GOP Marxist agitation in the name of Americanism

Tom Munds

Jan 07, 2025

Is Agitation a Principle of Liberty or a Tool of Marxist Ideology?

Agitation has long been a force in shaping societies, but is it inherently aligned with liberty or closer to the tactics of Marxist ideology? People will naturally disagree, but historically, such disagreements often arose from thoughtful public discourse on differing opinions. From what I’ve read, these debates generally had a clear purpose and intent behind them, and often, participants expressed their positions with greater clarity than we see today.

Take, for example, the debate over the establishment of a national bank: Should Wer have a new constitution or keep the Articles of Confederation? Should the banking power rest with the federal government, the states, or the private sector? The issues were straightforward, with clear positions—yes, no, or yes/no with explanations. Contrast that with today, where disagreements frequently devolve into accusations like “racist extremist,” sidelining the issues in favor of personal attacks.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting the past was perfect or free from petty arguments. My point is to encourage reflection on what we say, why we say it, and the outcomes we seek. Today, this kind of introspection seems rare.

This leads to a broader question: Do today’s agitators genuinely seek peace and prosperity, or is their goal control? If someone agitates without the willingness to engage in open dialogue with those they disagree with, it appears less about fostering understanding and more about enforcing dominance. Such behavior is the antithesis of brotherly love, peace and prosperity and finding meaningful solutions to the problems in our country.

The Problem with Labels and Control

Terms like “RINO” or “Establishment” often serve as divisive, derogatory labels. These collectivist terms may energize followers, but they rarely contribute to solving real problems. Speaking of problems, are we truly addressing the severity of the challenges we face, or are we content to fight each other on a sinking ship? How can such a division benefit anyone? Perhaps it’s not about benefiting people, in general at all, but about maintaining control over those people.

Consider censorship: When governments suppress free speech, why do they do it? Control. When social media platforms disable comments, why? Control. When overregulation stifles the very people governments are meant to serve, the motive is the same control. Similarly, if people engaged in some public aggressive interaction and refuse peaceful dialogue or suppress dissenting voices, their intentions may not be honorable and of course self-serving. Do you want to follow a self-serving leader?

Smears and Their Intentions

During my time as a coordinator for The John Birch Society, I encountered countless smears—unfounded attacks that persisted for decades. I was used to it. It showed me how intelligent people were or weren’t and whether they prefer freedom or control. And more than that, it showed me people tend to adhere more to control than freedom because the smear that came against JBS was written by a communist rag and the American people ignorantly bought it because Time Magazine copied it from the commie rag and posted it in their magazine! (So JBS knew about the leftist media and communist influence before Americans did!) Why would anyone launch such smears? Again, the answer often lies in control. The desire to maintain a narrative or suppress dissent frequently overrides truth and integrity.

From a biblical perspective, such actions reflect a lack of moral grounding or sheer hypocrisy. Those who deliberately spread falsehoods to control others are acting against the principles of justice and truth on one hand while they may proclaim it on the other.

The Root of the Issue

Ultimately, people have the right to believe what they wish—but why would anyone knowingly embrace falsehoods? The answer lies in ignorance, intent and most likely control. Those who deliberately spread lies, under the guise of rights or freedom, do so to control others. This is why we have laws against libel and slander. To knowingly trespass against others in this way is not just legally wrong; it’s morally corrupt and authoritarian snd to keep doing it shows the ignrosnce of that leader or his evil self-centered desires to control others.

A Call for Reflection

We’ve become a nation consumed by control and self-interest rather than a shared pursuit of truth and justice. Leaders come in many forms—those who mislead for control and those who fight tyranny to ensure others can freely discern right from wrong.

To those who fear open discourse or public engagement, I dedicate this reflection to you and people like Gregory Graff and invite you all to engage with me in public discourse. If I have been accurate in my writing here, whether people like Greg respond or not will be telling enough because it is important to know that truth thrives in the light, not in the shadows of control or fear.