I have never been so unhappy to be right. I’ve long said that Barack Obama would win re-election, and two weeks ago I stated as much in print. In making this prediction, I was almost alone among traditionalist pundits, with some, such as Dick Morris (Mr. Batting Zero), actually forecasting a Mitt Romney landslide. And, no, I’m not pointing this out to numb despair with some perverse kind of gloating, like a man consumed in flames looking to suck on an ice cube. It’s because of why I knew that Romney would lose:America is lost. And there is something to be found, but not unless good people understand what truly lies ahead.
America is heading toward a dark winter. Of course, I can’t give you a Mayan-like prediction of a precise time of reckoning; details are always sketchy, which is why I wasn’t entirely right on the micro of the election. But this is much like how it’s difficult to predict the weather for two Wednesdays from now, but easy to forecast cold in February. And of our civilization’s overall weather pattern, there is no doubt. Now let’s discuss what prevents conservatives from seeing the clouds on the horizon.
Many conservatives probably knew better in their hearts than to predict a Romney win, but just couldn’t come to terms with the depressing reality of a second Obama term. Rationalization is common among man; it’s how we avoid unwelcome truths. But it also blinds us to danger. Just think, for instance, of Jews who saw their coming winter in 1930s Germany and emigrated; then think of those who didn’t because they couldn’t face reality. This is how dangerous rationalization can be.
Likewise, for years I and a few others have been warning that fighting in the political arena while losing the culture is like trying to grow beautiful leaves on a tree whose roots are beset by steady rot. Sure, we may win some battles, but they’re merely a rightward movement of deck chairs on a ship steadily drifting left. Yet even when this phenomenon’s specifics are explained to simplicity, they’re often rationalized away by conservatives. Most would rather talk about Obama this and Romney that, about how we just, by gum, need a real conservative. But this is for naught without a real conservative electorate. We can’t elect a better government when we’ve bred a worse people.
And just as I knew Obama would win last night, I’m quite sure of something else.
No truly “conservative” Republican will ever win nationally again.
(Don’t click that mouse and grab the hemlock, because there is hope. I’ll get to that later.)
To understand a major reason why, read my piece, “Does the GOP’s Demographic Death Spiral End in a Texas Graveyard?” And to understand why I put “conservative” in quotation marks, click “Conservatism is Dead; Long Live Conservatism.” I’ll give many such recommendations in this piece, as they’re necessary background for a proper understanding of our coming dark days.
But let’s start with a simple fact: Mitt Romney is a photogenic, articulate, moderate Republican who was up against a scandal-ridden leftist radical presiding over a listing economy and foundering foreign policy. Still he couldn’t win.
Or, I should say, voters chose to lose.
Because what the American people were before, they are no more.
I know, I know. The media deceived the citizenry. Romney started playing not to lose instead of to win. There was vote fraud. There was that storm and Chris Christie playing Misty for Mr. Limp Wristy.
Oh, it’s not that the above isn’t true. But no candidate is tactically perfect; Obama certainly made his share of mistakes. There also will inevitably be unforeseen events during any campaign, and they don’t matter when enough people can distinguish good from evil. And the left does steal hearts and minds through the media and votes through electoral sleight-of-hand, but this merely reflects our cultural decay. And it’s only getting worse.
If You Can’t Get Elected, Appoint a New People
This variation on a Bertolt Brecht line gets at our problem. And our new people has been forged via both importation and domestic production.
While conservatives complain about illegal migration — ever more tepidly — I’ve been warning that it was merely an exacerbation of a larger problem: legal immigration, through which statists have been importing reliably socialist voters. This I have explained thoroughly over and over and over and over and over and over again, yet most conservatives won’t touch the issue. This is partially due to “immigrationism,” dogma stating that immigration must be a permanent and unquestioned fixture of American life (death?); partially due to pundit cowardice; and partially due to rationalization. After all, immigration is here to stay, we think, so better to shunt its scary implications to the mind’s recesses, where the rest of the wild things are.
But I’ll make this simple: remember the pre-election stories about how Obama was wildly popular overseas? The English are enchanted, the French are all aflutter,Indonesia is infatuated, and Kenya is kvelling. Obama isn’t foreign to foreigners, and do you think this will change because the foreigners come here? Just as with religion, people bring their ideology with them. And unless you think you could talk a Muslim jihadist out of Islam, why suppose you could talk a socialist out of socialism?
The world’s consensus political orientation is no surprise, mind you. Note that nascent, adolescent, and young adult America was the rarest of anomalies, as man’s historical default is tyranny. And as geriatric America has proven, it’s difficult enough instilling the mindset that birthed her into the native born, never mind those who come here in the hardened clay of adulthood. Having said this, there is a reason why we are being, as Alan Keyes put it, “colonized….”
“Israel hath cast off the thing that is good; the enemy shall pursue him. They have reigned, but not by me: they have been princes, and I knew not….” — Hosea 8:3-4
As a people’s morality goes, so go its fortunes. You simply cannot be one kind of people but have another kind of government (see “Written in the Eternal Constitution”). And what has happened to our sense of virtue in America? So lost it is that even the word has been replaced with “values,” that fixture of the atheistic literary style. For decades we have instilled children with leftism, nihilism, hedonism, relativism, and atheism through academia, the media, and popular culture; we have seduced them into sin and made them, as Ben Franklin wrote, “more corrupt and vicious, [so] they have more need of masters.” For sure, masters will be one’s lot if he has not mastered himself.
And this inner anarchy has outward manifestations: the imagery of pagan barbarism. Like primitive tribesmen, the young today deface themselves with tattoos and body piercings; the tramp stamp has become a stamp of youth-generation membership, while even large earlobe rings, something the West previously reserved to Discovery Channel documentaries, are now worn. And this physiognomy correlates with a certain voting pattern. Do you know what it is?
Speaking of voting patterns, for my atheist friends…
“It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains” — Patrick Henry
Like many reading this, I once was that rare breed: a conservative agnostic. And, like so many who bristle when I now promote faith, I probably didn’t realize how rare I was — and always would be.
Fox News alluded to this when trying to explain Obama’s win last evening, pointing out that religiously unaffiliated people are 20 percent of the U.S.for the first time ever. And does a poll showing that this burgeoning group of Americans favors Obama surprise you? It shouldn’t. There is a strong atheism-statism correlation the world over, which is why it’s no coincidence that “conservatives” in heavily secular Western Europe are simpatico with our liberals. Take note of this before you cheer the diminution of faith and fancy it can be replaced with Ayn Randism. Without the Christian right, there is no right at all.
So where do we go from here? First, we must stop rationalizing and look truth in the eye. There are no national ballot-box solutions, and America’s winter is nigh. And will we, as all civilizations eventually do, soon go the way of ancient Rome? It’s possible. Remember, however, that when Rome fell there were still people living in her lost lands. They still had to forge societies. And some did a better job than others.
And what of the immediate future? Well, I’ll write more about that in the coming months. For now I’ll leave it at this: what would you do if you were part of an organization whose leadership became ever more tyrannical and intransigent?
We must focus on our states and localities, on uncompromisingly doing the right thing within them. Are you with me? Because all I can say is that if I were a governor, I would certainly make news. What else can you do when caught in the course of human events?
You’ve got to hand it to that Joe Biden. He certainly has chutzpah. After all, what do you call it when a man who was banned from receiving Communion diocese-wide by a bishop chastises an apparently more faithful Catholic for a lack of doctrinal purity? I’m of course referring to the vice-presidential debate and Biden’s comment that Paul Ryan had an “issue” with “Catholic social doctrine.”
Biden’s approach is nothing new; it’s a copout frequently used by liberal—or, as they used to say, heretical—Catholics. It goes like this: self-conscious that they’re being criticized for violating definitive Church teaching and accused of being in a state of grave sin, they hang their hats on the idea that they make up for it by going heavy on “social teaching.” Furthermore, they lean on the notion that no one should point fingers at them because, by their lights, conservatives fall terribly short of the glory of that social teaching. It’s the theological version of “Oh, yeah?! But look at what Bush did!”
The most obvious problem with this is that it’s like saying your theft is okay because Tom commits adultery, a callow appeal of the kind mature people leave in childhood. Obviously, we’re responsible for our own walk with righteousness, our own sins, not others’. Why, do you think the attempt to justify bad behavior by citing other (supposedly) bad behavior will pass muster when we meet our maker any more than it would before a judge? Imagine saying, “Yes, Your Honor, I broke my wife’s jaw. But, look, I’m tellin’ ya’, there’s this guy down the street who beats up his wife and his girlfriend.” In the same way that courts judge us based on the law and not other criminals’ behavior, a person of faith understands that he is to measure himself with the Perfect Law from above, not the imperfect and flawed next to us.
But even this misses the point here, because the reality is that these liberal Catholics can only claim moral parity with (or superiority to) those they criticize by putting Church teaching, and their own minds, through the durable-press spin cycle. And the proof is in the pudding: neither Paul Ryan nor any other conservative has been denied Communion, unlike some liberal politicians.
Before examining why, I should explain for those not conversant in Catholic teaching that denial of Communion is a very serious matter. It means that the individual in question is in a state of “mortal sin,” which is sin grave enough to separate him from God. And, of course, if a bishop has gone so far as to forbid priests in his diocese from dispensing Communion to the person, it means that the violator’s defiance of definitive teaching is overt and consistent.
But what does this teaching say? Is there actually an equivalence between advocating abortion and opposing big-government social programs?
Any such implication is ridiculous. The Church teaches that direct abortion is always wrong, as it is the murder of innocent human life. In contrast, while Catholic social doctrine dictates that we must help the less fortunate, there’s no specificity as to how this must be done. There is no injunction to create government social programs—or not to do so. The Church does, however, state how it mustn’t be done. As Pope Pius XI put it, Socialism…cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth, and “[N]o one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”
So while Catholics have a lot of latitude in deciding how to best administer charity, they may not disagree on abortion and remain in union with the Church—hence the aforementioned denial of Communion. So, it’s ironic, but the “personally opposed, no values imposed” argument pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians love so much could only rightly be used by those they criticize. We could truly say, “Personally, I believe in giving charity, but I don’t want to impose this on others through government.”
Lastly, there’s something else Biden should know about Catholic doctrine. The Church teaches—and this was reaffirmed by the Pope several years ago—that politicians who publicly support abortion automatically excommunicate themselves.
If I have chutzpah for saying that, then we have something in common, Mr. Biden. The difference is that I place mine in the service of Truth.
Before one can understand the nature of partisan or party politics, a correct comprehension of The Choice of Ideology is essential.
“Contemporary Political Ideologies is a text book that has been around for a long time. Many of the usual suspects are covered: Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy, Conservatism, Liberalism, Nationalism, Marxism, Fascism, Anarchism, Libertarianism, Feminism and Environmentalism. Since written, additional offshoots have come to include: Neoconservatism, the Paleo versions of Conservatism and Libertarianism and what we will call “Inherit Populism”.
These broad based viewpoints have distinctions, sometimes subtle, often dramatic. The reason why partisan politics is a blood sport is that it is waged to achieve a false party line. BREAKING ALL THE RULES advocates a paleo-conservative philosophy based upon traditional values and moral principles. Consistent with the historic legacy of the founding of this Nation is a lament that most inhabitants are oblivious to our ingenious heritage and purpose of the American Revolution.
The article, Ideology Matters, But What Is It?, clearly repudiates the destructive ideologies that result in the suicidal course this country has taken, especially in the last century.
“The test for valid support is simple. The legacy of the New Deal to the Good Society has constructed a total reputation of American ideals. To deny this reality, is to associate yourself with the cause of depravity. There is no room to compromise on this axiom. The lines are clear, distinct and irrefutable. Career operatives rationalize their support for destructive policies as the price for civility. The notion that getting along with the opposition that is bent upon the destruction of the Nation is psychotic. When polls are cited that the public wants less ranker, leadership sinks into the cauldron of deceit and treachery of our heritage. Those of us who advocate a State responsive and accountable to the citizen, are left with few champions to carry the banner of limited government.”
Rejecting an artificial left/right template for a deeper analysis of the publically accepted nomenclature of liberal vs. conservative is a constructive leap to appreciate the differences that are so prevalent among different factions within society.
How individuals assess politics often rests upon their own personality and outlook. From a report in Clinician’s Digest, the following insights are useful.
“Personality differences are a leading candidate in the race toward understanding the rift between political liberals and conservatives. Using data compiled from nearly 20,000 respondents, Columbia University researcher Dana Carney and colleagues found that two common personality traits reliably differentiated individuals with liberal or conservative identifications. Liberals reported greater openness, whereas conservatives reported higher conscientiousness. This means that liberals (at least in their own estimation) saw themselves as more creative, flexible, tolerant of ambiguity, and open to new ideas and experiences. Across the political personality divide, conservatives self-identified as more persistent, orderly, moralistic, and methodical.
Evidence suggests that these personality differences between liberals and conservatives begin to emerge at an early age. A 20-year longitudinal study by Jack and Jeanne Block showed that those who grew up to be liberals were originally assessed by their preschool teachers as more emotionally expressive, gregarious, and impulsive when compared to those who became conservatives, who were considered more inhibited, uncertain, and controlled. Liberals may show greater tolerance for diversity and creativity, but they may also be more impulsive, indecisive, and irresponsible. On the flip side, conservatives may be organized, stable, and thrifty, but also have stronger just-world beliefs (leading to a greater tolerance for inequality), and stronger fears of mortality and ambiguity. Even recent neuroscience work published in Current Biology from University College London identifies fundamental differences in the partisan brain. Brain scans revealed a larger amygdala in self-identified conservatives and a larger anterior cingulate cortex in liberals, leading the researchers to conclude that conservatives may be more acute at detecting threats around them, whereas liberals may be more adept at handling conflicting information and uncertainty.”
Partisan party proponents, both Democrats and Republicans are practicing Statists. Mutual lust to control the levers of government closes ranks, when an external threat comes from dissenting citizens. This background brings us to examine the essay, Speaking Out Against Government is a Mental Disorder, by Susanne Posel.
“According to the psychiatric manual, the DSM-IV-TR, oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a mental disease wherein free thinkers, non-conformists, civil disobedience supporters, those who question authority and are perceived as being hostile toward the government are labeled mentally ill. Psychiatrists refer to this mental defect as “Mentality III”.
This mental disorder is defined as: “a recurrent pattern of negativistic, defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that persists for at least 6 months.”
Ms Posel continues:
Symptoms of ODD include:
- negativistic and defiant behaviors are expressed by persistent stubbornness
- resistance to directions
- unwillingness to compromise, give in, or negotiate with adults or peers
- defiance may also include deliberate or persistent testing of limits, usually by ignoring orders, arguing, and failing to accept blame for misdeeds
- hostility can be directed at adults or peers and is shown by deliberately annoying others or by verbal aggression (usually without the more serious physical aggression seen in Conduct Disorder)
If this alleged ailment has, any legitimate clinical application, it seems that these warning signs, foremost apply to elected officials and party organizations. Reinforcing the practice of the partisan political psychopathic art, John D. Mayer in Psychology Today asks two questions. The first is relevant while the second is naive.
“If members of Congress and the executive branch extended genuine respect to one another, wouldn’t they recognize that it is more important to vote for that which is best for the country rather than for that which may promote their political party? If they truly respected one another, wouldn’t the best and brightest among them join in a thoughtful give-and-take to promote good legislation above partisanship?”
Where is the evidence that government has the objective of “doing what is best for the country”? Frankly, the body of facts is so overwhelming that every successive administration builds upon the treason of the last government, that only a faint memory of a constitutional Republic exists. The notion that power hungry grabbers are capable of transcending partisan rhetoric for a good purpose is patently absurd. The only cooperation that ever unites the party politics is to protect the despotism of the State.
“Haidt helped devise a questionnaire that gauged moral views by eliciting test-taker responses to statements in five categories: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Haidt likens these moral groupings to the five taste receptors of the tongue (sweet, sour, bitter, savory, salty). It turns out that liberal receptors failed to engage on questions of loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Conservatives, on the other hand, reacted to all five moral categories more or less equally. Haidt’s conclusion is that his fellow liberals are morally tone deaf. “Republicans understand moral psychology,” Haidt concedes. “Democrats don’t.”
It gets worse for liberals. Haidt and colleagues asked their subjects to answer their questionnaire as if they were liberals, as if they were conservatives, and as themselves. Liberals don’t know their political adversaries nearly as well as the right knows them. “The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as ‘very liberal.’ The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.” Liberals see caricatures when they see conservatives.
The thesis may prove cathartic for Republican readers. But it’s more useful to Democrats.”
As long as partisan political parties, ignore moral principles, and the “States Rights” framework of limited government the psychological disorders of the ultimate Statist mental illness will spread. It is always amusing when partisan critics rant about the lack of condemnation against opposing party foes, when their silence about the abuses of their patron party hacks goes unspoken.
It is bad enough how ignorant the average voter is when they cast their ballot. As long as people accept and tolerate the two party diatribes against viewpoints that challenge the establishment power cabal, there are no viable prospects for elective solutions. As of this writing, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll has, “Mitt Romney attracting support from 48% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 47%. One percent (1%) prefers some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.”
How can any thinking and responsible American vote for either candidate? Both are tyrannical teammates for the globalist franchise. Those who speak out against the establishment order are not the ones with a mental illness. Those who vote for their own demise are one-step removed from the infective treachery coming out of the federal government. Paleo-conservative ideology is the righteous political philosophy for a Free People. What is the state of your own mental health?
Recent attacks on American embassies and consulates in numerous Muslim countries are claimed to be irrational and undue reactions to a film portraying the Muslim prophet Mohammed in a degraded manner. The film is intentionally sacrilegious and incendiary toward Islamic beliefs and seems intended to add fuel to the rage of a Muslim world already incensed at the U.S. for its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for destructive American drone attacks in Yemen and Somalia and multiple other nations, and one-sided support for Israel accompanied by platitudes for Palestinians. Thus, the roots of widespread anti-Americanism are much deeper than can be explained merely by recent events. Instead, Muslim fury can be traced to the ever increasing intervention by Washington in Muslim countries since the end of World War II. Prior to that, the U.S. was considered a non-interventionist, even anti-imperialist, friend in much of the region. Yet, even before the war ended President Roosevelt made a secret deal with the Saudi king to provide American protection (and ultimately arms as well, used primarily to suppress his own population) to the Saudis in return for unobstructed American corporate access to the recently discovered Saudi oilfields.
Few today remember American policies during the Iranian crisis of 1946, when the U.S. obliquely threatened to force Soviet Troops out of Iran. American, British and Soviet troops occupied Iran in 1941 because it had tilted toward the Nazis under the father of the later American client, Shah Reza Pahlavi. The Soviets occupied the oil fields of northern Iran with Washington’s approval during the war to prevent them from falling into Nazi hands. The Soviets were supposed to withdraw in March of that year but refused until a deal could be arranged whereby the USSR could purchase Iranian oil in order to begin rebuilding its war-ravaged society. Initially the Truman Administration encouraged the Iranian government to accept the deal. Then when the Red Army did withdraw also encouraged the Iranians to renege on the arrangement. It is worth noting that the Red Army did not then re-occupy the territory, thereby putting the lie to the claim made immediately after WWII that the Soviets were bent on world domination. There was nothing, not even employing atomic weapons, that the U.S. could have done to stop the Red Army had it chosen to reoccupy Iran’s oilfields since that would have destroyed the very resources that were being contested. The Soviets were only one of the principal obstacles to American post-war plans- though they were trumpeted as the prime mover. Equally important was nationalism, especially the sort of national independence craved by countries possessing vital resources that the U.S. coveted. Few also realize that until WWII the U.S. was the prime exporter of petroleum. By war’s end the U.S. had used so much of its domestic oil, and its hydrocarbon-based economy had grown so exponentially, that from that point on the U.S. was impelled to begin importing oil.
Many do remember the overthrow of the prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadeqh in 1953. Exceeding its legal mandate to gather intelligence, the newly minted Central Intelligence Agency, initiated its first successful overthrow of a constitutional and elected government because that government decided that Iranian oil belonged to the Iranians and not to the British oil company that would eventually become British Petroleum. The American scheme was calculated to ensure that American companies would thereafter dominate Iranian oil production and get rid of most British competition in Iran as well. The Shah and his brutal government was then installed to act as Washington’s gendarme in the region. To ensure his rule the U.S. military and CIA then trained his dreaded secret police in the fine arts of torture and terror.
Meanwhile the CIA was active in similar efforts across the planet to undermine any form of nationalism, socialism, or communism that would interfere with the overarching American agenda, which was not the promotion of “democracy” but the installation of friendly clients into positions of power in countries considered strategic for their resources or geographic position. Space does not allow a complete catalog but of importance to current events is certainly the role the “Company” played in the overthrow of the British client king of Iraq in 1958, an intrigue in which Saddam Hussein played a role and that led eventually to his dictatorship, one with which Washington was happy to cooperate after the Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979. The famous film of Donald Rumsfeld warmly shaking Saddam’s hand perfectly illustrates the lower depths to which Washington has too often stooped to achieve its ends. The U.S. provided highly technical intelligence to Iraq against Iran, aiding the mass slaughter that ensued, and when he used poison gas made from chemicals provided by American corporations against Iraqi Kurds during the war with Iran, Washington prevented sanctions against his regime. At that point he was assisting the American agenda to weaken Iranian fundamentalism so his crimes could be whitewashed. However, his invasion of Kuwait in 1990 became the perfect rationale to inject what evolved into a permanent American military presence in the Persian Gulf.
At the time of 9-11 Michael Scheur was the CIA’s foremost expert on Al Qaeda. His writings emphasize that Americans had to take seriously the reasons spelled out by Osama Bin Laden for Al Qaeda’s antagonism toward the U.S. One of those principal motivations was the American military presence in Saudi Arabia during and after Operation Desert Storm. Bin Laden said clearly that the presence of “infidel” troops on sacred Islamic soil was a desecration. Thereafter, all American forces were to be driven from all Islamic lands. The widespread perception in the Muslim world that Americans had defiled the holiest sites of Islam and were exploiting Muslim resources while propping up corrupt dictatorial apostates like the rulers of the Arab Gulf states contributed to the relative ease with which al Qaeda could recruit new Jihadis to its cause.
Scheur also noted that bin Laden said that the attacks on 9-11 were intended to promote further intervention by Washington in the region and thus promote more of the anti-Americanism that he hoped would fuel his movement. To a great extent American actions have worked almost precisely to Bin Laden’s plan and the current explosion of violence around the world toward the U.S. is a direct outgrowth of the increasing resentment and hatred long stored in memory across the Middle East. Washington is reaping the violent whirlwind sowed by itself.
The so-called “Arab Spring” represented an upwelling of long-simmering opposition to numerous dictatorships in the region, most of them propped up by Washington with a few exceptions that rankled like Libya and Syria. Though President Obama and Hillary Clinton mouthed piously about popular democracy and the “will of the people,” such didn’t help the hapless residents of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, where instantaneous and brutal repression followed, with mere sighs from Washington. Remember that at first, President Obama supported Hosni Mubarak in Egypt until the intensity of the demonstrations in Cairo forced the U.S to abandon him. But not before the Egyptian military high command stepped up to reassure the State Department that it would take his place. Then they threw Mubarak “under the bus.” Nevertheless, the sheer pressure of popular demand for a voice necessitated an election. Since the Egyptian Army is financed and armed by Washington, and Egypt receives the second largest sum of foreign aid (after Israel) widespread knowledge that the Egyptian Army is a creature of the U.S. led to victory in the elections by the despised Muslim Brotherhood. After the election the Egyptian courts sought to prevent the seating of this Parliament dominated by the Brotherhood and with representation by the even more vehement Salafists, but the newly seated president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, does indeed represent the Brotherhood. One reason the Army allowed the elections was because its leadership feared that rank and file troops would not support repression in the face of such an uprising from the depths of their own social origins. Morsi is being very careful now. It remains to be seen how the new configuration of power, of Islamists vs. the Army, will evolve.
The killing of the American ambassador and three other Americans in Libya prompted an embittered Secretary Clinton to ask how those who owed their “liberation” to the U.S. could be so ungrateful to their emancipators, thereby confirming how little she understands of the circumstances fostering the Libyan uprising, nor those her government has wrought, or the degree to which the planned outcome of U.S. intervention islikely to fail utterly. The standard interpretation of what transpired in Libya is that the U.S. and its European allies in NATO conducted a humanitarian intervention to rid Libya of another brutal dictator. It is true that Muammar Qaddaffi ruled autocratically but in this he was supported by a substantial majority at least in western Libya, where traditional tribes were loyal.
Libya came into existence as an independent state only in 1951. Before that it had been an Italian colony, or rather three separate colonies cobbled together and given the name the ancient Romans called most of North Africa. In its efforts to subdue these colonies Italy became the very first European empire to use the airplane in primitive bombing runs on resisting tribes. In this they were soon followed by the French in Syria and Lebanon, and by the British in Iraq and Afghanistan, facts still well remembered in the region. Therefore, like so many nations that acquired independence after World War II, Libya was an artificial construct, merging mutually suspicious or hostile ethnic groups and tribes into a configuration designed by former colonial masters to serve their interests. When Qaddaffi overthrew the corrupt king of Libya in 1969, who made sweetheart deals with western oil companies, and hoarded revenues from Libya’s newly discovered oil, he took over a country already riven with tribal animosities. One of his difficulties was that much of Libya’s oil was in the east, where tribes different from his own loyalists dwelled. He suppressed opposition brutally.
Another problem which Quaddaffi dealt with successfully – and which brought him the unending hostility of the west and led to a deadly cat and mouse game that played out over forty years- were those western oil companies that dominated the industry and reaped the greatest share of profits. Qaddaffi immediately nationalized oil but allowed some companies to remain. However, he imposed significantly higher taxes and royalties on those, like the American company Occidental, resulting in a considerable increase in revenues available to him but he used these to raise the standard of living substantially, mainly for his loyalists, but also to an extent for the entire population. Whether his example stimulated what followed is unclear but the facts are that numerous other former oil producing colonies of the western powers subsequently initiated their own nationalizations, thereby upsetting longstanding and profitable western arrangements. He also refused to peg the Libyan currency, the dinar, to the International Monetary Fund, and refused to submit to the World Bank and International Bank for Settlements. Qaddaffi also styled himself the champion of pan-Arabism, the movement to unify the entire Arab world and funded many nationalist movements hostile to the west.
During all this time the CIA was actively involved with Qaddaffi’s opponents to find a way to overthrow him. This lethal contest led to mutual terrorism (though most American media and scholarly accounts omit the U.S. actions) and culminating in the atrocity of Lockerbie, followed by the bombing of Libya, including Qaddaffi’s house where his adoptive three year old daughter was killed. Qaddaffi then intensified efforts to acquire chemical weapons, and even undertook a nuclear program. However sanctions led him to submit the Lockerbie suspects for trial in the UK, and later to give up these WMD programs. At that point western media reports declared that Qaddaffi had “normalized’” affairs with the west.
Whatever he imagined about his new relations with former enemies, the CIA had other ideas. So when the “Arab Spring” erupted in Tunisia and soon spread across the entire region, many Libyans followed suit and Libya descended into the civil war that Washington and NATO then leapt upon in order to accomplish finally what the western governments and energy corporations had desired all along- the overthrow of Qaddaffi and his replacement with an installed government essentially of handpicked clients who would restore Libyan resources to western corporate domination. In the midst of fighting the private global intelligence company STRATFOR published and circulated a detailed map showing most of Libya’s oil was located in the eastern area of Benghazi. It was also well known that the oil Libya produced was of a type that is refined easily into the gasoline required in European automobiles. South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham waxed feverishly over the lure of profits, braying “Let’s get in on the ground. There’s a lot of money to be made in Libya. Lots of oil to be produced. Let’s get on the ground and help the Libyan people establish a democracy and a functioning economy based on free market principles.” Even before the “revolution” had succeeded and a new government was installed, the rebel group claiming authority announced the dissolution of Qaddaffi’s national bank and replaced it with a new central bank tied to international institutions, which, of course, are dominated by the western financial establishment.
As media images showed clearly, Qaddaffi still had enormous support. The “rebels” included eastern tribal members long hostile to rule from western Libya, but also ethnic minorities like the Berbers, but also Libyan members of al Qaeda as well as al Qaeda jihadists from around the Arab and Muslim world. Included in the toxic mix were CIA operatives and covert American Special Forces. Without western arms supplied to Qaddaffi’s opponents, and especially the U.S. led bombing campaign it is likely Qaddaffi would have hung on. The result we see today, however, was utterly predictable.
The so-called government installed in Tripoli, in the west of Libya, has no control over anything, especially in eastern Benghazi. In May the interim prime minister’s offices were attacked with four aides killed. In June a bomb exploded in the same consulate building where Ambassador Stevens was killed. The British ambassador narrowly escaped assassination last spring. The January ransacking of the National Transition Council offices provides evidence that factions in Benghazi want independence, not the unified state. What more would it have taken for Washington to realize that its best laid plans were going awry? Writing in the Guardian, Benjamin Barber notes that at minimum 100,000 militants of one faction or another, all armed with American and NATO weapons (including the rocket-propelled-grenade launchers used against the American consulate) continue to wage war or jihad upon each other, and that al Qaeda is as much a home –grown faction as any other. Indeed, al Qaeda raised its flag over the Benghazi courthouse the day after Qaddaffi was killed.
On March 2, 2007 Retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of NATO forces, and 2004 Democratic contender for the presidency, appeared on Amy Goodman’s televised program Democracy Now. In the interview he revealed that shortly before the invasion of Iraq a highly placed Pentagon officer divulged a secret plan to him to overthrow the governments of seven countries-Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. Speaking in San Francisco the following October Clark repeated this and added commentary about a conversation he had in 1992 with Paul Wolfowitz, a prime architect of George W. Bush’s policies, who at the time was number three in the Defense department. Quoting Wolfowitz Clark said: “One thing we learned [in the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region- in the Middle East- and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got five or ten years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran, Iraq- before the next superpower comes along to stop us.”
The Neo-Conservatives were supposed to have been swept from power by the new Obama Administration, and yet the withdrawal (that is not really a withdrawal) from Iraq was negotiated by Bush, and the “surge” in Afghanistan ordered by Obama out neo-conned the neo-cons, just as the “liberation” of Libya certainly followed their template if not their foolish expectations. Syria awaits our humanitarian ministrations. But that may prove the most disastrous escapade of all.
Source: Paul Atwood | CounterPunch.org
Now, in the monsoon season, Cambodia is verdant, cool and relaxed. The rice paddies on the low hill slopes are flooded, forests that hide old temples are almost impassable, rough seas deter swimmers. It’s a pleasant time to re-visit this modest country: Cambodia is not crowded, and Cambodians are not greedy, but rather peaceful and relaxed. They fish for shrimp, calamari and sea brim. They grow rice, unspoiled by herbicides, manually planted, cultivated and gathered. They produce enough for themselves and for export, too — definitely no paradise, but the country soldiers on.
Socialism is being dismantled fast: Chinese-owned factories keep churning tee-shirts for the European and American market employing tens of thousands of young Cambodian girls earning $80 per month. They are being sacked at the first sign of unionising. Nouveau-riches live in palaces; there are plenty of Lexus cars, and an occasional Rolls-Royce. Huge black and red, hard and precious tree trunks are constantly ferried to the harbour for timber export, destroying forests but enriching traders. There are many new French restaurateurs in the capital; NGO reps earn in one minute the equivalent of a worker’s monthly salary.
Not much remains from the turbulent period when the Cambodians tried to radically change the order of things in the course of their unique traditionalist conservative peasant revolution under communist banner. That was the glorious time of Jean Luc Godard and his La Chinoise, of the Cultural Revolution in China sending party bonzes for re-education to remote farms, of Khmer Rouge marching on the corrupt capital. Socialist movement reached a bifurcation point: whether to advance to more socialism Mao-style, or retreat to less socialism the Moscow way. The Khmer Rouge experiment lasted only three years, from 1975 to 1978.
Surprisingly, Cambodians have no bad memories of that period. This is quite an amazing discovery for an infrequent visitor. I did not come to reconstruct “the truth”, whatever it is, but rather to find out what is the collective memory of the Cambodians, how do they perceive the events of the late 20thcentury, what narrative has been filtered down by time gone by. The omnipotent narrative-making machinery of the West has embedded in our conscience the image of bloody Khmer Rouge commies cannibalising their own people over the Killing Fields and ruled over by a nightmarish Pol Pot, anybody’s notion of ruthless despot.
A much quoted American professor, RJ Rummel, wrote that “out of a 1970 population of probably near 7,100,000 …almost 3,300,000 men, women, and children were murdered …most of these… were murdered by the communist Khmer Rouge”. Every second person was killed, according to his estimate.
However, Cambodia’s population was not halved but more than doubled since 1970, despite alleged multiple genocides. Apparently, the genocidaires were inept, or their achievements have been greatly exaggerated.
The Pol Pot the Cambodians remember was not a tyrant, but a great patriot and nationalist, a lover of native culture and native way of life. He was brought up in royal palace circles; his aunt was a concubine of the previous king. He studied in Paris, but instead of making money and a career, he returned home, and spent a few years dwelling with forest tribes to learn from the peasants. He felt compassion for the ordinary village people who were ripped off on a daily basis by the city folk, the comprador parasites. He built an army to defend the countryside from these power-wielding robbers. Pol Pot, a monkish man of simple needs, did not seek wealth, fame or power for himself. He had one great ambition: to terminate the failing colonial capitalism in Cambodia, return to village tradition, and from there, to build a new country from scratch.
His vision was very different from the Soviet one. The Soviets built their industry by bleeding the peasantry; Pol Pot wanted to rebuild the village first, and only afterwards build industry to meet the villagers’ needs. He held city dwellers in contempt; they did nothing useful, in his view. Many of them were connected with loan sharks, a distinct feature of post-colonial Cambodia; others assisted the foreign companies in robbing people off their wealth. Being a strong nationalist, Pol Pot was suspicious of the Vietnamese and Chinese minorities. But what he hated most was acquisitiveness, greed, the desire to own things. St Francis and Leo Tolstoy would have understood him.
The Cambodians I spoke to pooh-poohed the dreadful stories of Communist Holocaust as a western invention. They reminded me of what went on: their brief history of troubles began in 1970, when the Americans chased away their legitimate ruler, Prince Sihanouk, and replaced him with their proxy military dictator Lon Nol. Lon Nol’s middle name was Corruption, and his followers stole everything they could, transferred their ill-gotten gains abroad then moved to the US. On top of this came US bombing raids. The peasants ran to the forest guerrillas of Khmer Rouge, which was led by a few Sorbonne graduates, and eventually succeeded in kicking out Lon Nol and his American supporters.
In 1975, Pol Pot took over the country, devastated by a US bombing campaign of Dresden ferocity, and saved it, they say. Indeed, the US planes (do you remember Ride of the Valkyries in the Apocalypse is Now?) dropped more bombs on this poor country than they had on the Nazi Germany, and spread their mines all over the rest of it. If the Cambodians are pressed to name their great destroyer (and they are not keen about burrowing back into the past), it is Professor Henry Kissinger they name, not Comrade Pol Pot.
Pol Pot and his friends inherited a devastated country. The villages had been depopulated; millions of refugees gathered in the capital to escape American bombs and American mines. Destitute and hungry, they had to be fed. But because of the bombing campaign, nobody planted rice in 1974. Pol Pot commanded everybody away from the city and to the rice paddies, to plant rice. This was a harsh, but a necessary step, and in a year Cambodia had plenty of rice, enough to feed all and even to sell some surplus to buy necessary commodities.
New Cambodia (or Kampuchea, as it was called) under Pol Pot and his comrades was a nightmare for the privileged, for the wealthy and for their retainers; but poor people had enough food and were taught to read and write. As for the mass killings, these are just horror stories, averred my Cambodian interlocutors. Surely the victorious peasants shot marauders and spies, but many more died of American-planted mines and during the subsequent Vietnamese takeover, they said.
In order to listen to the other side, I travelled to the Killing Fields of Choeung Ek, the memorial where the alleged victims were killed and buried. This is a place some 30 km away from Phnom Penh, a neat green park with a small museum, much visited by tourists, the Cambodian Yad va-Shem. A plaque says that the Khmer Rouge guards would bring some 20 to thirty detainees twice or thrice a month, and kill many of them. For three years, it would amount less than two thousand dead, but another plaque said indeed that they dug up about eight thousand bodies. However, another plaque said there was over a million killed. Noam Chomsky assessed that the death toll in Cambodia may have been inflated “by a factor of a thousand.”
There are no photos of the killings; instead, the humble museum holds a couple of naïve paintings showing a big, strong man killing a small, weak one, in a rather traditional style. Other plaques read: “Here the murderous tools were kept, but nothing remains now” and similar inscriptions. To me, this recalled other CIA-sponsored stories of Red atrocities, be it Stalin’s Terror or the Ukrainian Holodomor. The people now in charge of the US, Europe and Russia want to present every alternative to their rule as inept or bloody or both. They especially hate incorruptible leaders, be it Robespierre or Lenin, Stalin or Mao – and Pol Pot. They prefer leaders keen on graft, and eventually install them. The Americans have an additional good reason: Pol Pot killings serve to hide their own atrocities, the millions of Indochinese they napalmed and strafed.
Cambodians do say that many more people were killed by the invading Vietnamese in 1978; while the Vietnamese prefer to shift the guilt to the Khmer Rouge. But the present government does not encourage this or any other digging into the past, and for good reason: practically all important officials above a certain age were members of the Khmer Rouge, and often leading members. Beside, almost all of them collaborated with the Vietnamese. The present PM, Hun Sen, was a Khmer Rouge commander, and later supported the Vietnamese occupation. When the Vietnamese went home, he remained in power.
Prince Sihanouk, who was exiled by the Americans, also supported the Khmer Rouge. He returned home to his neat royal palace and to its adjacent silver temple with Emerald Buddha after departure of the Vietnamese. Unbelievably, he is still alive, though he transferred the crown to his son, a monk who had to leave monastery and assume the throne. So the royal family is not keen on digging up the past, either. Nobody wants to discuss it openly; the official story of Khmer Rouge alleged atrocities is entrenched in Western conscience, though attempts to try the perpetrators bore scant results.
Looking back, it appears that the Khmer Rouge of Pol Pot failed in their foreign policy rather than in their internal one. It is fine that they canceled money, dynamited banks and sent bankers to plant rice. It is fine that they dried up the great blood-sucking leech, the big-city compradors and money-lenders. Their failure was that they did not calculate their position vis-à-vis Vietnam, and tried to push beyond their own weight. Vietnam was very powerful – it had just defeated the US – and would brook no nonsense from their junior brothers in Phnom Penh. The Vietnamese planned to create an Indochinese Federation including Laos and Cambodia under their own leadership. They invaded and overthrew the stubborn Khmer Rouge who were too keen on their independence. They also supported the black legend of genocide to justify their own bloody intervention.
We talk too much about evils committed under futurist regimes, and too little about the evils of the greedy rulers. It is not often we remember Bengal famine, Hiroshima holocaust, Vietnam tragedy, or even Sabra and Shatila. Introduction of capitalism in Russia killed more people than introduction of socialism, but who knows that?
Now we may cautiously reassess the brave attempts to reach for socialism in various countries. They were done under harsh, adverse conditions, under threat of intervention, facing hostile propaganda. But let us remember: if socialism failed, so did capitalism. If communism was accompanied by loss of life, so was and is capitalism. But with capitalism, we have no future worth living, while socialism still offers hope to us and our children.
The supreme illicit fraud of central banking embodied in the Federal Reserve, acts as a private piggybank for favored cartel thieves. The liquidity of unlimited credit transfers to banksters, especially at zero interest, financed by unimaginable new Treasury Bonds, indebting the American public; is a crime committed by outlaws. The significance of the evidence for the extent of the crony financial manipulations, that the controllers of international capital use to maintain their power strangle hold on humanity, needs to be fully exposed. Only when the beleaguered and downtrodden become sufficiently indignant to usury incarceration, will heads start to roll.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders announces on his web site page, The Fed Audit.
“The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. “As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world,” said Sanders. “This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else.”
Yes, you read that correct, 16 TRILLION DOLLARS. When originally disclosed, there was minimal outrage.
The United States Government Accountability Office report on the Federal Reserve Audit on page 203-204 reveals proof positive of the magnitude of the transfer of trillions in bailout credit to the money center international banks.
“The FOMC approved these swap line arrangements to help address challenges in the global market for interbank lending in U.S. dollars. Many foreign banks held U.S. dollar-denominated assets and faced challenges borrowing in dollars to fund these assets. In contrast to U.S. commercial banks, foreign banks did not hold significant U.S. dollar deposits, and as a result, dollar funding strains were particularly acute for many foreign banks. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve Board) staff memos recommending that the FOMC approve swap lines noted that continuing strains in dollar funding markets abroad could further exacerbate strains in U.S. funding markets. For example, foreign banks facing difficulties borrowing against U.S. dollar assets may have faced increased pressure to sell these assets at a time of stress, potentially putting downward pressure on prices for these assets. The dollar swap lines allowed foreign central banks to make dollar loans to banks in their jurisdictions without being forced to draw down dollar holdings of foreign exchange reserves or to acquire dollars directly in the foreign exchange market. An FRBNY staff paper noted that the dollar reserves of many foreign central banks at the start of the crisis were smaller than the amounts they borrowed under the swap lines and that efforts by foreign central banks to buy dollars in the market could have crowded out private transactions, making it more difficult for foreign banks to obtain dollars. This paper further noted that the Federal Reserve System (the Federal Reserve Board and Reserve Banks collectively) was in a unique position to provide dollars needed by foreign central banks to provide lender-of-last-resort liquidity to banks in their jurisdictions. The increase in reserves was offset through sales of Treasury securities and increasing incentives for depository institutions to hold excess reserves at FRBNY.”
The last statement regarding using Treasury securities to increase banking reserves admits that monetizing the balance sheet of the FED, to unheard of levels, continues unabated. The absence of mainstream media reports on this historic, more than doubling, of the officially disclosed debt is beyond belief. Now that the Federal Reserve openly acknowledges that, the privately held banking cabal is buying up Treasury Notes, because the marketplace has refused to accept and buy the excessive float of new Treasury obligations, should be the most sobering consequence of the greatest bubble of all time.
This off the books concealment reporting by the FED illustrates the importance of the audit.
Watch the video, REAL DEBT that provides a short analysis of the Fed audit.
The Wall Street Journal, in The Federal Reserve’s cult of secrecy is unmasked, reveals a disgusting culture of self-aggrandizement.
“The recent audit of the Federal Reserve by the Government Accountability Office is particularly disturbing if read alongside the last report to Congress by the Fed’s Inspector General.
The GAO audit found a huge number of serious conflicts of interest at the Fed. Employees and contractors were allowed to own stock in the companies receiving financial assistance from the central bank.”
The fact that the FED and their enablers in Congress prevented a complete and comprehensive forensic audit of the books of the “Jackals of Jekyll Island” indicates just how much is at stake.
None other than the formidable blog, The Economic Collapse, expresses the sentiment that most of us should share.
“Another mystery that I would like to see addressed is the trillions of dollars of “off balance sheet transactions” that are unaccounted for at the Federal Reserve. This was brought up once during a Congressional hearing, but nobody seemed to have any answers.”
The $9,000,000,000,000 MISSING From The Federal Reserve YouTube captures the absurdity of Congressional oversight. The financial community that created fractional reserve banking is in total control of the political election process. As long as there is no accountability and consequences for outright theft, the money magicians continue to operate their fraudulent scheme of deception as the cornerstone of international economic transactions.
The FED’s grip on the global moneychangers’ racket is based upon maintaining the U.S. Federal Reserve funny money, as the reserve currency for the planet. The value and worth of Treasury Bills and Bonds are on the path to have the value of Reichsbank marks. Recognize the enemy that is destroying the country and world economy.
Now that the Democrat Party convention concluded their class warfare rally, those with saner minds are left with the task of identifying the magnitude of the sociopathic disease that infects the vast mindset of the worship government sect. The rhetoric of the Left has little trouble with identifying the ills of the world, but when the collectivists start to rattle off their measures to make the world safe for democracy, the ugly fascist face of totalitarianism emerges. The bond among statists, span all ideological spectrums. Commies and Nazis share the same gene. In Amerika, that same defiled DNA proliferates in all the half-wits that still believe that government is or can be a force for good. Essentially, the people are a herd of corruption enablers.
Maybe the most ridiculous spin out of the mouths of the entitlement strivers references a CNN report, that a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 0 percent of African American voters intended to support Mitt Romney over President Barack Obama. On face value, this claim is absurd. However, by digging deeper into the attitude that the mainstream media characterizes for the black community, the only conclusion a reasonable person can draw, is that the true racism resides in the controllers of the popular culture and its perverted message.In order to appreciate the linkage between bigotry and subservience, the role of stupidity needs acknowledgment. Multitudes of all races share idiocy, often in the same way, by the institutional levers of control. The inference that any particular people would give consent to a betrayer of individual rights, based upon the shared color of their skin, is an insult to everyone.
The executive order practices of the Obama administration are inherently authoritarian. The coercion used by the State to enforce the power of the ruling elite is integral to the survival of the regime. The ridiculousness that gives fake relief and promises phony rewards, is often called – democracy.
This subject, seldom analyzed in a vacuum, takes on the persona of the ideologue. Richard Lichtman provides one such example, in an essay, Totalitarian Democracy, which cites the work of Sheldon Wolin.
“Since the time of the Civil War and the formation of the American colossus and its dual economy of corporate domination and social remainder, the course of capitalist domination has been set. Whatever further “progressive” change has been achieved has forfeited its full potentiality to the tendencies of an expanding corporate control. In this process, democracy has been more and more corrupted, as Sheldon Wolin notes in “Democracy Inc.: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism,” a work that has been blatantly ignored.
The United States has become the showcase of how democracy can be managed without appearing to be suppressed. This has come about not through a Leader’s imposing his will or the state’s forcibly eliminating opposition, but through certain developments, notably the economy, that promoted integration, rationalization, concentrated wealth, and a faith that virtually any problem from health care to political crises, even faith itself – could be managed, that is, subject to control, predictability, and cost-effectiveness in the delivery of the product. Voters are made as predictable as consumers; a university is nearly as rationalized in its structure as a corporation; a corporate structure is as hierarchical in its chain of command as the military. The regime ideology is capitalism which is virtually as undisputed as Nazi doctrine was in 1930s Germany.”
This topic, examined in more detail in the essay, Inverted Totalitarianism and the Corporate State, is worth a review. Mr. Lichtman being the “Predictable Progressive” concludes his remarks with a stunning attitude that perverts the natural order of the meaning of individual liberty.
“The Tea Party and other such calamitous confusions will eventually come to the sort of end that has destroyed all those who do not understand just who is the master and who the servant. But a great deal of suffering can be visited on the nation while this defeat is being enacted. Now is the time for all of us to engage in the intellectual activity of understanding what forces are in play and the practical task of forcing back and destroying the monstrous army of these protofascist directors and retainers.”
Ivory tower utopians march in the ranks of statist totalitarians by choice. Many seek to lead the charge. The “rank and file” that digs the ditches, usually lacks the skills to think independently for their self. Nonetheless, they are usually the first to rally to the cause of their sanitized Führer that preaches hope and change, with every loss of freedom. No one political theory has a monopoly on despotism. Yet the “peaches and cream” slogans of fairness and equality, that come from the ultra extreme wing of the Democratic Party, out does the worst of the GOP civil libertarian destroyers.
Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest is the end product of the collectivist education system that indoctrinates impressionable brains with reverence for the dependency society. Mush minds come out of this corrosive process. Voting for entitlements and the expansion of the democratic totalitarianism becomes the norm.
The short DNC Video: “The Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To“, is an anti-intellectual message that appeals to government thugs and parasites. The underprivileged are permanent wards of the state. Those that lack self-esteem are usually products of government school pedagogy.
The Democratic Party Platform is just as immaterial as that of the GOP. However, the DemocRATS are more adapt at pushing the most collectivist policies that consistently strip away the last remnants of a constitutional republic. Democracy for the progressive statist translates into direct democracy, because they are the most adamant about open borders.Do not deduce that RepubliCANTS are protectors of traditional values or states rights. The fusion of the despots is systemic because both power structures rely upon a false dialectic, while both just wear different style uniforms.
One of the trademarks of the presidential imposter is viewed in the YouTube, Obamas Domestic Army? Recruiting new legions of mercenaries for domestic social control, from the gangs of idle hoodlums awaiting their “just due”, typifies the abnormal mindset of democratic despotism.Watching the culture of prerogative democratic diatribes, advocating the entitlement society, could never take root unless the peasants were conditioned to demand their total cradle to grave guarantees. The pandering is intolerable. The trade off enslavement that is conditional for receiving benefits goes unnoticed to most of the bottom feeders. What little rationality and critical thinking remaining on the Progressive Left, erodes with every election cycle.
The remorseful lesson that the majority of voters fail to admit is that the election pageant never provides the alternative to rid the country of collectivist politicians. The obvious reason is that the dependent masses crucify any candidate that dares champion the principles of liberty and personal responsibility.
The Democratic Party is especially adept at pimping for the welfare state. The utter failure of the crazy schemes, self-indulgent programs and social benefits, at taxpayers’ expense; has primed the public for surrender. Sacrificing individual dignity is a small price to pay for a place in the government check queue. The dire net results from the “Great Society” are all around us. It resembles the conditions that gave rise to Charlie Chaplin’s, The Great Dictator.Ironically his egalitarian political views, lent criticism that he was a Commie. From Chaplin’s famous speech, his words run amok, when applied to the requirements of the Democratic Totalitarianism that now engulfs every aspect of the Obama version of socialism.
“Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts. You are not machines. You are not cattle. You are men. You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don’t hate – only the unloved hate. Only the unloved and the unnatural. Soldiers – don’t fight for slavery, fight for liberty.”
What kind of conduct should you expect from a Reich that wants to field an AmeriCorps, civilian national security force. This is the Obama standard for pledging your “Good AmeriKan” credentials for a national socialist passport. Have we not learned from the European experience? The oath to the psychopathic beloved leader is creating our own domestic holocaust.
The idolization of Hitler is reminiscent of the flaunting over Barack Hussein Obama in 2008. Today, there are no excuses for not knowing that this demigod is a tyrant or that his plan is to enslave the nation. Pride in America the Stupid is a badge of admission to the Democrats Delusional Worldview. The Democrat convention of 2012 is just as pathetic as that of the GOP. The language and emphasis may seem to differ, but when you strip away all the empty words, you have a phony competition to head up the omnipresent corporate state.The ruling class and the suck-ups that pledge their allegiance to a State adoration, despise the defense of liberty. The metaphysical question of our age is, Why are we here? How will you answer this eternal and political question? It is evident how the useless-idiot will respond.
Liberals are responsible for much of the evil in America. But in their zeal to “Reclaim America for Christ” some well-intentioned pro-family conservatives have been introducing evil into the Church. I’m speaking of the “New Religious Right” (NRR) a term I borrowed from Brannon Howse. Ironically, in order to bring society back to its Judeo-Christian values, groups such as the American Family Association and the Family Research Council have brought out-and-out heretics and cultists out of the darkness into the limelight.
The NRR evolved out of the Religious Right (RR) of days gone by. Howse, who was acquainted with the founders of the movement, has gotten a lot of heat for voicing his concern over some of the people the NRR has chosen to unite with since the passing of the old guard. “I do not believe,” he said, “that many of the now deceased leaders of the religious right from the 1970s and 1980s would agree with the theological and doctrinal compromise of many of the leaders of today’s ‘New Religious Right’.”
The leaders Howse is speaking of are D. James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers and Tim LaHaye. LaHaye, author of the blockbuster Left Behind series, is still very much alive and supports the NRR. It seems he is willing to set aside theological and doctrinal differences to accomplish what he set out to do over 40 years ago. Has Dr. LaHaye forgotten 2 John 9:11?:
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (Bold mine)
I share Brannon Howse’s concern over the NRR. In their zeal to defeat the far-left’s anti-God agenda, they’ve been partnering with those who do not abide in the doctrine of Christ.
The NRR has convinced a large number of evangelicals that if we can just change the system we will be able to influence human behavior and restore some moral sanity to this country. In order to achieve this lofty goal, conservative people of faith must become engaged in the culture war. To this end, casting our vote is of primary importance.
So far so good.
The NRR urges conservatives to become involved in politics at state and local levels; participate in special interest groups; take an interest in government schools and our institutions of higher learning; take part in lawful demonstrations and publicly held events. All of this must take place so that conservatives will play a larger role in influencing public policy.
I have no problem with any of this for the reason that we are told in Psalm 24:1 “The earth is the LORD’S, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.” Thus, “both the state and the church are under God,” says R.C. Sproul, “The state is not sovereign; the state never has the right to do wrong. The state is always under the authority of God. God institutes government, God ordains government, and God will judge government. He holds government and all other institutions in our society responsible for doing what is right.” Later Sproul says, “God tells me as a Christian to pay my bills on time. He tells me not to use false weights and balances in my business. I think that it’s perfectly appropriate to recommend that the state have sound currency and not destroy the weights and balances of our society, to have honorable contracts and to do what is right. In other words, in those spheres of ethics that are right for all people, I believe it is a Christian’s responsibility to remind the state to stand for what is right.” (Source)
In my view, God’s people, including pastors, should speak publicly through whatever means possible — to include the pulpit. One reason for Christians being involved in politics and the culture war is to see that the state does what is right for all people. Another is to help the victims who are being enslaved by government and by wicked people. Michael A. Milton believes that the clergy must speak out because they speak with “biblical authority to other Beast-like powers when there are souls at risk or the honor of Christ and His Church is under siege.” (Source)
WHEN THE DEVIL COMES A KNOCKIN’…
” … I can visualize times when the only way to make plain the seriousness of what is involved in regard to a service or an activity where the gospel is going to be preached is not to accept an official part if men whose doctrine is known to be an enemy are going to be invited to participate officially. In an age of relativity, the practice of truth when it is costly is the only way to cause the world to take seriously our protestations concerning truth.” –Francis A. Schaeffer
To help further their political agenda the NRR has thrust evangelicals into syncretism as we merge with Catholics, Jews, Muslims, New Agers as well as with Social Justice Christians (I’ll cover this in part 3), false teachers, and those who are caught up in cults. So it’s no surprise to see NRR leaders sharing a stage with those in radical fringe groups such as the New Apostolic Reformation(NAR), International House of Prayer and Word-faith/prosperity preachers. The NRR has been warned by discernment ministries and Christian apologists who study the cults, the occult and aberrant movements that these people are teaching rank heresy. For instance, the aforementioned groups hold to “positive confession,” a belief that is firmly rooted in the metaphysical cults. In spite of what the Bible says in I Corinthians 10:20-21, NRR leaders have no problem uniting with modern day “apostles” and “prophets” who are in high positions in the NAR and with New Age Mormon Glenn Beck as they attempt to save America from the ravages of liberalism. Which begs the question: Why is the NRR not making every effort to save the Church from liberals, false teachers, New Agers, and the cults?
Instead of doing what is right in God’s eyes, the NRR has helped a host of heretics and cultists gain credibility not only with evangelicals but with Catholics, the conservative media, politicians, entertainers and the Tea Party. Partnering with the wicked is unacceptable for the reasons that: (1) God opposes the wicked; (2) The wicked should not be given a platform — especially when professing Christians provide that platform!
“Knowingly or unknowingly,” says Brannon Howse, “the New Religious Right is being used as “useful idiots” by which to implement the goals of the progressives. Please understand, I am not calling anyone a name. This is a historical term used to describe people that are knowingly or unknowingly used by socialists. (Source)
Therein lies the problem.
To “bring America back to God” the NRR has embraced the technique of pragmatism or “whatever works.”
“Some in the religious right,” says Phil Johnson, “seem to think the primary duty of the church in secular society is political lobbying. Evangelical politicians have displayed a frightening willingness to compromise spiritual principles, forge partnerships with unbelievers, and shift the focus of their message away from the gospel in favor of more broadly-appealing moral and political themes. Some seem willing to take whatever pragmatic means are necessary in order to influence the vote—as if the advancement of Christ’s kingdom depended on the American electoral process.” (Source)
THE CHRISTIAN WORLD, THE MEGA-CHURCH, AND THE DEVIL
Pragmatism is also popular among pastors. Blogger Tim Challies warned that pragmatism “has reared its ugly head throughout the Christian world. It is found in statements about evangelistic techniques such as “if it only reaches one person it is worth it.” It is found in Rick Warren’s book The Purpose Driven Church, a textbook for church growth, where he writes “Never criticize any method that God is blessing.” He also says “We must be willing to adjust our worship practices when unbelievers are present. God tells us to be sensitive to the hang-ups of unbelievers in our services.” These ideas are not Biblical; they are rooted in the perceived consequences. Pragmatism is found wherever Christians run to join programs and hurry to change their worship services because of what they expect to see happen because of the changes they make. In short, it is found anywhere the emphasis is removed from what Scripture says and where the emphasis is placed on the expected results.” (Source)
In Part 1, I suggested ways in which evangelicals can offer a way back to a time when Americans knew the difference between right and wrong, before our beloved country started down the road to socialism, before she took a nose dive into moral depravity. The number one most important thing for the committed Christian to do is to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with the lost. (Rom 1:15-7) People are not going to change unless hearts and minds are changed. We love and forgive because we have been loved greatly and forgiven much.
Someone’s values are going to prevail in America. Will it be godless secular humanist/moral relativistic values of the Left we’re seeing today? Or the solid biblical values of yesteryear?
Presently, liberals are winning the culture war – and if they’re winning, conservatives are losing. Liberals are winning through the courts, when liberal judges rule in their favor; through elected officials who pass laws that line up with the Left’s agenda for society; and through bullying and fear mongering. And as I pointed out in Part 1, the liberal agenda has the full support of the entertainment industry as well as the mainstream media. They’re also winning because very few believers even know what a biblical worldview looks like anymore. Sadly, the visible Church has adopted an unbiblical worldview.
How could this happen?
My finger is pointed directly at Church leadership for the reason that many of them have failed to equip the Body of Christ with a decidedly Christian worldview. But what’s even worse is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is rarely preached in churches. In our postmodern world many so-called ministers of God are hip, cool people pleasers, preferring to preach a culturally “relevant” sermon that makes the audience feel good about God – and themselves.
Tim Challies made the point that instead of sticking to biblical orthodoxy, church leadership has adopted pragmatic methods to appeal to the consumer. Their main aim is to grow their church but in order to accomplish this, pastors must sell the benefits of Christianity to the consumer. So they have to come up with ways to entice “unchurched (unsaved) Harry and Mary” onto the church campus. They hope that once Harry and Mary are inside the auditorium they’ll realize all the “fun” things the church has to offer. Things like espresso bars…live bands that play contemporary worship music loud enough to blow the doors off the hinges…praise band singers whose voices could rival any America Idol winner…drama sketches with stage lighting and props – and I’ve just scratched the surface! Harry and Mary love the trendy church. Moreover, they love their non-judgmental pastor who sincerely believes his (or her) “calling” is to take care of people’s feelings.
In his piece, The Market-Driven Church, Gary Gilley underscores that, “fun has replaced holiness as the church’s goal. Having a good time has become the criterion of an excellent, growing church, since fun and entertainment is what church consumers want. Yet Scripture references encouraging churches to become havens of fun are, as one may suspect, sadly lacking.” (Source)
Pragmatism ushered in the church growth “Purpose-Driven” movement. Adopting a marketing strategy to grow the church has been hugely successful! As a result many churches are well attended. Problem is, pseudo Christians are the ones filling the pews…oops! Auditoriums.
Paul’s dire warning to Church leaders has fallen on deaf ears:
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous [vicious] wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. (Acts 20:28-31)
Part 1… part 3 coming soon!
No compromise ever, episode 1—Mike Abendroth’s discussion with James White, Carl Trueman and Phil Johnson on the Elephant Room 2 controversy
Worldview Weekend Training—Brannon Howse
Liberals changing word meanings with intent to deceive—By Marsha West
The Consumer-Driven Church—By Matt Slick
“Judaism pays elaborate lip-service to the Bible (Tanakh), yet, in truth, the Bible is not a factor in the rise, formation, progress, and emendation of Rabbinic law, except as a prestigious cover and front for what are, in fact, entirely man-make enactments, figments of the rabbinic imagination and extensive revivals of pagan anachronism.” Michael Hoffman, “Judaism’s Strange Gods Pg. 72
“Our youth have “Bats in the Belfry” because Jews put them there. We are at war and we have a police state and our prisons are full of people wrecked by drugs, pornography, economic privation, crazy-maker sugar/fat/additives diet, alcohol, elevating sexual perversion to a political interest group, why everywhere assaulting the values and religious faith necessary for an economy to thrive with strong middle classes and no lower class that is not full of opportunity and means to self-improvement (for example, most people are landless while the country is mostly empty land that the elites have closed to development). The monopoly of real property reinforces in a symbiosis the monopoly of lending and of new money creation by Jews. The state of our morals, laws, politics all stem from this monster of Jewish control. And this monster uses false flag attacks — at the world trade center or at a Batman movie – to move people with fear to give up more and more of those things Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Patrick Henry and others told us to hold on to as the safeguard of our freedom.” Dick Eastman (Internet post)
“For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. (Matthew 23:4) Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abe, to the blood of Zachariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. (Matthew 23:34-35) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! For I say to you, from now on you shall not see Me until you say, Blessed is He Who comes in the Name of the Lord!” (Matthew 23:37-39) The Words of the Savior, Jesus, The Christ.
Quiet acquiescence to the destruction of our nominal United States Christian society by Talmudist Judaism is a mysterious and enduring anomaly. Judaism is generally thought to be a Biblical, Old Testament religion. However, according to a new book “Judaism’s Strange Gods” by Michael Hoffman, the Torah is insignificant in the thoughts and considerations of most Jewish Rabbis. The Torah is the truncated Word of God while the Talmud is a compilation of the historic thoughts of Jewish Rabbis; a collection of humanist books being used as the foundation of a religion. It is an arrogant, racist, Law defying, screed compiled by Jewish scholars who have never repented from the judgment God brought on ancient Israel for rejecting His Savior.
Hoffman offers an in depth analysis of the religion of Judaism with its surreptitious emphasis on the Talmud and the words of Rabbis who study and comment on its contents. Jewish actions throughout the world reveal an extensive use of Talmudic principles; principles that have grievously affected American society. The imprisonment of Palestinians and the incremental theft of their land is legally permissible under Judaism. Stealth is commonly used to deceive Gentiles (Goyum); who are not considered human and can be deceived, stolen from, enslaved, and in certain instances murdered. The Talmud forbids the worship of Jesus and condones the death of Christians.
Creating conflict and division is useful in weakening and enslaving a nation. Judiacs are and have been busy creating divisions in the United States for decades. Black/ White relations are worse today than they were fifty years ago. Multiculturalism has created language barriers as well as social and religious divisions. Unlimited immigration has destroyed the culture and demeaned the benefits created by our ancestors by throwing them away to foreigners who take our money but not our culture. Feminism and the blatant promotion of fornication, adultery and homosexuality have destroyed the basic family unit and debased morality here and abroad.
The Trayvon Martin case is an excellent example of Talmudic principles being used to create potential violence. George Zimmerman who had not criminal record was attempting to protect an apartment complex from a rash of robberies committed by Black youth when Trayvon Martin, a Black teen with marijuana in his system and previous brushes with the law, ambled into the area. Martin was shot and Zimmerman had bloody wounds to show why. The Sanford police believed Zimmerman and released him under a Florida Stand your Ground Statute. The media immediately began showing pictures of a young, innocent looking Martin beside an ugly looking Zimmerman while emphasizing the fact the Martin was “unarmed”. This mobilized the Jewish supported Black juggernaut and created dangerous, emotional Black sympathy for Trayvon Martin. Fear of Black violence resulted in the removal of the Sanford police chief and the unwarranted arrest of Zimmerman.
Zimmerman and his wife are now entangled in a dangerous legal mess that may destroy their lives and add them to the plethora of innocents that are already imprisoned. The case will further divide Whites and Blacks and in the unlikely event that justice prevails and Zimmerman is released, Blacks may riot; if not, the Zimmermans, whose record was clean and whose actions were justifiable, will suffer an inexcusable injustice.
Kindness is not the motivation for Jewish creation and support of the Black agenda. Blacks are being used as a tool to disrupt society. They are being used to create angry separation and hate with riots like those in Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992. As James Jaeger points out in this excellent article on Cultural Marxism, it is not love for Homosexuals that causes the promotion of their agenda but, as with Blacks, a desire to disrupt the culture. Divisive emotional issues are cleverly exploited to create serious conflict.
There is a startling resemblance between the Third Reich of Hitler’s Germany and Talmudic Judaism: Racial superiority is common to both; both capture and dominated; both emphasize intellect excellence, both are deceitful and ruthlessly ambitious.
In a sense, the Holocaust was a religious war that set the stage for the rise of the Judiac. It was a Trojan Horse that created sympathy for a dangerous enemy of the Christian West an enemy that has now successfully captured most of its strongholds. Sympathy derived from the Holocaust is still a prominent reason for support of Judaism in spite of the fact that the sympathy seekers are among the world’s most wealthy and powerful.
Jewish ownership of the American press and media has resulted in censored, biased, and manipulated news coverage that has not only failed to report the breadth of the news but has purposely distorted the stories it covers. United States has been gutted; its industry has been stolen and its citizens have been robbed of their wealth because the people were not properly informed. As prison camps are constructed and plans are made to use the army to control the civilian population the press and media remain silent.
Centralized power is a prime objective for Godless Jews. They created the Revolution in Russian and were leaders in murdering millions of its citizens. In America they act as a Fifth Column for the new world order keeping the public ignorant of impending dangers.
There are interesting parallels between the Trayvon Martin case and the creation of neo-Israel. Both used a powerful latent emotion to create a scenario that demanded gross injustice. Both created a situation that cannot be equitably resolved. War and strife have constantly plagued neo-Israel since its inception and Black/White rancor will be a result of the Martin case regardless of the verdict.
Ariel Sharon was quoted as saying that Jews control America. If he said this, he was correct, they do! The tail is wagging the dog. Less than three percent of the population of the United States is controlling the remaining 97 percent. Talmudic Jews own the media which controls politics. They use that power to promote their own agenda through propaganda and control of coverage. If President Barak Obama had been properly covered before the 2008 election he would never have been elected. Congressmen and Senators consistently vote for pro-Israeli legislation because if they fail to do so the media will soon return them to civilian life.
Neo-Cons have infiltrated our government and become media spokespersons for wars that benefit Israel at American expense. Our money has been under Judiac control since the Federal Reserve Act was passed by congress in the early Twentieth Century. Control of interest rates and the money supply has allowed our wealth to be siphoned off by low interest rates, manipulated markets, and inflation.
Ninety nine percent of our citizens do not have a clue. We are in the midst of a religious war between Christianity and Judaism. Islam is a foreign religion but it is weak compared to the prevailing evil power of Talmudic Judaism. Vulnerable Christians have been deceived into supporting this wicked agenda; the same agenda that the Savior vehemently condemned.
Being constantly reminded that Israel is our only ally in the Middle East we forget that before the creation of neo-Israel we had no enemies in the Middle East.
Christians are guilty of the same dishonesty that afflicts our press and media, they fail to provide a full report on the evils in our society. The War on Christianity, abortion, homosexuality, unrestricted immigration, multiculturalism, war for the State of Israel, socialism, torture, worldwide control of currencies, restrictions on freedom of speech, and the centralization of power, all of these and more have Talmudic Jewish roots.
For decades D. James Kennedy railed against the ACLU for its role in removing Christianity from the public square. Stalwart soldier that he was, he never mentioned that the ACLU could not exist without support from powerful Jews.
Wake up America, the enemy is in your church, school, television, government, armed forces, bedroom, the wombs of your pregnant women, the nationality of your population, the sexual orientation of your children, and the civility of your culture!
“Orthodox Judaism is a religion of lies, a tangled web of deceit compounded by duplicity and wrapped in guile. We will never restore America’s Christian roots, its Constitution or its Republic as long as Judaism can masquerade as a family values partner with patriots against the forces of evil. Judaism is a religion founded upon the defiance and nullification of God’s law.” Michael Hoffman “Judaism’s Strange Gods” Pg. 208
Chicago’s claim of infamy – their gangster culture – deeply embedded in their political style of ruthlessness is exemplified in Barack Obama. Violence, lies, sleaze, extortion and intimidation are the tools of the trade. Politics may appear to be more benign than the Valentine Massacre to the unsophisticated, but the reality is that the government arena is far more corrupt then any of the most egregious deeds of the Chicago Outfit. Brush up on your current events and Chicago history. The laundry list of crooked Ward and Aldermen fit the soldier model of the crime family. The latest Godfather, Rahm Emmanuel is the “Greasy Thumb” Guzik bagman for the Obama syndicate.
Denying the perverse nature of the Obama administration requires a total disconnect from facts and veracity. Yet if one places any credence in political polls, Barry Soetoro may well be voted into office for a second term. Explaining this possibility says more about the dependency culture than about old time morals and values of an independent nation.
Bring back to life, the reliable Cook County voting deceased block, on a national level is a very real prospect, when the gangster machine applies their strong-arm techniques to the ballot box. Not to place much reliance in the electoral process, which is controlled by two branches of the same establishment, the overt fixing of the presidential cycle by the lackeys in the mainstream media is reminiscent of the press coverage given to the Al Capone free soup kitchens.
The Democrat/Republican dialectic political party racket has proven that voters rarely if ever have a true choice on Election Day. The result of this travesty is that successive administrations become engrained in the art of expanding their outlaw enterprises. The crop of Obama confederates includes some well-known names. Obama’s cadre of advisers provides some individual rap sheets on Valerie Jarrett, Cass Sunstein, Van Jones, David Axelrod, David Wilhelm, William Daley, Marty Nesbitt and Austan Goolsbee. The protection assigned to such offenders of the rule of law, demonstrates that they are part of the real untouchables.When government incorporates and perfects an underworld culture and consorts with such infamous associates as Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich, you get the Chicago style dish of political indigestion.
Katie Pavlich writes in Town Hall, Exposing Obama’s Criminal Friends:
“Team Obama has a habit of getting their money from people accused of fraud. Corzine is one, Shervin Neman is another. Neman has visited the White House at least 8 times.
Another Obama bundler, Abake Assongba, is accused of defrauding a businessman out of $657,000. At this point, Assongba has raked in $50,000 for Obama’s re-election campaign.”
Stalin’s Henchmen and key characters at the Court of the Red Tsar – Mikoyan, Kaganovich, Kirov, Yagoda, Molotov, Voroshilov, Sergo – shares the same traits of the enablers of the Soviet despotic regime with the Chicago mobsters. While in some circles, it is not popular to make such comparisons, the actual pattern of deceit and authoritarian brute force is consistent with their methods. The “Reds” loved to paint the American form of governance as a gangster government. Such claims condemned as blatant propaganda, seldom gained traction in the public consciousness. However, upon a detailed examination, the linkage of the “communist cousins” reveals a common birth.It is crucial to discard the canard that totalitarian governments are different because of an appearance of dissimilar rhetoric. Obama is an avowed Marxist, not only in class warfare, but especially in his seizure of the reins of undemocratic power by his actions. The inescapable abuse of executive privilege, favored exemptions and selective application of public policy, demonstrates his affinity with the teachings of his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.
Niall Kilkenny makes the astounding claim that Davis was not all he seemed to be.
“Sometime between 1927 and 1948, Frank Marshall Davis was recruited as a special agent or informer for the FBI—Federal Bureau of Inquisition. As a newspaperman, Davis had the perfect opportunity to know what was happening in Chicago. As a left wing or “Communist” sympathizer, no one would suspect him of association with the ultra right wing FBI.”
The Telegraph reports in, Frank Marshall Davis, alleged Communist, was early influence on Barack Obama.
“Although identified only as Frank in Mr Obama’s memoir Dreams from My Father, it has now been established that he was Frank Marshall Davis, a radical activist and journalist who had been suspected of being a member of the Communist Party in the 1950s.”
How could such a dramatic seemingly contradiction be reconciled? Dreams from My Real Fatherprovides the following viewpoint.
“The FBI had Davis under investigation or surveillance for 19 years, compiling a 600-page FBI file. He was on the FBI’s ‘Security Index A’, meaning he would be arrested in the event of national emergency.
Frank Marshall Davis joined the Communist Party and began writing for The Chicago Star. He was a colleague of journalist Vernon Jarrett, father-in-law of Obama confidant Valerie Jarrett.
CPUSA assigned Frank Marshall Davis to Honolulu where he began writing for the Communist Newspaper, the Honolulu Record in 1948. In his columns, Davis flawlessly mirrored official Soviet propaganda – he blamed American capitalism for starting World War II, denounced the Marshall Plan, preached wealth redistribution, nationalization of industry and government healthcare, while bashing Wall Street. Davis also helped organize the Communist controlled ILWU (union) in a failed effort to take over the Hawaiian government in 1949. The Hawaii NAACP chapter complained to its national office, “Comrade Frank Marshall Davis suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership with the purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.” In 1956, Davis was subpoenaed by the Senate Subcommittee on Un-American Activities and pleaded the fifth.”
The point of Davis’ relationship with the FBI clouds the emphatic influence he had on the political leanings of the future POTUS. Obama has all the signs of being the “Manchurian Candidate” for the ultimate manipulators of the phony Hegelian differences that are at odds between the Communism and Capitalism systems. The literal reality is that both models have become puppets and are under the control of the globalist banksters. This certainty eludes most observers of the power politics charade.
The tyrannical practices of gangsters are common across the planet. The only difference is that the flair of repression shown in the “Windy City” is excused as being home- grown by the guardians of the establishment Wall Street oligarchy. The domestic pressitute media makes Pravda look like the bastion of investigative reporting.
Obama remains unfailing to his African roots. He operates under the Charles Taylor warlord manikin. He seeks to mirror the iron fist rule of Sekou Toure and employs the same oppressive tactics asMobutu Sese Seko. His goal is to turn Amerika into a Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe paradise.Marxists; whether African, Soviet, European or American spawn, all share the same fascist distain for their own citizens. The soaring platitudes of comrade ideology coupled with the brutal coercion of compliance, causes vast worldwide suffering. The Obama version of socialism is nothing but a diversion from the true objective, a complete integration into a global gulag.
The collectivists are essentially gangsters. The “Community Organizer” is fundamentally a tyrant. His mobster origins are on display with every unconstitutional action he takes. He is turning the land of the free into the territory of the damned. With all the ranting and phony rage against the rich, he continues to take his marching orders from the Wall Street crime syndicate commission. Much of the muscle utilized by the titans of finance, comes from the LaSalle branch; namely, the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT).
The American public is so deceived into accepting that State/Capitalism is equivalent with free enterprise that they falsely defend the crimes of international finance. Without intense outrage against the diabolical alliance of the street thugs and the suite robbers, the fate of the country will succumb to the demands of “boss politics”.
Remember that Chicago and Illinois are terminally broke. The kickbacks and bribes paid to grease the palms of the politicos is a framework that will be implemented with even greater intensity in a second Obama administration. Do not hold your breath for a modern day Elliot Ness to bring the bad guys to justice. The courts are all fixed, in the fine tradition of “Beirut by the Lake”. Chi-Town values now apply to the entire political process.
The frustration of voting public must galvanize into a national movement to restore self-respect. The bully campaign that the Obama surrogates spew is only topped with the congenial lies out of the mouth of the arrogant “tinhorn” dictator. Apologies to the “chairman of the board”, Sinatra – sing a different tune.
This is my kind of town, Chicago is
My kind of town, Chicago is
My kind of people, too
Even your “Second City” mob cronies have to have second thoughts about Barack Obama.
It is an absolute fact that no matter which of the two major parties in Washington, D.C., is in power, the freedoms and liberties of the American people continue to be eroded. However, this does NOT mean that there are not basic differences between the two parties. The two parties differ greatly on HOW government will take our liberties. Where they are similar is in the fact that neither of them has any interest in preserving liberty. Until the American people awaken to this reality, whatever freedoms we have left in this country are doomed.
Let me ask you a question: does it really matter whether a free man is enslaved by a socialist state or a fascist state? Are the prisons any more accommodating? Are the lashes from the whip any less painful? Is the agony of losing a loved one any less grievous? Is the persecution any less revolting? What difference does it make to a free man if his liberties are stolen by an Adolf Hitler or by a Joseph Stalin?
Do you want a quick reference to the difference between how the Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C., are stealing our liberties? When the Democrats control things, America gets more socialism; when the Republicans control things, America gets more corporatism, which is a polite word for fascism. Socialism requires government to own everything, while fascism requires government to control everything. And remember, too, fascists and socialists have always hated each other. Big deal! Fascists and socialists alike hate freedomists, which is why inside-the-beltway Repubs and Dems can’t stand people like Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and yours truly. (Remember the MIAC report identifying the three of us, and our supporters, as being potential “dangerous militia” members?) So who cares which of these two parties happens to be in power? Our freedoms continue to be under siege. That’s why the battle in Washington politics has nothing to do with preserving freedom, but everything to do with HOW government will take freedom. Will they take it by ownership or by control? And, unfortunately, what we have right now is the worst of both worlds: government is using a combination of both ownership and control to steal our liberties. Why? Because except for a very precious few elected civil magistrates (like Congressman Ron Paul), there is no one on Capitol Hill or the White House who remotely understands–or fights for–the principles of liberty.
Even worse is that when the Donkeys and the Elephants do agree, it almost always is in an effort to point the bayonets at the American citizenry. What does it matter whether government owns it or controls it? What does it matter whether it more resembles socialism of corporatism? What it doesn’t look anything like, is FREEDOM!
Take the Democrat/Republican debate over Obamacare. Even if Mitt Romney and the GOP prevail in the November elections, Obamacare will be replaced with Romneycare. And Romneycare will be 85% Obamacare, with a slight shift toward government control and a slight shift away from government ownership. Again, I say, BIG DEAL! What neither party is talking about is that the federal government has no business being in health care. Period! Just like the federal government has no business being in over 90% of everything it is involved in today. But who do you hear saying that in Washington, D.C., except Ron Paul?
Take the issue of the burgeoning surveillance society. What does it matter which major party is in power in Washington, D.C.? The TSA gets more and more obnoxiously tyrannical; abuses of civil liberties under the guise of fighting a “war on drugs” continues unabated; abuses of the Bill of Rights under the guise of fighting a “war on terror” continues unabated; the federal police state continues to grow exponentially; unconstitutional foreign entanglements continue to proliferate; ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
In a book that I have recommended numerous times, “Hitler’s Cross,” Erwin Lutzer writes on page 72, “Through surveillance, wiretaps, spying, and rewarding those who betrayed their friends, Hitler tried to control the citizens of Germany.” On page 73, Lutzer continues the thought saying, “But Hitler did not have the technology to bring every subject of his realm into line.” So, given the technology that is available today, what would Hitler do differently if he were running things in Washington, D.C.? I ask readers to think seriously about that question. What would Hitler do differently?
Today, the federal government monitors virtually every piece of electronic communication. The federal government monitors virtually every major banking transaction. It has spies infiltrated in even harmless organizations all over the country. It threatens people with the loss of their jobs or freedom (or both) to betray their friends. It spies on us with satellites; it spies on us with drones. On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed an Executive Order authorizing the federal government to take control of America’s entire communications industry. In 2006, under President George W. Bush, the US military began planning armed confrontation against the American citizenry. (I have the document in my possession.) And, of course, we must not overlook the Patriot Act which has been authorized and reauthorized under both Republicans and Democrats; the Military Commission Act which was signed by G.W. Bush; NDAA 2012 and 2013 which was signed by President Barack Obama, and which was passed by both Republicans and Democrats. And let’s not forget the federal attack against the Branch Davidians under Democrats Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, and the assault against the Randy Weaver household under Republican President George Herbert Walker Bush.
So, again, pick your poison. Both the socialist-leaning Democrats and the corporatist-leaning Republicans in Washington, D.C., meet together in pointing the bayonet against the American citizenry. And you really wonder why nothing significant changes in this country?
And in this regard, the platforms of the two major parties are completely meaningless! I dare say that Barack Obama has never read the Democrat platform and doesn’t care one iota what it says. I also guarantee you that Mitt Romney hasn’t read the Republican platform and doesn’t care one iota what it says either. Can anyone remember when Republican Presidential candidate, Bob Dole, in a rare moment of candor, publicly admitted that he had not read his party’s platform and didn’t care what it said? Party platforms are for the benefit of rank and file party members to make them feel like their ideas count for something to the party leadership. They don’t!
So, do the Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C., differ? Yes! They differ on how our freedoms will be taken from us. They differ on the degree of government ownership and control. They differ on the nuances of political tyranny. Where they are twins is in their lust and ambition for power, in their approval of stripping more and more freedoms from the American people, and in their absolute and total disregard for constitutional government.
Without some sort of “Great Awakening” both politically and spiritually, whatever is left of our liberties is doomed–and both major parties in Washington, D.C., are equally culpable.
The recent coup against Paraguay’s democratically elected president is not only a blow to democracy, but an attack against the working and poor population that supported and elected President Fernando Lugo, whom they see as a bulwark against the wealthy elite who’ve dominated the country for decades.
The U.S. mainstream media and politicians are not calling the events in Paraguay a coup, since the president is being “legally impeached” by the elite-dominated Paraguayan Congress. But as economist Mark Weisbrot explains in the Guardian:
“The Congress of Paraguay is trying to oust the president, Fernando Lugo, by means of an impeachment proceeding for which he was given less than 24 hours to prepare and only two hours to present a defense. It appears that a decision to convict him has already been written…The main trigger for the impeachment is an armed clash between peasants fighting for land rights with police…But this violent confrontation is merely a pretext, as it is clear that the president had no responsibility for what happened. Nor have Lugo’s opponents presented any evidence for their charges in today’s ‘trial.’ President Lugo proposed an investigation into the incident; the opposition was not interested, preferring their rigged judicial proceedings.”
What was the real reason the right-wing Paraguay Senate wanted to expel their democratically elected president? Another article by the Guardian makes this clear:
“The president was also tried on four other charges: that he improperly allowed leftist parties to hold a political meeting in an army base in 2009; that he allowed about 3,000 squatters [landless peasants] to illegally invade a large Brazilian-owned soybean farm; that his government failed to capture members of a [leftist] guerrilla group, the Paraguayan People’s Army… and that he signed an international [leftist] protocol without properly submitting it to congress for approval.”
The article adds that the president’s former political allies were “…upset after he gave a majority of cabinet ministry posts to leftist allies, and handed a minority to the moderates…The political split had become sharply clear as Lugo publicly acknowledged recently that he would support leftist candidates in future elections.”
It’s obvious that the President’s real crimes are that he chose to ally himself more closely with Paraguay’s left, which in reality means the working and poor masses of the country, who, like other Latin American countries, choose socialism as their form of political expression.
Although Paraguay’s elite lost control of the presidency when Lugo was elected, they used their stranglehold over the Senate to reverse the gains made by Paraguay’s poor. This is similar to the situation in Egypt: when the old regime of the wealthy elite lost their president/dictator, they used their control of the judiciary in an attempt to reverse the gains of the revolution.
Is it fair to blame the Obama administration for the recent coup in Paraguay? Yes, but it takes an introductory lesson on U.S. – Latin American relations to understand why. Paraguay’s right wing – a tiny wealthy elite – has a long-standing relationship with the United States, which has backed dictatorships for decades in the country – a common pattern in most Latin American countries.
The United States promotes the interests of the wealthy of these mostly-poor countries, and in turn, these elite-run countries are obedient to the pro-corporate foreign policy of the United States (The Open Veins of Latin America is an excellent book that outlines the history).
Paraguay’s elite is incapable of acting so boldly without first consulting the United States, since neighboring countries are overwhelmingly hostile to such an act because they fear a U.S.-backed coup in their own countries.
Paraguay’s elite has only the military for internal support, which for decades has been funded and trained by the United States. President Lugo did not fully sever the U.S. military’s links to his country. According to Wikipedia, ”The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) provides technical assistance and training to help modernize and professionalize the [Paraguay]military…”
In short, it is not remotely possible for Paraguay’s elite to act without assurance from the United States that it would continue to receive U.S. political and financial support; the elite now needs a steady flow of guns and tanks to defend itself from the poor of Paraguay.
The Latin American countries surrounding Paraguay denounced the events as they unfolded and made an emergency trip to the country in an attempt to stop them. What was the Obama administration’s response? Business Week explains:
“As Paraguay’s Senate conducted the impeachment trial, the U.S. State Department had said that it was watching the situation closely.”
“We understand that Paraguay’s Senate has voted to impeach President Lugo,” said Darla Jordan, a spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs…“We urge all Paraguayans to act peacefully, with calm and responsibility, in the spirit of Paraguay’s democratic principles.”
Obama might as well have said: “We support the right-wing coup against the elected president of Paraguay.” Watching a crime against democracy happen – even if it is “watched closely” – and failing to denounce it makes one complicit in the act. The State Department’s carefully crafted words are meant to give implicit support to the new illegal regime in Paraguay.
Obama acted as he did because Lugo turned left, away from corporate interests, towards Paraguay’s poor. Lugo had also more closely aligned himself with regional governments which had worked towards economic independence from the United States. Most importantly perhaps is that, in 2009, President Lugo forbid the building of a planned U.S. military base in Paraguay.
What was the response of Paraguay’s working and poor people to their new dictatorship? They amassed outside of the Congress and were attacked by riot police and water cannons. It is unlikely that they will sit on their hands during this episode, since President Lugo had raised their hopes of having a more humane existence.
President Lugo has unfortunately given his opponents an advantage by accepting the rulings that he himself called a coup, allowing himself to be replaced by a Senate-appointed president. But Paraguay’s working and poor people will act with more boldness, in line with the social movements across Latin America that have struck heavy blows against the power of their wealthy elite.
President Obama’s devious actions towards Paraguay reaffirm which side of the wealth divide he stands on. His first coup in Honduras sparked the outrage of the entire hemisphere; this one will confirm to Latin Americans that neither Republicans nor Democrats care anything about democracy.
[Review of Revolution from above, Manufacturing Dissent in the New World Order, by Kerry Bolton, 250 pages. Arktos 2011, UK]
The Left – including Communist Left – is manipulated by the super-rich for their own interests. These super-rich conspire to destroy tradition and create a collectivist world order of despotism under their own guidance, and the Left are “useful idiots” of these greedy for power and money people. This is main thesis of a new book by Kerry Bolton published by the traditionalist publisher Arktos (they also published Evola and de Benoist). Bolton produces numbers and bank accounts (well, almost) trying to prove that feminism, communism, orange revolutions, gay movement and sundry forms of dissent are all sponsored by the oligarchs, Soros or Rockefeller.
This is the stuff the Protocols were made of: their authors claimed the Left, revolutionaries and dissidents are on the payroll of the bankers. However, the Protocols marked the Jews as the ultimate plotters and the Church as the victim or the last defence. Not so in our case. Bolton thoroughly secularised and sanitised his discourse. This book has no references to Jews or the Church (which is suspicious for a theologian the author is), but it basically remained the same old-fashioned rightist screed. Without the spiritual dimension, it is just more boring.
Some of Bolton’s charges are justified up to a point, but his bias undermines his veracity. Granted, the Left’s war on Family, Church and Tradition could contribute to success of the Moneyed Ones. But what about the Right? The capitalist Right destroys the essence of Family, Church and Tradition, while upholding their names. The Left has a fling with Mammon now and then, but the Right is always in bed with Mammon. The wealthy guys spend some small change on the leftist dissidents, because they want to tame them, like one throws morsels to stray dogs to keep them on friendly foot (or paw). The leftists often deserve rebuke, I agree, but the rightists are even worse.
A Traditionalist should not make this mistake. I have a soft spot towards the Traditionalists and Radical Conservatives, followers of Guenon, Evola or Dugin. They are anti-Mammon. They are so far-right, that far-left can befriend them. They lost their battle in nineteen thirties, but regained some ground since then. Usually their political views are sound, whatever one thinks of their visions. Alain de Benoist’s recent maxim would endear this right-winger to any true Leftist: “The main enemy is, on the economic level, capitalism and the market society; on the philosophical level, individualism; on the political front, universalism; on the social front, the bourgeoisie; and on the geopolitical front, America.”
Bolton apparently is not aware that the world changed since 1870 or even 1903. Then one could say that “socialism was used as the battering ram by the new-rich to undermine the old ruling class… and [to install] worship of Mammon as the meaning of life”. Now, we have only Mammonites as the ruling class, and it is not fair to attack leftist dissidents for doing dirty jobs for the Mammonites, while giving a clean bill of health to the rightists who are the Mammonites.
Bolton’s attack on Marxism suffers the same deficiency. He notes that “both Big Business and Marxism view history as dialectical”, and for this reason capitalists support socialist movements. There is a better explanation: history, or rather historical process is objectively dialectical, and capitalists spend money on some socialist activists because they want to subvert and control this dangerous movement.
He impossibly claims that “Marxists believe that socialism cannot emerge in a peasant society”. Indeed some Marxists had this view, but that was before Lenin, Mao, Castro who are as much Marxists as anybody. Bolton remains stuck in the beginning of twentieth century. He approvingly quotes Spengler who said that “all radical parties necessarily become the tools of the Bourse… They attack Tradition on behalf of the Bourse”. Spengler wrote these lines before the Russian revolution which definitely attacked and destroyed the money power, but Bolton repeats that now.
Indeed some radicals could be used as tools by Money, but others, chiefly communists, uprooted the Bourse altogether. So much for the Bolton-Spengler contention that “there is no Communist movement that has not operated in the interests of money”. It has now the same validity as Columbus assertion that Cuba is a part of India.
Bolton dislikes Plato for he was a collectivist and believed in some gender equality. This is a view of pro-market liberals who tell us that Plato is the father of totalitarianism. Thus Bolton fails two of de Benoist criteria at once.
Probably the most misleading and annoying part of Bolton’s book is one dealing with the Bolsheviks and the Russian revolution. Perhaps he copy-pasted it from a 1920s publication. Bolsheviks were set up by New York bankers who welcomed the Russian revolution, according to Bolton. He quotes a congratulatory letter of Jacob Schiff, the banker, to the NY Times dated March 18, 1917 sharing “joy that the Russians have at last effected their deliverance from autocratic oppression through almost bloodless revolution”.
Bolton is not even aware of the profound difference between the February revolution 1917 (arranged by the Russian wealthy freemasons) which was applauded and hailed by the Western financiers, and the October Bolshevik revolution that undid the February plot. He is not aware of Arnold Toynbee’s assessment of Bolsheviks which is almost identical to the Traditionalist reading of the revolution, whether an older one by Pyotr Savitski, the founder of Eurasianism, or the new one by Alexander Dougin, the greatest Traditionalist luminary. All of them considered Bolsheviks as true representatives of the Russian spirit meeting the Western challenge.
Bolton repeats the tales of the White émigrés of 1920s uncritically. He glorifies Admiral Kolchak, the self-appointed ‘Supreme Ruler’ of Russia – but Kolchak came to Russia from the US (like Trotsky) and has been considered an American agent. Bolton speaks of dreadful Red terror and Red atrocities, but the Reds were better than the Whites towards the people, the peasants and workers. Kolchak’s troops were infamous for their atrocities and succeeded to antagonise the apolitical Siberians. The White troops shot industrial workers and hanged peasants for they were imbibed with class hatred. Bolton writes approvingly even of Ataman Semyonov, who was an extremely cruel White commander.
Bolton condemns the US for not doing enough in order to destroy the Bolsheviks right after the revolution. Well, Russia is a biggish country, and the US was not keen to fight it right after fighting Germany. You do not have to be a hidden Commie to be against an intervention, as we know on the lessons of Iraq and Iran. Bolton does not understand that it would not be an easy sailing as the Reds were more popular than the Whites among the masses. A civil war is also a form of democracy, an extreme form, granted: people vote with their bullets instead of ballots. The Reds won in the civil war because the people preferred them, not for support of some New York bankers.
After their victory, Bolsheviks did not sell their country to the named bankers. Other way around, they brought Russia to full economic independence. Bolton quotes Armand Hammer who said that “he never had any dealings with Stalin for … he was not a man with whom you could do business. Stalin believed that the state was capable of running everything without the support of foreign concessionaires and private enterprise”. Bolton also admits that Stalin refused to play ball with CFR and fit into the new world order, or even to discuss it. But was not Stalin an epitome of a Communist? One thinks that this admitted case would force Bolton to reconsider his main thesis, but it did not.
Bolton also refers to Grose, who wrote that the USSR rejected all appeals to establish a World State, and that the Cold War was a real thing, “a genuine divide between globalists and the Soviet block”, not a “conspiracy to fool the world”. Fine! But afterwards, he reverses to his view that the Left is just a tool of the Capital…
After thus dealing with the Russian revolution, the author moves on various dissident movements and attempts to prove they were set up by the super-rich. There is Marcuse, and feminists, and drugs, and rock-and-roll, and modern art, Kinsey report, psychedelic revolution, sex and pornography, and Adorno, and Frankfurt school, and LSE, and NGOs, and NED – all these persons and movements were organised by a secret society of the very-rich Mammonites. What he actually shows that some of them received grants or another financial support or promotion.
There is some truth in his accusations: money passed hands. However, there are much easier explanations than the deadly conspiracy of Kali Yuga adepts. In order to preserve capitalism, privilege and social inequality, the Western elites indeed try to distract the people, especially the rebellious and dynamic ones. Let them use drugs, drink beer, dance all night along and make no meaningful changes or revolutions. Pseudo-left movements and pseudo-radical agenda were promoted in order to keep people away from real radicalism. The people in power prefer us to discuss gender politics rather than wealth distribution.
And some conspiracies, or secretly made plans, do exist. Secret agencies, notably the CIA like to have a finger in every pie. It is well known that the CIA promoted Jackson Pollock, the abstract painter, as a proof of American culture potency against West European Americanophobia. CIA spent much money on development of youth subculture in order to subvert the Soviets, or so they say.
NED is a well-known “open conspiracy” financed by the US administration to supplement CIA efforts to undermine unfriendly regimes.
However, this is not a proof that there is One Huge Conspiracy of the Super-rich to create the World Government. There are many conspiracies, big and small, there are many views and tendencies, and they can’t be reduced to a single ill will.
Despite all these remarks, Bolton’s book has some interesting pages, and can be read – with a grain of salt.
Democratic politics is a false premise experiment. The foundation of modern liberalism, based upon an erroneous worldview, is a dead end ideology. Compared to the mad NeoCon war-mongering alternative, the fatal attraction of progressives, allures weak minded and desperate people into thinking government can provide solutions. Step back from the false left-right political discussions and focus upon the principles that make up sound and balanced standards for a civil society.
Basic contrasts between Conservatives and Liberals defined by Christian Walker seem plausible.
“At the core of it, Conservatives base their ideology on what they see as reason and logic and it is individualistic by nature, whereas a liberal’s ideology is based on emotion and ideals and is collective by nature. A liberal is interested in curing society’s ills by social engineering. A conservative is interested in curing society’s ills by individuals exercising their own choices to better themselves. Because of this, conservatives view centralized power with deep suspicion. Liberals on the other hand see centralized power as an opportunity to affect great change for good.”
The central precept that separates and differentiates democratic politics from traditional conservative advocacy rests upon moral doctrine. However, scholars are determined to avoid this requirement with theories such as Realism V. Liberalism. Understanding International Relations Theory, “how the world works IR scholars usually subscribe to one of two dominant theories, realism or liberalism. One, classical/neo-realist thought, is more pessimistic about the prospects of peace, cooperation, and human progress whilst the other, liberalism/idealism, is more upbeat and sanguine about human nature and human possibilities.”Modern Liberalism is based upon the following set of assumptions:
1.Human nature is essentially “good”
2.The fundamental human concern for others’ welfare makes progress possible
3.Sinful or wicked human behavior such as violence is not the product of flawed people but of evil institutions
4.War and international anarchy are NOT inevitable
5.War is a global problem requiring collective rather than national efforts to control it
6.Reforms must be inspired by a compassionate ethical concern for the welfare and security of all people
7.International society must reorganize itself in order to eliminate the institutions that make war likely
The America First foreign policy viewpoint is anti-war and anti-empire. Foreign intervention to make the world safe for democracy is pure poppycock. The premises of democratic liberalism suffer from the illusion that humanity, as a whole, is able to build a global alignment of institutions, treaties and interconnections that can result in international harmony.
The notion, which discredits democratic bias and governmental programs that surround us, is all around. The utter catastrophe of the Obama administration is not simply a failure of a partisan regime. It is systemic of a system that has abandoned time-honored principles.
The inspiring and late Dr. Schaeffer preached the following message back in 1982.
“I want to say to you, those of you who are Christians or even if you are not a Christian and you are troubled about the direction that our society is going in, that we must not concentrate merely on the bits and pieces. But we must understand that all of these dilemmas come on the basis of moving from the Judeo-Christian world view — that the final reality is an infinite creator God — over into this other reality which is that the final reality is only energy or material in some mixture or form which has existed forever and which has taken its present shape by pure chance.”
Can any person argue with sincerity that fundamental improvement in the plight of humanity has improved in the last three decades?
Facing up to the decline in Western Civilization is hard for many people. Most prefer the comfort of illusionary denial. Justin Raimondo offers a cogent insight in TheDemocratic Delusion.
“Rooted in the old-fashioned idea that people are merely the playthings of all-powerful and highly abstract forces, Soviet socialism was a throwback to the reactionary mechanistic doctrines that had ruled the earth and its peoples since time immemorial. Human beings, in this view, are passive lumps of clay whose fate is determined by History, the gods, or, perhaps, the gods of history.”
This looming conflict for the democratic liberal is unsettling, since their beloved governmental authority structure, is their presupposed answer to resolve intrinsic power struggles. After stripping away all the political posturing and propaganda, the Obama cohorts are left with an empty intellectual defense of their pernicious and intrusive tyranny.
LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL ILLNESS – MAXINE WATERS
MICHAEL SAVAGE EXPLAINS THE MENTAL DISORDER LIBERALISM
Those who identify themselves as part of the Democratic Party or supporters of liberal policies really do suffer from a mental disease. The Maxine Waters’ video illustrates, while caring the bucket for the cause. Move over and watch Michael Savage, Herb Denenberg is giving you a run for top honors.
“You can look at almost any plan and policy of Obama, and more often than not find it runs contrary to common sense and logical thinking. He more often than not does the opposite of what common sense would dictate.”
Apply the following Obama traits to your favorite liberal. Do they also suffer from the same symptoms?
A. NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER. If that’s not enough, consider the Mayo Clinic’s definition of narcissistic personality disorder: “Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. They believe that they’re superior to others and have little regard for other people’s feelings. But behind this mask of ultra-confidence lies a fragile self-esteem, vulnerable to the slightest criticism.”
B. PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. I think the most obvious disorder to add to all of the above is being a pathological liar. That condition is defined by the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary as follows: “an individual who habitually tells lies so exaggerated or bizarre that they are suggestive of mental disorder.”
C. THE TALKING DISEASE. I’ve spoken of another mental disorder, which I don’t think psychiatry has yet named. It is the talking disease. He thinks his words are magical, and that all he has to do is talk to solve problems.
Liberals and progressives want to feel your pain, while inflicting misery from the consequences of their policies. The Manchurian Candidate president champions Marxist pillaging as a badge of pride. The crux of the rationale that drives such plunder is humanism. Dr. Schaeffer warns, “A conservative Humanism is no better than a liberal Humanism. It’s the Humanism that is wrong, not merely the coloration.” The point made is that the liberal sickness infects “so called” conservatives with the integrations of the progressive disease into all levels and stratums of a dependent society.Utopian delusions are the prevalent and dominate political mindset. This infection forbids a serious and substantial contraction of government deficit spending or useless programs. As long as Democrats swallow the social poison of multicultural nirvana, in a futile attempt to create a worldly paradise, the planet is doomed.
The few remaining conventional Democrats bear little similarity with the ultratotalitarian collectivists that currently hold the majority in the U.S. Senate. Abdicating the responsibility of passing a federal budget may seem trivial to the hordes of dependent addicts that vote the liberal/progressive slate. Nevertheless, the results from the next election, the prospect of instituting a sober and comprehensive reform of government is but a pipe dream for wishful escapists.
The final indisputable proof of neurotic perspective is that the electorate may likely vote Barry Soetoro to another term. The reason for such an irrational prospect is that the infected public is plagued by modern liberalism. Is it possible to dialogue with institutionalized progressives? Can cogent arguments penetrate the locked doors in their palatial asylum suites or are they so committed to their medicated state of denial that the destruction of the country is viewed as a mere academic speculation?
Radical Reactionaries understand that co-existence with essentially decadent bottom feeders is a suicidal prospect. America’s collapse is a certainty on much more than an economic level. Political dialogue or activist immersion is a most painful exercise for the average person. The depths of the “Politically Correct” culture disallow a serene separation from federal supremacy. Individual state sovereignty is the only practical response to central despotism. Democrats refused to run a primary challenge to a sitting President in their own party. That error renounced any assertion of the high ground or argument claiming the role of an honest opposition.
The legacy of FDR haunts the socialists that strive to empower the nanny state. H.L. Mencken had it correct, “The New Deal began, like the Salvation Army, by promising to save humanity. It ended, again like the Salvation Army, by running flop-houses and disturbing the peace.”
Still the demographics, especially in several swing states like Virginia and Wisconsin, may rally the government employed or the entitled reliant to rise up the dead and vote for Democrats in November. To these kind of voters, the democratic view of the world, transforms into digging graves for the dynamic producers, who create all the wealth.
The progressive malady that shapes public policy is the ultimate superstition. I am from the government and here to help you.
Whites Now Less than Half of US Births…
Bill Clinton once said that he looked forward to the day when whites were a minority in America. While he won’t live to see such a time, a demographic milestone that should send a tingle up Slick Willie’s leg was just reached. Writes The New York Times:
After years of speculation, estimates and projections, the Census Bureau has made it official: White births are no longer a majority in the United States.
Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 49.6 percent of all births in the 12-month period that ended last July, according to Census Bureau data made public on Thursday, while minorities — including Hispanics, blacks, Asians and those of mixed race — reached 50.4 percent, representing a majority for the first time in the country’s history.
Obviously, a big reason for this demographic shift is migration – and mainly the legal variety. As a result of Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Reform Act of 1965, the level of yearly immigration increased from approximately 250,000 prior to ‘65 to about 1,000,000 afterwards. And its nature changed also: 85 percent of our new arrivals now hail from the Third World and Asia. This radical departure from America’s traditional immigration patterns has created a demographic transformation possibly unprecedented in world history – except for cases of actual invasion.
If one blindly accepts the unproven assertion, “Our strength lies in our diversity” – which is much like saying my health lies in my cancerous tumor – he may join Clinton, Chris Matthews and other languid-minded leftists in a leg-tingling love-fest. But the reality is that diversity isn’t a strength to be applauded – it’s an obstacle to be overcome. To understand this, you only have to study history and consider the fate of the former Yugoslavia: the Balkans are balkanized because of diversity. And now the United States is being balkanized, too.
Another problem is that “diversity” is a vague term; there are many kinds of diversity. Not too many people care if you dine on Thai cuisine as opposed to Italian; or hamburgers, hot dogs and French fries. People won’t take to the streets because you play cricket or curling instead of baseball. But when deeply held beliefs concerning all-important issues divide citizens, it’s a different matter.
As for what’s helping diversify us into division, immigration, it is a vaguely understood institution. And when people accept something because it’s fashionable, not really knowing what they’re getting, disaster can result.
We’re always wary of dangerous imports, such as contaminated goods from China or substandard medical devices from overseas. It also requires vigilance when non-indigenous life forms are introduced into an ecosystem. Some, such as the horse or soybean, blend in seamlessly and can be beneficial; others, such as pythons in the Everglades or the Brown Tree Snake in Guam, can disrupt an ecosystem and decimate native species.
This is why the answer to the question “Do you support immigration?” should be “not enough data.” Since people do get the government they deserve, it matters very much what species of immigration it is. How high are the immigrants’ numbers? What is their cultural nature? How compatible are they with our cultural ecosystem? Will they blend into it or supplant native cultural elements? Of course, some will say that the latter is fine, that change is good. And, actually, they could possibly be right – except that “change” is another vague term. If those cultural elements are superior, then, by all means, embrace them; if they’re not, avoid them like the plague – which, incidentally, came to Europe from Asia. Those that trumpet immigration, diversity and change are the last ones to judge such matters, however, because they tend to be cultural relativists whose moral foundation is even vaguer than the slogans they disgorge.
What they do know, though, is how to import leftist voters. When I crunched the numbers a few years back, I found that the groups represented by that 85-percent Third World/Asian immigration block vote Democrat approximately 79 percent of the time. Is this a surprise? People don’t come here as blank slates; they bring their religion and ideology with them, and these things don’t magically change upon contact with American terra firma. And remember that most new immigrants hail from Mexico, Central and South America(50 percent from Mexico alone), where socialism is the norm. Sure, sometimes they may elect one of their “conservatives,” but “conservative” and “liberal” are relative terms. A conservative south of the border – or in Europe, for that matter – is much like our liberals. Their whole political spectrum is to the “left” of ours, and the more voting-booth levers they pull here, the more our spectrum will be pulled left, too.
The lesson is simple: people make the culture – not the other way around – and then the culture makes the government. If you imported enough Mexicans or Muslims to America, you’d no longer have Western civilization. You’d have Mexico Norte or Iran West.
Many will say in response to this that assimilation is the answer. Ah, it’s a nice dream. How can we expect people to assimilate when there is neither sufficient pressure from natives, nor sufficient will from newcomers, to do so? How can we expect it when, according to a Zogby poll, 58 percent of Mexicans believe that California and the Southwest rightfully belong to Mexico? How can we expect it from Muslims who believe that Western culture must be subordinated to Sharia?
Moreover, asking for assimilation becomes less logical all the time. After all, how is it a meaningful statement to say “All people have to do is become American” when there’s no agreement on what it means to be American anymore? Depending on whom you listen to, you can be an American and be a socialist, free-market adherent, devout Christian, witch, pro-abortion or pro-life activist, existentialist, realist, hippie, yuppie, black or white supremacist, La Raza separatist, prude, libertine, traditionalist, multiculturalist, patriarchy proponent, feminist, deist, atheist, humanist or Satanist. You can have any ideology, philosophy, faith, culture or “lifestyle” you want. It’s “whatever works for you,” and that itself is now to be considered a quintessentially American sentiment (unless it works for you to consider it something else). Well, guess what? What works for many is to not assimilate into they know not what. And that is the issue: there’s no clearly identifiable, dominant, appealing culture to assimilate into, anyway.
The problem here is the same as it is with the “undefining” of marriage: If something can mean anything, it essentially means nothing. “Cat” refers to a specific creature, but if “cat” could mean fish, aardvark, meadowlark, chair, cookie, ice cube or whatever works for you, it would lose meaning; it could mean anything and would just be “something.” And so it is with a nation. People have no reason to assimilate into just “something”; they already have something – something they already know.
The Western man has forgotten that a nation is essentially an extension of the tribe. The only other option is to have many tribes living within the same borders, which historically hasn’t begotten tranquility. Just think of the Hutus and Tutsis in Ruanda– and then consider that there was probably less dividing them culturally than there is dividing the motley “us.”
This is why, unlike most, I don’t expect America to ever become majority non-white.
Our republic won’t last that long.
In the meantime, the band will play on, as we repeat all the vague feel-double plus good mantras. Hey, folks, remember, immigration is the lifeblood of America. Well, maybe so. But then it’s important to accept a crucial fact about transfusions: If the blood type is incompatible, the body dies.
Americais on life support, and she does certainly need some kind of transfusion. But in a world dominated by socialism and kleptocracy, I don’t know where one goes to find large amounts of freedom-flowing blood. I think we had better shut our borders and stop looking overseas, open our minds, and start casting our eyes heavenward.
The phrase “New World Order” is so loaded with explosive assumptions and perceptions that its very usage has become a kind of journalistic landmine. Many analysts (some in the mainstream) have attempted to write about and discuss this very real sociopolitical ideology in a plain and exploratory manner, using a fair hand and supporting data, only to be attacked, ridiculed, or completely ignored before they get a chance to put forward their work. The reason is quite simple; much of the general public has been mentally inoculated against even the whisper of the terminology. That is to say, they have been conditioned to exhibit a negative reaction to such discussion instinctively without even knowing why.
Some of this conditioning is accomplished through the stereotyping of New World Order researchers as “conspiracy theorists” (another term for loony) grasping at fantasies in a desperate bid for “attention”, or, as confused individuals who attempt to apply creative logic to a mad chaotic world swirling on the periphery of a great void of coincidence and chance. I know this because I used to be one amongst the naive herd of “rationalists”, and I and many I knew used the same shallow arguments to dismiss every cold hard fact on the NWO that we happened upon. After seeing the conspiracy crowd made iconic and ridiculous in hundreds if not thousands of books, movies, TV shows, commercials, and news specials, it becomes difficult for many to enter into the topic without a severe bias already implanted in their heads.
Another circumstance that leads to the immediate dismissal of NWO research is, ironically, the lack of open discussion on the subject. Yes, it’s a chicken and egg sort of thing. If more people were less afraid to shine a floodlight on the truth of the matter, more people, in turn, would be more willing to absorb it. And, if more unaware people were willing to listen to the information with an open mind, more people with knowledge would be willing to share it. The psychological barrier to the information, therefore, is not based on any legitimate argument against the existence of the NWO. Instead, people refuse to listen because they fear to embrace concepts personally that they believe are not yet embraced by the majority.
It is a sad fact of society that most men and women gravitate towards the life of the follower, and not of the leader. Only through great hardship and trauma do some plant their feet solidly in the Earth, and find the strength to break free from the collectivist mindset.
Elitist think-tanks and propaganda machines like the Southern Poverty Law Center take full advantage of the hive mentality by attacking Liberty Movement proponents and NWO researchers in light of the populace’s lack of background knowledge. A perfect example of this was the SPLC’s latest hit-piece on an Oath Keepers article dealing with the exposure of a Department of Defense program designed to import and train Russian soldiers on U.S. soil. Because the article dares to mention the “NWO”, the SPLC jumps to the vapid conclusion that Oath Keepers are “paranoid”:
The poorly written diatribe is little more than an Ad Hominem stab by an ankle biting author, but I felt it did hold a certain value as a test case of the strategic exploitation of uneducated mass opinion. Without the ignorance of a sizable portion of the American public, yellow journalism like the kind peddled by the SPLC would be relegated to the great dustbin of history…
If a man is able to get past his negative preconceptions on the matter, the next step is to ask a relatively straightforward question; what is the New World Order? What is the foundation of the philosophy that drives it? What are its origins? This is something mainstream pundits never explore. They simply take for granted that we in the Liberty Movement somehow made the whole thing up for our own entertainment. In reality, the phrase New World Order made its public debut early in the 20th Century, and it was expounded by numerous political and business elites decades before there was such a thing as “conspiracy theorists”.
The Liberty Movement has always defined the NWO as a concerted effort by elitist organizations using political manipulation, economic subversion, and even war, to centralize global power into the hands of an unelected and unaccountable governing body. The goal; to one day completely dismantle individual, state, and national sovereignty. However, what I and many others hold as fact on the New World Order is not enough. We must examine the original source and how we came to our mutual conclusions.
I have in numerous articles outlined the irrefutable data surrounding the directed efforts of corporate globalization and the deliberate strategies of central banks in the co-option of financial control over nations. But, to solidify our understanding of what the most financially and politically powerful men on Earth and their cheerleaders believe the NWO is, why not go straight to the horse’s mouth:
“It is the system of nationalist individualism that has to go….We are living in the end of the sovereign states….In the great struggle to evoke a Westernized World Socialism, contemporary governments may vanish….Countless people…will hate the new world order….and will die protesting against it.” H.G. Wells, in his book, “The New World Order”, 1940
“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
- David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405
“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”
- Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, Time Magazine, July 20th, 1992
“There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the communists, or any other group, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments … I have objected both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known … The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) … the American Branch of a society which originated in England … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and [a] one-world rule established.”
Prof. Carroll Quigley, mentor to Bill Clinton, from his book ‘Tragedy and Hope‘
“Ultimately, our objective is to welcome the Soviet Union back into the world order. Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations.”
President George Bush at Texas A&M University 1989
“We will succeed in the Gulf. And when we do, the world community will have sent an enduring warning to any dictator or despot, present or future, who contemplates outlaw aggression. The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fufill the long-held promise of a new world order – where brutality will go unrewarded, and aggression will meet collective resistance.”
President George Bush State of the Union Address 1991
“The Final Act of the Uruguay Round, marking the conclusion of the most ambitious trade negotiation of our century, will give birth – in Morocco – to the World Trade Organization, the third pillar of the New World Order, along with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund.”
Part of full-page advertisement by the government of Morocco in The New York Times (April 1994)
“To keep global resource use within prudent limits while the poor raise their living standards, affluent societies need to consume less. Population, consumption, technology, development, and the environment are linked in complex relationships that bear closely on human welfare in the global neighborhood. Their effective and equitable management calls for a systemic, long-term, global approach guided by the principle of sustainable development, which has been the central lesson from the mounting ecological dangers of recent times. Its universal application is a priority among the tasks of global governance.”
United Nations Our Global Neighborhood 1995
“What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system…a first step toward a new world order.”
Henry Kissinger on NAFTA, Los Angeles Times
“All these new challenges are bringing together about the biggest restructuring we’ve ever seen not just of the global economy but global order as a whole. And two hundred years ago, a famous British foreign secretary said that the new world had been called into existence to address the balance of the old. In 1989 another world war ended dominated by the cold war and people talked then in 1990 of the new world order. What they meant then was a new political order. And what was not foreseen then but is obvious now, from everything that we see and do, what we experience every day of our life is the sheer scale and speed and scope of globalization…”
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, CBI Speech 2007
“The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down…but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault.”
CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April 1974 issue of the CFR’s journal, Foreign Affairs
As we can see quite clearly from the direct quotes above, the New World Order, and its pursuit of global government, is not some “delusion” built upon exaggerated claims or impractical fears. It is, in fact, a very OPEN and freely admitted sociopolitical ideology held by a select and decidedly influential group of people. To label it “conspiracy theory” is absurd.
Are capitalist and socialist organizations “conspiracy theory”? Are political parties “conspiracy theories”? Is Greenpeace a paranoid figment of our imagination? What about corporate lobbyists? Was the purge of Stalinist Russia a fable? Did the Nazi party not actually seek to rule the world? Obviously, these have all been substantial forces in the making of our current era.
Throughout history, very real organizations of people with specific and directed beliefs have sought to guide the course of our cultural progression according to their personal values, sometimes using coordinated and underhanded means. The New World Order is no different in this regard. Its uniqueness lay only in the insidious nature of its methods and the complexity of its structure. In fact, I would have to question the sanity of anyone who DOESN’T believe that conspiracies are a constant and concrete reality. Secretive groups of men have always sought power over others and have always cloaked their thirst in the auspices of patriotism and rationalism.
Another issue which average Americans stumble over is the fraudulent notion of the left/right paradigm. For those within the ranks of the New World Order, “left” and “right”, Democrat and Republican, are ultimately meaningless terms. This is undeniable after one realizes that the leadership on both sides of the aisle exhibit almost identical policy initiatives and voting records. When the two primary political entities of a system differ only in rhetoric but not in action, one has to question whether they are separate parties at all:
When a liberty minded network like Oath Keepers points out the underlying New World Order-ness of a DoD program to train Russian soldiers on U.S. soil, they are referring to the centralizing nature of the procedure, and they are quite correct. The problem is that those without any context or background knowledge are completely unequipped to understand the significance of the danger. If only they knew about programs like the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, constructed to dissolve sovereign military and economic functions between the three countries:
What is to stop this trend of military homogenization with neighboring foreign countries from spreading around the world, enabling corrupt governments stocked with proponents of globalism to use not only a country’s own troops domestically, but the troops of other nations?
As the SPLC points out in an attempt to be clever; this intermingling has been going on for quite some time. What they fail to mention is the terrible track record these operations have amassed. The ‘School Of The Americas’, for example, used the same rhetoric of “international cooperation” and the spreading of “democracy” as a fair trade when training foreign troops on U.S. soil, yet, all the school seemed to produce were tyrannical despots and mass murderers:
Are we supposed to believe that the training of Russian troops within our border will produce better results?
These activities on the part of our government, in the end, do not serve the best interests of the American people in the slightest, but what they do serve, are the ideological addictions of the global elite. That is to say, they further the interests of the New World Order.
As researchers and web journalists, we are supposed to be afraid to mention the NWO. We are supposed to refrain from using certain vocabulary exactly because portions of the public are unfamiliar with it. To be honest, I have to laugh at this dynamic. I think it far better to embrace the truth of a matter, along with its dialogue. To be unashamed and unabashed in the exposition of the facts regardless of the ignorance of those around us. The New World Order is a definable and quantifiable political movement. Elitists who praise it in public are showered with accolades while citizens who oppose it in public are accused of paranoid ramblings. The less we care about what others might think, the more dedicated we can be to the truth. At bottom, when it comes to matters of survival and principle, it is a far better thing to be “crazy” and right, than “sane” and wrong.
Source: Brandon Smith | Alt-Market