Red is the New Blacklist

“Corporate communism” is a phrase, which according to the Urban Dictionary, was first used by former MSNBC host Dylan Ratiger.

The two words essentially refer to a combined government and corporate system that generally moves wealth and power from middle class working folks to an elite group of individuals in order to exercise control over institutions and populations and to also eliminate competition and options in the process.

Economic policies that confiscate people’s earned income, coupled with lockdown impositions, false media narratives, and severe suppression of free expression, are just some of the indicators that warn of our nation’s rapid shift in the corporate communism direction of which Ratiger made reference.

In 2010 the former cable television host penned a piece in the Huffington Post. He offered an explanation as to why Americans of the last decade were inclined to reject communism.

“…it [communism] historically has allowed a tiny group of people to consolidate complete control over national resources (including people), in the process stifling competition, freedom and choice.”

Communist systems inevitably lead to a loss of freedom, a culture of exploitation, and a compromised group of leaders who obtain their positions courtesy of cronyism, nepotism, and treachery.

Elites who rule communist regimes are notorious for stealing wealth from their citizens in order to enrich themselves.

Hugo Chavez, the communist dictator of Venezuela, railed against the wealthy, while he himself lived an opulent lifestyle.

Chavez was not wealthy at the time when, as president in 1998, he took over the then-wealthiest nation in South America. However, before he died he managed to end up with a net worth of over $1 billion.

Communist Fidel Castro told the people of Cuba that he resided in a fisherman’s hut. But according to a book written by his former bodyguard, the despot owned a 90-foot yacht and over 20 luxurious properties, which were located throughout the country. Castro’s assets were reportedly worth about $900 million; this according to Forbes.

Perhaps it is the lure of monopolistic wealth that explains why multinational corporations nowadays seem to have forgotten the reasons for the decades-long cold war with the Soviet Union that our nation had to endure.

Billionaire co-founder of PayPal and member of Facebook’s board of directors Peter Thiel recently stated that multinational corporations in Silicon Valley do not consider themselves to be “American companies.”

Thiel’s viewpoint is that this lack of corporate loyalty is partially due to the embrace of “woke politics.” But there is also the factor that many of the companies’ employees are sympathetic to the Chinese Communist Party, particularly those who happen to be Chinese nationals.

In December of 2020, New York Post columnist Miranda Devine wrote a piece titled “US companies riddled with members of Chinese Communist Party” (https://nypost.com/2020/12/13/us-companies-riddled-with-members-of-chinese-communist-party/).

In the article, Devine discussed a database that had been leaked, which revealed that American companies had been infiltrated by registered members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

China severely restricts its citizens’ rights of free speech and expression. In fact, the CCP exerts tight control over its media by mandating that all published information be vetted by the regime.

The communist nation filters and censors the internet while being given an assist by multinational corporations that include Google and Yahoo. This requirement is enforced via a strict criminal prosecution system.

China’s attitudes are consistent with those of the international left who have no interest in the free flow of ideas or debate. Founding communists Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky viewed free speech as a bourgeois value and had no problem shutting down presses that were not controlled by the Party.

In reality, communist ideology of any kind is wholly incompatible with the concept of individual freedom. An individual’s best interests are always subordinate to the collective’s best interests.

In corporate communism, multinational conglomerates work in concert with the government to alter, affect, and/or abolish competition, free expression, and choice of employment.

Regimes of this type today also practice blacklisting.

Blacklisting is action on the part of an authority in which a roster is compiled of those who hold ideas, beliefs, or attitudes or who engage in practices or activities that are deemed unacceptable by the powers that be.

For years it has been commonly associated with investigations, which were instituted by the House Un-American Activities Committee back in 1947, in order to block screenwriters and other Hollywood professionals, purported to be supporters of communism, from obtaining employment.

Today’s blacklists contain the names of those who have fallen victim to what is now being referred to as “cancel culture.”

Those who are unfortunate enough to become blacklisted are exiled from digital and broadcast platforms because of past expression of ideas, which run counter to the contemporary narrative of the government-corporate regime holding the strings.

Communism by any other name is just as insidious. And just as deadly to freedom.

Down the Path to a One World Religion

The Bishop of Rome recently held a historic meeting with the chief figure in Shia Islam, the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

One phrase was repeatedly used in press reports to describe the coming together of the Pope and Sistani; that being, “interfaith dialogue.”

Interfaith dialogue is an organized effort to engage in a discussion of beliefs, along with a sharing of religious and/or cultural-community oriented practices, which takes place between people of differing faiths.

The goal of such a dialogue is to break down barriers between adherents of differing faiths, and once accomplished purportedly leads to world peace.

Any attempt to persuade others to one’s religious way of thinking, i.e., evangelization, is an unwelcome guest in the interfaith dialogue arena.

In a very real way, it is seemingly a prerequisite that those involved in interfaith activities must first embrace the notion that no single religion could possibly lay claim to the “truth.”

A religious ideology that asserts this sort of exclusivity with regard to truth is considered to be an obstacle to the attainment of harmony in the world.

With this in mind, participants in interfaith dialogue must come to the discussion table with an open mind toward the acceptance of so-called multiple truths, as well as an openness with regard to the welcoming of multiple means of worshipping a deity or deities.

So who wouldn’t want world peace?

Well, it’s not what it appears to be.

Back in early 2019, an interfaith agreement was signed by Pope Francis and a different Muslim leader, the Sunni Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Ahmed el-Tayeb.

Their meeting produced a written document that states the “diversity of religions” that exist in the world were “willed by God.”

The implication is that the hundreds of different religions in the world are all equally acceptable to the Creator of the Universe. Millions would beg to differ.

In 2016 a video released by the Vatican appears to similarly indicate that different religions are all just assorted paths to God. In the footage, the Pontiff expresses that although faiths may be “seeking God or meeting God in different ways,” we are all “children of God.”

Interfaith dialogue denies one crucially important reality; that being, there are incompatible fundamental distinctions between the deeply held beliefs of differing religions throughout the world.

Because of this fact, it is impossible for religions to be combined or somehow blended together, without suffering the loss of the vital integrity of the respective faiths.

In order to pursue the goals of interfaith dialogue, participants must act as though such differences do not exist. They must also accept and espouse that contradictory beliefs can be reconciled.

Other thorny issues have arisen, which pose additional problems for the interfaith movement. There are so-called faith entities that have adopted the practice of worshipping an anti-deity or deities; in other words, they are involved in occult beliefs and practices.

They, too, would like to be part of the movement. Don Frew provides an example.

Frew is a Wiccan Elder and a high priest of a coven in Berkeley, California. He has been involved in interfaith work for more than 30 years. He has served on the Board of the Berkeley Area Interfaith Council and is also a National Interfaith Representative for one of the largest and oldest Wiccan organizations.

Obviously, for those of the Jewish and Christian faiths, there could never be a reconciling of their beliefs with an organization such as Frew’s.

It is literally the First of the Ten Commandments: No other gods before me. That pretty much ends the discussion on multiple truths.

The bottom line is that the interfaith movement is a deceptive one. Its supposed goal is peace, but its hidden motive is to blend faiths together into a one world religion.

A one world religion would do away with the centuries-old religious tenets of millions. It would also be at odds with a belief system that is written on the hearts of human beings around the globe. And it totally conflicts with the essence of our souls to believe what we choose to believe.

In the context of this so-called interfaith dialogue, these fundamental principles are non-negotiable.