Purification

by

Gadfly

           Democrats are leading the campaign to purify America of its sin of slavery.  They support the removal of confederate statues and renaming military bases currently bearing names of confederate military leaders.  Speaker of the House Pelosi has even removed three portraits of former Speakers of the House who were members of Confederate States.

           As part of the Democrat campaign, is it not ironic that in one of their publicity stunts, Pelosi and fellow Democrats took a knee in the Nation’s Capitol while wearing the Ghana Kente cloth?  Affluent Ghanaians were influential in selling their fellow countrymen in the European slave trade.  Was it not hypocritical for Democrats to be associated with a symbol of a people that advanced and profited from slavery?  As an example of the leftist cabal on advancing the progressive Democrat narrative, see this twisted and convoluted explanation by PolitiFact who has partnered with Facebook to filter (censor) information that is contrary to their ideology.

Where will the campaign end?  If allowed to run its full course, it will require eradicating our current political system of the Democrat Party and any visible historical symbols of the Democrat Party throughout America’s history—to include the portrait of Nancy Pelosi.

 

           Does this assertion sound bizarre?

           Think about it.  As an institution, slavery required political justification.  This involved not only Democrats from Confederate States but support from Democrats in Northern States as well.  The institution of slavery was the reason the Republican Party was formed.  Lincoln and fellow Republicans abhorred slavery so much, they were willing to sacrifice well over 600,000 Americans at the altar of accountability and justice.

           Despite the sacrifice of nearly 10% of America’s population at the time and the legal termination of the institution of slavery, Democrats resisted post-Civil War efforts to fully integrate former slaves and all blacks into America’s Republic.  The KKK and Jim Crow laws were Democrat creations.  Today’s Democrat-backed KKK is Antifa and other well-funded organizations set on instituting a new form of political slavery—complete acquiescence to the progressive Democrat Party.

           The long, overdue “conversation on racism,” if engaged by reasoned minds, will shine a light on the modern slavery that currently exists in America (the welfare state and the inner-city plantations).  Starting with education, Democrats have controlled the education of Americans that has been very successful in indoctrinating at least two generations of progressives (Marxist socialists in disguise), who see the world through a normative lens.

 

What does a “normative lens” mean?  Progressives see the world the way it ought to be and set out to make it so: safe from climate change and the immoral beliefs of anyone who is not a progressive Democrat through militant social justice warriors.  As America’s intelligentsia, they have a moral obligation to create other ordinary Americans in their image.

           Does this claim also sound bizarre?

           Perhaps, arguably, as the central organizing personality in this progressive movement, former President Obama (who miraculously survived “systemic racism”[1] to serve two full terms as President of the United States of America) admitted his “intelligentsia” proclivity on March 25, 2018 at a conference in Japan (part of an Asia-Pacific trip that also included stops in Singapore, New Zealand and Australia—strong evidence of a globalist perspective).  He was candid about his intellectual and moral superiority when he said (quoting from CNN):

"After I left office, what I realized is that the Obama Foundation could potentially create a platform for young, up-and-coming leaders, both in the United States and all around the world to come together, meet together, create a digital platform where they could exchange information," Obama said.

"If I could do that effectively, then I would create a hundred, or a thousand, or a million young Barack Obamas or Michelle Obamas," he added (my bold italics).

           Obama’s body language speaks volumes about his intellectual and moral superiority as in this photograph from a CNN article:

In comparing Obama to Russia’s V. I. Lenin in my article, “Socialist Infiltration of America,” I said:

 

Among the Bolsheviks, Lenin was considered a demigod who tailored Marxism for the Russian people.  That is why we still refer to Marxism-Leninism to describe Communism in Russia, the former Soviet Union, and in China (even today).  Here is a cartoon that reflects anti-Bolshevik sentiment that Lenin (in the red robe) sacrificed Russia to a statue of Marx.

           Today, Democrats, who embrace progressivism and its Marxist philosophy, sacrifice a formerly liberal[2] America to the altar of racism.  Moreover, Democrats and their progressive demagogues are creating racism (anti-white, anti-cop, anti-anything that is not “Black Lives Matter”) in their alleged campaign to eliminate racism.  This is very consistent with “Leninthink.”  Orwell understood this so well that his dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty Four, painted a reality we see playing out on our television screens.  Walter Cronkite predicted how this might turn out in a 1983 preface to an edition of Nineteen Eighty-Four:

If not prophecy, what was 1984?  It was, as many have noticed, a warning:  a warning about the future of human freedom in a world where political organization and technology can manufacture power in dimensions that would have stunned the imagination of earlier ages.

Orwell drew upon the technology (and perhaps some of the science fiction) of the day in drawing his picture of 1984.  But it was not a work of science fiction he was writing.  It was a novelistic essay on power, how it is acquired and maintained, how those who seek it or seek to keep it tend to sacrifice anything and everything in its name.

1984 is an anguished lament and a warning that we may not be strong enough nor wise enough nor moral enough to cope with the kind of power we have learned to amass.  That warning vibrates powerfully when we allow ourselves to sit still and think carefully about orbiting satellites that can read the license plates in a parking lot and computers that can tap into thousands of telephone calls and telex transmissions at once and computers that can do our banking and purchasing, can watch the house and tell a monitoring station what television program we are watching and how many people there are in the room.  We think of Orwell when we read of scientists who believe they have located in the human brain the seats of behavioral emotions like aggression, or learn more about the vast potential of genetic engineering.

And we hear echoes of that warning chord in the constant demand for greater security and comfort, for less risk in our societies.  We recognize, however dimly, that greater efficiency, ease, and security may come at a substantial price in freedom, that law and order can be a doublethink version of oppression, that individual liberties surrendered for whatever good reason are freedom lost.

Critics and scholars may argue quite legitimately about the particular literary merits of 1984.  But none can deny its power, its hold on the imaginations of whole generations, nor the power of its admonitions . . . a power that seems to grow rather than lessen with the passage of time.  It has been said that 1984 fails as a prophecy because it succeeded as a warning—Orwell’s terrible vision has been averted.  Well, that kind of self-congratulation is, to say the least, premature.  1984 may not arrive on time, but there’s always 1985.

Still, the warning has been effective; and every time we use one of those catch phrases . . . recognize Big Brother in someone, see a 1984 in our future . . . notice something Orwellian . . . we are listening to that warning again (my bold italics).

Fellow Americans, we are well beyond a warning.  The dangers of Nineteen Eighty-Four are here.  Prayer may inspire us for strength and courage that are so necessary in confronting it.  Prayer is badly needed to notice something Orwellian and to fight it with all our strength. Let us purify ourselves against the rot (evil) that has infected our society.

---

[1] The new Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force and the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force also somehow survived systemic racism.  Frederick Douglass survived actual slavery and systemic racism, but rose above these conditions to be a staunch advocate for Americanism.  America’s potential for transcendence is inhibited by today’s comforted bigots (or Copernican Drones) who advance the notion of systemic racism for political power.

[2] Liberal implies a belief in liberalism.  Wikipedia presents a fairly accurate description of the values of liberalism.  “Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.  Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.”  Liberals among America’s Founders also believed in natural rights—the inalienable rights of equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  As the political philosopher and former atheist Gerhardt Niemeyer has argued, natural rights is a critical concept in understanding political and social order and can only be understood within the framework of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

America’s Neoimperialists

by

Gadfly

           On October 7, 2019, President Trump decided to withdraw American troops from Syria after Turkish President Erdogan had decided to move forces into Syria.  Trump objected to this action; but, when confronted with this scenario, he decided not to leave 28 special forces members in the path as a speed bump.  When the Turkish action expanded, Trump then further directed other American forces to also withdraw.
  

Trump received immediate pushback and condemnation from America’s neo-imperialists, representing Democrats and Republicans.  Others seem to understand the logic for his decision, especially when factoring in the historical and geopolitical context.  In the final analysis, this particular decision combined with others in his first three years in office, should be recognized as President Trump’s well-developed capacity for strategic intuition (of course, my anti-Trump friends are likely laughing or snickering about this assertion because it is contrary to their caricature of Trump).

  

Let’s unpack key points in the preceding paragraph:  historical and geopolitical context, American neoimperialism, and Trump’s strategic intuition.

Historical and Geopolitical Context


           Why is the United States in Syria?  Most would answer:  to defeat or contain ISIS/ISIL.  While this is true, it obfuscates a much broader set of circumstances that make the answer significantly more complicated.

Speaker Pelosi is leading the charge in condemning Trump’s Syria decision.  Ironically, we should remind ourselves of an event that took place in April 2007.  Within three months of Democrats resuming control of both houses of Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi met with Syrian President Bashar al Assad.  This trip was in direct defiance of the President George W. Bush and State Department foreign policy to isolate Assad and his regime.  Through this action, Pelosi revealed her colors in terms of ideology and its justification for violating political norms.  In the process, she “greenlighted” Assad’s subsequent actions to stay in power.  Pelosi broadcasted to the world that political power in America was divided and that there was no loyalty to a duly elected President’s policy agenda.

  

Patterns are important in understanding the nature of behavior, whether virtuous or not.  This past week, Pelosi rebuked President Trump in the White House for his lack of loyalty to the Kurds.  On Saturday, she led a Congressional delegation (one token Republican who will not run for reelection) to Jordan to discuss the situation in Syria.  Pelosi’s message to the world:  Trump is not America’s legitimate President.

  

Article II of our Constitution gives foreign policy authority to the Executive branch (led by the President), not Congress.  Article I gives Congress legislative powers that may shape or constrain foreign policy; this is why they have oversight authority—but this is merely to ensure proper application of any legislation.

   

There is an old saying, “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”  The saying usually refers to adultery.  In this case, Pelosi is married to an ideology, and she will punish Trump or anyone else who does not submit to her ideology.

Let us also not forget that Pelosi was elected from one Congressional district in California—San Francisco.  While she and her husband live in luxury in a gated community, thousands of homeless and drug addicted persons wonder the city that was once a favorite tourist attraction.  She has done nothing for her neighbors but now wants to virtue signal about abandoning Kurdish people.

The leftist media were quick to say Trump “greenlighted” Erdogan’s actions.  When one controls a megaphone, he or she controls the narrative.  Framing is the most important part of the narrative.  So they suggest Trump violated some norms.  In this case that he abandoned “allies.”  The most reliable norms are those grounded in the law, such as international law, treaties, and so forth.  These are the norms (and framework) within which Trump operates.  Was the President supposed to coerce Erdogan, the elected leader of a sovereign nation, into not pursuing his actions?  By what authority?  Turkey is a sovereign nation and a member of NATO.  Syria is a sovereign nation and not a member of NATO.  The Kurds are an ethnic demographic that is not a sovereign nation (although it has been recognized as a quasi-state called Kurdistan since around 1970 by other political factions in the region), nor is it a member of NATO, nor is it homogenous.  There are Turkish, Syrian, and Iraqi Kurds (see LTC [USMC, retired] Mike Ford’s excellent article on Kurdish demographics here).  Some Kurds also live in Iran.

  

To complicate this quagmire are Russia’s interests.  Russia is a friend of Syria and is courting Turkey.  Is there an opportunity for Russia to be part of the solution?  Given Turkey’s proximity to former Soviet republics, Russia seems to have a greater interest from a geopolitical perspective.  Russia needs opportunities to be more constructive as a  former major power.  To understand this requires strategic intuition.  Perhaps, those not already blinded by America’s neoimperialists might envision a more stable and durable future with Russia (and Europe) as a positive player.  Trump understands this.

For a reasoned explanation of the Turkish, Syrian, and Kurdish situation see Mike Ford’s series of articles here, here, here, and here.  In the last article, Ford discusses the intentions and consequences of the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement.  The imperialist nations involved in this action of redrawing national boundaries of the former Ottoman Empire were Great Britain, France, Russia, and Italy.  The United States played no role.  Today, Russia is still involved.  Where are the great powers of Great Britain, France, and Italy in mitigating the consequences of their imperialism from the early 1900s?

Turkey is mostly Sunni.  Kurds are mostly Sunni.  Syria is mostly Sunni.  ISIS/ISIL is Sunni.  In other words, the players here are mostly Sunni Muslims.  Other players in the regional conflict are Saudi Arabia, mostly Sunni, and Iran, mostly Shia (which is but one manifestation of Islamism’s contradictions).

  

We are told Islam is a religion of peace.  If this were so, then why is the Middle East one of the most unpeaceful regions in the world?  Perhaps there is a simple clue:  the word Islam means submission. 

The absurdity here is that the Islamic model for peace requires total submission to an ideology that is flawed due to its internal contradictions.  The same is true for America’s neoimperialists (especially those who champion the oppressed while championing a mother’s right to kill the child in her womb).

America’s Neoimperialists


           What is imperialism?   According to Dictionary.com, imperialism is “the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.”   American domestic and foreign policy has manifested imperialism throughout our history:  internally in conquering native Americans in our westward expansion; externally in coopting proxy allies (like the Kurds) in its defense against communist expansion (like ISIS/ISIL).


           A new form of external imperialism (neoimperialism) took shape during the Clinton Administration in its series of military operations other than war (MOOTW).  We studied the MOOTW phenomenon when I was a student at the Air War College in the 1990s.  While prominent in the 1990s, the United States has a record of MOOTW beginning in 1916 (see Appendix A in a RAND monograph here), the same year as the signing of the Sykes-Picot Agreement.  Even in 1994, I realized American policy was imperialistic and argued this point in a paper that America’s Middle Eastern policy ignored or dismissed the sovereign role the Gulf Cooperation Council could play in managing the region’s conflict-related issues.


           Of course, George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four clearly understood the importance of imperialism in the disguise of Big Brother “protection” in Oceania’s endless war.  Big Brother (the establishment) preached “War is Peace.”  The ruled depended upon this power for their safety.  Nineteen Eighty-Four was merely a dystopian novel; but it stemmed from Orwell’s observation of socialism up through the mid-1940s.


           “Endless wars.”  Does this sound familiar?  Donald Trump campaigned on his opposition to endless wars.  Again, why do we have American forces in Syria?  Mostly to protect us from ISIS/ISIL.  In my opinion, the only way we can defeat this threat is to defeat the ideology.  But this is an unwanted challenge for America’s neoimperialists.
  

           America’s neoimperialists (an empire defined as a monolithic political ideology—Marxist progressivism) are still engaged in domestic conquest:  the progressive ideology must defeat any views that are different.  The progressive ideology is Marxist, which involves a ruling elite to liberate the oppressed.  This is why identity politics and illegal immigration are critical to this ideology.  To progressives, individual liberty is oppressive.  This is why progressives advance political correctness (some free speech is offensive) and safe spaces on college campuses.  To progressives, collective liberty is liberating.  Like Islam, Marxism and its neoimperialist facade called progressivism is based on contradictions: “War Is Peace,” “Political Correctness Is Truth,” “Submission Is Freedom,” “Criminal Activity Is Just” (e.g., sanctuary cities or states), “Plunder Is Just” (e.g., progressive tax schemes to redistribute wealth), and so forth.


           America’s neoimperialists no longer hide in the open.  They are now blatant because they control the narrative (in the media, academia, government, and Hollywood) that in turn shapes public sentiment, to include Republicans.


           In a recent New York Times Newsletter, David Leonhardt encouraged Elizabeth Warren to become “ruthless” toward President Trump.  Leonhardt and his leftist ideologues imply that President Trump is all by himself, as if he does not represent the political will of half of America’s population.  But, Trump and half of America have a view that is not consistent with the progressive ideology.  This is evidence of a civil war.


           The left talks about the political divide (that they arguably created and continue to magnify).  They presume they are the ones to unite Americans.  What do they mean by “uniting Americans”?  One party—just like Soviet Communism and Chinese Communism.  There is no compromise.  It’s progressivism or nothing.  If the left cannot win, no one can.


           As for Republicans, they either do not understand the strategic implications of America’s civil war, or they lack any ounce of a backbone (shall we say courage?).  This is not the first time Republican fecklessness led to a major shift in America’s political dynamics.  At one point early in his first term, President George W. Bush enjoyed nearly 90% approval.  This did not bode well in terms of political capital for Democrats.  Democrats, then the minority in both houses of Congress, orchestrated an anti-Bush campaign in concert with a leftist media.  By 2006, Democrats took back both houses of Congress and, using that momentum, prepped the political battleground for Obama’s election in 2008.  Where were the Republicans during this anti-Bush campaign?  Most slithered into the shadows and left Bush on his own to fight a two-front war:  America’s leftist neoimperialists and Islamic terrorism in the Middle East.


           Bush is not without some blame.  He had confidence in the “advice” from neoconservatives that were and are part of a neoimperialistic political establishment.  He would not admit it, but Bill Clinton as well as Hillary Clinton were and are neoconservatives (look at Clinton’s national strategies that involved democratizing the world).
  

As in the anti-Bush campaign, today’s Republicans are demonstrating how easily duped they can be by recklessly voting along with Democrats to condemn President Trump’s decision in Syria.  Of all of them, perhaps the most self-serving Republican leading the campaign against President Trump is Mitt Romney (I voted for him; he did not appear to be ruthless at the time).  Unfortunately, evil is banal until it achieves momentum; then it fully displays its true nature.

           As much as the left and many feckless Republicans caricaturize and resist President Trump’s authority as a duly elected President, they do not recognize, let alone appreciate, his strategic intuition.
              

Trump’s Strategic Intuition


           I first learned about strategic intuition from a book by William Duggan, Strategic Intuition:  The Creative Spark in Human Achievement.  (Note:  for context, I read this book along with a lot of others and journal articles during my work as a strategic analyst in addressing Islamist counterterrorism).


           According to Duggan, there are three types of intuition:  ordinary, expert, and strategic.  Ordinary intuition is a feeling or an undeveloped hunch about something.  The leftist media seems to demonstrate this type in its constant narrative against Trump. House Republicans who voted to condemn Trump’s decision about Syria demonstrated this type of intuition.

Expert intuition represents snap judgments requiring action in familiar circumstances.  Napoleon exercised expert tuition on the battlefield.  Current anti-Trump flag officers such as Admiral McRaven (see for example his recent New York Times op-ed here) attempt to inject their geopolitical views from an expert tuition perspective.  Firefighters demonstrate expert intuition when fighting fires in different scenarios.

  

Regarding strategic intuition, here is how Duggan describes it on his book jacket: “Strategic intuition is a clear thought.  And it’s not fast like expert intuition.  It’s slow.  That flash of insight you had last night might solve a problem that’s been on your mind for a month.  And it doesn’t happen in familiar situations, like a tennis match.  Strategic intuition works in new situations.  That’s when you need it most.”  Recent Presidents who demonstrated strategic intuition are Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Trump.  Recent flag officers who demonstrated strategic intuition are Generals Fogelman (institutional character-based culture), Petraeus (regional cultural diversity), and Schwartz (institutional relevance into the future).

     

Duggan, by the way, is highly critical of President Trump (see here).  Duggan has written three books, was a strategy consultant for 20 years, and is a professor of business at Columbia University.

  

Of course, Columbia has become somewhat of an echo chamber for leftist ideologies and ideologues.  American Communist Bella Dodd and her academic cohort received their first indoctrination and training in communist methods at Columbia.  Richard Clowan and Frances Fox Piven found tenure at Columbia and fertile ground to advance their socialist strategies involving the collapse of capitalism to open the door for a socialist government.  For example, see here.  When one looks at the accumulation of national debt and unfunded liabilities, the Clowan-Piven strategy to achieve national bankruptcy appears to be working.

  

One final note about Columbia.  Following World War II, Dwight Eisenhower was hired to serve as President of Columbia University.  While his tenure was relatively short, there is no mention of Eisenhower on Columbia’s website history.  Eisenhower understood the threat of Soviet and Chinese Communism and initiated policies to contain it during what is known as The Cold War.  Eisenhower was not a leftist ideologue; thus, Columbia expelled him from their elitist club.

In comparison to Duggan, Trump has owned and run businesses for five decades, worked the complicated nexus between political power players (government) and the private sector, and has authored at least 14 books.  Three of Trump’s books laid the groundwork for becoming the duly elected President of the United States:  The America We Deserve (2000), Time to Get Tough:  Make America Great Again (2011); and Crippled America:  How to Make America Great Again (2015).  Trump’s books revealed his thinking over many years.

  

Contrary to Admiral McRaven’s assertion that “Trump is attacking on our republic,” Trump believes very strongly in the foundational principles of a Constitutional Republic.  He believes in the checks and balances of our Constitution.  He believes in federalism.  He believes in the rule of law.  He believes in truth (which he knows is distorted by fake news) and justice.  He also believes in God and that our inalienable rights were granted by God.  As one of our nation’s Founders/Framers observed, a constitutional republic can only work for a moral and religious people.

  

There are no surprises in Trump’s agenda.  He wrote about it, promised it in his presidential campaign, and is now fulfilling his promises except where he is being blocked by a leftist House of Representatives and leftist federal judges.  These are America’s neoimperialists, totally committed to uniting America under one progressive political party.

The leftist progressives, publicly led by their poster child Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are ruthless.  Ruthlessness is not a virtue.  And even acts that appear virtuous, such as virtue signaling compassion for the Kurds, do not reveal the motivation for “virtue signaling.”  It is the motivation that determines virtue or vice and a pattern that is consistent with the motivation.  In this case, the Kurds are mere instruments (as are blacks, the LGTB, women, illegal immigrants, etc.) in the left’s scheme to continue their broader leftist cabal to undermine and remove a duly elected President who seeks liberty and justice for all.

The Department of Justice Inspector General Report (when finally released) and the Barr/Durham investigations might be enough to disrupt the leftist grip on America.  If not, we may all soon be addressing each other as “comrade.”

Socialist Infiltration of America

by

Gadfly

We are hearing a lot more about socialism in the current news.  Older generations understand the irony and danger in this development, because they are closer to the history of its nihilism and brutality.  Younger generations are not so concerned because they have been exposed to a different “education.”

For older generations, they know socialism led to the death of millions in its communist and fascist manifestations.  They are sisters of socialism.  Communism is its leftward manifestation and fascism a rightward (still well left of the political center) manifestation.

 

The left loves to demonize white supremacy or white nationalism as a right-wing phenomenon.  Right-wing based on what?  The political center?  The socialist center?

I contend classical liberalism (individual liberty, private property, limited government, free market/free enterprise grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition) is the political center of a Constitutional Republic, with leftward manifestations being lesser adherence whereas greater adherence is rightward leaning.  Socialism is a left of center ideology.  Economic freedom is right of center.

Racial supremacy is contrary to the notion of classical liberalism because the latter’s fundamental view of humanity is one of equality and individual liberty.  Any notion of privilege or supremacy is contrary to this philosophy.  Is it any wonder then that leftist social justice achieves its full potential by coercively applying privilege as in affirmative action measures, redistribution of wealth, proposals for reparations, and so forth?  Recall that the last surviving commandment in Orwell’s socialistic Animal Farm was, “All animals are created equal, some are more equal than others.”

Am I suggesting that the Republican Party, as a right of center political party practices classical liberalism?  For the most part, yes.  Modern conservatism is mostly aligned with classical liberalism.  Unfortunately, once in office, Republicans tend to capitulate on the levels of spending that violate a limited government principle.  This is the hubris of power in modern politics.  The most to blame for this corruption, however, is the general public—Americans who are living in comfort zones and essentially outsourcing self-governance to a small percentage of elected and unelected officials.

Younger generations have not been taught any of socialism’s history.  Rather, the focus has been a new form of patriotism:  a progressive patriotism that looks toward a perfected future—utopia.  It is pure socialism.  Progressives have been successful in taking prayer out of schools and other public venues, facilitating a trend toward atheistic nihilism.  According to Gallup surveys, those affiliating with Judeo-Christian religions have decreased by well over 30% since 1956 (when 99% of those surveyed affiliated with Judeo-Christian religions).  Other surveys show similar declines in church membership, with Catholics showing the sharpest decrease (likely a result of the public narratives on abuse scandals—even though there are mitigating circumstances such as communist and homosexual infiltration as reported by Bella Dodd in here memoir, School of Darkness and Enrique Rueda’s analysis of the homosexual political movement in The Homosexual Network:  Private Lives and Public Policy). These trends allow the state to increasingly fill in as the moral authority.

 

Marx would be proud of socialism’s success in America.  Education has played a critical role.  In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, education is mentioned 68 times.  The Manifesto states: “All children will be educated in state establishments from the time when they can do without the first maternal care.”  Colorado just approved funding for all-day kindergarten.  Nation-wide, teacher’s unions exercise tremendous power in classroom curricula, manipulating the composition of school boards, and funding political candidates.

Closely related to the role of education by the state is the need to dismantle the family—that is, a traditional family with a mother and father and children.  Marx believed the family was a critical foundation for capitalism.  Current political movements to disrupt the traditional family are critical to achieving socialism.  The fact that many suffer moral injury are of no concern—they are instruments in the overall cause.

In memorializing his experience as a prominent British Communist, Douglas Hyde, in his book I Believed, described communist infiltration efforts when Churchill became an ally to Joseph Stalin:

In that campaign, [sic] experience was gained which not long after came near to bringing about the affiliation of the Communist Party to the Labour Party.  In addition, important new contacts were made in trade union and cultural circles in particular which are still being exploited to this day.

The British Labour Party is similar to America’s Democrat Party.  In addition to exploiting teacher’s unions, the Communist Party clearly exploits all unions, to include those to which a significant percentage of government employees belong at the federal, state, county, and municipal levels.  Examples of these unions include the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO), the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE),  American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the National Education Association (NEA), and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), among others.

Randi Weingarten, President of AFT, demonstrated socialist ideology in a recent column, “A Defining Moment for Democracy.”  The message was very anti-Trump and socialist in its themes.  Communism emphasizes “democracy” as a necessary condition for socialism.  This is why today’s public-school education avoids the founder’s rationale for a republic because they knew the dangers of democracy.

Assuming the reader agrees with the argument that socialists (many use the label progressive or modern liberal) have controlled the education process to facilitate socialism, then how do they control the political process?  They use tried and proven methods as clearly described by Douglas Hyde in his more recent book, Dedication and Leadership.  The following is an excerpt from the book’s back cover:

On March 14, 1948, Douglas Hyde handed in his resignation as the news editor of the London Daily Worker and wrote “the end” to twenty years of his life as a member of the Communist Party. A week later, in a written statement, Hyde announced that he had renounced Communism and, with his wife and children, was joining the Catholic Church. 

The long pilgrimage from Communism to Christ carried Douglas Hyde from complete commitment to Marxism, to a questioning uneasiness about Soviet Russia’s glaring contradictions of ideology and action, to a final rejection of the Party.

In Dedication and Leadership, he advances the theory that although the goals and aims of Communism are antithetical to human dignity and the rights of the individual, there is much to be learned from communist methods, cadres and psychological motivation. Hyde describes the Communist mechanics of instilling dedication, the first prerequisite for leadership. Here is the complete rationale of party technique: how to stimulate the willingness to sacrifice; the advisability of making big demands to insure a big response; the inspirational indoctrination; and the subtle conversion methods.

According to the US Geological Survey (USGS), there are 3,141 counties and county equivalents in the 50 States and the District of Columbia.  The Communist Party USA (CPUSA) employed its 50/3000 model during the 2018 midterm elections.  That is, CPUSA has active cells in 3,000 counties in 50 states.  John Bachtell, national leader of CPUSA, boasted that they were successful in generating 12 million more votes (45 million versus 33 million) for Democrat candidates.  As in their success in aligning with the British Labour Party in the past century, the Communist Party has blatantly aligned with today’s American Democrat Party.

CPUSA gets a lot of support and collaboration.  The media, Silicon Valley (see, for example, this disturbing Congressional testimony), and Hollywood cabal control the public narrative, to include technology and smear tactics to censor opposing views.  Groups like Media Matters for America and the American Independent Institute.

 

The leading think tank for the progressive movement is the Center for American Progress.  It was founded by former President Clinton’s Chief of Staff, John Podesta.  While the infamous Wikileaks publications during the summer of 2016 featured sinister actions by Podesta, the left’s concern was less about actual content and more about the fact that this information was made public.  In their opinion, only “trusted” leftist sources such as The New York Times or The Washington Post are allowed to “leak” sensitive information.

Another organization, Organizing for Action (OFA), has recently changed its www.ofa.us link to a page called All On the Line.  Its predecessor names were Obama for America (OFA), Organizing for America (OFA), and then Organizing for Action (OFA).  Here is a recent progress report by Katie Hogan, Executive Director of Organizing for Action.  She reports:

62,243 people trained on skills needed to make an impact at no cost to them

7,572,171 online action-takers

145 active chapters from coast to coast

30,924 grassroots events in all 50 states and D.C.

OFA is just warming up, and it can count on healthy funding from the Obama Foundation, which is a magnet for progressive donors.  It is not limited to America.  Socialism is not bound by national borders.  The socialist mantra, “workers unite” has a global thrust.

More specifics on progressive tactics were captured in a recent Patriot Post article.  The tactic involves converting red counties into blue counties.  It involves dark money.  The article provides specific details on how they templated the tactics with a county in Tennessee.

  

The purpose of my book, The 2012 Political Contest in America:  Conversations with a Gadfly, was to sound an alarm about the progressive (socialist) movement in America.  At the time, some wanted to compare Obama to Lincoln.  I disagreed and presented a case that Obama was more aligned with Vladimir Lenin.  The following table from p. 64 of the book is included here with permission.

Among the Bolsheviks, Lenin was considered a demigod who tailored Marxism for the Russian people.  That is why we still refer to Marxism-Leninism to describe Communism in Russia, the former Soviet Union, and in China (even today).  Here is a cartoon that reflects anti-Bolshevik sentiment that Lenin (in the red robe) sacrificed Russia to a statue of Marx.  Note:  Lenin advanced the Bolshevik Party, also known as the Russian Social Democrat Labour Party.

Not widely published (let alone recognized) is Obama’s Lenin-style and demigod arrogance.  Despite it’s recent history for slanted coverage, On March 26, 2018, CNN reported on Obama’s wish to clone millions in his and Michelle’s images.  Here is the headline: “Obama hopes to create ‘a million young Barack Obamas or Michelle Obamas’.”  The article starts off saying: "Former President Barack Obama says he aspires to create 'a million young Barack Obamas or Michelle Obamas' who will pick up the baton in what he describes as the 'relay race that is human progress.'"  This is exactly the method Communists employ in achieving "dedication" that Douglas writes about in his memoir, I Believed, and in Dedication and Leadership. The following is the picture that accompanied the article.

        In closing, those of us who firmly believe in a Constitutional Republic--gifted to us by Founders and Framers who pledged their Lives, Fortunes, and sacred Honor--should all be asking to what extent the former Soviet Union’s Nikita Khrushchev was correct when, speaking at the National Press Club in 1957, he declared to America:

. . . I can prophesy that your grandchildren in America will live under socialism.  And please do not be afraid of that.  Your grandchildren will not understand how their grandparents did not understand the progressive nature of a socialist society” (cited in J. Edgar Hoover’s book, Masters of Deceit, 1958, p. 3).

Today’s talk about socialism is not mere rhetoric and wishful thinking.  It is here.  Either give in to it and prepare for its inevitable slide into brutal tyranny, or fight it.  We can do this peacefully at the ballot box and in respectful conversations.

 

Until Democrats distance themselves from the Marxist utopian ideology that is American progressivism, a vote for a Democrat is a vote for socialism.