1913 and 2022. Different players, same argument

The fate of America may come down to identifying the actual players.

Obviously, this is an oversimplification. Winston Churchill described Russia as a “riddle, hidden inside an enigma.” If the British prime minister were alive today, he would likely describe contemporary America as “controlled by two bickering cousins who represent less than one-third of the nation’s total population.”

So, we have two factions fighting. But, in reality, they are “cut from the same cloth.” And they actually represent the will of only one-third of the population? How is this possible? If indeed it is actually true!

“Money. organization. And the ability to divide and conquer”

Works every time!

Even though there are many who would argue with the former prime minister, it may be worth study. America is controlled by two major political parties. Both position the other as diametrically different. But are they?

As one former son of a CIA operative coined, “it’s reminiscent of a large university with a red team and a blue team. The same people are controlling everything.”

There are activist groups who go as far as to say, “America is no longer a Republic. It is a corporation.”

Let us say, for the sake of the argument, all of this is “poppycock!” We are not a corporation. We are not a red team and a blue team, playing for the same university. We are a “large, diverse democracy.” Anyone believing otherwise is a “conspiracy theorist.” Former MSNBC Anchor, Chris Mathews would certainly hold to this paradigm.

Conservatives have attempted to find solace in the Republican Party. They are temporarily enthused when they march to the ballot boxes in hope of bringing about relief from the perceived injustices and infraction. Sharp rhetoric finds welcoming ears when it comes to describing the outrages of the left-leaning opposition. However, when the piper demands payment, there is always a reason for “messaging” and eventually accepting the other guy’s point of view.

A familiar term describing our Washingtonians is “Democans” and “Republicrats.” There is some credence to this assertion.

Let’s wind the clock back momentarily, returning to Ragtime Russia. True, most Americans are not interested in their own history, let alone Russian history! But it merits our attention.

On the eve of the First World War, there was an intense argument taking place in the soon-to-be-in-control Communist Party. At odds were Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky, with Vladimir Lenin presiding. Lenin would eventually be the father of the modern Soviet Union. But in 1913, things were far from settled.

Trotsky wanted to export the revolution worldwide. Stalin wanted to build it from within, believing survival and world dominance began with transforming Russia into an industrial powerhouse. There were other differences as well.

The followers of Trotsky assumed that modern man would embrace the Marxist system voluntarily. Stalin concluded that the country lacked the time to allow people to gradually accept communism. His five-year plans accelerated adoption by force. His methodology was later condemned by top party officials, including Nikita Khrushchev.

Followers of Trotsky held Stalin largely in contempt. There were efforts to undermine him, resulting in executions, (in many cases murders,) deportations, forced famines, and outright terror! Those “Trotskyites” fortunate enough, exited Russia, landing in other parts of Europe, and the Western Hemisphere, including America. Trotsky himself was in Mexico when he was assassinated in 1940.

All “Stalinists” did not reside in Russia. An enclave of primarily Jewish Marxists was spawned at the now-famous Frankfort School, in Frankfurt, Germany. With the rise of Adolph Hitler, they departed for the west, ultimately landing in New York City.

In Russia, the two sides were referred to as “Bolsheviks” and “Mensheviks.” The names are derivatives of “Bol” and Men; More and less.” The Bolsheviks won because there was more support for their interpretation. The Mensheviks with less lost, resorting to exile.

Much has been written about Leon Trotsky and his interpretation of Karl Marx’s writings. Some suggest that he was the true Socialist, believing as Lenin did, that a Democracy could be the fruit of a system that was properly run. Stalin was more pragmatic. He concluded that the “workers were not at a point” where they could wisely determine a course. His “dictatorship of the Proletariat” was nothing more than Democracy orchestrated by the Communist Party.

How does this relate to contemporary America?

The Frankfort School produced many names including Antonio Gramsci who was the mentor for Saul Alinsky. Modern disciples of Alinsky include Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

There is growing evidence that modern “neoconservatives” or neocons are “evolved Trotskyites.” But who are the neocons? And where are they to be found?

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul made a stark distinction between “Constitution Conservatives” and “Neo-Conservatives” in his book, “The Tea Party Goes to Washington.” According to Senator Paul, neocons advocate a “large, Washington, D.C. based central government” with a role of “advancing and facilitating conservative principles and policies.”

Sounds a bit contradictory! In reality, we can see teachings of Trotsky manifested in modern U.S. policy. To the surprise of many Republicans, they are not necessarily coming from the Democrat Party!

Let us examine two of George W. Bush’s gifts: “The Department of Homeland Security” and “No Child Left Behind.” Both were well-meant, well-intended programs designed to better America. Yet both involved greater control from Washington, D.C. Not to mention expansion of the central government.

How about Iraq and Afghanistan? Were we not “exporting Democracy” to those regions? Did we not assume that, when given a taste of our system, the locals would embrace it? Since both countries were “replacing governments,” did this not amount to “exporting a revolution?”

What about British economist John Maynard Keynes and his world-renowned “Keynesian theory of economics?” In a nutshell, “quantitative easing; tax and spend, deficit spending,” etc. And who was one of the players whose theories greatly impacted Lord Keynes? If you guessed Karl Marx, you are correct.

On the other side of the Atlantic, there were notable figures who were greatly influenced by Keynes, beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt. You can add Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama to the list.!

Many committed conservatives find it disconcerting that Agenda 21, now commonly referred to as “sustainability” was initially supported by George H.W. Bush.

Are we suggesting that all of those referenced U.S. presidents were “evolved Trotskyites?”

Not entirely. But it is disquieting to note that many of their policies, both foreign and domestic can be traced to the former Menshevik leader.

The Bolsheviks are easier to fathom. They simply wanted the government to take over in the name of “social justice.” When we see anti-Second Amendment stalwarts Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi speak out in favor of the merits of gun control, we need only to read the memoirs of their mentor, Joesph Stalin to understand their orientation.

The Mensheviks are a bit more difficult to pigeonhole. They like to talk about the “clear contrast” between Republican and Democrat visions for the country. That they loathe the other side is clearly evident. Stalin and Trotsky hated each other!

This notwithstanding, were not Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in basic agreement on the big picture? True, they represented varied visions of communism. In some cases, especially methodology, their vision of how to implement Marxism were quite defined. In the end however, they were opposite extremes of the same ingredient.

Is this the hopeless conclusion of our American fate? Sadly, a lot of people have given up. The disputed election of 2020 has resulted in a growing apathy. In essence, “the red team and the blue team” will work something out as always.

There are idealistic dreamers who remind “it’s a good thing that Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams didn’t see it that way.” They are quick to point out that “we must begin questioning our career politicians, assuming that they don’t always act in our best interests.” Kentuckians will vouch for that in regard to Mitch McConnell!

There have been outsiders such as Ronald Reagan. But that was 42 years ago! The demographics of the country have changed. Some states have ventured down the path of Socialism to the extent that a return is improbable, if not impossible.

Perhaps the scales have been weighed and we have been found wanting.


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.


Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!

One thought on “1913 and 2022. Different players, same argument

Comments are closed.

Latest Articles