02/1/15

“Hollywood Traitors” TV show. Watch now

America’s Survival

The Allan H. Ryskind book “Hollywood Traitors” (available at Amazon.com) documents how the House Committee on Un-American Activities uncovered Stalinist infiltration of Hollywood and forced the studios to clean house. Ryskind, the son of famous Hollywood screen writer Morrie Ryskind, “names names” and identifies pro-Soviet movies. Ryskind, who discusses such figures as Elia Kazan and Arthur Miller, will be appearing at a February 24, 2015, press conference on “America’s Enemies in Hollywood Then and Now” at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The news conference will examine how the Muslim Brotherhood lobby has been manipulating Hollywood’s portrayal of Islamic terrorism in recent years. It will also urge Congress to bring back a committee on internal security. Go to www.usasurvival.org.

01/15/15

The Root of The Problem: Russia – Part 3

By: Glenn Beck

The Red Storm

Below is Part 3 of the report compiled by Glenn’s research team for “The Red Storm”. Read Part 1 HERE and Part 2 HERE.

Vladimir Putin and his advisors have a dream. That dream is not of a great Russian Nation that once again commands respect as it used to. Their sites are set much higher. They dream of a great civilization that dominates all of Eurasia. Historically for Russians this struggle is anything but new. They’ve pursued it their entire existence. From Prince Vladimir I, to Ivan the Great and later Stalin it’s always been about Russian domination of Eurasia. Throughout history there has always been an antagonist for Russians to struggle against. The Tatars and Mongols, the Nazis from Germany and now Putin has the United States. This struggle along with their devout loyalty to the Orthodox Church has given the Russian people one of the most fiercest forms of nationalism in the world. Tapping that nationalism, historically, has had global impact.

Putin has watched the threat to Russian civilization since 2000. The ousting of Slobodan Milosevic, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine would all be viewed not as native grassroots attempts at democracy but rather a direct attack from the Unites States and the EU. From then on Moscow has been on a slow methodical plan that began with the invasion of Georgia in 2008. Those in the Eurasia Party wanted Putin to invade the entire country but he stopped short. Last year, as a result of the overthrow of the Yanukovych regime in Kiev, Moscow annexed Crimea and invaded Eastern Ukraine. Again, Putin stopped short despite cries to go all the way to the capital.

The big question is…what happens next? What’s Russia doing? What should we look out for?

The Putin regime sees two main obstacles blocking their path.

The United States and European Union alliance structure.

The dollar dominated world economy.

Moscow knows they can’t defeat the U.S. and EU militarily. Instead they’ve taken Aleksander Dugin’s philosophy in Russia and exported it to Western Europe. The message is clear. Remember what makes you unique and different. For Russians it’s the Orthodox Church and their culture. For Western Europeans, it’s the self identity of each individual nation state. To tap into this Russia has been contacting and supporting far-right groups all over Western Europe. At a time when the EU has been suffering from economic hardship, unemployment and immigration issues the far-right has made significant gains.

What’s the goal? The systematic break up of the European Union at the hands of Western Europe’s far-right. Russia, like the rest of the world, remembers what happened the last time the far-right dominated Europe…but that’s exactly what they want. Remember Dugin and the Eurasia Party’s eventual goal. Before order there must be a coming chaos. As the Kremlin continues it’s operation in Eastern Ukraine the political chaos has already begun in Western Europe.

Scotland attempted to split from the UK. The Golden Dawn party gained ground in Greece. 15,000 Nazi’s marched in Germany last month. The list goes on and on and Russia has ties to nearly every major right-wing group involved:

Bulgaria – Ataka Party (there are claims that they report directly to the Russian embassy)
Hungary – Jobbik (Dugin hosted their leader Vona at Moscow State University)
Austria – FPO
Italy – Forza Nuova (Met multiple times with the Russian Duma and Putin himself)
Greece – Golden Dawn (Dugin wrote their leader Michaloliakos while he was in prison)
Germany – Pegida
Netherlands – Freedom Party
France – National Front (In November a Russian bank donated 9 million euros to Marine Le Pen and the National Front)

Not only is the Kremlin supporting these groups at the highest levels they’re also targeting Europe’s youth. Straight from Hitler’s playbook, Dugin has created a branch of his Eurasia Party that’s sole purpose is to infiltrate Europe’s young minds. They’re called – The Eurasian Youth. Sound familiar? Like their founder Aleksander Dugin, the symbol of their movement is also the 8 pointed star of chaos.

France’s National Front has a legitimate shot at gaining power in the next election. Putin has taken a special interest in Marine Le Pen and Le Pen echoes that interest back toward Moscow. Russia doesn’t even try to hide it. A bank with close ties to the Kremlin recently donated 9 million Euros to the National Front.

If Le Pen takes power in France that could be the catalyst Russia has been waiting for. A rebirth of European nationalism and the continent reset back to the 1930’s.

Russia’s second major hurdle is the dominance the dollar has on the world economy. Putin believes that the World Bank and the IMF are agents of western imperialism. He believes they use state banks (like the Bank of Russia) to lure nations into their debt based economic model. To combat this Moscow has been gathering other like minded nations who are sick of the dollar’s dominance. They’re trying to build their own version of the IMF.

They’re also trying to emphasize an economy backed by tangible resources. That’s why both China and Russia are buying up gold in bulk. That’s an understatement. Russia and China are filling their vaults with gold by the truck load. They see an eventual collapse of the western debt based economies. When that occurs the world economy will return back to the gold standard. With the combined gold reserves of Russia and China on top of their immense natural resources their economies would be unstoppable. Even more formidable if they combined that with oil and gas from the middle east. A Middle Eastern ally is crucial to that goal and partly explains their relationship with Iran.

The problem Putin’s Russia now faces is their current economic crisis. Western sanctions and the drop in oil prices have devastated the Russian economy. Lines to ATM’s and bank tellers wrap around street corners as Russians attempt to exchange rubles for dollars and euros. The Kremlin has labeled it economic warfare from the United States. The rhetoric stops just shy of calling it an act of war.

The situation in 1941 Japan can tell us a lot when analyzing Russia today. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941. But why did they do it? On the surface the act seems irrational. Most people don’t look at the root of that problem either but doing so can help us see the world from Putin’s eyes.

Like today’s Russia Japan had become increasingly aggressive. In July 1941 Japan invaded and occupied French Indochina (present day Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos). This put Japan within striking distance of other resource rich nations like Malaysia, Singapore etc. This threatened Great Britain’s cash flow giving the Nazis an advantage.

Like the west retaliated from Russia’s annexation of Ukraine, President Roosevelt retaliated and imposed economic sanctions on Japan. One of which was an embargo of U.S. oil which the Japanese economy was critically dependent on. Rather than deterring the Japanese they got even more aggressive. They saw the sanctions as an act of war. They decided that war with the United States was now inevitable. To make up for the loss of U.S. oil and other sanctions the Japanese planned to invade the Dutch East Indies, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines. The attack on Pearl Harbor was basically a giant flanking maneuver to make sure the U.S. Pacific Fleet couldn’t intervene.

With the Russian economy under attack and the future of Ukraine and Crimea in jeopardy how will Putin react? Do the Russians see war with the U.S. now inevitable as the Japanese did in 1941?

The way Putin responds in the next few months may decide whether he holds on to his presidency. He now finds himself in a land where he’s unleashed monsters that he may not be able to control. The fires of Russian nationalism burn hot. Russians see themselves as under attack. Not only their culture but their religion. Putin typically is content with taking his time but there is a growing majority that, like Dugin, want action now.

On the night of February 24th 1956 the public session of the 20 Congress of the USSR came to a close. Most of the delegates went home, but Nikita Khrushchev called the most senior members back to a closed private session. This session would later be dubbed Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech”.

Stalin was dead and his closest supporters (Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich) were set to take over. Khrushchev’s goal was to show the government that Stalin and his followers were victim of “the cult of personality”. That Stalin had made the Russian cause and struggle about his own ego and not about the Russian people. The speech was so shocking and contrary to how things had been going in the Soviet Union at the time that multiple people within the auditorium had heart attacks and passed out. The speech would be a huge success for Khrushchev and lead to the de-stalinization of the USSR. Khrushchev would seize power from Stalin’s successors.

Who is going to be the modern day Khrushchev? Who is going to come forth and point out Putin’s failures if he doesn’t give the Russian people what they want?

If Putin is forced out under present circumstances the Russian people will look for direct and immediate action. They’ll look for a leader outside the current politburo. A war hero with a track record for fighting for the reclamation of Russian civilization. The next Russian leader will see Orthodoxy not as a tool for nationalism but as a treasure he must champion. He’ll be profoundly religious and dedicated to the Russian Orthodox Church.

He may be a man like Igor Girkin Strelkov.

Girkin typically just goes by his nickname Strelkov which means “shooter” in Russian. He’s basically the Russian version of a cross between Rambo, John Wayne, and the Pope. He served in both the FSB and GRU leading insurgencies in Chechnya, Bosnia, Moldova, and Georgia.

Russians see Girkin as a sort of holy warrior defending Russian civilization from what Girkin calls “the Godless west”. Girkin’s generals and followers echo their Orthodox mission:

“As we are Orthodox Christians, this connection, this line of Orthodox Christianity goes through everything, including the awards, connection of past, future and present.” Girkin’s General “Prapor” – (on the resemblance of the Novorossia medal to the cross of St George)

“A Clash of civilizations is taking place, no more no less” “one of these civilizations stands on clearly anti-christian basis” “preventing it’s triumph itself would be an enormous contribution to the Orthodox Christian cause” – Vladimir Khomyakov

According to Girkin it was he and not Putin that “pulled the trigger of war in Ukraine”. After the Maidan protests in Kiev Girkin crossed into Crimea and led the take over. After Crimea was fully annexed he crossed into Eastern Ukraine and led the uprisings in both Donetsk and Luhansk. When the ceasefire was negotiated Girkin relocated back to Russia and has been the leading organizer for Russian fighters and equipment flowing into what he calls “Novorossiya” (New Russia).

Ditching his military uniform and donning a suit Igor Girkin has been all over Russian media lately. While Putin addresses the nation and tells them not to worry about the dire situation of the Russian economy Dugin can be seen preaching the liberation of New Russia. Not stopping at Ukraine but uniting all Russian lands…by force if need be.

“The whole Russian people should merge into one Russian state…Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia must unite” – Girkin

Ivan the Terrible was the first Czar of Russia and ruled in the mid 1500’s. He believed he was chosen by God to lead the Russian people and defend Orthodoxy. During his reign the Russian Empire would see its greatest territorial expansion ever. Is Igor Girkin the modern day version of Ivan the Terrible? Is Russia at the precipice of another period of great territorial expansion with a champion of their faith at the helm? Time will tell.​

01/1/15

Obama, Hitler, And Exploding The Biggest Lie In History

By: Bill Flax
Forbes (published with permission)

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

“The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator.” John T. Flynn

Numerous commentators have raised alarming comparisons between America’s recent economic foibles and Argentina’s fall “from breadbasket to basket case.” The U.S. pursues a similar path with her economy increasingly ensnared under the growing nexus of government control. Resources are redistributed for vote-buying welfare schemes, patronage style earmarks, and graft by unelected bureaucrats, quid pro quo with unions, issue groups and legions of lobbyists.

In Argentina, everyone acknowledges that fascism, state capitalism, corporatism – whatever – reflects very leftwing ideology. Eva Peron remains a liberal icon. President Obama’s Fabian policies (Keynesian economics) promise similar ends. His proposed infrastructure bank is just the latest gyration of corporatism. Why then are fascists consistently portrayed as conservatives?

In the Thirties, intellectuals smitten by progressivism considered limited, constitutional governance anachronistic. The Great Depression had apparently proven capitalism defunct. The remaining choice had narrowed between communism and fascism. Hitler was about an inch to the right of Stalin. Western intellectuals infatuated with Marxism thus associated fascism with the Right.

Later, Marxists from the Frankfurt School popularized this prevailing sentiment. Theodor Adorno in The Authoritarian Personality devised the “F” scale to demean conservatives as latent fascists. The label “fascist” has subsequently meant anyone liberals seek to ostracize or discredit.

Fascism is an amorphous ideology mobilizing an entire nation (Mussolini, Franco and Peron) or race (Hitler) for a common purpose. Leaders of industry, science, education, the arts and politics combine to shepherd society in an all encompassing quest. Hitler’s premise was a pure Aryan Germany capable of dominating Europe.

While he feinted right, Hitler and Stalin were natural bedfellows. Hitler mimicked Lenin’s path to totalitarian tyranny, parlaying crises into power. Nazis despised Marxists not over ideology, but because they had betrayed Germany in World War I and Nazis found it unconscionable that German communists yielded fealty to Slavs in Moscow.

The National Socialist German Workers Party staged elaborate marches with uniformed workers calling one another “comrade” while toting tools the way soldiers shoulder rifles. The bright red Nazi flag symbolized socialism in a “classless, casteless” Germany (white represents Aryanism). Fascist central planning was not egalitarian, but it divvied up economic rewards very similarly to communism: party membership and partnering with the state.

Where communists generally focused on class, Nazis fixated on race. Communists view life through the prism of a perpetual workers’ revolution. National Socialists used race as a metaphor to justify their nation’s engagement in an existential struggle.

As many have observed, substituting “Jews” for “capitalists” exposes strikingly similar thinking. But communists frequently hated Jews too and Hitler also abhorred capitalists, or “plutocrats” in Nazi speak. From afar, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany each reeked of plutocratic oligarchy. Both were false utilitarian Utopias that in practice merely empowered dictators.

The National Socialist German Workers Party is only Right if you are hopelessly Left. Or, ascribe to Marxist eschatology perceiving that history marches relentlessly towards the final implementation of socialist Utopia. Marx predicted state capitalism as the last desperate redoubt against the inevitable rise of the proletariat. The Soviets thus saw Nazis as segues to communism.

Interestingly, almost everywhere Marxism triumphed: Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc., all skipped the capitalist phase Marx thought pivotal. Instead, they slid straight from pre-industrial feudal conditions into communism; which essentially entailed reversion back to feudalism supplanting the traditional aristocracy with party cronyism – before dissolving into corrupted variants of state capitalism economically similar to fascism.

As usual, Marx got it backwards.

It’s also ironic that even as orthodox Marxism collapsed due to economic paralysis, cultural Marxism predicated on race, sex and identity politics thrives in “Capitalist” America. The multiculturalists substituted race where the Soviets and Maoists saw only class. America’s civic crusade has become political correctness, aka cultural Marxism, preoccupied with race. Socialism wheels around again.

While political correctness as manifest in the West is very anti-Nazi and those opposing multiculturalism primarily populate the Right, it’s false to confuse fascism with conservatism. Coupling negatives is not necessarily positive. Because the Nazis would likely detest something that conservatives also dislike indicates little harmony. Ohio State hates Michigan. Notre Dame does too, but Irish fans rarely root for the Buckeyes.

America’s most fascistic elements are ultra leftwing organizations like La Raza or the Congressional Black Caucus. These racial nationalists seek gain not through merit, but through the attainment of government privileges. What’s the difference between segregation and affirmative action? They are identical phenomena harnessing state auspices to impose racialist dogma.

The Nation of Islam and other Afrocentric movements, like the Nazis, even celebrate their own perverse racist mythology. Are Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright conservatives? Is Obama?

Racism does not exclusively plague the Right. Many American bigots manned the Left: ex-Klansman Hugo Black had an extremely left wing Supreme Court record, George Wallace was a New Deal style liberal – he just wanted welfare and social programs controlled by states. Communists always persecute minorities whenever in power.

The Nazis’ anti-Semitism derived indirectly from Karl Marx, who despite Jewish ancestry was deeply anti-Semitic. Bankers and other capitalists were disproportionately Jewish. Elsewhere, Jews played prominent roles. Before falling under Hitler’s sway, Mussolini’s inner circle was overly Jewish. Peron was the first leader to let Jews hold public office in Argentina. Franco, a Marana, welcomed Jews back into Spain for the first time since 1492 and famously thwarted Hitler by harboring Jewish refugees.

Very little of Hitler’s domestic activity was even remotely right wing. Europe views Left and Right differently, but here, free markets, limited constitutional government, family, church and tradition are the bedrocks of conservatism. The Nazis had a planned economy; eradicated federalism in favor of centralized government; considered church and family as competitors; and disavowed tradition wishing to restore Germany’s pre-Christian roots.

Despite Democrats’ pretensions every election, patriotism is clearly a conservative trait so Nazi foreign policy could be vaguely right wing, but how did Hitler’s aggression differ from Stalin’s? The peace movement evidenced liberals being duped as “useful idiots” more than pacifistic purity. Note the Left’s insistence on neutrality during the Hitler/Stalin pact and their urgent switch to militarism once Germany attacked.

After assuming power, Nazis strongly advocated “law and order.” Previously, they were antagonistic thugs, which mirrored the communists’ ascension. The Nazis outlawed unions perceiving them as competitors for labor’s loyalties, i.e. for precisely the same reason workers’ paradises like Communist China and Soviet Russia disallowed unions. To Nazis, the state sustained workers’ needs.

Even issues revealing similarity to American conservatism could also describe Stalin, Mao and many communists. This is not to suggest liberals and fascists are indistinguishable, but a fair assessment clearly shows if any similarities appear with American politics they reside more on the Left than Right.

On many issues the Nazis align quite agreeably with liberals. The Nazis enforced strict gun control, which made their agenda possible and highlights the necessity of an armed populace.

The Nazis separated church and state to marginalize religion’s influence. Hitler despised biblical morality and bourgeois (middle class) values. Crosses were ripped from the public square in favor of swastikas. Prayer in school was abolished and worship confined to churches. Church youth groups were forcibly absorbed into the Hitler Youth.

Hitler extolled public education, even banning private schools and instituting “a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program” controlled by Berlin. Similar to liberals’ cradle to career ideal, the Nazis established state administered early childhood development programs; “The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school as early as the beginning of understanding.”

Foreshadowing Michelle Obama, “The State is to care for elevating national health.” Nanny State intrusions reflect that persons are not sovereign, but belong to the state. Hitler even sought to outlaw meat after the war; blaming Germany’s health problems on the capitalist (i.e. Jewish) food industry. The Nazis idealized public service and smothered private charity with public programs.

Hitler’s election platform included “an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.” Nazi propaganda proclaimed, “No one shall go hungry! No one shall be cold!” Germany had universal healthcare and demanded that “the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood.” Obama would relish such a “jobs” program.

Nazi Germany was the fullest culmination of Margaret Sanger’s eugenic vision. She was the founder of Planned Parenthood, which changed its name from the American Birth Control Society after the holocaust surfaced. Although Nazi eugenics clearly differed from liberals’ abortion arguments today, that wasn’t necessarily true for their progressive forbears.

Germany was first to enact environmentalist economic policies promoting sustainable development and regulating pollution. The Nazis bought into Rousseau’s romanticized primitive man fantasies. Living “authentically” in environs unspoiled by capitalist industry was almost as cherished as pure Aryan lineage.

National Socialist economics were socialist, obviously, imposing top-down economic planning and social engineering. It was predicated on volkisch populism combining a Malthusian struggle for existence with a fetish for the “organic.” Like most socialists, wealth was thought static and “the common good supersede[d] the private good” in a Darwinist search for “applied biology” to boost greater Germany.

The Nazis distrusted markets and abused property rights, even advocating “confiscation of war profits” and “nationalization of associated industries.” Their platform demanded, “Communalization of the great warehouses” (department stores) and presaging modern set aside quotas on account of race or politics, “utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State.”

Nazi Germany progressively dominated her economy. Although many businesses were nominally private, the state determined what was produced in what quantities and at what prices. First, they unleashed massive inflation to finance their prolific spending on public works, welfare and military rearmament. They then enforced price and wage controls to mask currency debasement’s harmful impact. This spawned shortages as it must, so Berlin imposed rationing. When that failed, Albert Speer assumed complete power over production schedules, distribution channels and allowable profits.

Working for personal ends instead of the collective was as criminal in Nazi Germany as Soviet Russia. Norman Thomas, quadrennial Socialist Party presidential candidate, saw the correlation clearly, “both the communist and fascist revolutions definitely abolished laissez-faire capitalism in favor of one or another kind and degree of state capitalism. . . In no way was Hitler the tool of big business. He was its lenient master. So was Mussolini except that he was weaker.”

Mussolini recognized, “Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics.” Keynes saw the similarities too, admitting his theories, “can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than . . . a large degree of laissez-faire.” Hitler built the autobahn, FDR the TVA. Propaganda notwithstanding, neither rejuvenated their economies.

FDR admired Mussolini because “the trains ran on time” and Stalin’s five year plans, but was jealous of Hitler whose economic tinkering appeared more successful than the New Deal. America wasn’t ready for FDR’s blatantly fascist Blue Eagle business model and the Supreme Court overturned several other socialist designs. The greatest dissimilarity between FDR and fascists was he enjoyed less success transforming society because the Constitution obstructed him.

Even using Republicans as proxies, there was little remotely conservative about fascism. Hitler and Mussolini were probably to the right of our left-leaning media and education establishments, but labeling Tea Partiers as fascists doesn’t indict the Right. It indicts those declaring so as radically Left.