Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Marines in Syria: Continuing The Project for a New American Century Objectives



Donald Trump has deployed Marine Corps ground forces into Syria to combat ISIS militants. In the eyes of most Americans this is a welcomed move on the part of the new administration because Americans are fed up with the constant threat of Islamic terrorism hanging over their heads. The former president did little to take any real action and in most cases seemed to be making excuses for radical Islam. Being the ultimate social justice warrior, Barack Obama portrayed the terrorists as victims of American imperialism while suggesting we should show empathy towards them. The fact that President Trump is escalating the war is Syria with the deployment of ground forces is not surprising. Most Americans do not realize that the war in Syria was part of an overall strategy to reshape the middle east while also redefining America's role as the worlds sole super power. President Trump is continuing this war as did President Obama with the end goal of not defeating ISIS but removing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad from power in much the same way Libyan president Muammar Gadhafi was disposed of. Gadhafi was killed not because he was a brutal dictator but because he was working to introduce gold backed money that would free Libya from the enslavement of relying on U.S. dollars to purchase oil as the greenback is the worlds reserve currency. It is said this is the same reason Saddam Hussein was executed as well. Is Trumps deployment of Marines the continuation of objectives set in The Project New American Century war plans?

Before the fall of Tripoli and his untimely demise, Gadhafi was trying to introduce a single African currency linked to gold. Following in the foot steps of the late great pioneer Marcus Garvey who first coined the term ”United States of Africa”. Gaddafi wanted to introduce and only trade in the African gold Dinar – a move which would have thrown the world economy into chaos. The Dinar was widely opposed by the ‘elite’ of today’s society and who could blame them. African nations would have finally had the power to bring itself out of debt and poverty and only trade in this precious commodity. They would have been able to finally say ‘no’ to external exploitation and charge whatever they felt suitable for precious resources. It has been said that the gold Dinar was the real reason for the NATO led rebellion, in a bid to oust the outspoken leader.

The war in Syria, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan was planned twenty years prior to the events of September 11, 2001. In fact, the war plans included military action in seven countries total, some of which President Obama continued through bombing campaigns. These countries included not only Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria but Lebanon, Somalia, Libya, and ultimately, Iran as well. In the year 2000, a little known document was written that paved the way for America to assert its military dominance and reshape the Middle East through regime change. This document was known as the Project New American Century. The aim of this project is to allegedly rebuild America's defenses and spread American principles abroad. One of the main objectives was to dramatically increase military spending while also stressing the need for a stronger military presence in the Middle East. Written within the plan itself is an admission that the goals, without the catastrophic effects of a new pearl harbor event, would take a great deal of time to accomplish. In other words, by the time the events of September 11, 2001 took place, these wars of conquest were already planned, and the previous statement has led many to believe that the September 11, attacks were a false flag event staged to provide the justification.

Both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi were targeted because they threatened to replace the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency with one of their own backed by gold. The U.S. dollar has been the worlds reserve currency in oil purchases ever since Richard Nixon took it off of the gold standard. It is for this reason that the dollar is known as the Petrodollar. According to an article written by Callum Newman for the Daily Reckoning, the reserve currency status of the U.S. Dollar is propped up by Saudi Arabia in exchange for U.S. military muscle. In other words, Saudi Arabia deliberately prices its oil in U.S. denominations, forcing other countries to keep a huge stock of U.S. currency on hand. This keeps our paper money relevant as oil is the only thing giving our money any value.  In exchange, we provide the Saudis the military muscle needed to maintain dominance in the region. If Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi would have succeeded in selling oil in their own gold backed currencies the effects on the U.S. economy would have been devastating. Furthermore, it is also believed that these seven countries are targeted for regime change because they are not part of the international central banking system. According to an article at Zerohedge.com, none of the listed countries targeted for regime change are members of the Bank for International settlements, which allegedly makes them out of reach for those seeking to globalize the worlds financial markets.

What do these seven countries have in common? In the context of banking, one that sticks out is that none of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland.

The most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually been attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr, writing on Examiner.com, noted that “[s]ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept euros instead of dollars for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar.”

According to a Russian article titled “Bombing of Libya – Punishment for Ghaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar”, Gaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency.

As noted earlier, Barack Obama continued these wars, despite the fact he promised to end them. He was able to do so because he had pulled the wool over the eyes of the American people through his social justice campaigns and continued insistence that he stood with the Muslims against the imperialism of capitalistic America. The truth is that Barack Obama was put in place in order to do just this, deceive the American people so the same agenda could be continued unimpeded by discontented Americans and the anti-war left. These wars to maintain the dominance of a fake, valueless U.S. Dollar were able to advance while Barack Obama kept us divided over issues of race and income inequality. Is Donald Trump doing the same thing? It is safe to assume that Trump, like other president's,  is following the advice of his senior advisors on many issues; however, there a few points that need to be considered now that the war in Syria is escalating with the deployment of ground troops.

First, a little known provision in  the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act allows for the creation of propaganda to be used against the American public. To be more specific, the bill repeals the 1948 Smith-Mundt act which according to The Business Insider, prohibits the use of psychological warfare and propaganda intended to sway the opinions of the American public. America has been subject to brutal psychological warfare campaign, waged by the mainstream media, that is intended to do just that, manipulate the opinions of Americans. The repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act makes this perfectly legal, especially if it is being done for the so called greater good.  Also, a Hollywood film production studio was recently exposed producing ISIS propaganda videos, suggesting that many videos seen on the internet are actually fake. Evidence has also surfaced which claims the Jordanian pilot allegedly burned alive by ISIS militants is also a fake. If these videos truly are staged and the U.S. government has legalized the use of propaganda against it's own citizens then the question remains. Is Donald Trump continuing the war in Syria to remove Bashar al-Assad from power for the same reasons Gadhafi and Saddam Hussein were taken out? Was ISIS a deliberately created enemy needed for the justification of continuing U.S. military presence in the Middle East in order to achieve the objectives of the Project New American Century, and reign in the nations who don't belong to the global banking network? We will likely never know the truth because most Americans are too busy paying attention to what their television and smart phones tell them to care about.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

An Analysis of Alinsky and the Ethics of Means and Ends

Forward: As a student in social work I was educated on how to disrupt political rallies; if you can believe they would even teach a thing like that at a higher learning institution. We were shown a video of a Scott Walker rally after he won the Governor's race in Wisconsin. Left wing protestors, like the ones discussed in the article below, were shown jumping up and down on the tables while shouting disrespectful and derogatory epithets at the newly elected governor, and we were supposed to admire this. The funny thing is, I didn't even know what they were protesting and neither did anyone else, because I asked several times what the point of the video was. This was during the section on community organizing in which Saul Alinsky was a big part of the curriculum. This was around the time Obama was elected for his first term and very few people knew who Alinsky was. He was presented as a hero even though it was never mentioned that he wrote a book called Rules for Radicals. One day I decided the students needed to know who Alinsky really was so when my left wing professor started discussing him I pulled out the book and started reading. If you can believe it, my professor, after class actually told me I wasn't supposed to know about Saul Alinsky and Rules for Radicals.

The word is out. Barack Obama is working to undermine President Trump at every turn by creating a thirty thousand strong army of community activists. The plan is to disrupt town hall meetings and give congressional Republicans the impression that Trump's agenda is not popular. In fact, according to the New York Post's Paul Sperry, they even have a script advising them to suggest  President Trump's agenda equals the advancement of racism and authoritarianism. This is nothing new, the left screams racism every time someone disagrees with them. Throughout the Obama presidency Republican lawmakers were shaking in their boots, afraid to stand against Obama's agenda out of a fear of being labeled racist. The goal here is the same, create the illusion that the repealing of Obamacare for example, is not popular among the masses. In the past, they have accused Republicans of not caring about sick people in order to demonize them for not supporting Obamacare. The left is intent on getting their way and they have no intention of slowing down. If they are to be stopped then it must be understood that they are employing Alinsky like tactics and are operating on an entirely different level of morality than most of us. They operate on an "ends justify the means" principle which means they are willing to do anything to advance their agenda.

How do you describe an "ends justify the means" mentality? In Rules For Radicals Alinsky discusses social change and the means in which activists can bring it about. The goal is to remake the world the way they think it should be. In other words, they are pursuing an Utopia. A man of action, according to Alinsky, is only concerned with achieving his end goal and the means in which he does is viewed only from the perspective of whether or not it is achievable, not moral. To Alinsky, the end goal is a better world and he, like his followers, believe that their vision for this better world is better for everyone; therefore, there is nothing immoral or unethical about the actions they take. The ends, a perfect world-justify the means, whatever they may be.

To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. (Alinsky, Rules for Radicals. pp24)

A willingness to corrupt themselves is almost viewed as a higher level of morality because they are convinced that their vision is best for everyone, so they are corrupting themselves for a greater good. It is the same as Virtue Ethics and the idea of Modern Moral Philosophy. To the hard left, everything about America and capitalism represents oppression, racism, imperialism and poverty. They have a moral obligation to do what is right, according to their ideas of what is right, not what is considered moral or legal based on existing law or codes of morality. To further elaborate, they believe that the current moral code and social structure exists to protect the wealthy class and ensure that they retain their means to oppress the poor. However misguided this may be it reinforces their belief that they are right in taking social action in an attempt to bring the system down in pursuit of their Utopia.

In action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one's individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual's personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of "personal salvation"; he doesn't care enough for people to be "corrupted" for them. (Alinsky, Rules for Radicals. pp. 25)

Alinsky goes on to say that an unwillingness to pursue change in this manner makes an activist a passive ally of the so called "haves" in the game of haves vs. have nots. He is suggesting that anything short of applying an ends justify the means mentality will leave the activists with no means in which to pursue his end goal because he is clinging to the morality and ethics of the system he seeks to change. He compares those he called "means and end moralists" to the Jews who didn't fight back against the Nazi's. Indeed, he has a point that would be hard to argue, there was a moral obligation to fight back against such evil; however, Alinsky was a leftist and an admirer of Lenin who was also rounding up political dissidents. Today's left, unbeknownst to them, are fighting for issues that Communists and Socialists would also advocate for. Universal health care, abortion, civilian disarmament and open borders. The reason Alinsky abhorred Hitler was because of his fierce nationalism, not because he rounded up those that disagreed with him. As mentioned above, Alinsky was an admirer of Lenin who deceptively advocated for peace until he obtained the means to wage war, then he became ruthless against his political enemies murdering millions.

In Rules for Radicals there are two rules discussed that explain the type of action being taken by Obama's activists. One is a rule on the ethics of means and ends which states the following- You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments. The left, as it has long been known, operates on pure emotion and there is little in the way of fact in any of their arguments. Whether it is a push for gun control or universal health care they know their facts don't paint a pretty picture for their cause so they mask them with moral arguments stating that "it's just the right thing to do." The issue of racism is also another big one, any time they are faced with facts they can't dispute they resort to accusations of racism. This is a very effective tool that all too often silences people because they don't know how to fight back. They are doing what they can with the tools they have and if silencing opposition is all they achieve then so be it, it's a victory.

The second is a rule of tactics which states-Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purposes. We are being bombarded by different protests across the nation and they are using every issue they can think of to start a new social movement. The latest example is the no black targets movement. Researchers at the University of Illinois are actually claiming a study they conducted proves white people are more trigger happy on black silhouette targets. No matter how ridiculous this sounds, this reinforces not only the racism narrative but also that shooting and gun ownership itself is motivated by a fear of black people. They are using the tools at their disposal (racism accusations) and utilizing the events of our period (police shootings against blacks).

These activists are not going anywhere and in the event their planned town hall infiltrations are not successful you can bet they will be back with new tactics. They are determined to change America's governing structure and as demonstrated in this article, are following a completely different set of moral standards than most of us. They will lie cheat and steal in an effort to undermine anything they view as being in the way of their agenda and they will not have any second thoughts on their actions because they are doing it for the greater good. They are corrupting themselves for the betterment of man.

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Immigration, The 9th Circuit Court and Virtue Ethics



Forward: As a student in a social work program I found myself involved in many debates concerning immigration. I could never wrap my head around the idea that the students around me actually believed people had the right to immigrate here while foregoing any responsibility to assimilate to our culture. This however is exactly what they believe because our entire system of morality and philosophical thought is being changed from within, and it is affecting the way laws are passed. One day a professor of mine, a left wing zealot mind you, acknowledged the fact that if you cross into Mexico you will not be treated the way we treat immigrants when they come here. She asked a simple question: "What kind of country do you want to be?" At this point it dawned on me that students are being trained to argue from an emotional standpoint and their ability to reason is being replaced by a thought process based on feelings as opposed to fact. The students did not want to feel like they were prohibiting people from being able to pursue better lives so they became advocates for open borders because it made them feel good.

American's continue to watch in absolute bewilderment as the left fights tooth and nail to put a wrench in the Trump administration's agenda. The recent ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has shown that they are firmly committed to carrying on with the Obama agenda insofar as attempting to change the demographics of our nation. Rush Limbaugh often points out that labeling the left as hypocrites has little to no affect as no one seems willing to take them to task. Not only were the seven countries in question regarding Trumps ban identified as terrorist hotspots by the Obama administration, the former president himself is on record saying illegal immigration will hurt the wages of blue collar workers in our country. How was it that Obama had such a shift in immigration policy, and what basis does the developing narrative on the President's authority to issue executive orders regarding immigration have to do with actual law? The right is arguing that the court's ruling ignored the constitution as well as an established precedent and the left; well, as usual the left is arguing from a position of moral superiority while claiming the presidents order is unconstitutional. Some on the left even believe that people have the right to immigrate to the United States.  Unfortunately, when it comes to illegal immigration not many are familiar with what the law really is; nor are they prepared to fight back against the alleged moral superiority argument so often played by the those on the left.

According to Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution the powers over naturalization rest exclusively in congress. In 1965 the U.S. congress passed a law, which was signed by Lyndon B. Johnson, that drastically changed immigration and set America on a course that would change her demographics forever. This law was known as the Immigration Act of 1965. Up until this law was passed immigration was based on a quota system. Immigrants from around the world were let in based on the percentage of people from that part of the world already in the U.S. This was known as the National Origins Quota and was passed into law in 1924 in order to slow the massive migration into the United States and protect our cultural identity. This was later considered a racist policy as most of the immigrants were coming from European countries. The Immigration Act of 1965 was written to change the demographics of America by opening immigration up to the third world.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States. Over the next four decades, the policies put into effect in 1965 would greatly change the demographic makeup of the American population, as immigrants entering the United States under the new legislation came increasingly from countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as opposed to Europe.

This bill grew out of the growing civil rights movement. Whereas new laws preventing discrimination based on skin color were being passed, pressure was also mounting to change the laws related to how America took in immigrants. Immigration to America literally became a human rights issue. According to Lawrence Auster, author of The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism, the new immigration law was the manifestation of the civil rights movement on the world stage. Opponents of this bill were labeled as racist and bigoted for standing in opposition because the bill itself was an extension of the civil rights laws being passed in the U.S. Edward Kennedy, who was serving as the chair for the senate subcommittee hearing this bill claimed that the number of immigrants coming into the country would not increase and that our country's demographic make up would not change, as opponents of the bill argued they would. According to the Center of Immigration Studies the number of immigrants coming into the country tripled over three decades with over 18 million coming from Latin American and Asian countries. Furthermore, the education gap between native born Americans and those immigrating also widened significantly. This created a strain on the system because America is a high tech society who now had a large population of people unable to compete in those jobs and therefore; live their lives courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. This 18 million does not represent the untold millions of illegal immigrants who have also crossed our borders and take advantage of the system.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is most likely basing it's ruling on the immigration act of 1965. They call it unconstitutional because the law itself made the issue of immigration one of universal human rights; people now have the right to immigrate to the United States. This is ridiculous, there is no human right to immigrate to the U.S. and live off of the taxpayer. The left, arguing from an emotional standpoint, believe they have a superior "moral virtue" and that they are more compassionate than the rest of us. They are basing their argument for unfettered immigration on virtue ethics.

Virtue ethics is based purely on the idea that it is the intentions behind an action that are more important than the consequences. This is why the left so effortlessly gets away with anything because the intentions behind their actions are based on the superior virtue of their character, they acted out of love and compassion therefore consequences don't matter. Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe was a British philosopher who argued that philosophical thought should do away with making decisions based on what was once understood as morally correct. Her argument suggested that morals were derived from an established law made by legislatures and that this was an outdated system that should be done away with. Instead, Anscombe's idea on virtue ethics suggested that the good of man should come first. A concept known as eudaimonia , which translates as human flourishing or the highest human good has replaced traditional moral thinking with a moral code that is based purely on what makes those making the rules feel good. In other words, it doesn't matter if there are potential terrorists in the midst of refugees and other immigrants, it is for the greater good of mankind that borders be eliminated and people move freely with no responsibility to their host nation. To the liberals, the idea that people have to assimilate and follow a legal process of becoming a citizen flies in the face of their morally superior belief that all people have the right to immigrate here. In the end, any victims of potential terrorist attacks are but a statistic in the never ending quest for Utopia.

Image Source:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Immigration_Reform_Leaders_Arrested_5.jpg
Image License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en
Source: Lawrence Auster, The Path to National Suicide
Source: G.E.M. Anscombe, Modern Moral Philosophy
Source: Center for Immigration Studies
Source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Sunday, February 5, 2017

Stimulus-Response, Associationism and Fake Rightwing Extremism



The left is at it again. Let's face it, this new communist movement is not going away and despite the election of Donald Trump, they still have the full support of the media and a heavy influence in education. The riots at UC Berkeley have reminded America that there is indeed, a hard core, militant left wing movement intent on tearing down America's institutions and implementing a socialist type government. They justify their violence by claiming they are in a fight against rightwing extremism and in some cases, such as the Robert Reich interview on CNN, they even suggest  the right wing is responsible for this violence. This is nothing new, the left has long tried to portray the right as extremist in nature and has even referred to them as Nazi's. This is ridiculous because Nazism is National Socialism which is really no different than Communism. Communists tend to think globally; in other words, Communism is National Socialism on a global scale with no single nation at the lead. Besides, Adolph Hitler's ideas on governing were way more in line with todays left wing ideologies than the right's, which promotes human freedom and dignity. What's happening here is a full blown effort to completely discredit American Conservatism and create the impression in people's minds that rightwing extremism is the biggest threat the nation faces.

At the beginning of the Obama Administration the Department of Homeland Security, headed by Janet Napolitano, who just happens now to be the president at UC Berkeley, released a report entitled Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. This report referred to everyone of a rightwing leaning as a potential extremist and was deliberately released in an effort to discredit all opposition to the Obama agenda. Gun owners, returning war veterans, pro lifers and anyone who stood in defiance of expanding government power was targeted in this report. The reasons given were in and of  themselves proof that this report served an agenda to silence opposition. Gun owners were listed because of fears of increased gun control and restrictions on their rights. Remember, this report was released at the very start of Obama's first term, before any mention of gun control. Returning veterans, as another example, were listed as potential extremists because they would be returning home to no jobs and lowered living standards. How did they know, unless they had a specific agenda, that there would be no jobs? Essentially, this report was released to silence and discredit those that would stand in opposition to this agenda. All throughout the Obama years the so called right wing was referred to as extreme and angry while excuses were made for the radical Islamists who were actually committing acts of terror. No where in this report is there any mention of Islamic terrorism or leftwing radicalism for that matter.

In truth, the issue of Islamic terrorism has served the former administration well in creating an association of ideas between acts of violence committed by radical Islamists and opposition to government they attempt to portray as rightwing extremism. The association of ideas, otherwise known as Associationism, or associative theories of learning, suggests that people's idea's are shaped and guided by past experiences. In other words, if the constant shock of Islamic terror has the right effect on the psyche of the population then it will not be difficult to create a mental connection between those memories of terror and the attitudes portrayed as rightwing extremism. Another way to explain this is through the stimulus response mechanisms discovered by Ivan Pavlov. Classical conditioning is the process in which an organism is trained to respond to a certain stimulus. In Pavlov's experiment it was found that the organism in question, a dog, would salivate every time meat was present and it was fed. Slowly, a bell was introduced at feeding time and eventually the salivation would occur simply with the sound of the bell even though the original stimulus was removed. The dog began to associate the sound of the bell with the presentation of food which at this point, his response became a conditioned behavior. Over the past eight years we have seen a refusal on the part of the Obama administration to refer to Islamic terrorism as Islamic in nature. Instead, it has been referred to as a type of hateful ideology that leads to violence. The shock of constantly being fed images of terrorism while hearing the words "hateful ideology" has led to the masses reacting to those same words in much the same way Pavlov's dog reacted to the bell. In other words, fake rightwing extremism is being created through mental trickery and the association of ideas. Through the stimulus-response mechanisms people are being conditioned to react with emotion and fear as opposed to reason. The fear of rightwing extremism is being created through the images of actual terrorist events and the refusal to label them what they are while at the same time, gradually connecting words like hateful and racist with the rightwing movement.

Many people will question this theory because after all, we are human beings not dogs. What they fail to understand is that the left has been in pursuit of mastering human behavior for over a century and fields like psychology and psychiatry are firmly in their control. Truthfully,  human beings can be conditioned in much the same way as a dog but first they have to be demoralized and brought to believe that everything they thought they knew was wrong. For decades the left, firmly in control of America's educational institutions, have been programming students to believe that America is the world's biggest problem. Concepts like white privilege and feminism have broke down the idea that America is the greatest country in the world and replaced it with one that suggests we are nothing but a bunch of racist, sexist Islamaphobes and that our founding documents are rooted in rightwing extremism.

In the book Brainwashing-A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics Laventia Beria, former KGB agent and instructor at Lenin University, states that the stimulus response mechanisms of man have long been used to bring about an acceptable behavior within any given population. He goes on to explain the stimulus response mechanism by stating that a person's experience in response to a traumatic event, such as the constant exposure to Islamic terrorism for example, will manifest itself when the proper command is given. For example, after years of witnessing the horrors of Isis and the replacing of words like Islamic terrorism with terms like hateful ideologies, the association between such a term and attitudes identified as rightwing extremism produce the same response demonstrated by the original stimulus; Islamic terrorism. Furthermore, Beria goes on to suggest that the pain of the traumatic event is greatly alleviated by simply following the commands of the new stimulus. So, it is easier for people to simply go along with the idea that rightwing extremism poses the same danger as Islamic terrorism or leftwing radicalism for that matter than it is for them to admit the truth. This is partly due to the fact that they would feel as if they were displaying a racist, Islamophobic attitude by admitting radical Islam poses a real and viable threat to their safety. This of course is due to the education they are receiving which is based in stimulus response mechanisms itself.

In order to fully grasp this idea it is important to understand that the left does not view man in the same way we do. The rightwing, for the most part, believes in God and is rooted in Christian morality. The left, on the other hand has been developing it's scientific approach to understanding human behavior based on stimulus response mechanisms and the way human beings respond to the environment around them; which of course can be manipulated to serve as a stimulus. Consider B.F. Skinners explanation of pre and post scientific man and how it applies to what we are witnessing today in the way we are being governed.

In what we may call the pre-scientific view (and the word is not necessarily pejorative) a person's behavior is at least to some extent his own achievement. He is free to deliberate, decide, and act, possibly in original ways, and he is to be given credit for his successes and blamed for his failures. In the scientific view (and the word is not necessarily honorific) a person’s behavior is determined by a genetic endowment traceable to the evolutionary history of the species and by the environmental circumstances to which as an individual he has been exposed. Neither view can be proved, but it is in the nature of scientific inquiry that the evidence should shift in favor of the second. As we learn more about the effects of the environment, we have less reason to attribute any part of human behavior to an autonomous controlling agent. And the second view shows a marked advantage when we begin to do something about behavior. Autonomous man is not easily changed: in fact, to the extent that he is autonomous, he is by definition not changeable at all. But the environment can be changed, and we are learning how to change it. The measures we use are those of physical and biological technology, but we use them in special ways to affect behavior. (Skinner, 101)

When we hear leftwing activists try to discredit the rightwing movement understand that they are attempting to draw a correlation between the so called anti-government attitudes of those that believe in limited government and the radicalism we have been witnessing in the media. The goal is to get the masses to believe that anyone going against the mainstream narrative has the potential to become radicalized. Once the initial fear of terrorism sinks into the subconscious the association between the horrors seen on television and words like hateful ideologies become permanently rooted in the brain. Therefore, people become conditioned to react to the same way when they simply hear words that they associate with the terrifying images of terrorism. The end goal is to get the masses to believe that rightwing extremism, even though it has been the left responsible for all the violence, is the biggest threat the nation faces.

Source: BRAIN-WASHING A Synthesis of a Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics Chapter VII
Source: B.F Skinner Beyond Freedom and Dignity pp. 101
Image Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Right_wing_extremists-_2013-08-14_21-56.jpg
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

The Hegelian Dialectic and Single Payer Health Care

President Trump's first week in office has unfolded like a conservative fairy tale. The Donald seems to be signing away the unconstitutional edicts and strangling regulations in the same manner in which Obama enacted them, with a stroke of his pen.  He is acting on immigration, he has put an end to the Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty, he has signed executive orders doing away with the Syrian refugee program and another that allegedly "eases the burden of Obamacare." This seems almost too good to be true. One of President Trumps biggest campaign promises was the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and a replacement that provides health care for everybody. That is a rather vague statement considering that Trump wrote in an early campaign book called "The America We Deserve" that he supported universal health care. It's possible that the newly anointed one intends on introducing a single payer plan in response to the disaster that is Obamacare.

"We must have universal healthcare. I'm a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses." (Donald Trump, The America We Deserve)

The executive order itself was rather vague, providing little detail into what it meant to "ease the burden." It did state that government offices would be charged with finding ways to alleviate the financial strains caused by Obamacare while at the same time, tasking them with implementing more viable health care programs.

"The order called for government agencies, to the maximum extent permitted by law, to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications. It also called for the federal government to provide greater flexibility to States and cooperate with them in implementing healthcare programs, with the same caveat,  to the maximum extent permitted by law.” (Olivier Knox, Yahoo News)

Again, this is a rather vague order which does little to explain exactly how this is going to work. While easing financial burdens on families would be a positive move in the right direction, this order does little to remove government from the equation. In fact, the above statement seems to suggest that the federal and state  governments will still very much be in the drivers seat while developing health care programs. This is not what conservatives wanted. The question as to whether or not President Trump really supports single payer is one voters should really take seriously. Many people believe that Obamacare was designed to deliberately fail in order to implement single payer. This would be an application of the Hegelian Dialectic, otherwise known as the problem, reaction, solution strategy.

What is the Hegelian Dialectic? Georg Hegel's theory on Dialectical thought led to Karl Marx's theory of communism through a concept known as Dialectical Materialism. This theory posits the idea that all social progress is an inevitable result of chaos and conflict. The Hegelian Dialectic is a method of guiding our thoughts and actions into a predetermined solution by controlling the very issues we care about. The issue of Obamacare and single payer would be an excellent example. The idea would be to deliberately crash the health care system while at the same time, educating the nations students about single payer systems in nations such as Canada and Britain. Present America's health care system as one based on greed, and you create the demand for government to do something about it. Is it possible that Donald Trump will present a single payer health care system as a solution to Obamacare? It is more than possible, it is highly likely. To understand this we need to examine another subtle application of the Dialectic, The Cloward and Piven Strategy.

The Cloward and Piven Strategy, as it has come to be known, was a deliberate effort to expand the welfare rolls in an attempt to destroy capitalism and implement a socialist economy. The Weight of The Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty, was written by Francis Fox Piven and her husband who is now deceased, Richard Cloward.  Piven and her husband were sociology professors at Columbia University and had extensive ties to socialist groups like Democratic Socialists of America. In fact, according to Stanley Kurtz, author of the book Radical in Chief, Piven sat on the Executive Committee of this group. The plan called for the creation of an "unsustainable welfare state" where everyone was entitled to benefits of some kind. This would crash the economy and create the artificial demand for the government to act and implement an economic solution more in line with socialism.

Is it possible that Obamacare was deliberately designed in order to force the governments hands and implement the left's lifelong dream of single payer health care?  It is more than possible, it is probable as over the past eight years we have been governed by the radical left. The question is whether or not Donald Trump is aware and acting in accordance with this plan or simply following the suggestions of advisors, if a single payer system will even be introduced at all. It is clear that President Trump once supported universal health care as he once supported Bill Clinton's assault weapons ban.  There are many issues in which President Trump seems to have changed his position on. The biggest mistake America could make is to sit back and assume everything will be fine because Donald Trump won the election. We must realize our responsibility to be active participants in our republic and hold Donald Trump to the same level of scrutiny we tried to hold Obama to. The last thing we want to do is be fooled into accepting leftist policies because they are coming from the guy we voted for. If in fact a single payer solution is introduced then this author would argue that the election of Trump and all of the propaganda around it was in and of itself, an application of the Hegelian Dialectic. Remain vigilant America.

Source: Francis Fox Piven, Richard Cloward, The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty
Stanley Kurtz, Radical in Chief
Olivier Know: Yahoo News

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

The Feminist Movements Roots in Marxist Philosophy



Despite the fact that Donald Trump is days away from assuming the presidency, the choo choo train of fundamental transformation continues to chug along. The left remains in firm control of America's educational system; which means that no matter what conservative changes Trump may make, students will still be indoctrinated into the tenets of progressivism. The latest example of this is coming from the same place that white privilege education originated, Wisconsin. It is overwhelmingly obvious that there is an agenda to not only weaken and discredit American institutions, but the American male as well. The University of Wisconsin is set to launch its "men's project" which is designed to teach male students to be more self aware of how their masculinity and manly attitudes affect the people around them. One of the main objectives, according to the college, is to address the negative characteristics of masculinity and the violence it allegedly causes. Also, the program seeks to encourage men to engage in critical self reflection and promote gender equality. Like White Privilege education, the gender equality/feminist movement has its roots in Marxist philosophy and is designed to break down the most basic of American institutions, the nuclear family.

Karl Marx viewed the family as a vehicle of class oppression. A strong family structure is essential to any free nation where people rely on themselves as opposed to government. To Marx and Engels however, the family was an instrument of exploitation. The family structure was a byproduct of the oppressive capitalist system where the woman's labor was exploited and undervalued. Marxist theory on the family argues that the modern structure developed out of a need to pass on property through familial lines. As the development of agriculture and the use of livestock became more prevalent, the need to maintain and pass down private property became a dominating factor in family life; thus, relinquishing women into subservient roles. Therefore, in order to create true gender equality, private property must be eliminated.  These ideas were later developed into the modern feminist movement by left wing activist, Betty Friedan.

Friedan, who was a communist sympathizer, authored the book The Feminine Mystique where she attempted to convince American women that the lives they were living were no more than comfortable prison camps. Marxists thrive on the creation of discontent, and in the very first chapter of this book Freidan holds no punches. Attacking the very nature of what it meant to be a 20th century American woman, Friedan suggests they should all be wondering if there is more to life than simply serving their families.

"The problem lay buried, unspoken for many years in the minds of American women. It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning that women suffered in the twentieth century in the United States. Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for the groceries, matched slip cover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured cub scouts and brownies, lay beside her husband at night-she was afraid to ask herself the silent question. Is this all?"

In that very first paragraph Friedan exposes her Marxist leanings by citing the typical work of a house wife as a source of discontent. She attacks the very nature of motherhood by implanting the idea that caring for children is somehow unfulfilling, and that family life itself is a form of oppression by describing it as a buried, unspoken of problem. The feminist movement, with the help of Freidan's book, has aided in the destruction of the American family by convincing women that they are oppressed victims in patriarchal oligarchy. This draws back to Antonio Gramsci and the idea of counter hegemony. The feminist movement represents a class of people whose values are antithetical to the dominate social group. This will create the necessary conflict which will, in the minds of Marxists, inevitably push society towards full communism.

The feminist movement, in it's epic struggle for total equality between the sexes, has completely destroyed what it means to be equal by forcing the idea that men and women are the same onto society. Marx and Engels viewed marriage and the family from the same dogmatic precept that they viewed everything else. That there was no god and mankind held no more special significance than any other animal. This is completely antithetical to the way most Americans view marriage.
Despite the changes we have endured, America still holds a Christian majority that wants the institution of marriage protected. The institute of marriage, according to our founding fathers, was unique in the sense that it best prepared individuals for responsible citizenship which is essential for self governance. While Marxists view marriage as a vehicle of oppression which subjugates women while protecting the interests of the patriarchy, the truth is that marriage protects both men and women equally while ensuring mutual interests are protected. The marriage represented equality in the sense that it was an agreement that both parties agreed to in the interest of raising children and forming a stronger community.

The feminist movement insists that men and women be treated as complete equals; however, this destroys the true character of women and suggests that they have no special characteristics which define womanhood. When it comes to the issue of raising children it would be difficult to argue that women do not possess a nurturing characteristic that is unique to motherhood while men bring different parenting skills necessary to child rearing. The point is that marriage represents true equality between the sexes because a true marriage brings men and women together into the forming of one union working together to achieve a common goal; a stronger, more responsible society. The feminist movement, deriving it's origins from the radical left, has sought to destroy this union because they understood that the family was the bedrock of any self governing society and in order to get people to accept state control it must be destroyed. The attempts to redefine masculinity while psychologically neutering the American male are part of this agenda and unless some drastic reforms are made to higher education, they will continue to fill our students heads with mush.

Source: Friedan, The Feminine Mystique. W. W. Norton & Company Inc. New York. 1963
Image Source: Library of Congress

Monday, January 9, 2017

Critical Theory and Social Change

As we approach the much anticipated end to the Obama presidency, it would be difficult to argue that much of his agenda has not been accomplished. He set out to "fundamentally transform" our culture and looking at America today, it is almost completely unrecognizable. Our culture has changed and American society has come to accept many things that once, would have been unheard of. Homosexual marriage, transgenderism, racial riots, the acceptance of government control in health care and the idea that people should be able to freely cross our borders at will are new realities that we live with everyday. While the election of Donald Trump is certainly a repudiation of these new realities, the truth is that nearly half of the electorate is still willing to fight for them while our education system indoctrinates new leftists everyday. How did America, a nation once steeped in Judeo-Christian morals come to accept an agenda that is antithetical to the very values the nation was founded on? The answer can be found by examining a doctrine known as Critical Theory.

Critical theory was developed in The Frankfort School of Social Research, which was an institute designed to study and implement cultural change. This is the birthplace of Cultural Marxism. In 1933 Nazi Germany found the school to be teaching precepts that were in disagreement with the national socialist movement, as Marx and his followers advocated for global communism, so the school was forced to relocate where it found a new home in the United States, at Columbia University.

Critical theory is often times disguised as critical thinking. As students are challenged to critically think about social issues affecting society, they are actually being encouraged to criticize mass culture and view American society as the cause of the problems being discussed. Many people make the assumption that critical thinking implies a thoughtful analysis on how to solve a problem. While the traditional definition of critical thinking supports this idea, all too often left wing professors are offering an alternative view point in the hopes that students will see the culture in which they live as the problem and accept their solution. This is the true purpose of critical theory, to get Americans to criticize their own culture and accept socialism as a solution. Critical Theory could be described as a practical application of the Hegelian Dialectic.


Read the rest of this article here