I knew I'd find it somewhere, someday. And sure enough, I picked up a biography on Comrade Stalin and began to devour it. In it I have discovered the "how-to" manual Liberals are employing in their maniacal dash for political, social and economic supremacy in the United States. It is known as The Revolutionary's Catechism.

In the biography entitled Stalin, author Edvard Radzinsky introduced his readers to The Revolutionary's Catechism by Sergei Nechaev. Nechaev's catechism was the road map used by the Reds in their grab for the power of the Russian government.

Author Radzinsky was tenacious in gaining access to the Party Archives after the collapse of the Soviet empire. He likens his foray into those archives as taking the first footsteps into the secrets of "that incorrigibly conspiratorial party," as he describes the Bolsheviks and Communists in general.

Let's examine this statement for a moment. An "incorrigibly conspiratorial party," the author stated. Taking the statement at face value Radzinsky summed up not only the practical realization of Soviet Communism as practiced for 70 odd years, but he also indicted the methods employed by the Reds in their power grab, and used to assassinate the character of various Party members as they fell in and out of favor. And that conspiracy bit sounds a lot like the conspiracy theorists we find in the US today.

By way of demonstration as to the commitment of the Bolsheviks, Radzinsky points out the Revolutionary's Catechism's admonition that "comrades are to be valued only in accordance with their usefulness to the cause."

And these practices of the Reds were not only employed upon Party members to keep them in line; these same tactics were turned loose on the countryside as well. They used the term "expropriation" to describe their methods. They justified all manner of actions as acceptable within the revolutionary's toolkit: murder and political assassination, bank robbery, extortion, you name it; the Bolsheviks used it to gain power - and to keep it.

At the head of this movement of Marxism lay a small cadre of leaders. These leaders adhered to Russian Populist Peter Tkachev words when he wrote "Revolution can be successfully carried out by a narrow conspiratorial group of revolutionary leaders. They must seize power first then transform a country accustom to slavish submission."

Furthermore in their quest for power the revolutionaries took one of Sergei Nechaev's proverbial commands and put it to brilliant use. In fact, their implementation of TheRevolutionary's Catechism was complete when they accepted "Our task is terrible; universal destruction." Thus bent on power and knowing no bounds to achieve it, they resolved "To carry out the work of destroying the system . . ." In advising as to sewing discontent among the populace, the revolutionary ". . . must aggravate the miseries of the common people, so as to exhaust their patience and incite them to rebel."

And at the same time we find "Lenin meanwhile promised it all: land for the peasants and peace for Russia." Yeah, that sounds about right. That's exactly what happened to Russia in the later part of the second decade of the 20^th Century - a destroyed society and hollow promises.

To put a nice spin on their hopes of power the Bolsheviks preached the virtues of Marx: "Self-sacrifice in the service of the poor and the oppressed, the protest against an unjust society, the promise of a Kingdom of Righteousness and the enthronement of a new Messiah (the World Proletariat)."

So, how did the "Kingdom of Righteousness" and the "new Messiah" thing turn out?

To answer that question one need only cast their eyes in an eastward glance. If you strain your eyes to see past the hustle and bustle of a somewhat capitalist, reasonably prosperous Europe, you can just make out the smoldering ruins of the failure. Complete, total, abject and unequivocal.

A monumental failure at that. The Soviet Union was one of the two most powerful nations on the planet, then BOOM! See ya! Apparently Adolf Hitler was right when in the 1940's he opined the Soviet Union was a house of cards; one good kick and the whole facade would come tumbling down, and so it was, exposed for the charade it had always been.

Was the Soviet Union the failure it was because of the Bolshevik bastardization of Marx? To some degree, absolutely, but I believe there is another key factor to consider; that being the treatment the Bolsheviks meted out to the population.

The USSR failed on many levels. It never came anywhere near the promises that were made to the people. In fact, by June 1941, less than 25 years after the October Revolution, when Hitler invaded the USSR, the people of the conquered territories were largely glad to see the coming of the Germans. They were eager to be free of Marx, Lenin and Uncle Joe Stalin and saw the invading Germans as liberators.

But Hitler was such a megalomaniac, such an anti-Semite, such a eugenicist, such a madman that he turned from liberator to tyrant in one fell swoop with his ethic cleansing and Lebensraum (living space to the east of Germany to be used to settle Germanic peoples in the conquered territories).

My mention of Hitler was to demonstrate what an evil and ineffective system Communism was; so much so that ethnic Russians and citizens of the member states of the USSR were glad to see the foreign Germans. For a short time these peoples truly thought the Third Reich had come to save them from Stalin, and the most salient point is that these peoples really believed they needed saving. That point should never be overlooked.

And now we stand just past the beginning of the 21^st Century. Less than 100 years have passed since the October Revolution. In that time we witnessed the rise of the Soviet Union, WWII, the Cold War and the collapse of the grand Union. Seems it wasn't so damned grand after all.

Have any lessons been learned? If you ask me, not much has been changed since the heady days of 1917.

When I turn on a television or look at a newspaper I hear certain politicians and devotees of their cause espousing points sounding so familiar to The Revolutionary's Catechism.

We hear promises from the Left that they can and will fix America's problems, just like Lenin promised everything to all.

They advocate a form of "expropriations" in that they argue they must have more from the evil corporations, more from the "rich" as the Left coins them, to re-appropriate and re-allocate wealth in their vision.

They use the rhetoric of Marx in their advocacy of "Self-sacrifice in the service of the poor and the oppressed, the protest against an unjust society . . . ,"

So, can "Revolution . . . be successfully carried out by a narrow conspiratorial group of revolutionary leaders?" Can they lull us into passive acceptance so that "They [can] seize power first then transform a country accustom to slavish submission."

And to me, the most important question I have is, are Leftists willing to accept Nechaev's advice and acknowledgment that "Our task is terrible; universal destruction. To carry out the work of destroying the system . . . He must aggravate the miseries of the common people, so as to exhaust their patience and incite them to rebel."

Remember, I've warned before about the Left's Wear 'Em Down strategy, whereby the opposition keeps up all manner of complaint and disagreement, until, they hope, we vote them into office just to make it all go away. I believe the Left is truly aggravating "the miseries of the common people, so as to exhaust their patience and incite them to rebel."

And while the revolutionaries are busy stirring the pot, in order to get the backing of the public, "Lenin meanwhile promised it all: land for the peasants and peace for Russia."

This is crucial, in that the revolutionaries sow confusion among the populace, thus further confounding and hiding truth, all the while their leaders promise to fix the problem, which in reality are trumped up problems created to further their ends. When they claim they can "fix" it what they really mean in fact is that they will order their minions to cease their behavior.

So, does anyone else see this, or is it just me?