Democratic Socialists of America wish Karl Marx a “Happy Birthday”
There is absolutely no difference between “democratic socialism” and “socialism.” The term “democratic socialism” is used solely to lull the average American into accepting socialism, the path to Communism.
Consider the title of the platform of the Communist Party USA:
Communist Party wants Socialism
“Democratic socialists” will likely tell you that the difference between their view and the views of the socialists is twofold:
Democratic Socialists will not raise taxes on the middle class, unlike socialists.
Democratic Socialists believe that businesses should be allowed to be privatized, unlike socialists.
Democratic Socialists of America wish Karl Marx a “Happy Birthday”
“It is absolutely true that taxes would have to go up…” National Director of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) Maria Svart, 2015
“Our goal as socialists is to abolish private ownership of the means of production.” – DSA National Political Committee Member David Green, 2007
In November, Trevor Loudon released a video exposing the radical ties of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in anticipation of his upcoming documentary.
One of the commenters of the video responds by saying in part:
“Sanders simply believes, as do a growing number of Americans, that capitalism should play by the rules and be subject to the same laws and regulations as everyone else.”
Understanding the actual beliefs of the leaders of these groups is pivotal if one wants to understand Bernie Sanders and his ilk.
Exhibit A: DAVID GREEN
David Green is listed on the DSA website as one of the “National Political Committee Members” for 2015-17. David Green is pictured here with Bernie Sanders:
Our goal as socialists is to abolish private ownership of the means of production. Our immediate task is to limit the capitalist class’s prerogatives in the workplace…In the short run we must at least minimize the degree of exploitation of workers by capitalists. We can accomplish this by promoting full employment policies, passing local living wage laws, but most of all by increasing the union movement’s power…
This means that incrementally through increasing the power of the union and crippling business with enforced wage hikes and other burdens like rampant regulations; ALL business will ultimately crumble and the government / unions will take over.
Exhibit B: MARIA SVART
National Director of the Democratic Socialists of America Maria Svart protesting Donald Trump in December, 2015.
In December 2014, National Director of the Democratic Socialists of America Maria Svart lamented the fact that Democrats took major hits in the mid-term elections. In an article titled “Don’t Mourn, Organize,” Svart explained that the DSA should “urge” Bernie Sanders to run for president.
“We have time to organize for Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), urging him to run for president in the primaries and build a grassroots movement that is outside formal politics and in which DSA could play a major role as an openly democratic socialist organization.”
Maria Svart made some very revealing statements on a c-span, where she discussed organizing efforts for Bernie Sanders. After being confronted by a caller about how taxes would have to go up in order for DSA to have their vision of more government programs being available, Svart explained that it is “absolutely true” taxes would need to be increased.
Here is the exchange:
Mike from Elm City, North Carolina: “I just want to make a comment on this whole issue of free education and free healthcare. I think it is a bit disingenuous to say it is free when it is actually taxpayer funded. I think if you pointed out the fact that people’s taxes would go up for this, they would probably think about it a whole lot differently…”
Maria Svart: “It is absolutely true that taxes would have to go up to pay for some of these programs. But…there is a lot of corporate welfare and there have been a lot of tax cuts…I forgot to mention a financial transactions tax…” Svart also mentions taxing the “very wealthy” and cutting “wasteful defense contractor spending” as “sources of revenue” to use for more “public programs.” Svart added that the “obsession with national debt is irrational if you actually look at the way the economy works.” She also claimed that people feel a large tax burden because the “right wing” is cutting spending.
Watch the broadcast here (the exchange highlighted above starts at around the 40:48 minute mark):
Watch Trevor Loudon’s video going deeper into Bernie Sander’s radical ties here. It should be noted that this video was inexplicably blocked from Facebook for about two days. Numerous requests to Facebook to find out why have gone unanswered.
“Bernie Sanders is attracting thousands at each event because he presents a specific program squarely on the side of the 99%, challenging income inequality and financial domination of the country and of politics.”
Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders claims to be a “Democratic Socialist.” Supported by the euphemistically-named Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), it would be helpful for Americans to understand what it is that DSA actually believes.
Bolivian President Evo Morales presents Pope Francis with a crucifix incorporating the hammer and sickle symbol during a meeting at the presidential palace in La Paz. Photo: Juan Carlos Usnayo/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
To my Catholic friends, while I am loathe to criticize that which they hold dear, there comes a time when silence is the wrong answer. When Pope Francis first surfaced, I thought he had the potential to be a great Pope. But with the potential of greatness, also comes the opportunity of infamy. Pope Francis is a Marxist and embodies many, many principles that I stand against, not only as a Constitutional Conservative, but as a Christian. This last week just solidified my uneasiness concerning this Pope.
The Bolivian President, Evo Morales (who Trevor Loudon and I have long contended is a Marxist), presented the Pontiff with a crucifix depicting Jesus nailed to a hammer and sickle, which the Pope returned after a brief examination. What is under contention is what the Pope said when presented with the gift. His comments were pretty much drowned out by a flurry of camera clicks. While some have claimed he expressed irritation, muttering the words “eso no está bien” (“this is not right”), Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said the Pope more likely said “no sabía eso” (“I didn’t know that”) in bemusement at the origins of the present. Which would make sense as NewsBusters and the Wall Street Journal noted, President Morales also “draped a medallion over [the pope’s] neck that bore the hammer and sickle.”
Communism has murdered well over one hundred million people in the last century alone. Many, many of those were Christians. As Ann Barnhardt put it, “Our Blessed Lord and Savior shown crucified on a hammer and sickle is, by all metrics, worse than Our Lord shown crucified on a swastika.” This constitutes blasphemy for me – Pope or not.
I also disagree that the Pope is being manipulated for ideological reasons. I think he knows full well what he is doing. We seem to have a knee-jerk response now when a leader does something unspeakable, unforgivable or outright evil – he/she didn’t know what they were doing… they were incompetent… or they were being manipulated. Knock it off! These people are not stupid; they are not rubes or babes in the woods who are so easily misled. (That’s not to say that they weren’t misled in very early life, ref. Proverbs 22:6 “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” That is to say, if you can indoctrinate someone in his early youth, you won’t need to sway him later: he’s already in your groove, and his decisions and choices will reflect that, not some imagined confusion of the moment.)
As for the Bolivian government insisting there was no political motive behind the gift and the Communications Minister, Marianela Paco, saying that Morales had thought the “Pope of the poor” would appreciate the gesture… bull crap. It’s the melding of politics and religion into a nightmarish agenda that is apocalyptic in scope and intent.
José Ignacio Munilla, bishop of the Spanish city of San Sebastián, tweeted a picture of the encounter, with the words: “The height of pride is to manipulate God in the service of atheist ideologies.” That is exactly right – on all counts, concerning all parties involved. It’s hard to overstate how important that observation is.
The Pope, after arriving in Bolivia, stopped to pray at the death site of Luis Espinal, a Jesuit murdered by Bolivian paramilitary forces in 1980. Espinal is being painted in press reports as a reformer who stood against the military dictatorship in Bolivia. Pope Francis also reportedly received a medal, bearing a hammer and sickle from Morales that was issued in memory of Espinal’s death.
Father Albo showed a reporter a published photo of a crucified Christ attached to a homemade hammer and sickle, instead of a cross, that Father Espinal kept by his bed.
“He was of the left. This is certain. But he never belonged to any party or pretended to be part of one,” said Father Albo, who said he hopes to present a replica of the hammer and sickle crucifix to the pope.
Father Espinal “gave a lot of importance to the dialogue between Marxists and Christians,” he explained. “It was not pro-Soviet … (it was) the need for the church to be close to the popular sectors. Some understand this, others don’t. To me it is very clear.”
It was said that the Pope wasn’t offended by Morales’ gift. “You can dispute the significance and use of the symbol now, but the origin is from Espinal and the sense of it was about an open dialogue, not about a specific ideology,” Lombardi said. Nope, it was all about ideology. This Argentinian Pope has been roundly criticized by many Marxists for not protecting Leftist priests during the military dictatorship in his country. Since becoming Pope, he has made major strides in bringing Liberation Theology to the fore in the Vatican. Thus, his campaigning for massive social and political change. This is Christianized Marxism. The irony of that term has to be savored. Kind of like “therapeutic cancer.”
Although Liberation Theology has grown into an international and inter-denominational movement, it began as a movement within the Catholic Church in Latin America in the 1950s–1960s. It is purported that Liberation Theology arose principally as a moral reaction to the poverty seen as having been caused by social injustice in that region. But its roots are solidly Marxist. The term was coined in 1971 by the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutiérrez, who wrote one of the movement’s most famous books, A Theology of Liberation.
Latin American Liberation Theology met opposition from others in the US, who accused it of using “Marxist concepts” and that lead to admonishment by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in 1984 and 1986. The Vatican disliked certain forms of Latin American Liberation Theology for focusing on institutionalized or systemic sin; and for identifying Catholic Church hierarchy in South America as members of the same privileged class that had long been oppressing indigenous populations.
Pope Francis used his trip to Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay to highlight problems faced by indigenous communities and to warn against “all totalitarian, ideological or sectarian schemes.” That sounds very good. However, it started to go off the rails when he urged the downtrodden to change the world economic order, denouncing a “new colonialism” by agencies that impose austerity programs and calling for the poor to have the “sacred rights” of labor, lodging and land. That’s sheer Marxism. And exactly what does he mean by ‘austerity programs?’ You mean the over taxing of the general populace in order that elitists can keep up their glutinous spending sprees? Or do you mean austerity as in cutting spending, sticking to a budget and reducing debts? It certainly makes a difference on how the term is being used here.
His speech was preceded by lengthy remarks from the Left-wing Bolivian President Evo Morales, who wore a jacket adorned with the face of Argentine revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Che was executed in Bolivia in 1967 by CIA-backed Bolivian troops. That certainly set the stage for Pope Francis and his speech.
Then the Pope gave a magnanimous and historic speech asking for forgiveness for the sins committed by the Roman Catholic Church in its treatment of Native Americans during what he called the “so-called conquest of America.” This is highly offensive and revisionist – it is skewed history. It’s true that American Indians were slaughtered by evil men and eventually, after a length of time, the colonists took over America. It is also true that Indians slaughtered many of the settlers and in horrific ways. Conquest and war are facts of history by the way, something Europe and the Vatican are very familiar with. It is a human condition that is ongoing and never ending as populations replace each other and wars rage on. He’s apologizing as though the Catholic Church had set out to do those things… it didn’t. Men did those things in the name of governments and in the name of the church. Apologizing for the deeds of men who acted on their own volition, but in your name, is to presume responsibility and control of actions over which the church had neither. The colonists did not set out to ‘conquer’ America either. They fled persecution in Europe and wanted to build new lives for themselves. Conflict came with Native Americans and the rest is history. Yes, evil was done, but that evil was not the totality of the story or our history and it certainly was not one-sided. It is also not something we need to ‘apologize’ for.
Then Pope Francis uttered my favorite quote – he quoted a fourth century bishop and called the unfettered pursuit of money “the dung of the devil,” and said poor countries should not be reduced to being providers of raw material and cheap labor for developed countries. Actually, when I heard the original quote, it said ‘capitalism’ not ‘money.’ While seeking unlimited riches can be a sin, it is not always so and not all wealthy people are guilty of this sin. It is also true that poor countries should not be treated as merely sources of materials and labor, however, those countries also benefit from that part of the economy. Countries are free to prosper and if more lived under free capitalistic governments where free trade was the norm and people were allowed to innovate and work for themselves, then there would be far fewer impoverished countries. But first, you’d have to get rid of the Marxists and dictators. Kind of a conundrum.
For dessert, the Pope repeated some of his encyclical on climate change. That’s Marxism on a global scale and smacks of fascism as well. It’s a twofer. Climate change is a seductive lie wrapped in a green package, but it is rotten from the inside out.
The Pope closes with what sounds to me like the echoes of Barack Obama and communism:
“Let us not be afraid to say it: we want change, real change, structural change,” the pope said, decrying a system that “has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature.“
“This system is by now intolerable: farm workers find it intolerable, laborers find it intolerable, communities find it intolerable, peoples find it intolerable The Earth itself – our sister, Mother Earth, as Saint Francis would say – also finds it intolerable,” he said in an hour-long speech that was interrupted by applause and cheering dozens of times.
And the useful idiots cheered on even when they knew in their heart of hearts that all of the above is nothing more than a call to follow those that would rule over us, using Mother Earth as a handy excuse and targeting for blame the engines of free enterprise, using language meant to equate it with greed, while overlooking the primary source of real greed: corrupt totalitarian governments, born of Marxism.
Pope Francis was not finished by any means concerning ‘colonialism’:
“No actual or established power has the right to deprive peoples of the full exercise of their sovereignty. Whenever they do so, we see the rise of new forms of colonialism which seriously prejudice the possibility of peace and justice,” he said.
“The new colonialism takes on different faces. At times it appears as the anonymous influence of mammon: corporations, loan agencies, certain ‘free trade’ treaties, and the imposition of measures of ‘austerity’ which always tighten the belt of workers and the poor,” he said.
Last week, Francis called on European authorities to keep human dignity at the centre of debate for a solution to the economic crisis in Greece.
He defended labor unions and praised poor people who had formed cooperatives to create jobs where previously “there were only crumbs of an idolatrous economy”.
The Pope even went so far as to praise Bolivia’s social reforms to spread wealth under Morales. That’s wealth redistribution and again, Marxism. But that is only scratching the surface on this Pope – there is oh, so much more to be concerned about when it comes to Pope Francis.
My friend and colleague (and someone I truly admire) Cliff Kincaid has done excellent research into Pope Francis and his doings. Americans need to take note who has the ear of this Pope:
Top Vatican adviser Jeffrey Sachs says that when Pope Francis visits the United States in September, he will directly challenge the “American idea” of God-given rights embodied in the Declaration of Independence.
Sachs, a special advisor to the United Nations and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, is a media superstar who can always be counted on to pontificate endlessly on such topics as income inequality and global health. This time, writing in a Catholic publication, he may have gone off his rocker, revealing the real global game plan.
The United States, Sachs writes in the Jesuit publication America, is “a society in thrall” to the idea of unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But the “urgent core of Francis’ message” will be to challenge this “American idea” by “proclaiming that the path to happiness lies not solely or mainly through the defense of rights but through the exercise of virtues, most notably justice and charity.”
In these extraordinary comments, which constitute a frontal assault on the American idea of freedom and national sovereignty, Sachs has made it clear that he hopes to enlist the Vatican in a global campaign to increase the power of global or foreign-dominated organizations and movements.
Sachs takes aim at the phrase from America’s founding document, the United States Declaration of Independence, that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
These rights sound good, Sachs writes, but they’re not enough to guarantee the outcome the global elites have devised for us. Global government, he suggests, must make us live our lives according to international standards of development.
Sachs is putting forth that the UN should be in charge of all national and individual rights. That we have to sacrifice our individual rights for the greater, collective good. What hive mentality. He’s also for massive global taxation, population control and one world government. “We will need, in the end, to put real resources in support of our hopes,” he wrote. “A global tax on carbon-emitting fossil fuels might be the way to begin. Even a very small tax, less than that which is needed to correct humanity’s climate-deforming overuse of fossil fuels, would finance a greatly enhanced supply of global public goods.” The bill he wants to stick the US with is $845 billion.
The Pope has not only aligned himself with Sachs, but with the UN’s Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, who told a Catholic Caritas International conference in Rome on May 12th that climate change is “the defining challenge of our time,” and that the solution lies in recognizing that “humankind is part of nature, not separate or above.” The pope’s encyclical on climate change is supposed to help mobilize the governments of the world in this crusade. This spells slavery for the world and an all-powerful tyrannical elite who will ruthlessly rule us through Marxist politics and a one world religion.
Sachs is not alone in his ideas. A short time ago, former President Shimon Peres met with the Pope at the Vatican and proposed that the Pope head up a UN for religions. I kid you not.
But the main topic of conversation was Peres’s idea to create a UN-like organization he called “the United Religions.”
Peres said the Argentina-born pontiff was the only world figure respected enough to bring an end to the wars raging in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world.
“In the past, most of the wars in the world were motivated by the idea of nationhood,” Peres said. “But today, wars are incited using religion as an excuse.”
Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi confirmed to reporters that Peres had pitched his idea for “the United Religions” but said Francis did not commit to it.
“The pope listened, showing his interest, attention, and encouragement,” Lombardi said, adding that the pope pointed to the Pontifical Councils for Interreligious Dialogue and for Justice and Peace as existing agencies “suitable” for supporting interfaith peace initiatives.
The meeting in September was the third one inside of four months. In an interview in the Catholic Magazine Famiglia Cristiana, Peres also called for the Pope to lead the inter-religious organization in order to curb terrorism: “What we need is an organization of United Religions… as the best way to combat terrorists who kill in the name of faith.” I literally cannot believe what I am hearing. This could well be the birth of a one world religion. This looks suspiciously like a move to reclaim the lost glory of the Church, harking back to those centuries when it held sway ’round the world, commanding fealty from kings and nobility. This “progressive” innovation is really a reactionary repackaging of the most sweeping colonialism in history. With one tongue they “condemn” colonialism, while with the other tongue they offer global subservience as the “solution” to the demon du jour.
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The Pope is offering the masses the opium of Marxism in his stances. The question is, will the world follow him down this path? So many these days just want someone to give them everything and take care of them… they hunger for a leader who will absolve them of their sins and promise them forgiveness and welcome them with open arms. Will people, in the name of peace, usher in a one world order and willingly give up their freedoms? I’m afraid history says they will, but I know Americans, Christians and others will not be assimilated so easily by Marxist musings and flowery articulation. Pontification will only carry you so far – if you follow this pied piper, you will find yourself in the loving embrace of the UN – that Democracy of Dictators – and all that entails.
Individuals marked primarily by Class I (Combinations) residues are the “Foxes” of Machiavelli. They live by their wits; they put their reliance on fraud, deceit, and shrewdness. They do not have strong attachment to family, church, nation, and traditions (though they may exploit these attachments in others). They live in the present, taking little thought of the future, and are always ready for change, novelty, and adventure. In economic affairs, they incline toward speculation, promotion, innovation. They are not adept, as a rule, in the use of force. They are inventive and chance-taking.
—James Burnham, The Machiavellians (pp. 237-8)
In parts I-III [links at end of page] we have seen how the Empire of Lies advances on all fronts, at home and abroad. Big Government Socialism is, of course, the heart of modernity’s Big Lie, where God is dead and unchecked political power forms the basis of a monstrous new religion disguised as “science.” This new religion rises up on every side. Its adherents dominate the media, education, government and the arts. This religion decries the wickedness of all who eschew social conscience, and who advance the “dismal science” of economic principle, or who adhere to God and country.
The new religion curses the following: the nation state, traditional folkways, market economics, and the liberty toward which these organic formations tend. In place of the old God they have put forward a number of candidates: first among these (1) the people; (2) the proletariat; (3) non-whites; (4) women; (5) the planet; (6) and homosexuals. Each of these false Gods, depicted as the crucified victims of a wicked capitalist patriarchy, are set up in honored pity; as hero-victims whose plight justifies the Great Revolution.
The socialist is said to weep, as Jesus wept. But this same crocodile, with row upon row of sharp teeth, will distill its tears however it may; yet these are crocodile tears all the same, shed so as to lure more victims. The socialist crocodile promises that the lion will lie down with the lamb, and he promises prosperity; but his policy (in the end) delivers the exact opposite. The lamb, of course, will be eaten by the crocodile.
It was Eric Voegelin who once likened our new political religion to Gnosticism as a “type of thinking that claims absolute cognitive mastery of reality. Relying as it does on a claim to gnosis, Gnosticism considers its knowledge not subject to criticism.” First comes political speculation (of the revolutionary kind). Next, this speculation is turned into action and policy – in order to bring Heaven on Earth. In doing this, wrote Voegelin, the Gnostics reject traditional religion and the Kingdom of God, replacing it with a political kingdom on earth. In trying to build such a kingdom the poor fools Immanentize the Eschaton. Voegelin wrote:
All gnostic movements are involved in the project of abolishing the constitution of being, with its origin in the divine, transcendent being, and replacing it with a world-immanent order of being, the perfection of which lies in the realm of human action. This is a matter of so altering the structure of the world, which is perceived as inadequate, that a new, satisfying world arises.
But the world, says Voegelin, “remains as it is given to us, and it is not within man’s power to change its structure.” Thus, the bearded man in the dress cannot become a woman. A tribal creature cannot, in any true sense, become a global citizen. And a fool is not equal to the wise. Whatever liberal or socialist principles you champion, the structure of the world is given. Your “ideas” cannot change what is. Voegelin wrote:
In order … to make [change] appear possible, every gnostic intellectual who drafts a program to change the world must first construct a world picture from which those essential features of the constitution of being that would make the program appear hopeless and foolish have been eliminated.
In other words, he builds lies upon lies. Thus is built the Empire of Lies, which is predicated on a new religion of lies. According to Voegelin, “we may speak, then, of the pneumopathological condition of a thinker who, in his revolt against the world as it has been created by God, arbitrarily omits an element of reality in order to create a fantasy of a new world.” In order to achieve this, the deceiver must have a large following of dupes. Thus the Empire of Lies is simultaneously an Empire of Stupidity – or a confederation of dunces, as it were. To view this with a sharper eye, consider Robert Musil’s 1937 lecture titled “On Stupidity,” which holds that people don’t want to appear too clever since this is a sign of stupidity. Doubtless the average man believes in his own cleverness, but keeps it hidden while someone playing a public role (like your favorite politician) “says or has said about himself that he is inordinately clever, inspired, dignified, gracious, chosen by God, and destined for History.” In this way the most foolish, brutal, even idiotic megalomaniac appropriates to himself wisdom, virtue, courage, nobility, etc. And since the masses hate to show how clever they really are, the masses are obliged to go along with the aforesaid megalomaniac.
Look at the man (or woman) who is leading your country today; then consider the people who voted for him, and who revere him no matter what he does. A new religion has taken hold indeed: an Empire of Lies, an Empire of Deceptions, an Empire of ready dupes. We are now supposed to think that things would have gone right if the Indians had pushed the European settlers into the sea. We are supposed to believe that California, in all truth, belongs to Mexico. We are supposed to eliminate the automobile, because the automobile is melting the icecaps and destroying the habitat of the Polar Bear. Everything about our past, and who we are, must cease to matter. We ourselves must cease to exist. That is the wisdom of the hour. This is how we immanentize the Eschaton, bringing on the winepress of the wrath of God while stupidly believing we have heralded the New Jerusalem.
Of course, you may trot out that nonsense about Communism being dead. Or you may trot out the nonsense about Nazism being dead. If socialism (national or international) looks dead to you, it is nonetheless coming for you. From the demonic Karl Marx to the paranoiac Stalin we moderns have descended to the pernicious Obama and the duplicitous Putin (not to mention the disastrous leaders of Germany, France, Italy, Britain, etc.). What began in a bold revolutionary manifesto under Marx now crawls or drags itself toward us, by way of subterfuge, under the auspices of false advertising. The old demagogy having died, it is now necessary for the socialists to lie about their real objectives. The new socialist “hero” is identified with the very objects (and beliefs) he intends to destroy – as Obama pretends to defend capitalism and America while Putin pretends to defend Orthodox Christianity and Russia. The destructive power of their respective deceptions now lies in the dialectic of manipulating both Left and Right. For this is the synthesis to which their thesis and antithesis tend: abject nihilism, total leveling, and contempt for humanity. (To paraphrase Little Red Riding Hood’s reaction: “My grandma, what big teeth you have!” — set in two rows, dialectically positioned for chewing.)
No image better depicts the heart and soul of today’s wolfish vanguard than that of Obama chewing gum at the Normandy commemoration on 6 June 2014. In the case of Putin, take any image you care from the violence in eastern Ukraine. Both men self-advertise as non-socialist, or non-Communist. Trevor Loudon has amply demonstrated Obama’s Communist and socialist ties. The KGB officer in the Kremlin needs no further proof of his socialist credentials than that of his own answer to a Cuban journalist some years ago when asked if he was a Communist. “Call me a pot,” he said, “but heat me not.” It is now part of the formula of Communist power to deny any adherence to Communism.
Enter, stage, Right, in Europe – a nationalist resurgence. We cannot call it “conservative” in the economic sense, or in the strictly cultural sense. At moments we fear it may be “conservative” in the National Socialist sense, which would signify no kind of conservatism at all. Once upon a time the political compass of the Left pointed to Moscow. Today the political compass of the European Right also points to Moscow. German researcher Torsten Mann, author of Weltoktober, recently wrote to me about the political shift ongoing in Europe. He began his explanation with a long quote from the Czechoslovak Communist defector, Jan Sejna:
Europe was the principal area in which to reduce US influence in the free world. The Russians planned to play upon the nationalists, bourgeois prejudices of the leading European countries in order to convince them that Europe must strive to become a distinct entity, separate from the United States. This mood must reach beyond any debate on the political union of Europe as envisaged in the Treaty of Rome. The first casualty of this new nationalism would be the NATO alliance. The withdrawal of US forces might be postponed by separate treaties with Germany and Great Britain, but in the end the Russians expected the Americans to retire completely. The Russians predicted that this withdrawal would have a profoundly disturbing effect on the United States, and would greatly encourage the growth of isolationism. (We Will Bury You, p. 154)
Then he proceeded to put Sejna’s message into perspective:
Sejna wrote this in 1982 and of course this statement is based on the strategic plan as he knew it in 1968. This quote proves to me that there is a decades old sub-strategy with which the Soviets wanted to get control over Europe using a rightist approach. Probably they realized that they wouldn’t be able to convince the European peoples to revoke the transatlantic alliance by using only a leftist approach. As I told you last time, I’m convinced that the European Union was a Soviet project from the beginning. The EU is the implementation of Gorbachev’s “Common European Home” and Vitaly Shurkin is the chief witness for this and it corresponds to the fact that the current European Union is leftist to the core. But Sejna wrote also that the Soviets weren’t sure in which direction the masses would turn once the United States slipped into depression. [Konstantin] Katushev said that the society might also “swing violently to the right.” I think this is also true for Europe. Not knowing which path society would take in the end, it is absolutely logical to develop a twofold approach, that means to prepare not only a leftist political echelon but also a rightist one and use them dialectically. Let the leftist echelon begin the political offensive, wait for the defensive reaction of the conservative European citizens who are … disgusted by the socialist subversion of their society and then, before any real authentic opposition takes form, offer them a controlled rightist political alternative that promises a solution for the problems which were caused by the leftist approach such as moral corruption, immigration, loss of national sovereignty, economic ruin etc. Once the public is utterly disgusted the controlled rightist opposition steps in, gets popularity and takes power. This rightist opposition addresses the problems and solves some of them (or maybe even intensifies them, e.g. ethnic tensions) creating a smokescreen of popularity that helps to hide the hidden agenda which is still advanced further. The ultimate goal would be the cancellation of the transatlantic alliance and rapprochement between Western Europe and Russia. Communists always work dialectically.
It’s an undeniable fact that Europe is haunted by many problems and it seems to me that our current political elite, both our “conservatives” and our socialists, do not even try to solve them. For example, there is the problem of immigration. Europe is importing criminals in large quantities who are committing welfare fraud, burglaries and violent crimes … and no one really seems to care about it. The exceptionally high rate of Muslim criminality in Germany is deliberately covered up by the media and politicians. Then of course Europe has huge financial problems that are not addressed in a sensible way. Instead they are aggravated deliberately it seems. Germany is artificially made energy-dependent on other states. We are especially dependent on Russian gas and there are rumors that we have become dependent on Russian nuclear-energy also. Large parts of our industry went to Eastern Europe and Red-China long ago, leaving many unemployed skilled workers behind. Only a very small perverted minority in Germany is keen on gay marriages and “gender mainstreaming” and so on, but our politicians, including our “conservatives,” make a main political topic out of it. People get disgusted with such things and this is the very moment when Russian propaganda steps in and offers an alternative to the predominant “liberal western decadence.” Alexander Dugin [the Russian ideologist] is promoting this, and our so called “rightist” and conservatives fall for it. Compare this to the success of Alex Jones in the U.S. If there was someone like Ronald Reagan today, Jones would not be able to deceive so many people. Our Western conservatives are corrupted and this is the breeding ground for Russian controlled pseudo-conservatives who pursue a hidden Soviet agenda. So why are our traditional conservatives corrupted? Andrei Sakharov wrote in 1968 in his manifesto, “Reflections on Progress, Peaceful Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom,” that the Western peoples should be reeducated to change their “psychological attitude” towards a socialist mindset. This is exactly what has happened. In Germany it is called “Kampf gegen Rechts” [Fight against Right]. In the U.S. it is implemented by way of “political correctness.” This psycho-political assault undermined support for real conservative politicians one or two decades ago and the resulting gap is now being filled by Russian controlled pseudo-conservatives.
Furthermore, the current advance of the European right should be seen against the background of [several] overall geopolitical developments. In the East, Putin’s “Eurasian Union” is taking form while Russia and China are signing an energy-deal excluding the use of U.S.-Dollars. It seems the western gold reserves drain off towards Red China and Russia while the economic recovery in America seems to be fragile. Kevin Freeman warns that the expected attack against the U.S.-Dollar is accelerating and therefore maybe we will see another financial crash like the one in 2008 soon. This could be the very moment when Russia and China together with the other BRICS-states announce the introduction of a new gold-backed reserve currency. If anything like this happens and if Russia demands gold-backed currency for oil and gas, the political temptation to orient the European Union eastwards could become irresistible. In other words, the Russians could resort to some kind of cooperation-blackmail, demanding political concessions for deliveries of energy. In my view, the “rightists” who are on the advance right now are suitable collaborators for the Kremlin’s “Eurasian” ambitions.
There are so many gems in Torsten Mann’s analysis that, with his permission, I have presented it in full. Please read it, and reread it. In a subsequent post, Torsten further stated that the corruption of the West is exactly what the Soviets sought in the first place. He quoted Sejna once more: “The main strategic purpose of Phase Three, ‘The Period of Dynamic Social Change’, was, in the words of the Soviet directive, ‘to smash the hope of false democracy’ and bring about the total demoralization of the West.” (We Will Bury You, p. 107) He then commented as follows:
This is exactly what we experience nowadays, the total demoralization of our Western societies, certainly caused by hidden communist structures and which the Soviet strategists (e.g. Dugin) still exploit for furthering their strategy. I always try to encourage my fellow countrymen to read Sejna’s book. It is breathtaking to see how the history of the last three decades corresponds to the Soviet’s strategic plans which were revealed by Sejna in 1982. Unfortunately most of my fellow countrymen refuse to take notice and admit that there has been some kind of communist coordination behind events. And therefore I have to agree, as you once wrote, the public is indeed stupid.
Now we return, once more, to the problem of stupidity – to the aforementioned confederation of dunces who form the main constituency of the Empire of Lies. The whole thing comes together, I suppose, in the understanding that the political strategist in pursuit of raw power doesn’t really believe in anything to begin with. If he talks like a socialist during the past year we may find him spouting conservatism next year. Therefore, we have to keep an eye out. We have to watch what people do and avoid being fooled by what they allegedly “believe.” You cannot measure a person’s belief. You cannot taste it. You cannot photograph it. But if an evil politician is allowed to fool you, and if he gets power over Europe or America, there may be plenty of death and devastation to objectively measure.
We must never forget that the attending lust for power behind all these phenomena originates in the desire to reorder the universe; that is, to challenge God or become a god. The core motivation is therefore always revolutionary in essence, even if it wears a “conservative” mask.
Investigative journalist James Simpson examines how international Marxism has targeted Western civilization through what is called cultural terrorism. Simpson, during this presentation from the April 21, 2015, America’s Survival conference, describes the strategy and tactics that are being used to bring America down. He explains the history of this assault, from Karl Marx to such organizations as the Southern Poverty Law Center, and says it is imperative that concerned citizens organize quickly to prevent the collapse of the United States from within.
For many years now I have said the State Department needs to be cleaned out from top to bottom. And I’m not alone in that opinion, either. The U.S. Department of State has a long history of working against the best interests of the United States, consistently shilling for all things socialist. Those who have looked into tax-exempt foundations like the Carnegie Endowment, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Consortium, Guggenheim Fellowship, etc., and the subsequent investigation by the Reece Committee, might know what I’m talking about.
The first U.S. Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal, once said, “Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If the diplomats who have mishandled our relations with Russia were merely stupid, they would have occasionally made a mistake in our favor.”
State Department Spokesperson Marie Harf recently told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews ISIS could be stopped if we could just create jobs for them.
At first blush, for those ignorant of Marxist ideology, this sort of thinking seems preposterous. Well, I am strongly inclined to agree. But I digress.
For dyed-in-the-wool Marxists and their fellow travelers (sympathizers), it makes perfect sense. This is why I believe it so important more Americans gain a better understanding of Marxism—since it is lauded and approved of by so many American universities and the liberal media, not to mention those in positions of power within our own government.
Karl Marx believed our view of history needed to be changed (cf. “hope and change”). Cleon Skousen wrote in his book The Naked Communist about the central importance economics plays in the Marxian religion. Marx believed history should be changed to “a fixed, undeviating, pre-determined course of progress which could be charted in the past and predicted for the future on the basis of a single, simple criterion—economics.”
According to Marx and his votaries, if we could only “level the playing field” by making everyone and everything the same (see “equality and fairness”), it would usher in a veritable utopia, i.e., the long hoped for “workers’ paradise.” Interestingly, about 90 percent of what Karl Marx wrote concerned economics (see Das Kapital).
Well, let’s just get something straight: ISIS doesn’t give a damn about economics—quite the contrary. Their motivations and actions are not influenced by Marxism, per se, but rather the teachings of Muhammad, and a literal interpretation of the Koran and the Hadith.
Although it should be noted that Marxism and Islam have quite a bit in a common.
Until our government pulls its proverbial head out of its posterior region, and begins to address the Islamic ideology that fuels terrorist groups like ISIS, we will forever be beating our collective heads against the wall wondering why we are not getting anywhere, while the enemy runs roughshod over us and others. If you cannot define the enemy, you cannot defeat the enemy. How many times does it have to be said?
Harf went on to make the patently absurd claim that “we cannot win this war by killing them [ISIS] … we cannot kill our way out of this war.”
So why are we killing them? The whole purpose of war is to kill the enemy until they’re either all dead or they surrender unconditionally. Period.
You just can’t make this stuff up.
Of course this brings us to the all-important question: just whose team is the Obama Administration and the State Department playing for?
Uppity Christian horsemen from the Crusades are still
trampling modern-day Muslim pacifists.
As everyone knows, the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington is a yearly event designed to put Christians in their place and advance Islam as the national religion. At today’s breakfast, President Obama once again met the expectations of the progressive movement by telling off those uppity Christians like a true Muslim would:
“Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”
Indeed, in these dark times of Christian Extremism, what we need is a president who can inform the world about all of the Christian atrocities throughout history for which currently living Americans are personally responsible. Having effectively airbrushed “Islamic Extremism” from the lexicon, Obama completed his sermon with a prayer towards Mecca.
Christians are hereby instructed to remove incorrect pages from their Bibles and replace them with the following corrected transcript of Jesus’ words: “Thou shalt murder gays; thou shalt enslave minorities; thou shalt bomb women and children.”
Since there isn’t an equivalent in the Quran of anything so hateful as this corrected version of Biblical history, Christians need to get off their high horses and admit that Jesus had personally instigated terrible atrocities, as proven by the Crusades and the Inquisition.
As if that weren’t enough, Jesus had the audacity to die but not stay dead, to walk around alive and kicking for forty more days, and then to fly up to heaven. Such antisocial behavior allowed Christians to start getting uppity around 33 A.D., which still continues unabated to this day.
The science is settled: there are no Islamic Extremists anywhere on Earth because President Obama has never uttered the words. Christians, on the other hand, are committing terrible atrocities daily, taking hostages, cutting off heads, blowing themselves up in public places, burning people alive, and otherwise terrorizing the peaceful and rapidly diminishing Muslim community. No verification of these facts is required simply because Obama is a genius who would never tell a lie.
President Obama is seen modeling a People-approved low-horse for those who are barely Christians, pretending to be Christians, or embarrassed by Christianity. (Photo Credit: blurbrain.com)
~
It is known that President Ronald Reagan liked to ride horses – all of them high – for which he is revered among Christian Extremists. He was once even injured in a fall from his high horse. Let that be a lesson to all Christians to get off their high horses and stay off.
President Reagan’s horse was so high that in order to fit it into his Presidential Library, workers had to chop off its legs. This picture gives a whole new meaning to “Reagan’s quarterhorse.” Too high a horse would not be a humble memorial for a Christian anyway.
Here, President Reagan is seen assisting his wife Nancy off of her high horse.
In view of the above, our scientists at the People’s Cube Karl Marx Treatment Center have developed recommendations on how to get Christians off their high horses efficiently: hack off the high horse’s legs or replace them with miniature low horses.
A standard horse owned by a Christian should be no taller than 36 inches. All horse-riding Christians will be subject to measuring with a pole similar to those used on amusement park rides.
This Christian got off her high horse, and the world is a lot better off.
Compliance with these measures is expected to level the playing field, bringing Christians closer to the ground where the peaceful Muslim crowd congregates.
And finally, as we discussed the subject of Christian high horses at our latest meeting, we received a few questions from confused members of the audience. People wanted to know whether the horse in question was a Christian, what exactly the definition of “high” was, and what if President Obama really meant to say that the horse was high from marijuana and the Christian should get off to avoid contact.
We will make sure to ask the White House spokesperson, Josh Earnest, for clarification on what the President really meant. Until then, the debate gallops on.
This Christian white male needs to get off his high horse. It’s offensive to Muslims.
Donate to NoisyRoom.net
Support American Values...
In Memoriam My beloved husband Garry Hamilton passed on 09/24/22I will love you always...
In Memoriam
Available at Amazon.com 
