UTT Throwback Thursday: Flynn, The Shadow Government & America’s Second Civil War

Understanding the Threat, Feb. 16, 2017:

Today’s UTT Throwback Thursday looks all the way back to…Monday, when UTT identified the threat of the Shadow Government and the penetration of America’s national security and governmental decision-making apparatus by jihadi, hard-left/Marxist, and other enemies.

flynn3

The resignation of General Michael Flynn is another salvo in America’s Second Civil War, which is now underway in earnest.  This was a victory for our enemies and, if harsh action is not taken immediately, our enemies will be emboldened to be more aggressive.

The battle lines in America’s Second Civil War have been drawn between the enemies of liberty and principles upon which our fore-fathers built this nation, against those willing to stand and defend all that is right and just about the original ideals of this land we call America as detailed in the Declaration of Independence.

Those involved in General Flynn’s resignation, especially the media and individuals in the intelligence community who illegally leaked highly classified material, lied and are continuing to lie about the contacts between General Flynn and the Russians, among other details.  They did this and are continuing their efforts to intentionally thwart the orders of the President of the United States, as did the judges ruling against the law on President Trump’s Executive Order regarding closing immigration from seven hostile nations.

The hard-left/Marxists and Jihadis are working together to destroy the American government and society and both have overtly stated so.  They are being directly aided by many media outlets and reporters as well as by establishment Republicans who seem to want to maintain status quo rather than defend the Republic and adhere to their sworn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Those involved and supporting such subversive activities should be identified and fired and, where possible, prosecuted.  Judges ruling against U.S. law and the Constitution, including those on the Supreme Court, should be impeached.

President Trump faces a true and imminently dangerous threat to the Republic, and comparisons to Lincoln’s leadership burdens during America’s first Civil War are not unfounded.

For several years, UTT has been briefing and teaching leaders in law enforcement and government about the flourishing operational and strategic relationship between the international hard-left/Marxist movement and the Jihadi Movement.

obama

From the ground level in Ferguson and Dallas to the hundreds of George Soros funded organizations internationally seeking to financially bring down the United States, to the Global Islamic Movement using these organizations and individuals as tools to build their caliphate under sharia, the Flynn resignation is a major pivot point for the enemy.  It shows them they can defeat the United States from the inside out.

Now we have a likely prospect for the President’s new National Security Advisor in Admiral Harward. Does he strategically understand the magnitude of the threats facing the Republic, and does he have the stomach for what must be done to achieve victory?

UTT reaffirms this war will be won or lost at the local level.  Courageous sheriffs and pastors who will speak the truth, prepare their communities, and root out the threats facing our Constitutional Republic county by county is the second major step towards victory.

The first is training and education.  UTT stands ready to help your community.

The Communists Behind the Anti-Trump Protests

f_trump_cityprotests_161109-nbcnews-ux-1080-600Front Page Magazine, by John Perazzo, November 11, 2016:

Ever since Donald Trump’s election victory Tuesday night, the media have been abuzz with stories about massive, sometimes violent, anti-Trump protests breaking out in cities all across the country. We’ve been told that ordinary Americans everywhere are so frightened and angered by the prospect of a Trump presidency—as opposed to a Hillary Clinton presidency—that they’re taking to the streets to express their grave concerns for the future of the country.

In Chicago, for instance, thousands of people held an “emergency protest” outside a Trump hotel, chanting: “No Trump, No KKK, No Fascist USA!”

In New York, some 5,000 people (including the political oracle Lady Gaga) demonstrated outside Trump Tower. “Their concerns,” said CNN, “ranged from policies, such as Trump’s proposed plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, to the polarizing tenor of his campaign that they say stoked xenophobic fears.”

In Oakland, some of the 7,000+ demonstrators damaged police cars, vandalized businesses, hurled Molotov cocktails and rocks at law-enforcement officers, and started at least 40 separate fires.

And in Los Angeles, more than 1,000 people filled the streets, burned Trump in effigy, and sang John Lennon’s Give Peace a Chance. “Several protesters said they feared that family or friends might be deported once Trump takes office,” said CNN.

From reading the various mainstream media accounts of these events, one comes away with the distinct impression that they are grassroots actions that began organically among ordinary, concerned, well-meaning citizens.

But alas, if one were to think that, one would be wrong.

Contrary to media misrepresentations, many of the supposedly spontaneous, organic, anti-Trump protests we have witnessed in cities from coast to coast were in fact carefully planned and orchestrated, in advance, by a pro-Communist organization called the ANSWER Coalition, which draws its name from the acronym for “Act Now to Stop War and End Racism.” ANSWER was established in 2001 by Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center, a group staffed in large part by members of the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party. In 2002, the libertarian author Stephen Suleyman Schwartz described ANSWER as an “ultra-Stalinist network” whose members served as “active propaganda agents for Serbia, Iraq, and North Korea, as well as Cuba, countries they repeatedly visit and acclaim.”

Since its inception, ANSWER has consistently depicted the United States as a racist, sexist, imperialistic, militaristic nation guilty of unspeakable crimes against humanity—in other words, a wellspring of pure evil. When ANSWER became a leading organizer of the massive post-9/11 demonstrations against the Patriot Act and the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, it formed alliances with other likeminded entities such as Not In Our Name (a project of the Revolutionary Communist Party) and United For Peace and Justice (a pro-Castro group devoted to smearing America as a cesspool of bigotry and oppression).

Another key organizer of the current anti-Trump protests is a group called Socialist Alternative, which describes “the global capitalist system” as “the root cause of … poverty, discrimination, war, and environmental destruction.” Explaining that “the dictatorships that existed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were [unfortunate] perversions of what socialism is really about,” this organization calls for a happy-faced “democratic socialism where ordinary people will have control over our daily lives.”

And, lo and behold, many components of Socialist Alternative’s agenda mesh seamlessly with Hillary Clinton’s political priorities. For instance, Socialist Alternative seeks to: (a) “raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, as a step toward a living wage for all”; (b) provide “free [taxpayer-funded] … public education for all from pre-school through college”; (c) create “a publicly funded single-payer [healthcare] system as a step towards fully socialized medicine”; (d) impose absolutely “no budget cuts [on] education and social services”; and (e) legislate “a major increase in taxes on the rich and big business.”

In short, the anti-Trump protests that are currently making headlines are 100% contrived, fake, phony exhibitions of street theater, orchestrated entirely by radicals and revolutionaries whose chief objective is to push America ever farther to the political left. Moreover, they seek to utterly demoralize conservatives into believing that public opposition to their own (conservative) political and social values is growing more powerful, more passionate, and more widespread with each passing day.

The bottom line is this: The leaders and organizers of the anti-Trump protests that are currently making so much noise in cities across America, are faithfully following the blueprint of Hillary Clinton’s famous mentor, Saul Alinsky, who urged radical activists to periodically stage loud, defiant, massive protest rallies expressing rage and discontent. Such demonstrations are designed to give onlookers the impression that a mass movement is preparing to shift into high gear, and that its present size is but a fraction of what it eventually will become. A “mass impression,” said Alinsky, can be lasting and intimidating: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have…. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

And that is precisely what we are witnessing at the moment.

Also see:

This 9/11 Anniversary is a Call to Action

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Sept. 9, 2016:

It has been fifteen (15) years since September 11, 2001.  It is a day seared in our hearts and minds.

911

Today, we are far from where we thought we would be 15 years after the jihadi attacks of 9/11.  America lost two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we lost thousands of American lives since 9/11.  Many have allowed themselves to be lied to about the true nature of the threat without any evidence they care about their ignorance.

Our leaders in both political parties have betrayed us and brought the Republic to a gravely dangerous point in our history.  Some say we are on the brink of destruction.

This weekend is meant to remember the dead of September 11, 2001, but it is also a time for Americans to dedicate themselves to defending freedom without apology.  It is a time to recall our duties as citizen soldiers, stand in the gap and refuse to surrender one more inch to tyranny and evil.

The cry once again is “Freedom.”

Freedom to speak your mind without concern for whom might be offended.

Freedom to declare the truth about America’s founding as a nation created by God’s divine providence.

Freedom to declare our rights come from God, and no man nor any government nor any tyrannical movement can take them from us.

But Freedom must be fought for.  We are at war whether you like it or not, and this fight requires mature adults who understand what is at stake to step up and engage wherever needed.

And our time is short.

The culmination of decades of work by the hard left/Marxist and Islamic jihadi Movements in the U.S. is coming to fruition right now. The enemy is on the move.  The Marxists and Jihadis are concentrating their forces.

Marxism, Communism and Socialism are evil systems.  They necessarily enslave people and, as history has repeatedly demonstrated, they are systems where few hold power over the masses – and the masses suffer greatly under that tyranny.

Islam obliges jihad (warfare against non-Muslims) until sharia is the law of the land.  This totalitarian system also enslaves and murders those who do not subscribe to its doctrines.

The cry now must be “Freedom.”

f

The four key pillars of our society – Religion, Politics, Education, Media (free press?) – have been nearly obliterated by the hard-left/Marxists.  The Islamic Movement wages their war against Freedom on the very ground given to them by these Marxists.

Action at the local level needs to be taken now.

It is time to take our schools back.  Our universities may be unrecoverable, but our elementary and junior high schools are not.  Teachers teaching lies about America’s history should be aggressively made to teach the truth or bounced out of school.  The Bible should be, once again, the primary text for teaching morality and good character, among other things.

Christian Pastors who preach that any/all behavior is okay, Islam is peaceful, and that we should never offend others, are denying the faith of our founders and undermining the principles of “the law of nature (Natural Law) and nature’s God (Holy Scripture)” upon which our legal system and government are founded.  Such Pastors should be tossed out of their churches by their ears.  That is not “mean,” it is loving to all the people being corrupted by their evil teachings.

Elected officials who continue to violate their Oaths of Office must be held accountable to the people, who are the sovereign in the United States of America.  It begins at the local level.

Media outlets and reporters who continue to be mouthpieces for both the Marxist and Islamic Movements must be held to account.  Whether station sponsors are petitioned or the individual reporters shamed into speaking truth or quitting, action must be taken.

The two most important groups of people in returning the Republic to order and freedom are Sheriffs (most powerful law enforcement officers in America) and Pastors.  If a sheriff and the citizens (motivated by their Pastors) in any given U.S. county or parish understand the dangers we face, they can legally, aggressively, and thoughtfully identify and dismantle the Marxist and Islamic network in their area.

County by county and state by state we can build fortresses of Freedom.

If battle frightens you and you just want peace, you can have it in an instant.  You can surrender.  But we in a battle for the soul of our Republic and that requires action and it requires a fight.

Yes, this Presidential election is critical, and some people may feel a victory for Mr. Trump may not be victory for conservative Patriots. But a defeat for Mr. Trump will be a defeat for all of us.

However, this is a counterinsurgency and the focus of main effort is at the local level.

On this 9/11 anniversary, the cry once again is “Freedom.”  This is not a slogan nor is it hyperbole.  We are in a war and we need to start acting like it.

Lets put Freedom back on the offensive – where it belongs.

What makes Obama tick?

20151014_obamatickwatch_Family Security Matters, by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD, October 14, 2015:

It is no longer considered a brilliant or unwarranted diagnosis to conclude that Barack Hussein Obama suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others; all usually disguising a fragile self-image that is vulnerable to the slightest criticism.

It would not be unfair, in my opinion, to speculate that Obama may also demonstrate some characteristics of malignant narcissism, where individuals might display an increased level of hostility and sadistically undermine organizations in which they are involved, as well as dehumanize the people with whom they associate; in this case, the United States and ordinary Americans, respectively.

In government, such conduct can manifest itself as a form of antisocial behavior, camouflaged aggression, in which the formal regulations and procedures of an organization are used in both delivering and masking aggression, appearing as non-confrontational, in which the perpetrator can go unnoticed and those harmed may not even be seen as victims of aggression.

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” – Barack Obama, October 30, 2008.

“We are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.” – Michelle Obama, May 14, 2008.

If Obama’s behavior is defined by narcissism, his motivation originates from a profound animosity towards American values and traditions. It is why he has, throughout his life, embraced Marxism and Islam, both of which have a mutual hatred of Judeo-Christian democracy and a shared belief that the United States, as the cornerstone of Western civilization, is the embodiment of evil in the world.

Obama’s “transformation” is a euphemism for the degradation and humbling of a great nation he considers racist, oppressive, venal and dysfunctional unless properly controlled by the collectivist prescriptions of world government.

Perhaps any tendencies toward malignant narcissism that Obama might have, his constant lying and his antipathy for the American experience can be traced to a traumatized childhood, a mother who disregarded his basic needs and ultimately abandoned him; an absent father, who was replaced by a hardcore, card-carrying communist and pornographer.

Obama’s childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis was pro-Soviet, pro-Red China and wrote for Party-line publications such as the Chicago Star and the Honolulu Record; contributors to the former actually served as secret agents for Joseph Stalin. Davis argued that President Harry Truman was a fascist, racist, and imperialist, and the United States was handing West Germany back to the Nazis, while Stalin was pursuing “democracy” in East Germany and throughout the Communist Bloc. He portrayed America’s leaders as “aching for an excuse to launch a nuclear nightmare of mass murder and extermination” against the Soviets and the Chinese- as eager to end all civilization.

According to Paul Kengor, writing in The American Spectator, there are some truly remarkable similarities between the political actions of Obama and the ideas contained in Frank Marshall Davis’ columns, such as: rejecting Winston Churchill; advocating wealth redistribution; favoring taxpayer funding of universal health care; supporting government stimulus; bashing Wall Street; trumpeting the public sector over the private sector; lambasting “excess profits”; warning God-and-gun clinging Americans about huckster preachers; seeking the political support for “social justice;” excoriating the “tentacles of big business,” bankers, big oil, corporate profits; lambasting tax cuts that “spare the rich;” singling out the “corporation executive” for not paying his “fair” share; and so on.

By the autumn of 1980, as a student at Occidental College, nineteen-year-old Obama was already known as an ardent Marxist. Some years later he would become a friend and colleague of the America-hating, radical leftist and unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

I have previously described the policies of the Obama Administration as the intersection of radical ideology and incompetence.

Obama is “incompetent” as a President in the sense that his narcissism prevents him from accepting responsibility and learning from his mistakes.  His ideologies, namely Marxism and sympathy for Islam, compound that “incompetence” by driving him to pursue policies that run counter to the national interest and the well-being of the American people.

Sorry, but I just don’t think he’s on our side.

Also see:

SAVING AMERICA

american_flag_AP-640x480Breitbartby JAMES LYONS 28 Aug 2015:

Never in my lifetime, did I believe I would witness our great country being taken down and withdrawn from our world leadership role by our own administration.  The latest example is the flawed agreement with Iran on their nuclear weapons program.  This needs to be seen as another manifestation of President Barack Obama’s goal to fundamentally transform America.  All of the known concessions made by our administration to Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism that has been at war with us for over 35 years, and has caused the loss of thousands of American lives, including the key support to the 9/11 hijackers without which that terrorist attack could not have been carried out, humiliated us before our friends, allies and most importantly, our enemies. We have been sabotaged from within.

          Every objective that we set out to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability was conceded to Iran.  Unbelievable! In fact, the administration went beyond what I could imagine by not only agreeing to assist Iran in the development of their nuclear program but also committing us to assist in the protection of their nuclear facilities against attack and sabotage, including cyber-attack. 

Further, the fact that no American inspectors are to be allowed in Iran and incredibly, that Iran is to be allowed to conduct its own evidence collection at the key military site Parchin, are simply mind boggling concessions!   Furthermore, with no constraints on either conventional arms or their ICBM program, we are not only jeopardizing our position in the Persian Gulf but we are ignoring Iran’s previous tests and preparations for conducting an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack against the United States.  Of course, Iran does not need an ICBM for such an attack.  It could be launched from a freighter, which they have tested, or from their missile base in Venezuela—which Ambassador Roger Noriega states is currently operational.  If such an attack occurred against our unprotected national electrical grid, an estimated two out of three Americans would die in a year due to starvation, lack of medical care, and societal collapse.    Everything that our modern society depends on would be shut down, and that includes our military forces.  This is a national security issue which must be addressed now.  As Bernard Lewis, the noted Middle East expert stated, once Iran gets a nuclear weapon deterrence will not work.  Game over!  In my view, this borders on treason!

          However, these concessions and commitments are totally consistent with President Obama’s strategy to fundamentally transform America.  In his warped view, America has caused many of the world’s problems and must be humbled.  Therefore, undercutting our status as leader of the free world is seen as being objectively progressive.

          His strategy is anti-American, and anti-Western. It is pro-Islam, pro-Iran and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.   This raises the question: why the Muslim Brotherhood has been so favored by this president?  Actually, it should be very clear.  The Muslim Brotherhood’s creed to destroy America from within by our own “miserable hands” makes the perfect book-end to Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

          With President Obama’s Marxist background, it was a natural fit with Saul Alinsky who preached that, in the absence of a ripe revolutionary situation and a disciplined Bolshevik-like revolutionary party, you advance the “revolutionary cause” by under cutting the basic social and moral fiber of society, as well as the economic and military structural foundation of America at home and abroad.   Furthermore, causing agitation at low levels of society through community organizers is an important element in achieving transformation.  This explains why recent street rioting in Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD, combined with the administration’s policies initiated the so-called war on police, fit a pattern for social unrest. 

          Once the Saul Alinsky concept is understood, then the crushing debt of over 8 trillion dollars since 2009 plus destroying one of the world’s finest medical programs with the forced implementation of Obamacare that represents 1/6 of our economy all makes sense.  The out-of-control immigration policies of the Obama administration, including seeding tens of thousands Muslims with essentially no background checks who have no intention of assimilating also makes perfect sense.   So does dividing America by race and racial profiling.

          The unilateral disarmament of the world’s finest military force world while we are being challenged throughout the world only makes sense in the context of “taking America down.”  The emasculation of our military forces through the social engineering forced upon our military under the guise of “diversity” further jeopardizes our national security by destroying our warrior mentality and the “will to win.”  Our military leadership’s political correctness is clearly at fault here, and they must be held accountable. 

          The out-of-control policies of this administration must be stopped if America is to be saved.  Therefore, all Americans, flood your representatives in Congress with telephone calls, faxes and e-mails demanding that impeachment proceedings be initiated against Executive Branch officials—starting with Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama.  The damage that this administration can do between now and January 2017 must be stopped now!

Also see – if you think you can handle it:

Ambassador Bolton: Obama’s Skewed Beliefs on Terrorism Come From Marxist Ideology (Video)

Gateway Pundit, by Jim Hoft, January 15, 2015:

On Thursday Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron penned an op-ed today in the London Times on the terrorist enemy facing the West. They never mention Islamic radicalism. And they blame terrorism on poverty.
Tonight former Ambassador John Bolton discussed Obama’s far left and dangerous beliefs.

Greta Van Susteren: Did you read his op-ed in the London Times. It was odd… He said the way to fight terror is jobs.

Ambassador Bolton: The terrorist threat does not come from economic deprivation. That is leftist ideology, it’s really Marxist ideology, that all of this religion politics is the super-structure of economics. And, the primitive belief that if it weren’t for poverty everything would be fine in the world. Some of the worst terrorists are among the best educated and come from well-off people. Osama bin Laden being example number one.

 

In a public statement released after the 9-11 attacks, Barack Obama blamed “a climate of poverty and ignorance” for the terrorist attack on America. He has repeated this claim that poverty breeds terrorism over the years.

A British research project published in 2014 found that younger, educated and affluent Muslims were more prone to support terrorism.

From Lenin to Obama

20141230_obamaleninFamily Security Matters, by ALEXANDER G. MARKOVSKY, December 30, 2014:

In the world of Marxist dialectical materialism, change is the product of a constant conflict between opposites, arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all events, ideas, and movements. Therefore, any significant change in a society, according to Marxism, must be accompanied by a period of upheaval.

“Our task,” wrote Lenin in 1902 in What Is to Be Done, “is to utilize every manifestation of discontent, and to collect and utilize every grain of rudimentary protest.” Indeed, if you want to change a society, here is Lenin’s script: cause the problem. Spread the misery. Send a cadre of professional community organizers to unite all of the angry and disinherited spirits to fuel an organized revolt. Entice chaos and violence. Exploit chaos for larger political objectives. Blame your political opponents, demonize and criminalize them. Move decisively to request a temporary suspension of civil liberties in exchange for the restoration of law and order. Usurp power before the deceived masses realize that there is nothing more permanent in politics than something temporary.

From Lenin to Obama the political landscape has changed, but the scheme remains assertively consistent.

As an ardent student of Marxism, Obama is acting in a predictable ethical and moral fashion, consistent with Marxist dialectical materialism. First it was the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. Unlike Lenin, who had proletariat-organized masses of working people who, according to Marx, had “nothing to lose but their chains,” to be used as a revolutionary force to make fundamental changes in the society, Obama had to settle for non-working people who had “nothing to lose” to stoke street violence and resurrect an appearance of proletarians. Predictably, this premeditated unrest imitating Mao’s Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution failed miserably.

Instead of storming the bulwarks of bourgeois institutions of power such as banks and corporations, as real revolutionaries would be expected to do, they were more interested in drugs and easy sex than presidential politics. After urinating on the streets of American cities and creating riots accompanied by vandalism and confrontations with police, the militant movement became an embarrassment for the Democrats. Subsequently, after spending a great deal of money on police overtime, cleaning the streets, and restoring damaged property, this organized banditry had to be quietly shut down.

The failure of the movement to create a virtuous dynamic that would lead to the socialist revolution in the United Sates became a source of contention among Marxists and socialists. Since 2011 a sizeable body of socialist and communist literature has been published to explore and analyze the failure of the movement from a Marxist-Leninist perspective. The most notable books are those of prominent Marxist Paul Mason, Why It’s Still Kicking Off Everywhere: The New Global Revolution (Verso, 2013), and radical socialists Luke Cooper and Simon Hardy, Beyond Capitalism? The Future of Capitalist Politics (Zero Books, 2012) pinpointed the failure of the movement to the organizers’ disregard of Lenin’s conception of the vanguard party as the inspiration for and organizer of the proletarian revolution. The White House seemed to take notice, and when an opportunity presented itself-the killing of a black teenager by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014-the president and his party decided to take direct control of events.

They mobilized professional organizer Al Sharpton, a sympathetic media, the Department of Justice and the prestige of the Oval Office to organize a nationwide revolt under the banner of victims of racism.

In the process the administration embraced a system of justice ruled by staged mass demonstrations and introduced its distinct concept of legitimacy based on racial chauvinism. This combination of mob justice and peculiar legitimacy redefines the limits of permissible; it entitles a segment of the population to riot, loot, assault, burn down buildings and otherwise destroy property, and provide false and misleading testimony to a grand jury with impunity, all in the name of defending human rights while viciously disregarding the rights of humans.

The “near” objective of this campaign is to weaken law enforcement, forcing it to choose between security and political posturing. Should law enforcement get overwhelmed, the radical turmoil could gain momentum and expand merging various liberal grievances-social, economic, racial, and gender-and turn them into a broader replay of the 1960supheavals. Determined not to “allow a crisis to go to waste,” the administration is enticing violent rules of conduct and manipulating a multiplicity of divergent political interests, keeping them cohesive enough to support ideological conquest. This potentially explosive combination inevitably leads to a bloody outcome. The recent murder of two New York police officers is a prelude to what’s to expect.

Obama and the Democrats are either impervious to or undaunted by the prospect that the inflamed rhetoric of Al Sharpton and other provocateurs gives a false sense of purpose and an aura of heroism to disturbed souls looking for a motive to unleash their anger, which may result in catastrophic destruction and massive loss of life. 

In any event, given the unwavering support the participants are getting from the administration, is an indication that the president is comfortable with the greater level of anarchy if it can bring about his vision of CHANGE.

20141230_wearenotbolsheviks

Motivated by political imperatives, the president and the Democrats will continue to emulate Marxist tactics and ideological oratory, instigating class warfare, civil disobedience, and riots dividing the nation along racial lines and income brackets to implement the CHANGE. A tactic condemned by another former senator from Illinois, who famously said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” It was true for Lincoln, it was true for Nixon, and it is true for Obama.

As the leader of the nation, the president is expected to govern by constitutional principles and political consensus. Obama, however, unable and unwilling to secure hegemony through consent, has been acting as a Marxist guerrilla leader who hates political opponents and seeks imposition of his agenda by a combination of force, coercion, and emotional mass appeal. As a consequence, instead of being a symbol of national unity, he has fostered a condition of civil war.

20131114_AlexmarkovskyceAlexander G. Markovsky is a Russian émigré. He holds degrees in economics and political science from the University of Marxism-Leninism and an MS in structural engineering from Moscow University. He resides in Houston, Texas, with his wife and daughter, where he owns a consulting company specializing in the management of large international projects. Mr. Markovsky is a contributor to FamilySecurityMatters.org, and his essays have appeared on RedState.com, WorldNetDaily, Family Security Matters, Ruthfullyyours and other websites. He can be contacted at alex.g.markovsky@gmail.com

Also see:

How to Destroy a Country – Part Three

a rippled union flag background representing the united kingdomLiberty GB, June 10, 2014, by Paul Weston:

The following article is the final part of a three-part series outlining the background of the leftist assault on Britain and Western Civilisation. Part One can be viewed here, Part Two here.

Segregate the Generations

In the course of a political argument, an ancient lady was told by her grandson that she came from a different generation, to which she replied: “No, I come from a different civilisation.”

Quite so. There is little point in controlling the medium of Socialist education if the wisdom of the older ‘reactionary’ generations can still be passed down to the younger. In Africa, the tribal elders are respected and listened to, but in Britain those over a certain age are mocked at worst, or sidelined at best, because they come from a pre-revolutionary era. Those born after 1970 come from the post-revolutionary era, and never the twain shall meet. The educational and media establishments are run in the main by the young or the very young, all soaked in Marxist ideology, and their output is principally aimed only at the young. This is deliberately done in order to ensure the segregation of those who could present an alternative voice to their incessant and twisted Socialist propaganda.

Promote Conformity in the Guise of Individualism

Has there ever been such conformity amongst the youth of a democratic nation before? Most young people are politically correct. They have been reared to believe in themselves as individuals, and to hold their own self-esteem (their very high and often unearned self-esteem) as an intrinsic part of said individuality. But in reality they have been socially engineered into individuals who all believe the same thing. This is because the conformist herd is so much easier to control than the non-conformist individual, particularly so when the herd mentality just happens to be the ideology of the Socialist state. The heavily propagandised ideology shared by the vast majority of the young is not quite as compassionate as they think, however, because the stark reality of it guarantees their immediate cultural destruction, and their eventual racial destruction.

Create an Anarchic Youth

Remove the various traditions and taboos that bound previous societies together; deem discipline in schools to be an archaic bourgeois form of child abuse; promote the ideology of self before group and pleasure before duty; promote licentiousness through early-age sex education coupled with pornographic music videos à la MTV; downplay heterosexual marriage as one of many equally valid lifestyle choices; remove the taboo of illegitimacy and reward it through welfare payments; offer abortions to teenage girls without their parents’ knowledge; promote an ideology of “Me, me, me! Now, now, now!” above outmoded ideas such as sacrifice, thrift, duty, honour, morality, truth, decency and patriotism.

Destroy Competitiveness

This is dressed up with words like egalitarianism and equality, but what it really means is dragging everything down to the lowest common denominator, which is far easier than dragging people upwards. Grammar schools were ‘elitist’, and therefore had to be destroyed, even though the main beneficiaries were working class children. Competitive sport meant that for every winner there were several losers, so that too had to be sidelined in some state schools. But the rest of the world does not play by the same suicidal rules. China is already an economic superpower; how can we hope to compete when they worship elitism and strive for success, whilst we worship the lowest-common-denominator ideology of egalitarianism, and reward failure?

Destroy Self-Reliance

Building a dependent class is of great importance to left liberals. Firstly, the dependents will vote for the hand that feeds them the most, and secondly it enables the ruling elite to exercise control they could never dream of exercising over a non-dependent class. This explains why Britain’s public sector is favoured above the private sector by left liberals, and why the deliberate formation of a permanent state-dependent underclass seems to worry them so little. In 2008-9 the welfare payment bill was actually higher than the total P.A.Y.E. tax-receipts, however. And, quite astonishingly, there are more people registered as disabled (and claiming benefits) than were registered disabled immediately after World War One! This is obviously unsustainable, and confirms Alexander Tytler‘s view that democracies collapse when the money provided by the rulers in return for their vote eventually runs out, after which dictatorship inevitably follows. Tytler’s famous quote is as follows:

From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage.

 

Destroy Democracy

Britain is no longer a truly democratic country. 80% of our new legislation is now enacted in Brussels at the behest of twenty-eight Commissioners whom we never elected and can never democratically remove from office. The British government is essentially just a puppet council, allowed to remain in place to reassure the gullible public that we still run our own affairs – which we don’t. In addition, the flooding of Britain by Third World immigrants was an undemocratic act. The electorate was never asked if we wished to transform Britain into a multi-ethnic, multicultural country. If we had been asked, we would have said “No!” And, just to rub salt into the wound, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for left liberal politicians – which, of course, is partially why they were imported in the first place.

The Labour Party’s introduction of postal voting also means our elections are now influenced by fraudulently obtained ballot papers not only in Britain’s large Muslim enclaves, but also – and this is completely surreal – via proxy votes in Pakistan and Bangladesh! In the 2010 British elections the Conservatives failed to win a majority by a very slim margin, leading Lady Warsi, a Conservative Muslim, to lay the blame squarely on Muslim electoral fraud. When British elections (such as they are, now the EU is the real power) are illegally influenced by Pakistanis in Mirpur, I think we can safely say our democracy is dead.

Introduce Mass Immigration

The white working class betrayed the hard Left when they failed to rise up in the much longed-for proletarian revolution, and they failed to rise up because they had become too affluent. The Marxist solution was to introduce a new, foreign-born ‘oppressed proletariat’ as a means to Socialism’s ongoing march toward total power. The number of Third World immigrants runs into the millions. This deliberate dilution of an indigenous people has never before happened on such a scale. If UN guidelines on genocide are taken quite literally, it amounts to the ethnic cleansing of the English.

White children are now a minority in London schools and in many schools within other British cities. Demographers predict the indigenous population will become a minority by around 2060, with the young suffering that fate even earlier. Feminist ideology has dramatically decreased the indigenous demographic whilst the Islamic population is doubling every decade through continued immigration and high birth rates. Islam is already a huge problem in Britain, yet, as their numbers grow, so will their demands on traditional Britain, which lives its life in a manner markedly different to life under sharia law – which surveys suggestsome 40% of British Muslims wish to see enacted.

Why do left liberals act as apologists for Islam? Hugh Fitzgerald puts it thus:

Nothing shows better the extreme hatred liberals have for Western Civilisation than their unashamed alliance with a movement (Islam) which is mortally opposed to liberalism’s sacred calves – women’s rights, gay rights, abortion and multiple cultures. Yet Islam and the liberal/ left are in harmony on the major issues. They are anti-Christian and anti-Jew, they are anti-democracy and anti-individual rights, they are anti-capitalist and they regard the individual as existing merely to serve the collective. Consequently, they have the same common enemy – Western Civilisation.

 

Promote Racial Division

The successful integration of happy foreigners with a happy indigenous population is hardly going to foment revolution, hence the ideology of multiculturalism which intentionally divides races and cultures. Multiculturalism was designed to destroy any sense of national pride and patriotism amongst the indigenous population, whilst actively encouraging the same amongst the incoming races and cultures. It also encourages ethnic minorities to believe their lack of success is due to (or if they are successful, in spite of) historical white imperialist oppression and current white Western institutional racism. This makes them united, vengeful, angry and strong. Multiculturalism actively instils guilt in the indigenous white population for our past oppression and current racism, which makes us apologetic, disunited and weak. We can only, it seems, be forgiven our historical racial sins once the ethnic minorities have matched or surpassed the demographic and political power of the indigenous people.

Destroy Native Resistance

New laws have been passed to criminalise those who dare to speak out against their territorial, racial and cultural dispossession. Children are brainwashed into ‘celebrating’ their dispossession with such Orwellian intent that thousands as young as three have been officially noted as possessing ‘racist’ tendencies –a situation we can only expect to worsen as the demographic gap between white and non-white inexorably narrows. Race is the biggest weapon the left liberals use in their war against traditional Britain, so resistance to that weapon is both criminalised and subsequently labelled the evil of all evils – RACISM – in order to strip us of our only peaceful defence mechanism. Of course there are some racist whites, but they are a statistical minority compared to the ethnic minorities who physically attack whites at a far greater ratio than vice-versa. The only true racists in Britain are the treasonous anti-white politicians, policemen and journalists who seek to cover up the real statistics about racial crime and racial hate.

Use Selective History to Counter Native Resistance

British education ignores the crimes of Communism and concentrates only on the crimes of Hitler, portraying him principally as a racist. The evils of Nazism can then be used as an attack against indigenous peoples who protest their cultural and territorial dispossession, by simply labelling the protestors as Nazi racists and therefore no better than Hitler himself. In reality the left liberals are as obsessed with race – in its diverse form – as Hitler and the Nazis were with race in its pure form. And they are using race with the express intention of achieving what Hitler failed to do – the absolute conquest of Britain, Europe and the West, at the expense of its indigenous peoples.

Distract the Population

This is a tried and tested principle dating back to the Roman times of bread and circuses. Just look at the output of the mainstream media, which deals in fantasy and trivia rather than reality and substance. This sadly works just as intended. The majority of Brits have been gradually sucked down into an infantile world of vapid celebrity worship, football, X Factor and gutter sensationalism, all promoted 24/7 by the media establishment. As a direct consequence, they have little interest in matters that really matter.

No doubt the left liberals will denounce this series of articles as the ranting of a right-wing conspiracy theorist. But facts are facts; the Communists did set out to subvert the capitalist West; the anti-Western ‘Critical Theory‘ of the Frankfurt school is now the ideology of the educational and media establishments; the left liberal politicians did set out to transform Britain via mass Third World immigration; our industry was destroyed, as have been our educational establishments etc. etc., and the people behind this destruction were and are Marxists, leftists or useful idiot liberals.

Every single one of the deliberately destructive policies I have outlined above could destroy a country over a lengthy period of time, even without the Third World invasion. When they are combined, however, and mass immigration is added to the mix, our destruction is not only assured, it is assured over a relatively small time-span.

Consequently, the speed of Britain’s destruction has been astonishingly fast. Anyone over the age of 40 or 50 will tell you that Britain today is not the Britain they were born into, and that Britain is simply not sustainable in its present condition. But the left liberals have made a terrible mistake. The future will not be one of Marxist revolution and permanent leftist control. Whilst mass Third World immigration may have been their main weapon of choice to destabilise the country, they simply did not reckon with such a rapidly expanding, cohesive and militant Islam.

The future of Britain can logically be one of only two options. A country dominated by Islam, or a country dominated by the right wing, which is rapidly growing as a wholly natural response to the combined threat of Islam and the Left. No one knows which side will emerge triumphant in the battle between Islam and the emerging right, but whichever it is, one thing is very strongly assured: they will hold no great regard for the left liberals – to put it very mildly indeed.

At the beginning of this series, I asked whether the appalling destruction carried out in the name of left-wing ideology was well-intentioned liberal stupidity, or brilliantly-planned leftist malevolence. Perhaps it really was done to realise György Lukács’s dream: “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution. A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

Or perhaps it wasn’t. It is quite possible it was caused by liberal stupidity of criminal proportions, but all that really matters now is that the damage wreaked by the left liberals be redressed – and we have little time remaining in which to do so.

When Women’s Issues Hide Humanity’s Problem

20080404_niqabBy Diana West:

You may have missed it, but March 8 was International Women’s Day, a holiday unconnected to a religious rite or person, and with no national or even seasonal significance. It is socialist in origin, and it was Lenin himself who made it an official holiday in the Soviet Union. Not surprisingly, it is now a rite of the United Nations.

In these origins lie the day’s basic fallacy: that womanhood is an international — global — political state of being; that there is a universal female political condition, which urges, a la Marx, “Women of the world, unite!” Against what? The common foe — men.

As with Marxism itself, for such a sisterhood to coalesce, even on paper or in elite committees and multinational organizations, the profound cultural and religious differences that shape and guide people’s lives have to be minimized, denied or actually destroyed. In real life, however, culture and religion will out, as they did on this year’s International Women’s Day.

In post-U.S. Iraq, Reuters reported on the International Women’s Day activities of “about two dozen” women — a brave handful — who demonstrated in Baghdad against new, sharia-based legislation now before Iraq’s parliament. Known as the Ja’afari Law after an early Shiite imam, the legislation would allow Iraq’s Shiite Islamic clergy to control marriage, divorce and inheritance. Among other things, this would permit marriage between a man and a 9-year-old girl, according to the marital example of Islam’s prophet Mohammed. Indeed, by the Gregorian calendar, as The Associated Press pointed out, such legislation would apply to girls who are 8 years and 8 months old. (The Islamic calendar year is 10 or 11 days shorter than the Gregorian calendar year.)

Guess who has approved of this child rape legislation — some den of social outcasts? No, the ministers of Iraq’s cabinet. They preside, of course, over a government created in large measure by great expenditures of U.S. blood and treasure. The draft law now awaits a parliamentary vote.

The Baghdad protesters shouted: “On this day of women, women of Iraq are in mourning.” At least two dozen of them are, anyway. But more than Iraq’s women should be in mourning. After all, child rape — not to mention marital rape and discriminatory divorce and inheritance practices also legalized in the draft legislation — shouldn’t be defined as “women’s” issues alone. If they are so pigeon-holed, by feminist implication, the modification of “male” behavior will ameliorate all. What these women are protesting, however, aren’t men or the “patriarchy” generally, but rather the brutal impact of Islam and its law on women, on children, on the family itself — the basis of civilization. It is here, in the treatment of the weak and the young, of motherhood, marriage and childhood, where core, existential differences between Islam and most of the world’s religions and cultures emerge. They are obscured as “women’s” issues.

In pre-withdrawal Afghanistan, the celebration of International Women’s Day took place inside the heavily guarded New Kabul Compound. It was an upbeat event, at least according to a Defense Department report, featuring several laudable and prominent Afghan women doctors, who naturally talked up education and the need to retain post-Taliban gains made on behalf of women in Afghanistan. Tragically, the State Department’s most recent report on the shockingly low state of human rights in Afghanistan reveals that such gains for women — not to mention children, boys and girls alike — are already mainly on paper only. As the armed utopians withdraw, the dust of tribal Islam settles.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Also see:

Muslim Riots and Leftist Willful Blindness

Stockholm riots SwedenBy :

The May 2013 riots in certain immigrant-dominated suburbs of Stockholm raised eyebrows abroad. While I found them disturbing I cannot say that I was totally surprised by them. I’ve consistently warned against such a likely outcome under this pen name for what is now nearly a decade.

The political elites not just in Sweden but also in neighboring Denmark, Finland and Norway watched nervously as the events unfolded. Clearly, major riots by immigrants no longer take place just in slightly more distant Paris or London, but now also in the largest city in the Nordic region. The problems are getting closer.

As usual, the comments from Denmark have tended to be the most sensible ones, with the newspaper Jyllands-Posten publishing an editorial about “The Swedish Lie”. The ethnologist Karl-Olov Arnsberg and the journalist Gunnar Sandelin in their book Invandring och mörkläggning (“Immigration and Cover-up”) describe sensitive facts about immigration which are hardly ever mentioned in the mainstream media in Sweden. Swedish mass media are quite possibly the most repressive, censored and totalitarian of any Western country, which is why some dissidents choose to write under pseudonyms such as “Julia Caesar” for websites abroad.

In Norway, the former soldier Aslak Fløgstad Nore is a journalist and author of spy novels who has for some unknown reason been hailed as a brave intellectual, telling truths others don’t dare to tell. One of his idols is Sweden’s Jan Guillou, a far-Left activist and writer with pro-Islamic sympathies who, apart from being an author of spy thrillers, was paid multiple times by the KGB for providing them with sensitive information.

In addition to being an editor at Gyldendal, one of the largest publishing houses in Norway, Nore is a regular columnist at VG, the country’s largest national newspaper. On May 26 2013, Nore published a commentary in VG on the “enigmatic” Swedes after Stockholm had been rocked by a full week of riots on a scale unprecedented in modern Scandinavian history.

What were his views on the causes of these riots? Well, for one thing Nore assured us that they had little to do with Islam, despite the fact that even left-wing newspapers show video clips where shouts of “Allahu akbar”! may be heard from residents of these heavily Muslim-dominated suburbs when Swedish police officers are attacked.

Instead, Mr. Nore blamed the obligatory “racism” of the white natives, especially alleged police racism, for partly triggering the riots. Finally, he blamed the “Swedish class society” for these problems. Yes, really. Nore defines himself as a member of the political Left and is a Social Democrat, but his above-mentioned analysis is straightforward Marxism at its core. His father Kjartan Fløgstad is an established author influenced by Marxist ideology. Nore didn’t foresee similar riots coming to Norway, although he admitted that the percentage of immigrants is actually higher in Oslo than it is in Stockholm.

Read more at Front Page

 

Barack Obama, the Socialist

Something for you to read while Obama accepts the nomination tonight

By John Perazzo:

Is Barack Obama a socialist? Many observers, from points all along the ideological spectrum, have been exceedingly reticent to describe him as such, as though there were insufficient evidence to make the case for a charge so impolite. In February, for instance, a Business Week headline stated bluntly that “it’s dumb to call Obama a socialist.” Four months later, the Associated Press published an article depicting the president merely as “a pragmatist within the Democratic Party mainstream,” and suggesting that “the persistent claim that Obama is a socialist lacks credence.” In July, a New York Times op-ed piece by film director Milos Forman said that Obama is “not even close” to being a socialist. Ezra Klein of the Washington Post casts Obama as no more radical than “a moderate Republican of the early 1990s.” Republican strategist Karl Rove cautions, “If you say he’s a socialist, [his supporters] go to defend him.” Leftist commentator Alan Colmes impugns those who “mischaracterize what Obama is doing as socialism, when there’s no government takeover” of the private sector. And Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly—noting that he has seen “no evidence that the president wants to seize private property, which is what communists do”—concludes that Obama “is not a socialist, he’s not a communist, he’s a social-justice anti-capitalist.”

But a careful look at Barack Obama’s life story, his actions, his closest alliances, his long-term objectives, and his words, shows that he has long been, quite demonstrably, a genuine socialist. The early groundwork for Obama’s socialist worldview was laid during his teen years, when he was mentored by the writer/poet Frank Marshall Davis, a longtime member of the Communist Party and the subject of a 601-page FBI file. The co-founder of a Communist-controlled newspaper that consistently echoed the Soviet party line, Davis had previously been involved with the American Peace Mobilization, described by Congress as not only “one of the most notorious and blatantly communist fronts ever organized in this country,” but also “one of the most seditious organizations which ever operated in the United States.” When Obama in 1979 headed off to Occidental College in California, Davis cautioned him not to “start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh–.”

In his memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama recounts that he chose his friends “carefully” at Occidental, so as “to avoid being mistaken for a sellout.” Among those friends were all manner of radicals, including “the more politically active black students,” “the Chicanos,” “the Marxist Professors and the structural feminists.” Further, Obama writes that he and his similarly “alienated” college friends regularly discussed such topics as “neocolonialism, Franz Fanon [the socialist revolutionary], Eurocentrism, and patriarchy.” David Remnick’s highly sympathetic biography of Obama—The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obamaconfirms that the future president and many of his closest friends at Occidental were unquestionably socialists.

John C. Drew, an Occidental College graduate who knew Obama personally in the early 1980s, reports that the young Obama of that period was “already an ardent socialist Marxist revolutionary”; was highly “passionate” about “Marxist theory”; embraced an “uncompromising, Marxist socialist ideology”; harbored a “sincere commitment to Marxist revolutionary thought”; and was, in the final analysis, a “pure Marxist socialist” who “sincerely believed a Marxist socialist revolution was coming to turn everything around and to create a new, fairer and more just world.”

It was at that point, in the early Eighties, that something profoundly important happened to Barack Obama. He was drawn into the powerful orbit of a strand of socialism that had resolved, as the revolutionary communist Van Jones would later put it, “to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends.” American socialists of that period, pained by the recent ascendancy of a conservative and popular presidential administration (Reagan), understood that no anti-capitalist revolution was going to take place in the United States anytime soon, and that, for the foreseeable future, no one was going to impose socialism on the populace “from above.” Consequently, many socialists in the U.S. put on a new face and pursued a new approach. As Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief, explains, the aim now was “to get a kind of de facto public control over the economy from below”—through the work of community organizers dedicated to gradually infiltrating every conceivable American institution: schools and universities, churches, labor unions, the banking industry, the media, and a major political party. Toward that end, the renowned socialist Michael Harrington established the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) to serve as a force that would work within the existing American political system—specifically, within the Democratic Party. Figuring that a move too far or too quick to the left would alienate moderate Democrats, the DSA sought to push the party leftward in a slow and gradual manner, on the theory that, over time, ever-increasing numbers of Democrats would become comfortable with socialism and would espouse it as their preferred ideology.

In Radical-in-Chief, Kurtz points out that this incrementalism became the modus operandi of the “democratic socialists” who embraced the ideals of Karl Marx but were convinced that a “peaceful” and gradual path represented “the only route to socialism that makes sense in America’s thoroughly democratic context.” They believed that “government ownership of the means of production”—the standard definition of socialism—could best be achieved by way of protracted evolution, not sudden revolution. Kurtz explains that socialists, far from agreeing unanimously on tactics and strategies, have always engaged in “never-ending factional disputes” about whether they ought to “eschew capitalist-tainted politics and foment revolution,” or instead “dive into America’s electoral system and try to turn its political currents” toward “a piecemeal transition to a socialist world.” At this point in his life, the twenty-something Obama made a calculated decision to embrace the DSA’s gradualist approach—under the deceptive banners of “liberalism,” “progressivism,” and “social justice.” By no means, however, did this approach represent a rejection of Marx and his socialist doctrines. Kurtz notes that Marx himself, who “expected to see capitalism overthrown by a violent socialist revolution,” was nonetheless “willing to compromise his long-term goals in pursuit of short-term gains, particularly when he thought this democratic maneuvering would position the communist movement for more radical breakthroughs in the future”; that Marx himself “recognized that not only his enemies, but even potential followers could be put off by his most radical plans”; and that, “depending on context, Marx [himself] withheld the full truth of who he was and what he hoped to achieve.”

This strategy of settling for incrementalism rather than sudden, sweeping revolution was displayed with vivid clarity during the healthcare debates of 2009-10. Obama was already on record as having stated emphatically, in a 2003 speech at an AFL-CIO event: “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health care plan”—i.e., a government-run system. But by 2007, with the White House clearly within his reach, Obama began to make allowances for the increasingly evident fact that a single-payer plan was not politically palatable to a large enough number of American voters. “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately,” he said in May 2007. “There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out.” He made similar references to a “transition step” and “a transitional system” on other occasions during the campaign. In the summer of 2008, Obama declared that “if I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” but acknowledged that from a practical standpoint, such a result could only come about “over time.” Obamacare, then, was deliberately designed to be a stepping stone toward total government control of healthcare—a mere way station along the road toward the “radical ends” that the president ultimately sought to achieve.

In the early Eighties, Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University in New York. During his time in the Big Apple, he attended at least two Socialist Scholars Conferences, DSA-sponsored events that quickly grew into the largest annual gatherings of socialists in all of North America. It is particularly noteworthy that Obama attended the 1983 Socialist Scholars Conference, which was promoted as a celebration to “honor” the 100th anniversary of Karl Marx’s death.

In June 1985, a 24-year-old Obama moved to Chicago and took a community-organizing job with the Developing Communities Project, funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). Viewing capitalism as a system steeped in injustice, CCHD states that “the causes of poverty are understood to be an aspect of ‘social sin’ rooted in our social and economic structures and institutions.” To address the problems allegedly spawned by capitalism, CCHD promotes transformative institutional change in the form of “alternative economic structures” that will “broaden the sharing of economic power.” The Catholic magazine Crisis observes that “the way the CCHD educates others about transformative change and empowerment” is very much “in line with the socialist and Marxist ideals so prevalent in community organizing.”

And what, exactly, is “community organizing”? Dr. Thomas Sowell, the eminent Hoover Institution Fellow, offers this concise explanation:

“For ‘community organizers’ … racial resentments are a stock in trade…. What does a community organizer do? What he does not do is organize a community. What he organizes are the resentments and paranoia within a community, directing those feelings against other communities, from whom either benefits or revenge are to be gotten, using whatever rhetoric or tactics will accomplish that purpose.”

To be sure, the 2012 Obama campaign’s incessant emphasis on identity politics—seeking to divide the American people along lines of race, ethnicity, class, and gender—bears all the corrosive hallmarks of precisely the mindset that Dr. Sowell describes. Stanley Kurtz provides additional vital insights into the striking parallels that exist between the world of community organizing and the DSA’s gradualist approach toward socialism:

“Community organizing is a largely socialist profession. Particularly at the highest levels, America’s community organizers have adopted a deliberately stealthy posture—hiding their socialism behind a ‘populist’ front. These organizers strive to push America toward socialism in unobtrusive, incremental steps, calling themselves ‘pragmatic problem-solvers’ all the while.”

It is highly significant that three of Obama’s mentors in Chicago were trained at the Industrial Areas Foundation, founded by the famed godfather of community organizing, Saul Alinsky, who advocated mankind’s “advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism to a world worthy of the name of human civilization … [to] a future where the means of production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful.” In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution”—where the ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent and moral confusion to spark the social upheaval that Marx and Engels predicted.
But Alinsky’s brand of revolution was not characterized by dramatic, sweeping, overnight transformations of social institutions. As author Richard Poe explains, “Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” Promoting a strategy that was wholly consistent with the DSA approach discussed above, Alinsky advised radical organizers and their disciples to quietly, unobtrusively gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to then introduce changes from those platforms.

Obama himself went on to teach workshops on the Alinsky method for several years. In 1990, eighteen years after Alinsky’s death, an essay penned by Obama was reprinted as a chapter in a book titled After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois. And in 1998, Obama attended a performance of the play The Love Song of Saul Alinsky at the Terrapin Theater in Chicago. Following that performance, Obama took the stage and participated in a panel discussion about the show, along with several other socialists and communists such as Quentin Young and Heather Booth.

As a young community organizer, Obama had close connections to the Midwest Academy, a radical training ground for activists of his political ilk. Probably the most influential community-organizing-related entity in America at that time, the Midwest Academy worked closely with the DSA and synthesized Saul Alinsky’s organizing techniques with the practical considerations of electoral politics. Emphasizing “class consciousness” and “movement history,” the Academy’s training programs exposed students to the efforts and achievements of veteran activists from earlier decades. Recurring “socialism sessions,” taught by Heather Booth, encompassed everything from Marx and Engels through Michael Harrington’s democratic socialism and the factional struggles of the Students for a Democratic Society, a radical organization that aspired to remake America’s government in a Marxist image. Knowing that many Americans would be unreceptive to straightforward, hard-left advocacy, the Midwest Academy in its formative years was careful not to explicitly articulate its socialist ideals in its organizing and training activities. The group’s inner circle was wholly committed to building a socialist mass movement, but stealthily rather than overtly. As Midwest Academy trainer Steve Max and the prominent socialist Harry Boyte agreed in a private correspondence: “Every social proposal that we make must be [deceptively] couched in terms of how it will strengthen capitalism.” This strategy of hiding its own socialist agendas below the proverbial radar, earned the Academy the designation “crypto-socialist organization” from Stanley Kurtz.

“Nearly every thread of Obama’s career runs directly or indirectly through the Midwest Academy,” says Kurtz, and, as such, it represents “the hidden key to Barack Obama’s political career.” The author elaborates:

“Obama’s organizing mentors had ties to [the Midwest Academy]; Obama’s early funding was indirectly controlled by it; evidence strongly suggests that Obama himself received training there; both Barack and Michelle Obama ran a project called ‘Public Allies’ that was effectively an extension of the Midwest Academy; Obama’s first run for public office was sponsored by Academy veteran Alice Palmer; and Obama worked closely at two foundations for years with yet another veteran organizer from the Midwest Academy, Ken Rolling. Perhaps more important, Barack Obama’s approach to politics is clearly inspired by that of the Midwest Academy.”

Obama’s next major encounter with socialism took place within the sanctuary of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, pastored by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Best known for his undiluted contempt for the United States and its traditions, Wright has long been a proud prophet of black liberation theology, a movement that seeks to foment Marxist revolutionary fervor founded on racial solidarity, as opposed to the traditional Marxist emphasis on class solidarity.

According to black liberation theology, the New Testament gospels can be properly understood only as calls for racial activism and revolution aimed at overturning the existing, white-dominated, capitalist order, and installing, in its stead, a socialist utopia wherein blacks will unseat their white “oppressors” and become liberated from their deprivations—material and spiritual alike.

Beginning in the late 1980s, Obama spent fully 20 years attending Wright’s church, which openly promoted a “10-point vision” calling for “economic parity” and warning that “God … is not pleased with America’s economic mal-distribution!” Impugning capitalism as a system whose inequities force “Third World people” to “live in grinding poverty,” Wright derides the United States as the “land of the greed and home of the slave.” For good measure, he has praised the socialist magazine Monthly Review for its “no-nonsense Marxism,” congratulating that publication for “dispel[ling] all the negative images we have been programmed to conjure up with just the mention of that word ‘socialism’ or ‘Marxism.’”

This same Jeremiah Wright served as a mentor to Barack Obama for two decades. So great was Obama’s regard for Wright, that Obama selected him not only to perform his wedding to Michelle Robinson in 1992, but also to baptize his two daughters later on. Perhaps Obama’s most significant show of support for Wright’s ministry was his donation of some $27,500 to Trinity Church during 2005-06. Another report indicates that from 2005-07, Obama gave a total of $53,770 to Trinity. People simply do not give such large sums of money to causes in which they do not thoroughly believe. Thus there is no reason in the world to suspect that Obama rejected any part of Wright’s message at any time between 1988 and early 2008. He disavowed Wright only when the latter’s bilious radicalism threatened to become a political liability to Obama’s ambition for the White House.

In the early to mid-1990s, Obama, now in his early thirties, worked with the (now defunct) community organization ACORN and its voter-mobilization arm, Project Vote. Manhattan Institute scholar Sol Stern explains that ACORN, professing a dedication to “the poor and powerless,” in fact promoted “a 1960s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism, central planning, victimology, and government handouts to the poor.” ACORN, Stern elaborates, organized people “to push for ever more government control of the economy” and to pursue “the ultra-Left’s familiar anti-capitalist redistributionism.” In 2010, former ACORN insider Anita MonCrief confirmed the organization’s unmistakably socialist orientation:

“As an ACORN insider my indoctrination as a socialist was a slow but steady progression from radical liberalism to embracing the stealth socialist methods that had made ACORN a powerful force in American electoral politics…. Inside ACORN offices across the country, young, idealistic liberals were being ingrained with the Saul Alinsky style of Organizing. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals was never mentioned by name, but Alinsky’s tactics were used on employees and ACORN members. ACORN’s strategy of stealth socialism was aimed at gaining power through duplicity and somewhat assimilating into society…. I once asked Marcel Reid, former ACORN national board member and President of DC ACORN, how it was possible for ACORN to push its agenda and she replied, ‘We never use the word Socialism.’ ACORN’s appeal was to simply implement a Socialist agenda without ever saying the word.”

Smitten with Obama’s political and ideological makeup, ACORN in the early 1990s invited him to help train its staff in the tactics of community organizing. In 1995, Obama was one of a team of attorneys who sued, on ACORN’s behalf, for the implementation of a “Motor Voter” law in Illinois. Jim Edgar, the state’s Republican governor, opposed the law because he believed, quite correctly, that it could potentially breed widespread voter fraud. In a 2007 interview with ACORN representatives, then-presidential candidate Obama said enthusiastically: “You know you’ve got a friend in me. And I definitely welcome ACORN’s input…. Since I have been in the United States Senate I’ve been always a partner with ACORN as well…. I’ve been fighting with ACORN, alongside ACORN, on issues you care about my entire career.” Also during Obama’s presidential run, his campaign gave more than $800,000 to the ACORN front group Citizens’ Services, Inc., to fund voter-registration efforts. Obama’s relationship with ACORN remained rock-solid right up until the organization’s dissolution amid immense scandal (involving voter fraud, among other matters) in 2010.

It was in the mid-1990s that Obama first decided to try his hand at electoral politics, setting his sights initially on a state senate seat in Illinois. Remarkably, Obama launched his political career in the home of two well-connected Chicagoans, longtime activists who would help the fledgling politician make important contacts and enlarge his public profile. These two allies were the infamous Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, lifelong Marxists who in the 1960s and ’70s had been revolutionary leaders of the Weather Underground Organization, a domestic terror group (described by Ayers as “an American Red Army”) that aspired to transform the U.S., by means of violence and even mass murder, into a Communist country. In 1974 Ayers and Dohrn co-authored a book that openly advocated “revolutionary war” as “the only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism”; called for “a revolutionary communist party … to lead the struggle [to] seize power and build the new society”; and lauded socialism as the key to “the eradication of the social system based on profit.” Now, they were the key figures ushering Barack Obama into a political career.

Obama’s ties to Ayers and Dohrn were extensive and long-lasting. In 1995, Ayers appointed Obama as the first chairman of his newly created “school reform organization,” the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, whose stated educational objective was to “teach against oppression” as embodied in “America’s history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.” From 1999-2002, Obama served alongside Ayers on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which funded a host of left-wing groups and causes. The enduring nature of Obama’s friendly relationship with Ayers and Dohrn was evidenced by the fact that he attended a July Fourth barbecue at the couple’s home in 2005, even as the former terrorists continued to hold America—and capitalism—in utmost contempt.

Another key supporter of Obama’s 1996 entry into politics was Democratic state senator Alice Palmer of Illinois, who, as she prepared to run for Congress, hand-picked Obama as the person she hoped would fill her newly vacated state-senate seat. Toward that end, Palmer introduced Obama to party elders and donors as her preferred successor, and helped him gather the signatures required for getting his name placed on the ballot. Palmer’s background is highly noteworthy: A veteran of the Midwest Academy, she consistently supported the Soviet Union and spoke out against the United States during the Cold War. In the 1980s she served as an official of the U.S. Peace Council, which the FBI identified as a Communist front group. In 1986 she attended the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and expressed a high regard for the USSR’s system of “central planning.” And she applauded the Soviets for “carrying out a policy to resolve the inequalities between nationalities, inequalities that they say were inherited from capitalist and czarist rule.”

During his state senate campaign in 1996, the 35-year-old Obama actively sought the endorsement of the so-called New Party, a socialist political coalition whose objective was to promote the election of left-wing public officials—most often Democrats. The New Party’s short-term goal was to gradually, incrementally move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of a new socialist third party. As Stanley Kurtz puts it, the New Party “is best understood as an attempt to build a mass-based political front for a largely socialist party leadership.” New Party co-founder Joel Rogers once penned a piece in the Marxist journal New Left Review,wherein he made it clear that the organization was a socialist enterprise at its core. Not only was Obama successful in obtaining the New Party’s endorsement, but he also used a number of New Party volunteers as campaign workers, and by 1996 Obama himself had become a New Party member.

Yet another important Obama ally in 1996 was Carl Davidson, a major player in the Chicago branch of the New Party.
Davidson is a lifelong Marxist who in the 1960s served as a national secretary of the Students for a Democratic Society. In 1969 Davidson helped launch the Venceremos Brigades, which covertly transported hundreds of young Americans to Cuba to help harvest sugar cane and learn guerrilla warfare techniques from the communist government of Fidel Castro.
In 1988 Davidson founded Networking for Democracy, a program that encouraged American high-school students to engage in “mass action” aimed at “tearing down the old structures of race and class privilege” in the United States “and around the world.” And in 1992 Davidson became a leader of the newly formed Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, an outgrowth of the Communist Party USA.

Obama’s commitment to the redistribution of wealth—an unmistakable hallmark of socialism—is deep, longstanding, and well-documented. He articulated that commitment with particular clarity during a guest appearance on Chicago’s WBEZ public radio in 2001, when he was a 40-year-old Illinois state senator. In that radio interview, Obama lauded the ability of community organizations “to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.” He lamented, however, that the Supreme Court had “never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society”; that the Court had not been able to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution,” a document that unfortunately “doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf”; and that he himself was “not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts,” even though he found it easy to “come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”

When Obama ran for president in 2008, he formed a Black Advisory Council that included Professor Cornel West—a longtime member of the Democratic Socialists of America, a former supporter of the now-defunct New Party, and an avid admirer of Jeremiah Wright.
Identifying himself as a “progressive socialist,” West contends that “Marxist thought is an indispensable tradition for freedom fighters.” Viewing capitalism as the root cause of America’s “unbridled grasp at power, wealth and status,” West warns: “Free-market fundamentalism trivializes the concern for public interest. It puts fear and insecurity in the hearts of anxiety-ridden workers. It also makes money-driven, poll-obsessed elected officials deferential to corporate goals of profit—often at the cost of the common good.” When Obama appeared with Professor West at a Harlem, New York campaign fundraiser, West introduced him as “my brother and my companion and comrade.” Obama, in response, called West “a genius, a public intellectual, a preacher, [and] an oracle.”

Obama’s socialist orientation is further manifest in a number of his political appointments as President. For example:

  • Obama named Van Jones, a longtime revolutionary communist who famously declared that “we [are] gonna change the whole [economic] system,” as his “green jobs czar” in 2009;
  • he appointed Carol Browner, a former “commissioner” of the Socialist International, as his “environment czar”;
  • he appointed John Holdren, who not only views capitalism as a system that is inherently destructive of the environment, but strongly favors the redistribution of wealth, both within the U.S. and across international borders, as his “science czar”;
  • he named Hilda Solis, a former officer of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (the socialist wing of the House of Representatives), as his labor secretary;
  • and he chose Anita Dunn, a woman who has cited Mao Zedong as one of her “favorite political philosophers,” to serve as White House communications director.

Also worth mentioning are Obama’s two closest political advisors. Valerie Jarrett, the daughter-in-law of a journalist with ties to the Communist Party, was largely responsible for persuading the communist Van Jones, whom she admired tremendously, to join the Obama Administration in 2009. And David Axelrod, the chief architect of Obama’s political campaigns, was mentored, as a young man, by the lifelong communist David Canter. Axelrod’s other mentor, Don Rose, was a member of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, an organization replete with communists and Sixties radicals. Rose also belonged to the Alliance to End Repression—a suspected Communist Party front—and he did some press work for the Students for a Democratic Society.

Read the rest at Front Page

 

Dreams from My Real Father:  Director Joel Gilbert at National Press Club, Washington DC:

The Vetting: Obama, Radical Islam and the Soros Connection

This July 19, 2012 conference “fulfills the late Andrew Breitbart’s promise to finally ‘vet’ the president. The diabolical dangers of Marxism and radical Islam must be exposed. It is time for the shocking truth about Obama and his agenda to emerge.”

Cliff Kinkaid

 

 

Topics include: Obama’s Saudi connection, Muslim communism, the Marxist-Islamist nexis, communist exploitation of blacks, Soros funding of Marxist groups, the dangers of foreign propaganda channels like Al-Jazeera and Russia Today, and the War on Cops.

SPEAKERS

  • Cliff Kincaid, President, America’s Survival,  Inc. Director, AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, on “Lenin and Sharia:  the Diabolical Threat.”
  • Paul Kengor, author of the new book, The Communist: Frank  Marshall Davis, the Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.
  • Joel  Gilbert, director, “Dreams from  My Real Father,” on Frank Marshall Davis as Obama’s real father
  • Konstantin  Preobrazhensky, former Soviet KGB  officer, on “Communists and Muslims.”
  • Ryan  Mauro, National  Security Analyst, RadicalIslam.org / Clarion Fund, on “The War on the New York  City Police Department.”
  • Jeremy  Segal, blogger who  captured Obama ally Rep. Danny K. Davis on film discussing his acceptance of an  award from the Communist Party USA.
  • Larry  Grathwohl, former FBI informant  in the Weather Underground, on “Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and the ‘Race  Course Against White Supremacy.’”
  • Trevor Loudon, author, Barack Obama and the Enemies Within, on  Alice Palmer, the neglected communist agent in Obama’s life

 

For more detailed  information on the speakers and their topics click on this  pre-conference page  at. http://www.leninandsharia.com/

The  National Press Club is located at 529 14th Street  Northwest in  Washington, D.C. and the event will be in the Murrow,  White &  Lisagor Rooms. A lunch will be provided and admission is free of  charge.   Attendees, including media, should please register with Phil Kent at philkent@philkent.com or (404)   226-3549.

Crucify Political Correctness on the Altar of Freedom of Speech

October 23, 2011, by Kelly OConnell at Canada Free Press:

The West will either reject the logic of Political Correctness or suffer a catastrophic failure of vision, will, power and influence, destroying civil society as we know it. This may sound drastic, and of course it is. But why is it being claimed here? Because the ideas in the doctrines of Political Correctness and related notions like Multiculturalism are so destructive that—much like magma—these cannot long be held safely before spilling over and causing tremendous damage, chaos and destruction of our society.

The reason it must be eliminated is because Political Correctness is a Trojan horse for Marxism, which always destroys everything it touches. PC is a curse which must be denounced before it mangles its host society, especially since it is the very opposite of Free Speech. More importantly, individual responsibility is eliminated by PC standards which make irrelevant personal morality. This is the subject of this essay.

I. Definition of Political Correctness

Political Correctness (PC) is shorthand for an ideology which implies ethical or moral superiority for various positions which challenge traditional morality. The Freedictionary.com defines PC as

1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.

PC has become, in practice, a set of standards by which communication is purified from unacceptable content. But PC has also deeply affected public policy and law, and ultimately ideas about morality, itself. For example, against the longstanding notion of the right of free expression, even thinking many forbidden thoughts would break PC norms. And for this reason, PC has evolved from being rules for “sensitivity” training into a set of un-breachable social mores.

One author sums up this idea:

Political correctness has 3 features. First, political correctness is a set of attitudes & beliefs divorced from mainstream values. Second, the politically correct person has a prescriptive view on how people should think & what they are permitted to discuss. Third, & most importantly, political correctness is embedded in public institutions, which have a legislative base, & which have coercive powers. It is this third aspect that gives political correctness its authority. Without this capture of power the views of the politically correct would simply be another view in the marketplace of ideas. A person, an institution or a government is politically correct when they cease to represent the interests of the majority, & become focused on the cares & concerns of minority groups.

Yet, when peeling back the layers of the onion of PC, one cannot help but notice a strongly socialist or Marxist bent to these rules. And this is no coincidence. As Bill Lind says,

Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

So PC is a method for transporting Marxist ideas into traditional cultures.

II. History of Political Correctness

Political Correctness seems like the type of thing that would arise of its own merits. How misleading! Instead, the Frankfurt school of Marxism, from Frankfurt Germany, created PC as a way to disseminate their ideas in the Institute for Social Research. Bill Lind gives a brief history of this,

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank was established to translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms. This created Political Correctness as we know it today. This institute, associated with Frankfurt University was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. So instead they decided to name it the Institute for Social Research.

Then, when these Marxist professors fled Hitler, they applied to emigrate to America and were accepted. The Germans brought PC with them. As Lind says,

Members of the Frankfurt School were both Marxist and Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany. Not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. Its members fled to New York City, were the Institute was reestablished in 1933 by Columbia University. These shifted their focus from Critical Theory about German society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society.

III. Multiculturalism

Related to PC is Multiculturalism—but what is that? Dictionary.com defines Multiculturalism as “The preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society, as a state or nation.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says:

Multiculturalism is a philosophical theory regarding the proper way to respond to cultural and religious diversity. Mere toleration of group falls short of making minority groups equal citizens; recognition and positive accommodation of group differences are required through “group-differentiated rights.” While multiculturalism is an umbrella term to characterize the moral and political claims of a wide range of disadvantaged groups, including African Americans, women, gays and lesbians, and the disabled, most theorists of multiculturalism tend to focus their arguments on immigrants who are ethnic and religious minorities, minority nations, and indigenous peoples.

The West is beginning to understand the problems with multiculturalism, as described in the article The Netherlands to Abandon Multiculturalism. States the author:

A new integration bill (covering letter & 15-page action plan), which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads: “The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people. In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role. With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural society.”

IV. Effects of Political Correctness

So it is clear that PC is a Marxist ideology which is meant to help ripen the West for socialist takeover. But what are its impacts? Here are some pernicious effects of the PC movement which prove we must drop this false standard.

A: PC Opposes Freedom of Belief

Clearly, if PC blocks the expression of “bad” statements—this is because these ideas are inherently unacceptable. In other words, one should be ashamed at having these thoughts. As individuals lose their freedom to express their beliefs, they lose their ability to think freely, as well.

B: PC Allows an Ideology Without Standards of Right & Wrong to Establish Morality

There is no locus of morality in Marxist or socialist thought—merely a demand to equally distribute all world goods. Therefore, PC beliefs, rules and judgments can only be subjective.

C: PC Assumes Moral Excellence is Achievable Without Debate

The chief presumption of PC is that all serious moral debate about the human condition has already taken place and arguing about it is redundant. This is related to the philosopher Hegel’s (Marx’s role model) insane idea that history was over now that Hegel had come on the scene.

D: PC Presumes Moral Bravery is Unobjectionable

An absurd result of the PC fiction is that all moral struggles have now been solved, and the outcome is not only clear, but unremarkable. Yet, if this were assumed in the past, many irreplaceable debates would have never happened, including over democracy, sufferagism, slavery, women and children’s rights, etc. But this is a nonsensical conclusion.

E: PC Sanctions Mere Words

PC seeks to make illegal every insensitive use of language. Yet only for socialist or Marxist causes.

F: PC Predetermines Truths & Stops Honest Moral Analysis

Perhaps the most audacious presumption of PC is that all truths are already known and have been processed by PC thinkers and writers. So it eliminates the idea that truth be debated since it has already been decided beforehand. In doing this, it makes all moral debates redundant.

G: PC Keeps People From Talking Honestly so Cripples Free Debate

PC means one cannot freely discuss any controversial topic since such a debate presumes honesty. But if moral positions are predetermined, then it is simply unacceptable to announce or advent for any positions not already blessed by PC. This stops people and societies from dealing with the most pressing problems.

H: PC Forces Individuals to Accept Ideas Against Their Conscience

Even a few years ago, a person of a religious mindset could espouse opposition to things of which they disapproved. Now to do so would mean public sanctions and possibly criminal penalties. All for merely disagreeing with certain thoughts or activities.

I: PC Makes Certain Groups Above Criticism

A dangerous aspect of PC is the tendency to defend the actions of individuals not by virtue of their inherent morality, but instead by association of their tribal source.

J: PC Makes Logic, History & Ethics Subservient to Lesser Concerns

PC forces socialist mores and standards upon individuals even though history reveals such ideas always fail, and common sense indicates these beliefs lack all ethical soundness.

K: PC Creates Distrust Between Races & Cultures

Since the PC movement has created special categories and rewards for those of exemplary status, other groups feel suspicious of these persons. This refusal to accept meritocracy can only breed unsoundness and destruction in such sacrosanct groups.

L: PC is Anti-Efficiency, Rewarding Status Over Achievement

If groups are rewarded not by their good works, but merely by being a passive member of a protected class, this action will certainly increase indolence and incompetence.

M: PC is Backwards Looking

The PC movement seeks to repay groups on the basis of things denied their predecessors which is not just irrational, but also unfair to those amongst the living.

N: PC Breaks Down Potential for Democracy

Since PC opposes free speech, it harms democracy since democracy is based upon free political choice.

O: PC Claims Coercion More Important Than Persuasion

Clearly, since PC spends so much time and effort to silence “insensitive” speakers—it cares more about shutting people up as opposed to persuade them. Therefore, PC can lead to conflict by bottling up anger, ignorance and misunderstandings.

P: PC Invalidates All Religions Which Claim Timeless Morality

If the PC movement is correct, all traditional—meaning biblical religions—must be false, since they regularly argue against PC standards. Therefore, PC is not just anti-religion but also against traditional morality. Therefore it is very destructive of society.

V. If Not for PC, Barack Would No Longer be in Office

It is obvious that Obama has received many kudos for being the first true minority elected president. Yet, it is also doubtless that he gathers enormous sympathy and pity for this status, as well. Yet, if we are honest, we must admit that another president would not have received the same support and forgiveness for his many mistakes. So, since Barack is destroying America through ignorance, laziness or even ill-will, the PC movement is likewise dissolving the US.

Therefore, we must destroy PC before it destroys us. And the only way to eviscerate this intellectual parasite and moral blight is to demand Free Speech be regarded as more important than PC and its countless restrictions. Further, that PC is the mortal enemy of Free Speech and only one of them can survive. These leftist codes must be permanently dismissed in favor of our ancestral liberties and rights, or bondage will be established as surely as night follows day.

Kelly O’Connell hosts American Anthem on CFP Radio Sundays at 4 pm (EST).

Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico. Kelly is now host of a daily, Monday to Friday talk show at AM KOBE called AM Las Cruces w/Kelly O’Connell

Kelly can be reached at: hibernian1@gmail.com

 

Responding to Islamism and Persecution of the Church

by Rob Schwarzwalder at FRC Blog:
January 26, 2012

Persecution of self-identified Christians has become a pandemic in the developing world.  For Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, Copts and others, making the simple assertion that they follow Jesus Christ can lead to abuse, eviction, disfigurement, and – far too often – death.

Today at FRC, we heard a remarkable and very probing lecture by Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, a profound theologian and himself a former Muslim, about the way the church is responding to the threat of radical Islam both abroad and here in the United States.

Dr. Sookhdeo drew a striking parallel between the church in Germany during the rise of Nazism and the way Christians should be responding to the Islamists who would undermine the very foundations of representative self-government and religious liberty.

Christians are called to love and minister to Muslims and also stand against an agenda which is inherently oppressive and even violent.  Dr. Sookhdeo offered wise counsel about how we can do both.  You can watch his lecture here.

Responding to Islam: Lessons from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth, and Bishop George Bell

Featuring Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, International Director, The Barnabas Fund

Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Karl Barth. Bishop George Bell. Dismissed, derided, and in one case even martyred, each of these Christian leaders took a stand against the threat of Nazism.

Today, a similar threat faces Christians in the US, across Europe, and much more dramatically throughout the Muslim world. Radical Islam’s jihadist ideology does not peacefully coexist with Christianity. And Christian leaders-both political and pastoral-should know more about the threats they face.

Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo is director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, a Christian research institute specializing in the status of Christian minorities in the Muslim world. He is also international director of the Barnabas Fund. Dr. Sookhdeo is a prolific lecturer and author who holds a Ph.D. from London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies and a D.D. from Western Seminary, Oregon, USA. In 2001, Dr. Sookhdeo was awarded the Coventry Cathedral International Prize for Peace and Reconciliation, and in 1990, he was given the Templeton Project Trust prize for progress in religion.

The main ministry of the Barnabas Fund is to send financial support to projects which help Christians where they suffer discrimination, oppression and persecution as a consequence of their faith. The projects aim to strengthen Christian individuals, churches and their communities by providing material and spiritual support in response to needs identified by local Christian leaders.

How to Destroy a Country

Posted by Gates of Vienna:
 
three-part series by Paul Weston about the deliberate destruction of British culture, and of Western Civilization itself.
 
How To Destroy A Country — Part 1
by Paul Weston
 

“There is a revolution coming. It will not be like the revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual and with culture, and will change the political structure only as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence. This is the revolution of the new generation.”

— Charles Reich. “The Greening of America.” 1970.

Paul WestonEvery generation bemoans the slippage of standards and the “going to the dogs” of society, but history shows that civilisations and peoples really do collapse utterly. Some even become extinct. Great Britain, needless to say, is no longer as great as it once was, but has the degradation we see around us on a daily basis been caused by well-intentioned liberal stupidity, or by brilliantly-planned leftist malevolence?Perhaps it is a mixture of both. It has long been known that the hard Left wished to transform the traditional Britain (and West) I was born into. Via a protracted campaign of brainwashing and propaganda they were able to recruit well intentioned liberals into an unknowing alliance. This was not particularly difficult, of course; liberals are easily duped by propagandised platitudes and fall very easily into Lenin’s denouncement of them as Useful Idiots.But first, let us deal with some facts. During and after WWII the Soviet Communists gobbled up as much of Europe as they could. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia disappeared behind the Iron Curtain, followed by Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and East Germany. In essence, any country within Moscow’s military strike capability fell into its clutches and became part of the Soviet empire.

The Communists really did have global aspirations, so countries outside their military sphere were not simply ignored and written off, they were earmarked for destabilisation and subversion, to be taken over at a later date. The Kremlin office assigned this task was the Department of Agitation and Propaganda, which worked with Western Communist parties, including the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB).

Karl MarxAdded to this subversive mix was what became known as the Frankfurt School, which wielded enormous social pressure — initially in America and subsequently in Britain — in the decades after the Second World War. It was established in Frankfurt in 1923 by the Hungarian Communist Georg Lukacs, and was known in those days as the Institution for Marxism.

Lukacs was an agent of The Communist International (Comintern) which had been established in Moscow in 1919 in order to “fight by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie for the creation of an international Soviet republic.”

Karl Marx wrote of the anarchy necessary as a precursor to outright revolution, in which he would “stand astride the wreckage a colossus.” Lukacs, whose reputation in the revolutionary world was almost on a par with Marx himself, said: “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution. A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

Theodore AdornoIn the 1930s Lukacs was joined by two other Marxists, Max Horkheimer and Theodore Adorno, but the rise of Hitler made it impossible for them to stay in Germany, so they moved to New York City, where the institute became known as the Frankfurt School. In the 1950s they were joined by a new recruit Herbert Marcuse, and between them they started to write the Marxist future of the democratic West.

The Frankfurt School was the birthplace of Critical Theory, which may be described as the destructive criticism of Western culture, including Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethno-centrism, and conservatism — whilst the basic tenets of Western evil are repeated over and over again: Racism, sexism, colonialism, nationalism, homophobia, fascism, xenophobia and imperialism.

Herbert MarcuseHerbert Marcuse is probably the most infamous person that most people today have never heard of. His book Eros and Civilization promoted Free Love and the Pleasure Principle. His counter-cultural ideologies gradually transformed American and Western society from that which built Western Civilisation into that which exists only to tear it down. The greying politicians who now run the West and the majority of its institutions are the same fresh-faced students of the 1970s who once sang the Marcuse-inspired “Hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ [civilisation] has got to go.”

A cult developed around Marcuse during the 1960s and 1970s, and the student-hippie generation was the Marcuse generation. He was held in such esteem that everything he penned was taken seriously, resulting in the students’ absorption of not just Marcuse’s most famous expression, “Make Love not War”, but also the rest of the Frankfurt School’s anti-Western, counter-cultural propaganda. Never had Lenin’s useful idiots been more abundant.

Che GuevaraBut Marcuse was an evil man. He genuinely wanted to overthrow the traditional West. When asked who would play the part of the Russian proletariat in the Western revolution, he replied it would be all the marginalised groups, including black militants, feminists, homosexual militants, the asocial, the alienated and third world revolutionaries represented by the mass murderer Che Guevara.

The destructive policies of the Frankfurt school were known collectively as Cultural Terrorism. Today, they are simply referred to as Political Correctness, an ideology people are aware of, although very few know of its anti-Western, destructive and revolutionary roots. Doubters should ask why the victims of the politically correct lobby are overwhelmingly white, Christian, capitalist, heterosexual and male, or DWEMs as they are crudely referred to in America, short for Dead White European Males.

The simple answer is that these men and the qualities they embodied laid the foundations, erected the props, and over many centuries built the various layers of intertwined ideology and structure that formed Western Civilisation. If our memory of them can be destroyed, if the ideology can be destroyed, and if the race of people who currently represent that ideology can be destroyed, then Western Civilisation can itself be destroyed.

Only when we understand this harsh reality does the modern world make any sense. Western society has not suddenly become insane. We do not live in a society of political correctness gone mad. It is not that we are old and just don’t get it. The terrifying truth is that we are being set up for deliberately engineered control by a well-planned Socialist operation that has been decades in the making. Partial proof of this fact is the typical white liberal/leftist who denounces the historical European colonisation of foreign lands as imperialistic and oppressive, yet celebrates the current foreign colonisation of Europe. This tells us it is not colonialism with which the liberal/left have a problem, but Western Civilisation itself.

This article is the first part of a three-part series. It serves to outline the background of the leftist assault on Britain and Western Civilisation as a whole.

In Part Two I will write in detail of the dedicated campaign waged against our traditions and our society.

Go to Gates of Vienna for Part II and Part III

Paul Weston is Chairman of the British Freedom Party.
 
Also see the related video “The History of Political Correctness