The Dragon Behind The DNC
Does the dragon in The Book of Revelation represent the Communist Chinese?
The Democrats have deep ties to Communism.
Kamala Harris and her Marxist cohorts are setting us up for the final battle.
Like John the Revelator, we are marveling at the beast
Kamala’s Dad Praised Karl Marx In Pro-Communist Essay
Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ father Donald J. Harris praised socialist theoretician Karl Marx, according to records obtained by PATRICK REPORTS.
Donald J. Harris is on tape (below) discussing how the world financial system should be “changed” and “altered” to benefit Third World countries. Harris, who was repeatedly identified as a Marxist in the Stanford University newspaper, also praised Marxist economics as being “rooted in the interests of the working class.”
Kamala’s father Donald J. Harris was born in Jamaica (the descendant of a white slaveowner named Hamilton Brown, according to his own admission) and served as an economics professor at Stanford University, where his Marxist views made him a lightning rod for campus controversy.
In April 1972, Donald J. Harris wrote the introduction for a new version of a book entitled “The Economic Theory Of The Leisure Class,” which was written by Bolshevik Soviet revolutionary Nikolai Bukharin.
In the book’s introduction, Kamala Harris’ father Donald J. Harris writes:
“In the tradition of Marxist critiques, it is a significant contribution. But there has really been nothing in this area to compare with the monumental work of Marx himself, Theories of Surplus Value (or even the shorter treatise, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.”) The standard attained by Marx’s performance would in any case be hard to equal. That work still remains the definitive and most “systematic resumé of the whole complex of political economy” (in Engels’ words) as it had taken shape up to Marx’s time. It continues to have direct relevance as well to contemporary theory.”
Later in his introduction, Harris praises Marxism in comparison to capitalism, with Harris writing that Marxisim is “rooted in the interests of the working class.”
“So far as the sociological criticism is concerned, it is helpful to recall Marx’s general characterization of the role of “bourgeois political economy” and its relation to Marxian political economy: In the early phase of capitalist development, bourgeois political economy, by championing the interests of the emerging bourgeoisie in its struggle against the pre-existing dominant class, performs a radical scientific role in exposing the nature of commodity-producing precapitalist society. In the later phase of capitalism, however, bourgeois political economy turns to justification of the system in which the bourgeoisie has become ascendant and is threatened by the growing workers’ movement. It thereby loses its scientific role, a role which is to be taken by Marxian political economy rooted in the interests of the working class.”
In 1989, Donald J. Harris spoke on a panel called “Alternative Perspectives on International Economy” in which he expounded on his radical beliefs.
WATCH THE VIDEO:
“I think one has to address systematically the question of the structure of the financial, the international financial system itself,” Harris said on the 1989 panel.
Harris explained his view that greedy banks are merely operating within a financial structure that needs to be changed and altered to benefit Third World countries — making clear the internationalist aims of the Marxist movement.
“This issue of the structure of the financial system has not really been told adequately in this discussion, and in fact insofar as the position of knocking the banks borders on a purely moralistic argument about bank greed. It really misses the point that banks exist in a structure in which they have to function. They have to survive and grow, and their actions must then be interpreted as reasonably rational policies adopted in order to survive and grow in that structure. So the issue then becomes what is the nature of the structure and how can it be changed and altered in order to accommodate the needs of Third World countries,” Harris stated.
As I previously uncovered, the Stanford University campus newspaper archives contain numerous references to Don Harris’ Marxism.
According to a May 15, 1975 piece in the Stanford Daily headlined “Marxist Offered Economics Post“: “Don Harris, a prominent Marxist professor, has been offered a full professorship in the Economics Department here, Department Chairman James Rosse confirmed yesterday…The appointment is the direct result of student pressure in recent years to hire more faculty who favor an “alternative approach” to economics, said Economics Prof. John Gurley, who now teaches the only undergraduate course in Marxist economics. Gurley said the appointment of Harris was the culmination of a six-month “round-the-world” search for the most qualified Marxist professor available. Gurley called Harris “an exceptionally good teacher, outstanding researcher, and one of the leading young people in Marxist economics…With the addition of Harris, the department would be able to offer a much greater number of courses taught from a Marxist viewpoint.”
According to a May 21, 1975 piece in the Stanford Daily: “The University’s offer of a tenured position to Marxist economist Don Harris represents a welcome but long overdue action on the part of the Economics Department. The decision to hire another Marxist is primarily the result of continual pressure on the administration by concerned students, and we must commend the Economics Department for paying attention to this student input.”
A January 31, 1974 Stanford Daily editorial headlined “Econ Department Needs Marxian Profs” used the phrase: “Marxist scholars like Don Harris.”
According to a March 14, 1974 Stanford Daily article with the headline “Econ Students Again Demand Expanded Marxian Program”: “But Don Harris, visiting economics professor and advocate of radical economics, suggested that the faculty recommendations hadn’t really met the students’ original demands. “[The proposals] are biased towards the graduate students. Undergrads have, to some degree, been left out. The alternative approaches’ proposal is clearly directed to the graduates,” Harris observed. “If the real objective is to provide a broad-based undergraduate program in Marxian economics, the department is going to need some more manpower,” he added. Abramovitz, pointing to the faculty “alternative approaches” field, argued that the department would be getting needed manpower…“I have heard no worthwhile arguments against Marxian economics. [Other faculty members] view all other approaches as inferior to their own. There has really been no serious discussion of alternatives,” such as Marxian economics, Harris stated. (The Article Continues on Page 20 of That Stanford Daily Issue)… “This is an objectionable judgment which is made out of ignorance of the historical background and traditions of Marxian economics. Such ignorance is self-replacing through the training that the graduate students receive,” Harris contended.’”
According to an April 3, 1974 Stanford Daily piece: “On March 11, a Daily article reported renewed demands by the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) on the Economics Dept. for a commitment to teaching Marxian economics. Statements by department chairman Moses Abramovitz quoted in that article constitute a clear attempt on his part to obscure and distort the issues. Abramovitz cited “the Marxian economics workshop that is now a regular departmental seminar, a graduate theory course on Marx, Don Harris’ courses, and the recently approved field of study in ‘alternative approaches to economic analysis.” His list sounds impressive until you look more closely. Harris’ courses will end this spring when his contract expires; departmental failure to consider a tenure offer to Harris was one reason we drafted our recent statement. The seminar is now sponsored by Gurley and Harris; Harris will be gone next year, and Gurley will be on leave Autumn quarter.”
FOLLOW PATRICK REPORTS TO KEEP UP WITH OUR SERIES “THE KAMALA FILES”….
Alex Jones Issues Emergency Warning: If Not Stopped, The Globalists Will Collapse Civilization And Create Hell On Earth
The Folly Of Legislating Against Unfairness
In A Cure Worse Than The Disease: Fighting Discrimination Through Government Control, M. Lester O’Shea criticizes the notion that we should legislate against unfairness.
He poses the question as follows: “No one defends unfairness. So shouldn’t it be against the law?” In posing the question that way, his point is that the mere fact that we regard something as unfair – or even morally wrong – does not mean we ought to legislate against it. This point is of central importance to his argument against antidiscrimination legislation.
Walter Williams adopts a similar approach in Race and Economics, arguing that the mere fact that free markets are blind to all sorts of interactions and bargains that we might regard as “unfair” does not mean there ought to be some sort of legislative intervention to redress the unfairness. Williams gives the example of minimum wage legislation, arguing that it is folly to introduce laws mandating a wage determined by the government to be “fair,” while overlooking the fact that mandatory wage interventions often lead to worse outcomes including rising unemployment. Williams therefore regards legislative interventions which attempt to “correct” the market by introducing fairness as misguided. He argues that,
Economic theory as such cannot answer questions of fairness. However economic theory can predict the effects of not permitting some people to charge lower prices for what they sell and [offer] higher prices for what they buy.
In the context of racial fairness, Williams points out that focusing on oppression and discrimination, highlighting the racial injustices of the past and attempting to correct them, does not yield solutions to today’s problems: “an acknowledgement of and consensus on those injustices, and on residual discrimination, do not carry us very far in evaluating what is or is not in the best interest of blacks nowadays.”
A further difficulty with legislating for fairness is that many people who attempt to enforce fairness understand fairness as equality – they argue that fairness requires that everyone be treated equally. This is a reasonable argument if equal treatment means treating everyone the same in relation to legal rights and duties. However, once it is proposed to legislate for equality, an entire raft of equal treatment provisions inevitably follows, which has more to do with allocating phony civil rights to favored groups that are viewed as disadvantaged while punishing other groups that are viewed as advantaged. The fairness enterprise then turns out to be yet another social engineering program.
The declaration that all men are created equal does not require legislative enforcement through the superimposition of a further set of “equality rights.” Further, there is no such thing as a right not to be discriminated against, as a right to non-discrimination inevitably infringes upon the freedoms of others. As Rothbard explains,
…anti-discrimination laws or edicts of any sort are evil because they run roughshod over the only fundamental natural right: the right of everyone over his own property. Every property owner should have the absolute right to sell, hire, or lease his money or other property to anyone whom he chooses, which means he has the absolute right to “discriminate” all he damn pleases.
All anyone can claim is the right to the same protections of life, liberty, and property that vest the same way in everyone. The tendency of equality legislation to transmute from formal equality to substantive equality is not an accident or an oversight, but rather inherent in the nature of enforcing fairness.
At an abstract level, it is easy to distinguish between equality and equity, but any attempt to legislate equal or fair treatment relies on a concept of “discrimination,” which in turn requires measurement of outcomes. That is because no advocate of equality enforcement has so far been able to suggest an enforcement mechanism which does not rely on comparison – we know whether two things are equal by comparing them – and comparison, by its very nature, requires measurement. Measurement, in turn, leads to a focus on gaps and inequalities. And, for that reason, legislative enforcement of equality focuses on eradicating gaps or disparities. In practice, eradicating gaps is no different from equalizing outcomes. This is especially true because egalitarians have little or no interest in what causes disparities: they assume a starting point in which everyone is (or should be) equal and set about equalizing conditions without any inquiry into causal factors.
In the view of many egalitarians, fairness is only achieved when everyone enjoys equal material circumstances. Rawls’s difference principle is said to be the relevant approach in determining what is “fair,” namely the principle that fairness is achieved by introducing measures which are “to the advantage of the least well-off class in society,” even if this means sacrificing private property rights. As David Gordon has argued in “Is Rawls Stupid?” far from defending a robust concept of private property, Rawls states that, “Two wider conceptions of the right of property as a basic liberty are to be avoided. One conception extends this right to include certain rights of acquisition and bequest, as well as the right to own means of production and natural resources.” In that sense, Rawls recognizes that his conceptualization of fairness as equality is incompatible with a strong defense of property rights.
Legislating for fairness, in reality, operates to the detriment of private property rights. The folly of legislating for fairness is that ultimately such legislation is incompatible with the liberties associated with private property such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of contract.
Alex Jones Issues Emergency Warning: If Not Stopped, The Globalists Will Collapse Civilization And Create Hell On Earth
Watch: Woman Faints at Trump Rally – He Leaves Bulletproof Glass Barrier to Hug Her
Former President Donald Trump left the safety of bulletproof glass at a MAGA rally Wednesday to tend to a rally goer who’d fainted, just weeks after narrowly surviving an assassination attempt.
The 45th president made pulses race in Asheboro, North Carolina, at his first outdoor event since the failed attempt on his life, stepping out from behind protective bulletproof glass and walking off the stage to assist a fainting attendee.
BREAKING: A woman just fainted in the stands at the Trump rally, and Trump walked out from behind the protective glass to make sure she was ok
— Jack Poso ?? (@JackPosobiec) August 21, 2024
He gave her a hug as EMTs brought her out pic.twitter.com/xmdvjeU9hn
After EMTs helped the woman, Trump shook her hand, exchanged words with her and gave her a hug.
The incident comes as the Secret Service implemented the bulletproof glass security measure after multiple security lapses at a July 13 outdoor event in Butler, Pennsylvania, allowed a shooter to successfully fire several shots at Trump, injuring his ear.
?Trump is surrounded by bulletproof glass at his first outdoor rally since the assassination attempt pic.twitter.com/UregjyzKns
— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) August 21, 2024
After Secret Service Director Kim Cheatle resigned following the rally, the Secret Service also recommended Trump stop holding massive outdoor rallies and instead hold only indoor events.
Less than a week after the recommendation, Trump announced he would soon return to Butler for a massive event honoring victims injured and killed at his previous rally, though the campaign hasn’t established a date or indicated whether it will be an outdoor event.
The latest incident depicts a wholesome kind-hearted side of Trump the mainstream media will never show to American audiences.
Donald Trump Jr. Would ‘Love To See’ RFK Jr. In Father’s Administration
Donald Trump Jr. told TPUSA’s Benny Johnson this week he’d “love” to see Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. support his father’s campaign and potentially even take a role in a Trump administration.
Kennedy and his running mate Nicole Shanahan recently stated they are considering exiting the presidential race in order to team up with Trump for an American “unity” ticket.
?WOW.?
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) August 21, 2024
Don Jr. just enthusiasitcally endorsed the idea of RFK Jr. joining the Trump Administration as potential CIA Director after speculation of his looming Trump endorsement grows:
“I could think of a dozen roles I’d love to see him in. I think that would be great.” pic.twitter.com/jY0Uj4lNLp
Don Jr. also joined conservative radio host Glenn Beck Wednesday, with Trump saying of RFK, “I love the idea of giving him some sort of role in some sort of three-letter agency and let him blow it up. I think that’s what we need.”
Donald Trump Jr. speaks with Glenn Beck on the potential of RFK Jr. joining the administration!
— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) August 21, 2024
Trump Jr. says he would love the idea of putting RFK Jr. in charge of a 3-letter agency, and let him “blow it up”.
This is what unity looks like!pic.twitter.com/LGVxbLDziC
During his Tuesday program, Infowars founder and host Alex Jones revealed exclusive sources told him Kennedy and Shanahan WILL be endorsing Trump in a Friday announcement.
The Kennedy/Shanahan campaign announced Wednesday RFK will make an address to the nation in Phoenix on Friday.
Many X users pointed out Donald Trump is coincidentally hosting a rally in Phoenix that same afternoon.
Trump and Kennedy will both be in Phoenix on Friday.
— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) August 21, 2024
Something is brewing, after the RFK announcement. pic.twitter.com/N3uScZ3qFM
Will Kennedy and Shanahan make an appearance at the Trump rally Friday to provide Americans with a political ticket representing both Independents and Republicans?
Trump Vows To Ban Child Sex Change Surgeries: “Doctors Who Do This Are Going to Jail”
Former President Donald Trump has vowed to imprison doctors who perform sex-change surgeries on children. Trump spoke Tuesday in Howell, Michigan, at the Livingston County Sheriff’s Office in his sixth visit to the state this year. “To […]
The post Trump Vows To Ban Child Sex Change Surgeries: “Doctors Who Do This Are Going to Jail” appeared first on The People’s Voice.