the left comes into sharper focus. The reader need not take my word for it. The proof is in the pudding; — and what a pudding they are making of it!

17 thoughts on “The Secrets of the Swamp

  1. And here, once again, you lay out your mantra: “Left Bad, Right Good”. Pay no attention to the righteous Capitalists whose abuses of power and lust for wealth brought us to our current state. Only the Left’s thirst for power is a bad thing! The Right, when acquiring power, do so with the endorsement of God after all. Every Socialist Champion swindles useful idiots for their personal enrichment (however convoluted through the machinations of government), and every Capitalist does so for the Great Good of America, wielding the economy like the sling of David.

    Your fear of other people poisons your mind.

    1. our CURRENT STATE is literally A Golden Age. But not for a low lifes : poor radiofort indeed has NO piece of any pie except some smelly one

    2. I did not say the right was “good.” The right is a more complicated thing than the left, composed of very different and variable elements. What I say is good, in this context, is constitutional checks and balances. Yes, a left wing revolutionary despotism is bad. I will say that again and again, though you scold me again and again. Limited government is good. Is that a blameworthy position to hold? While constitutional government offers an opportunity of redress of grievances, the revolutionary left offers a wholesale overturning of the bourgeoise legal order in favor of egalitarian leveling. This is what makes the left more dangerous than those who uphold classical liberalism. There are, of course, dangerous right-wing movements — like those that base themselves on a Fuhrer Principle, or the concentration of power in the hands of a military Junta. The rule of monarchs and war lords can be benevolent or tyrannical, and should be avoided because of the possibilities open to misrule. But a government based on leftist principles must prove tyrannical.

      1. This is a response that furthers the conversation. We agree that limited government is good. What needs to be addressed in modern times though is what exactly that means. The right often champions “states’ rights” as the recipe for limited government, but the states have proven themselves unequipped to oversee even basic infrastructure and utilities. The mindless blathering of “states’ rights states’ rights” without any substance behind it has allowed the federal government to quietly balloon into a largely ineffective waste that no longer answers to its people. The left, while indeed channeling the appeal of revolutionary despotism (which we agree is bad), is not devoted to the despotism itself. Some certainly are but the movement itself pursues justice, and this motivates the non-revolutionary to act, which builds a people’s revolution. Simply put the American right, as the complex and variable entity that it is, is only coherently mobilized by fear and faith. Fear of Communism and faith in Christianity have kept America’s government in its current gridlock for 50 years while the world around us has changed. The left is now demanding change and the right is fighting it.

        With the utmost respect I would urge you to do two things:
        1) Consider the possibility that the strongest and most influential facets of the left are not violent, and can be easily adopted by the right to form a government with common principles. (i.e. justice, compassion, freedom)
        2) Consider the possibility that the federal government as it currently stands is incapable of effectively governing its land base, and so if we are truly to survive as a nation, a different iteration of America must take its place. And that will require revolution.

        If consideration 1 is possible, then the revolution in consideration 2 can be peaceful.

      2. Seriously? You think a revolution is needed? In terms of political prudence, in terms of preserving life and liberty, a revolution from the left would be catastrophic for the country. And I do not know why you think the country is ungovernable. Perhaps it’s because a regime of permissiveness and antisocial socialization has taken our courts and schools by the throat. Our problems largely stems from the cultural left undermining social and moral norms. The sixties are known for it.

        As for your not so subtle identification of limited government with the Confederate cause in the Civil War, I will remind you that the slave states of the South were evolving into a kind of paranoid police state — paranoid, that is, of a slave uprising. The tyranny of Confederate officials in compelling rebellion and service in the cause of treason, is not limited government, but was something quite the opposite. A proper representation of federalism in the national Constitution should not lead us to the arguments laid down by rebels. So I pass over your allusion to state’s rights.

        Under the Constitution the states govern themselves, and the counties and cities do the same. This is the Federal system. It is one dimension of our checks and balances. Power must be used to check power. That is how you avoid tyranny. Let’s avoid tyranny and violence, shall we? Gridlock is good. That’s why we’re free. Nobody can reinstitute slavery in the states. The system fixed itself after nearly a million Americans were killed in the Civil War.

        But please know that a party which uses its power as a means to sabotage national unity and civil order is playing outside the rules of the Constitution. Such is not a legitimate course. It’s treason to undermine the Constitution. Right now, however, there is a party that begins to define treason in an altogether new way; that is, treason is now defined as disagreeing with their agenda. Treason is disagreeing with the idea of an open border. Treason is disbelieving the global warming scare. Treason is standing up for property rights and investigating the corruption of a fifth column of officials who have linkages to the former Soviet Union. I say, investigate them all. Let’s have all the facts. Let’s not say that one side are criminals for wanting an investigation. Trump has been investigated for three years. Why not them? Let’s put the balance back into checks and balances!

      3. Again we can agree here. Even from the left I would endorse investigations of the left. I support a viable border and property rights. To lean left is not tantamount to promoting anarchy! This is why I feel fear in your words, because you perceive holding your own opinions as treasonous. You have not given your compatriot on the left the chance to defend you because the loudest and most aggressive voices tend to be heard first. What you’re hearing is the anger and frustration of the left, which is simply rooted in a lack of justice. A government unconcerned with justice for its least fortunate is not moral, and should change. A society without compassion towards its most vulnerable is not moral, and should evolve. You (and many others) see this type of change as a foundational threat to society, and demand the government act to prevent these changes. This is why the country is ungovernable: its encompassing government is tearing itself in half.

        We agree once more that a political party working intently to sabotage national unity and civil order is operating outside of the Constitution. Both major parties are on the fringes of doing this right now. It’s almost as if they’re waiting for the other to fully commit first, so they can avoid the finger pointing. Are you willing to acknowledge that neither party’s hands are clean from this tactic? The right has its own definitions of treason. Treason is being anti-gun. Treason is fighting for affordable housing. Treason is unionizing or demanding corporate accountability. Treason is socialized health care.

        In all actuality none of the things either of us have mentioned are treason! How absurd it is then for either of us to see it this way. Both sides are guilty of condemning reasonable and prudent people as traitors, and both sides are wrong for it. Processing opposing viewpoints from compatriots, rather than enemies, and building a more pliable system of government is the only peaceful way forward.

        A rigid system does not promote peace. “Gridlock is good, that’s why we’re free.” is a callous and one-dimensional viewpoint. Be sure, an unchanging political structure is a prison for everyone inside it. Of course the Warden and guards in a prison are more comfortable than the inmates, but they’re within its walls just the same. Is this the only form in which America can survive?

  2. Legacy indeed: Hunter Biden was paid by Burisma with ILLEGAL funds that went through a known to international (!) investigators laundering rout . UA state attorney Mr. Kulik working this case suggests US “democrat party” uses impeachment to block the widest INTERNATIONAL and POLITICAL implications of the case. US Embassy and diplomats in Ukraine were routinely directly involved in covering corruption, for example George Kent, a witness at the Congress hearing, was involved in coal industry corruption and personally blocked the investigation: solid evidence is available

  3. Investigation in Burisma and the network of international money laundering goes on for at least 2 years. (there 13 criminal different cases or episodes against Zlochevsky) The responsible for the particular case state attorney formulated detailed indictment against Burisma owner mr. Zlochevsky in March 2019. The Latvian investigators provided Ukrainian prosecutor general office with a prove that money paid to Biden went through the known illegal money laundering route of several offshore jurisdictions, in the past unreachable to investigators, but not anymore.

  4. USA got early infected with deadly socialist virus later developed into the terrorist ideology of marxis: soon after 1848’s numerous riots in Europe many rioters and terrorists fled to USofA, majority of them been ex German nationals, some among them were apostates from Judaism (former Jews who turned atheist and socialist). The picture was very similar to what will happen in Russia in 50 years or so, when by the end of 19th century a full grown war of terror developed. But USA was stronger when socialists were still weaklings.

  5. Jeff

    I came across an overseas Chinese organization in the UK and they are very critical of Martin Lee, they see him as a collaborator for the Chinese Communist Party and also the Hong Kong Independence Movement dates back to the 1980’s and they are typically viewed as active collaborators with the Chinese Communist Party:

    The main skeptical view among the anti-Beijing new generation is that the pan-democrats had been ridiculously hooraying the “democratic reunification”, pinned their hope on “one country two systems”, and paid their trust to the CCP. Under the growing pressure of the accusation of “Communist espionage”, the leader of pan-democrats Martin Lee replied: “It has been three decades since June Forth Incident. I did not expect the CCP would take the way backward and become more and more tyrannical. But the problem is we simply had no choice. The then British Hong Kong government already officially determined that it would not let Hong Kong to be an independent country. Pan-democrats only have one option ‘One country two systems’. Under this circumstance, what we could do was to hope for the real democratic election in Hong Kong. I trusted in the CCP. I believed China will keep adherent to its own promise stated in the international treaty — Sino-British Joint Declaration. Chine now go against the basic law, ‘one country two systems’ and continuously intervene Hong Kong autonomous affairs, which is leading to ‘one country one system’. Unfortunately, I did not see this coming.” It is felt that Martin’s reply is emetic and hypercritical. Recall Hong Kong immediately responded by reminding of the episode of Hong Kong Connection on 13th July 1989: Martin Lee was deeply convinced Hong Kong good future was in the hand of Deng Xiaoping. Hong Kong people held a very high expectation of Deng. In 1984, the 35th anniversary of the PRC nation-building, Deng’s popularity was sky-high. There was a lady interviewee said: “I wish Deng would live to over a hundred years, stay alive after 1997…we hope Deng must not have any trouble.”

    Jeff, what I find troubling is how Martin Lee views Deng Xiaoping and also can I have your opinion regarding this

    1. It is either stupid or dishonest of Martin Lee to lament the passing of Deng. Could he be so naive? I doubt it. Deng was a communist who initiated Beijing’s New Economic Policy, which had the same purposes as Lenin’s New Economic Policy in 1921. The Communist retreat into state capitalism was always seen by the Communist leadership as a maneuver, as strategy to build socialism. Anyone who doesn’t know that isn’t fit to comment on the affairs of China or Russia. Such maneuvers have been repeatedly used in Communist history. That is why the West should never trade with Communist countries. Such trade ultimately entails the corruption of Western institutions, the penetration of Western businesses, economic blackmail, unfair trade practices, technology theft, and the theft of intellectual property. But the worst thing is the false story that Russia or China have become free market societies. No, they have not. And Hong Kong must inevitably become like the rest of China — even if Deng lived 100 years. Sorry, Martin Lee. Anyone who compromises with criminals and murderers becomes an accessory after the fact. Ignorance is no excuse. There is only two honest ways to deal with the Communist threat: fight or flight. Cooperating with them in any way is dishonest.

      1. Jeff, your take is not complete.

        Beijing’s New Economic Policy, which had the same purposes as Lenin’s New Economic Policy in 1921.

        the above is true, BUT you omitted the CRITICAL:

        that lenin’s plan was to have NEP at least for 30 years. Of course you don’t have a source to learn it, but I do: my relative was the one who lobbied the policy to lenin personally.
        The PLAN was to never come back to degenerate socialism EVER. But organised crime(stalin) who effectively acquired communist party changed the tables on us. Without this most important understanding your take is deceptive and dangerous: with out this we in fact inflate th`powers of communists to the level they never able to even dream of.

        The Communist retreat into state capitalism was always seen by the Communist leadership as a maneuver, as strategy to build socialism.

        Not true. This was a DECEPTION OPERATION by sane and constructive elements in Ukrainian politics who controlled Soviet regime in close to 50% of its existence time span

        Anyone who doesn’t know that isn’t fit to comment on the affairs of China or Russia. Such maneuvers have been repeatedly used in Communist history.

        Jeff, you present a limited IDEOLOGICAL picture not adequate to history and facts known to rhoe of us who had hands on experience NOT academic opinions or from texts written by deceivers

        China , over a billion human beings got fed, gor shelter and hopes for the future:

        THIS IS WHY DEN IS A GREAT MAN and his opponents- either criminal or ignorant

        Den managed to finish Maoism.

        What would be your take on improving the life conditions of billions under communist rule?

        Nuclear war! Of course I know it from you for a long time already: WE DON’T EXCEPT THIS

        One has to learn facts , not to blind himself with ideology that was dead even before constructed

        Again: since 1918 Ukrainian elements in Soviet politics knew exactly what needs to be done and succeeded for some time: in NEP, in Thaw and in Perestroika up to 1991

        WE, our people, our political geniuses prevented the nuclear war and will prevent it in the future, trust me

      2. Yours is the interpretation the Cheka intentionally inculcated in its deception operation under The Trust. This is what the regime wanted its dupes to believe — especially the Ukrainian farmers who were pacified by the Bolsheviks with the promise they could keep their land. But communist theory could never abide this compromise with private property forever. In the long run they were coming for the “Kulaks.” In the long run, NEP was a temporary measure — whether for thirty years as the present NEP, or eight years (as Lenin’s).

  6. Palmer

    What we are witnessing in Hong Kong which the media has failed to report on is that the Chinese Communist Party is going to absorb Hong Kong into the Mainland early. They are not going to wait for 2047, me and Jeff recently covered this on the Rudolf Baresic show and how the protests were orchestrated Chinese Communist Party.

  7. Why would they impose sanctions on us when they are stealing us blind with their unfair trading practices? That would be like a thief refusing to take advantage of an open window in the middle of the night.

  8. Their strategy of holding US debt is a win-win for them. If we can pay the debt owed, they make out well. If we cannot it means we have collapsed and the world is theirs.

Comments are now closed.