Communism's Greatest Trick: Mass Murder in the Name of Equality

American society, particularly the up and coming generation, has been constantly exposed to the evils committed by Nazi Germany, and rightly so. The left has successfully portrayed the National Socialist ideology as somehow being right-wing in nature as it constantly equates American Republicanism, or conservatism with the Nazi worldview. The problem with drawing this conclusion rests in the fact that the nature of the political scale tends to show that the further right you move, the less government control there is. The traditional belief, as The Black Book of Communism points out, is that the left and right represent two extremes between so called compassionate egalitarianism and a strict social order which creates constant tension. Nazism, or Fascism, as Hitler was often referred to as a fascist (probably to hide the true nature of his motivations) is left-wing in its orientation as it tends to rely on big government as its enforcement mechanisms. True right-wing extremism would be a state of total anarchy, or no government. There is a difference between the way European countries and America would view the nature of the political scale because they have never experienced freedom the way America has traditionally defined it. They can describe Nazism as being right-wing in nature only because it exists to the right of Communism, but way left of center ̶ if you can picture the concept. Our constitution on the other hand, can be argued to exist slightly right of center, calling for as limited government as possible in human affairs. It protects the dignity and inalienable rights of the individual. Nazism on the other hand, only viewed people in the collective sense, equating their value with how well they served the Nazi state (Black Book of Communism). Looking at it from this perspective, Nazism cannot be equated with American Republicanism in any sense.

The intent of this article is not to detract from the evils of Nazism but to show how successful the political left has been in hiding the atrocities committed by communism. Modern politics in America has been reduced to a fake ideological debate between the right, portrayed as Nazism, and the left who is openly advocating for full blown communism. This is a false argument as it is all based on lies and misinformation.

The communists, historically, have been very adept at hiding or misconstruing the motivations behind their movement. As noted in The Grand Strategy Was Deception, the Soviets employed a tactic where they portrayed their movement as being motivated by a desire for equality and fairness. In the report, The Communist Peace Offensive, which was presented to the House of Un-American Activities in 1951, it was argued that the Soviets were employing a strategy to portray the United States as the evil, war-mongering nation and the Soviet Union as one that stood for world peace. Despite the revelation of the atrocities being committed by communist regimes, the movements were being praised on the grounds of a twisted morality led by self-deception (Black Book of Communism, p.11).

The correlations being drawn between communism and Nazism are based on moral judgments driven by ideological beliefs. Marxism was driven by the false notions of dialectical materialism which posited that class struggle would inevitably contribute to an evolved state of society, where all men were completely equal and all things were fair. Those believing in this concept still tend to explain away the millions killed by communist regimes by claiming true communism has never been tried. Communists were not driven by a desire to eliminate any one race or religion, which has generally defined the term genocide (Black Book of Communism p. 8). Instead, they were driven by the false notion that human nature could be changed by targeting the social classes that produced, allegedly oppressing and depriving others of material goods (Black Book of Communism p. 8). In the name of creating a better society they were able to hide behind the ignorance of those who bought into the deceptive promises of Marxism.

To this day the idea that communism can lead to a better society for all continues to persist and Nazism, as the ultimate evil, remains in the forefront of young people’s minds. Looking at it from a moral perspective, no matter how twisted, there was no rhyme or reason for Hitler’s genocidal madness, beyond the systematic elimination of an entire race of people for the advancement of Germany’s nationalist objectives. Apologists will always be able to make excuses for the actions of communist regimes on the grounds that they were pursuing an egalitarian goal. The Nazi’s made no concessions about what they were doing, nor, were they trying to hide it. 

It is the syndrome that gives the permanent qualitative advantage to Communism over Nazism in any evaluation of their quantitative atrocities. For the communist project, in origin, claimed commitment to universalistic and egalitarian goals, whereas the Nazi project offered only unabashed national egoism. Small matter then, that their practices were comparable; their moral auras were antithetical, and it is the latter feature that counts in western, domestic politics (Black Book of Communism).

Most young people in America know nothing of the millions killed by communist governments. Repression of all that opposed the grand scheme of reworking human nature, where the fruits of your labor would be willingly surrendered for the betterment of another through terror, mass imprisonments and elimination of entire social classes became a matter of policy in all communist governments. It wasn’t endemic to the Soviet Union alone, or to China’s great Leap Forward ̶ it was policy driven by the ideological convictions of Marxist philosophy. The misguided perception that all social progress is the culmination of conflict and struggle, and by the elimination of the producing classes, or the landowners known as Kulaks in Soviet Russia, equality and prosperity would flourish.

What is the difference then? Was the elimination of some one-hundred-million people under the lies of Utopia somehow less evil than the elimination of the Jews to satisfy the power-hungry desires of an ego maniac? Apologists for communism would argue there is a difference. Was it morally justifiable to engineer mass famines simply because those that had spent their lives working to produce something opposed the idea that the fruits of their labor should be redistributed without any compensation whatsoever? They stood in the way of Utopia, therefore according to those making excuses for Communism, the answer is yes. Was it morally acceptable for Pol Pot to mobilize that nation’s youth and eliminate all those that represented the bourgeoise? If the goal is to create a complete egalitarian society than the means are noble enough despite the outcome.

Starting in the 1940’s and 1950’s many facts about these atrocities have become public knowledge and undeniable. And although many of these apologists have cast aside their gods of yesterday, they have done so quietly and discreetly. What are we to make of a profoundly amoral doctrine that seeks to stamp out every trace of civic mindedness in men’s souls, and damn the consequences (Black Book of Communism p. 8)?

The quote above alludes to the fact that the murders committed in the name of communism have been ignored on the pretext that they were accidental, unintentional consequences in the pursuit of mankind’s perfection. These are arguments we continue to hear today. Kids are graduating from elite universities believing that they are living in an oppressive class system, and they are arguing for full communism. The global attention placed on the crimes committed by the Nazis helps detract attention away from what is being presented as a morally superior system.

In many ways, the tragedy of communism can be compared to Satan’s greatest hoax, convincing people he didn’t exist. We sit in silence and allow our universities and public schools to indoctrinate our children into this twisted, godless ideology because we do not understand it ourselves. Failure to learn this history, preserve it and pass it on will ultimately be our societies undoing.

The USMCA, Virginia and the Possible Deployment of U.N. Troops Against Gun Owners

As the situation in Virginia continues to escalate the possibility that they are deliberately trying to lure patriots into committing acts of violence must be considered. It is the Hegelian dialectic at play ̶ create the problem by criminalizing legal gun owners, provoke the reaction and offer the solution. The final solution that is, the merging of the United States into a one world order headed by the United Nations. As crazy as that sounds the groundwork for such a merger is well established as the United States committed itself to United Nation objectives with the signing of the United Nations Participation Act in 1945.

This law committed the United States to full participation in the U.N. while authorizing the president to appoint representatives and commit the United States military to conflicts based on U.N. objectives. To be more specific, congress would retain the power to determine the size and terms of military deployments but the power to determine what would constitute the type of crisis warranting their use would be solely up to the United Nations Security Council. That is a huge loss of American sovereignty in and of itself because the power to wage war, according to the U.S. Constitution, rests with the United States Congress alone. It was because of the provisions of this law that President Truman was able to commit troops to the Korean War without the consent of congress and instead, the vote of the U.N. Security Council on the pretext of an international emergency.  The same could be said for many of the wars and police actions that would soon follow.

Dave Hodges, of the Common Sense Show, and Mike Adams of NewsTarget.com are claiming that they have uncovered evidence of a conspiracy to deploy U.N. troops in Virginia to confiscate firearms which democrats intent to outlaw. No solid evidence was provided by either Hodges or Adams. Hodges in fact, is infamous for publishing alarming articles claiming his information came from “his inside sources.” The idea that the U.N. would be used against Americans in gun confiscation is not new and is something that in the past, was likely to have one labeled as a conspiracy theorist. Sadly, all the pieces are in place for such an event to occur and because most gun owners in America have discredited the idea as a grand conspiracy, we will be caught playing catch up.

Many laws and policy objectives have been put in place that have led us to where we are now. Despite opposition from the public, the gun control agenda is gaining steam and more and more states are introducing legislation to outlaw semi-automatic firearms. In 1961 the U.S. government passed public law 87-297, the Arms Control and Disarmament Act. This is interesting because the law specifically states that there shall be no laws authorizing the reduction of our armed forces or the prohibiting of the civilian ownership of arms unless pursuant to the treaty making powers of the President. The House, after staging the fake impeachment spectacle, approved the finalization of the new trade deal with Mexico and Canada, the USMCA. This trade agreement further surrenders our sovereignty to the U.N. despite it being hailed as one of the great things Trump has done for the country. If this new treaty does create a so called North American Union under the control of the United Nations, then the situation in Virginia could easily be declared an “international emergency” giving them the sole authority to deploy peace keeping troops. As conspiratorial as it may sound this is laid out in law. There was also the U.N. Arms treaty. President Trump was hailed as being pro-gun when he withdrew from the treaty, which John Kerry signed as Secretary of State. In truth, it doesn’t matter if Trump withdrew from it if the USMCA becomes the law of the land.

The Arms treaty has several provisions which allow for nations who have signed on to appeal to the United Nations for help in disarmament affairs with nations that haven’t.

 Article 16, International Assistance

In implementing this Treaty, each State Party may seek assistance including legal or legislative assistance, institutional capacity-building, and technical, material or financial assistance. Such assistance may include stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs, model legislation, and effective practices for implementation. Each State Party in a position to do so shall provide such assistance, upon request. Each State Party may request, offer or receive assistance through, inter alia, the United Nations, international, regional, sub regional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations, or on a bilateral basis. A voluntary trust fund shall be established by States Parties to assist requesting States Parties requiring international assistance to implement this Treaty. Each State Party is encouraged to contribute resources to the fund.

The treaty also states that the ownership of firearms by civilians would be respected based on a nation’s laws. This is a provision that led many people to the false belief that it would have no effect upon U.S. citizens. As noted earlier, if the USMCA becomes the law of the land and the U.S., Canada and Mexico are merged into one entity, our constitution and bill of rights would be rendered virtually meaningless. Many states are now in the process of outlawing firearms, as noted earlier. Furthermore, the text in article 16 of the Arms Treaty could enable Mexico and Canada, who both have signed the treaty, to appeal to the U.N. for help in forcing the disarming of American citizens. American gun owners are being portrayed as radical extremists and our guns, as the cause of Mexico’s violence. Also, consider that every state with high rates of gun violence and strict gun laws, blames the neighboring states that do not. This is all deliberate propaganda to create the justification for U.N. involvement. Don’t forget that the Obama Administration signed many localities on to the U.N. Strong Cities Network, which puts international organizations in control of local law enforcement agencies. Is there a connection between this and what is happening in Virginia? That is unclear. Virginia has no cities listed as being members. New York, Georgia, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Colorado however, are listed as being members in the Strong Cities Network.  

While Hodges and Adams may not provide the direct quotes or sources of their claims, the stage is indeed being set for possible use of U.N. troops on our soil. This writer is making no claim that he knows of any plans, he is only providing the documented evidence which suggests the possibility. This is evidence that has been ignored for far too long on the grounds that it is nothing more than a whacked-out conspiracy theory. Too many people have lived under the misguided notion that it could never happen here. Something is happening and the situation is going to escalate, and it could very well be deemed an international emergency by the U.N., enabling them to deploy their peace keeping troops.

A Paper I Wrote on Values Based Leadership

This is a paper I wrote on values based leadership for my program at Liberty University. I got an A.

Abstract

Robert Greenleaf wrote in his essay “The servant as leader,” that a leader who seeks to serve people places that desire as his or her top priority. The desire to only lead, according to Greenleaf (1977), can be derived from feelings of power and a drive to acquire material possessions (Greenleaf, 1977). According to Greenleaf (1977), the two differ in the sense that the servant leader is motivated by ensuring human beings most basic needs are met, that they are essentially being guided towards their best interests. Greenleaf asks if the people being served are becoming healthier, wiser, wealthier and freer. History is replete with examples of leaders who, at their peaks of power, believed that what they were doing was in the best interest of their people. Communists for example, believe that the people should put all their faith in a state that is there to look out for them because the state represented the highest level of authority. They believed their values were representative of truth; therefore, failure to adhere to those standards meant there was something defective about you. National Socialist Adolf Hitler’s highest value rested in the creation of super state at the head of a world socialist government, run by a master race no less. He was a very charismatic leader that had the ability to get people to follow him. He believed, in the beginning, that he was serving his people’s best interest. Communism and Nazism (national socialism) both represent situations where charismatic leaders motivated by the belief they were meant to serve ended in disaster because they placed their values and beliefs above the reality of an ultimate truth. That ultimate truth being the existence of God.

On understanding morality

There is something off in the world today. Society seems to be drifting further and further away from any semblance of truth and into chaos. America is thought to have been founded on the ideals of Christianity, and it was believed that men could be free because our belief in this truth kept us grounded in a “universal morality” that taught the virtues of personal responsibility and mutual respect for our fellow man. As John Adams said, “our constitution was made for a religious people and is inadequate for any other.” According to the John Adams center, Adams believed that morality cannot exist without religion. Religion, Adams reasoned, was a source of instruction on morality for men and morality as a philosophy, started from the given understanding that the world was created by God. (John Adams Center). The idea of a universal morality which unite men in a common understanding is only possible when the belief in such a concept is commonly shared (Luz, 2003).

The question of morality is currently debated from the perspective of either the religious, or post-modernist viewpoints (Luz, 2003). The differences lie in the past-present context, or relative way the word is applied. For example, the religious perspective is that morality represents the way people conduct themselves day to day in accordance with an understanding of a pre-existing moral standard (Luz, 2003). In comparison, post-modernists tend to view morality as a fluid, ever changing concept which can be molded to fit changing circumstances (Luz, 2003).

By contrast, post-moderns often analyze morality by deconstructing action, intention, and consequence, all in the context of specific real-life situations, including all the participants and their histories. Where the former would argue that any claim to universal morality precedes the narrative context of the actors, the latter would argue that the only viable universalism that can be applied to morality is that it always derives from the situation itself (Luz, 2003).

Understanding morality on a situational basis is something that is also referred to as moral relativism. The world is full of many religions, cultures and moral beliefs. Moral relativism posits the idea that they are all equal without one being superior to the other (Cook, 1996). The moral relativist believes there is no universal truth that guides human morality and the concept of right and wrong, good and evil can all be defined by where you happen to be at the time, the generation you live or the situation you find yourself in (Cook, 1996). Moral relativism itself is an example of western values ̶ in a way ̶ because it sprang from our societies desire to be tolerant and understanding of different cultures and beliefs (Cook, 1996). This is a value that unfortunately, is not shared by many of the cultures we seek to understand. Greenfield (1977) said that a defining characteristic of a values based, or servant approach of leadership is the fact that Christians should not identify potential enemies and blame them for society’s ills. In fact, he attributes many of the problems of today’s world to the idea that many people are not exercising their abilities to be servant leaders in accordance with God’s desires (Greenleaf, 1997).

Another cause of moral relativism, according to Cook (1996) is our societies declining religious beliefs. In 1962, the United States Supreme Court struck a blow to religious freedom in the public-school system. In the case, Engle v Vitale, the court ruled that the schools are barred from imposing Christian prayer because it violates the constitution’s separation between church and state principle (Melouka, 2018). This of course, is a false argument. It is based on a re-interpretation of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to a religious minority, the Danbury Baptists, stating that they need not fear the government imposing a “national religion,” that there was a “wall of separation” between church and state (Melouka, 2018). Jefferson meant of course, that the government had no right interfering in the religious beliefs of American’s at all. Freedom of religion and not establishing a national religion does not mean it is the government’s job to protect you from religion. Melouka (2018) describes this action as being a deliberate attack by atheists and other secular forces against the decent moral character of the nation. This is not hard to imagine as decades later we see more and more young people turning away from religious beliefs (Pew Research Center) and pornography, homosexuality, violence and a desire for socialism is taking it’s place.

Saul Alinsky, community organizer and mentor to Hillary Clinton wrote in his book “Rules for Radicals” that using the enemy’s rules against him was the most effective weapon to use in the pursuit of social change. In fact, he said that the Christian Church is unable to live up to their own rules, making this tactic especially effective.

Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity (Alinsky, 1971).

What are the rules Alinsky is referring to? Tolerance and understanding. As mentioned earlier, moral relativism derives from our desires to be tolerant and inclusive of other cultures, beliefs and religions even though they do not share such desires. As Greenleaf (1977) stated, Christians do not identify an enemy and exclude them in pursuit of a better world. In fact, he believes doing so only guarantees that they will return. This is the biggest difference between Christians and those that despise Christianity. To them, we are an enemy and they have demonstrated throughout history a relentless desire, driven by pure hatred it seems, to eliminate believers in what they believe is a pursuit of a perfect, Utopian world.

It is not in the nature of things that a society can be cleaned up once and for all according to an ideal plan. And even if it were possible, who would want to live in an aseptic world? Evil, stupidity, apathy, the “system” are not the enemy even though society building forces will be contending with them all the time. The healthy society, like the healthy body, is not the one that has taken the most medicine. It is the one in which the internal health building forces are in the best shape (Greenleaf, 1977).

In the movie “Lord of the Rings-The Two Towers,” Theodan, king of Rohan, asks how men are supposed to survive such reckless hate as his castle is stormed by marauding Orcs whose one purpose is to destroy the world of man. The king understood the Orcs were his enemy and what their purpose was, and yet he was powerless to stop them because their power had grown too strong in the absence of any opposition. Today’s Christians, attempting to be compassionate, fail to understand the differences in moral beliefs and attitudes between those that follow Christ and those who do not. The hard-political left, driven by the motivation for societal transformation is willing to do anything in its pursuit. They are guided by a moral belief which suggests that corrupting themselves for what they believe is the greater morality and is the true path to salvation. Alinsky refers to this as means and ends morality.

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, 1971).

This may be true on some levels; however, without real leadership and a willingness to stand for values that may seem unpopular or politically incorrect, we will end up with someone else deciding which values are in mankind’s best interests. Right now, it isn’t Christians leading the way. It seems not identifying an ideology that contrasts traditional Christian values only enables them to keep taking advantage of our tolerance and compassion. We have reached a point in American society where transgenderism, as one example, has pushed its way into the mainstream and boys, who are now able to identify as female, are using girl’s locker rooms, restrooms and competing in girls’ sports. This could be attributed to Greenleaf’s belief that not enough people are living up to their calling to be servant leaders (Greenleaf, 1977).

One place in American society that is in desperate need of spiritual, value-based leadership is the public-school system. America’s public schools are a place where a lack of leadership has resulted in a value system antithetical to Christianity taking hold. Many people argue that schools should focus exclusively on academic subjects such as math, reading and writing (Lindevaldsen, 2011). They fail to realize however, that is virtually impossible to not infuse a system of morals into the curriculum (Lindevaldsen, 2011). The morals represent the beliefs and values of those who are developing and enforcing the curriculum (Lindevaldsen, 2011). Unfortunately, the lack of principled value-based leadership has resulted in a public-school system where godless radicals are intent on pushing the issues of homosexuality and transgenderism onto our children (Lindevaldsen, 2011).

One of the arguments made in pushing this kind of education revolves around the issue of bullying and alleged suicides committed by school aged kids. This is an example of the Alinsky rule where the Christian value of compassion is twisted and turned against us. The argument is homosexuality and transgenderism must be addressed at these early ages to stop bullying and prevent suicide. Homosexual and transgender teens, the school-system argues, are being targeted and harassed because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. There is other research that suggests the exact opposite. According to the Family Research Council, a faith-based organization focusing on strengthening families, students identifying as different genders or homosexual commit suicides at higher rates because of the early exposure and the belief they are born that way (Sheldon, 2001). Ignoring this research while continually pushing the politically correct agenda is putting children’s lives at risk. If it is true that homosexual teens are targeted simply for their sexual orientation, why would the school system insist on pushing the issue? Elementary aged school children should not be exposed to any sexual education let alone taught that homosexuality is natural and healthy behavior. Perhaps the reason people face this kind of scrutiny is because the act itself is unnatural-

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13:

1 Thessalonians 5:22 tells us that we are to reject all forms of evil. This is occurring in our public schools because we have failed to stand and insist upon the implementation of Biblical values.

Values-based leadership, if implemented correctly is the opposite of the Alinsky approach to change. Alinsky, who dedicated his book to Lucifer, argued that the ends justify the means in the pursuit of societal transformation. The left has a vision where their moral standard represents the way society should be and because they believe it is morally superior, whatever they must do to achieve it is fair. Alinsky argued that corrupted means would not corrupt the ends. Believing so he argued, means one believes in the “immaculate conception of ends and principles” (Alinsky, 1971). How could corrupted means not corrupt the ends? The left believed that introducing homosexual education to elementary school children would eliminate harassment and suicide. Yet, decades later the issue still exists. Whether kids are being bullied and committing suicide because they are gay, or being introduced to homosexuality too early is irrelevant in the sense that it is the lack of a value based education system, based on morally sound principles that is leading to the situation in the first place. Teaching elementary school children about homosexuality as a means is corrupt. The results are getting worse; therefore, corrupted means do corrupt the ends. Only the godless could think otherwise.

Values-based leadership suggests that leaders should indeed focus on the means of attaining their goals opposed to simply the ends (Rao, 2017). The ends do not always justify the means. Rao, (2017) says that creating a better future for mankind depends on our ability to live out our values and apply our principles. Failure to do so can lead to disaster in any society.

 People flout norms and rules and deviate from basic ethics and morals because of various reasons such as to ensure their survival--a desire to excel at any cost. It is a complicated situation for many leaders who occupy higher positions. Empathizing with their situation would be tantamount to justifying their deviation from basic values. However, wrong is always wrong (Rao, 2017).

We see this concept playing out as a matter of truth in the public schools. For whatever reason, principled leaders have failed to take a hard stand against the introduction of an education curriculum which corrupts the minds of our young children. Whether they did it to ensure the survival of their own careers or because they were afraid of being portrayed as uncompassionate and intolerant, their inability to say no is reaping it’s consequences. We have progressed from a seemingly innocent suggestion that kids should be taught about homosexuality to prevent bullying, to the idea that men can identify as women and violate the privacy of young girls, and you’re a bigoted intolerant person for suggesting otherwise.

Real values cannot exist without truth. In our world of moral relativist philosophy where truth exists merely as a social construct values can be diluted and can slip away without any real, moral anchors holding them in place (Hester, 2010).  Truth, as mentioned by Luz (2003), can only have any real meaning if it is a universally accepted belief. Over the past two hundred years, since the era known as the “age of enlightenment” mankind has taken a drastic turn away from what was once the defining standard of morality, a belief in God (Ahmad, 2003). Man has placed his own ideas of morality and right and wrong over God (Ahmad, 2003) and the results have been devastating.

Hester (2019), also suggests that value-based leadership is largely dependent upon the term “value-based.” People have different values which they all prescribe to their morality (Hester, 2019). Hester (2019) for example, describes the feminist movement along with the so-called #me too movement as movements which allegedly push the nation in a more moral direction. Others would argue that feminism has destroyed the American family and the #me too movement as being responsible for destroying the America principle of jurisprudence or, being innocent until proven guilty. Piper (2013), suggests that the passing of Obamacare was a moral and ethical thing to do even though it’s initial designer, Johnathon Gruber, later admitted on television that they depended on the stupidity of the American voter and a lack of transparency to pass it into law (Viebeck, 2014, November 10).

Joseph Stalin, Pol-Pot, Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Lenin and many others placed their values in an atheistic system of governance. They are examples of leaders who placed their moral principles and philosophies higher than God’s to get the people to follow their dictates. Communism became viewed as a morally superior system that preached total equality. All men were to be the same, none being better or worse than another. Failure to conform to such ideas or believing that some men were more capable than others came to be viewed as intolerance and standing in the way of a perfect society. Communism is now known to be a crime against humanity and a system of total tyranny (Courtois, Werth, Panne, Paczowski, Bartosek & Margolin, 1999) where over one hundred million people were murdered by their own governments. It is a prime example of how corrupted methods will indeed corrupt the ends, despite what Alinsky teaches in Rules for Radicals. The issue of homosexuality being taught in the public schools is another example of the term “values-based,” describing the morality of those employing the term. Public schools have been absent a Christian based morality since Christianity has been barred by the Supreme Court. Even if this was a deliberate attack against the nations moral character, as Melouka (2018), suggests, there are those that genuinely believe they are working to prevent the harassment of young children who identify as homosexual or transgender. Their values may be misplaced however, it can be argued that they are employing a values-based leadership.

The only way to set society on the correct path, and to correct the problems we face is to return to a Biblically based morality. Greenleaf (1977), argued that Christians should not identify opposing ideologies as enemies and blame them for society’s ills. This is true in many ways. Calling a schoolteacher who is empathizing with the troubles of a homosexual youth, for example, an enemy, will not solve anything. Neither will ignoring the problem or adding to the existing curriculum that introduces the topic of homosexuality to school children. The truth will speak for itself and a correlation must be drawn by principled “faith based” leaders between Biblical truths and the problems associated with homosexuality, and other problems we face today. Ignoring the problem or not speaking up is the real cause, as Greenleaf (1977) suggests. Hester (2010), said that real values cannot exist with a moral anchor that supports them. There is no moral anchor supporting the teaching of homosexuality to young children. This is especially true when you consider the fact that problems associated with homosexual youth are many and still growing. If homosexual or transgender teens are committing suicide, why introduce them to the concept at all? Christians must reject the idea that their insistence of Biblical based morality is intolerant and uncompassionate. The exact opposite is the truth, failure to defend Biblical morality is what is causing societies downfall.

References

Ahmad, F.A. (2003) Does morality require God? Intellectual discourse. 11(1) p. 51-76 Retrieved from https://journals.iium.edu.my/intdiscourse/index.php/islam/article/view/246/241

Alper, B. (2015, November 23) Millennials are less religious than older Americans, but just as spiritual. The Pew research center.

Alinsky, S, D. (1971) Rules for radicals. New York, New York. Random House Incorporated.

Cook, D, E. (1996) Moral relativism: Schools and societies Whitefield briefing. 1(1) Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c9e3e63e8ba4496c1df9458/t/5caf94d5ec212d9e473c4471/1555010773922/1.1+WB+Cook.pdf

Courtis, S., Werth, N., Panne, J. L., Packowski, A., Bartosek, K., & Margolin, J.L. (1999) The Black book of communism. Harvard University Press. Cambridge Massachusetts. Retrieved from http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/blackbookcommunism.pdf

Greenleaf, R. (1977) The servant as leader. Servant leadership. Paulist press https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/199th/ocs/content/pdf/The%20Servant%20as%20Leader.pdf

Hester, J, P. (2019) Value-based leadership in times of confusion. The journal of value-based leadership. 12(1) Retrieved from https://go-gale-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=vic_liberty&id=GALE%7CA581864346&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon

Hester, J, P. (2019) Many layers of values-based leadership. The journal of values-based leadership. 12(2) Retrieved from https://go-gale-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=vic_liberty&id=GALE|A597515442&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon

Lindevaldsen, R., (2011) Holding schools accountable for their sex ed. curricula. Liberty University School of Law 5 (463) Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&=&context=lusol_fac_pubs&=&sei-  

Luz, M, J. (2003) A tract for our times: Newman, Genet and the syntax of universal morality. Irish theological quarterly. 68 p. 119-153. Retrieved from https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/002114000306800202

Melouka, A. (2018). Reconsidering secular humanism: Separation of church and state in public schools in the USA. Revue Académique Des Études Sociales Et Humaines, (19), 81-86. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.liberty.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/docview/2001049844?accountid=12085

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. John Adamas Center.com

Piper, L. (2013) The affordable care act: The ethical call for value-based leadership to transform quality. The healthcare manager. 32(3) Retrieved from https://ovidsp-dc2-ovid-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/sp-

Rao, M.S. (2017) Values-based leadership. The journal of values-based leadership. 10(2) Retrieved from https://go-gale-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=vic_liberty&id=GALE|A505130888&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summon

Sheldon, L. (2001) Homosexuals recruit public school children. Traditional values 18 (11) 1-8 Retrieved from http://spiritualarchive.org/articles-pubs/HomosexualsRecruitChildren.pdf

Viebeck, E. (2014, November 10) Obamacare architect: stupidity of American voters helped bill pass. The Hill.com

The Grand Strategy Was Deception

America is on the edge and tensions are rising. Impeachment, Russian collusion, red-flag laws, gun control, illegal immigration, constant accusations of racism, transgenderism and finally, the rising debt are all lending to the perfect storm where absolute chaos will enable the globalists to enact the control they have been pursuing for over a century. Most Americans have no idea where to stand on many of these issues as they live their lives in an innocent, albeit ignorant bliss. The rest of us follow along believing that the nation is made up of two rival political factions. One righteously fighting for the American way and the other made up of communists, hell bent on America’s destruction.

Yuri Bezmenov was a Soviet propaganda specialist who later defected to the United States and lived out his life as Thomas Schuman. He described the deceptive methods of the Soviet Union and their quest for global communism with a term he called ideological subversion. This is a process of changing the public’s perception of reality to the point that they have no idea where to stand on anything.  

Ideological Subversion-An overt...slow process... to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country. (American Thinker)

It is safe to say that in some ways we have reached this point in America. The constant portrayal of opposition to Trump’s agenda is an example of this insurrectionary methodology. For example, pro-gun conservatives refuse to question President Trump even though he has openly supported red-flag laws and enacted an unconstitutional ban on bump stocks. His supporters are not paying attention to the reality that the new trade agreement with Mexico will further the goals of establishing a North American Union, or, the fact that he just signed the new Defense Authorization Bill which still contains the provisions to detain Americans without charges or trial if they have been deemed to be enemy combatants. The effective use of propaganda by the television media, which reinforces the illusion of two parties vehemently opposing one another is a prime example of ideological subversion.

In the book Perestroika Deception, Anatoliy Golitsyn, another Soviet propaganda specialist, warns the west of the Soviets mastery of misinformation and the use of controlled opposition to transform governments into communist states. He describes the differences between communist planning and the west’s understanding of strategy. To the United States, strategy is usually understood in the context of short-term goals which are immediately achievable. Comparatively speaking, the communists viewed strategy as “a grand design or general Party line which governs the Party's actions over a long period and contains one or more special maneuvers designed to help the Party achieve its ultimate objectives” (Golitsyn, The Perestroika Deception). One of these party lines and special maneuvers was creating the illusion that communism had died, and the Soviet Union had taken on capitalist reforms. In fact, Golitsyn implicitly states that the purpose was to use this illusion as a weapon against the west. The defeat of communism, and their willingness to adopt capitalist reforms would cause the west to lower their guard.

Since then, I have submitted new memoranda to the CIA and American policymakers in which I explained Soviet grand strategy and its strategic designs against the West, the essence of 'perestroika' (the final phase of the strategy), the new use of the Bloc's political and security potential for introducing new deceptive controlled 'democratic', 'nationalist' and 'non-Communist' structures in the Communist countries, and the deployment of the political and security potential of the renewed 'democratic' regimes for the execution of the strategic design against the West (Golitsyn, The Perestroika Deception).

What Golitsyn is saying is that communism is alive and well and the idea that it has been defeated is part of the overall strategy to conquer the United States. Another grand design involved creating the illusion that communism stood for peace and equality. The report entitled The Communist Peace Offensive, which was prepared and released by the House of Un-American Activities in 1951 highlights this strategy. The goal, and we see this playing out on our college campuses and in our public schools, was to portray the United States as the war mongering, oppressive nation and capitalism as a selfish system driven by greed. Communism was to be presented as a system that stood for equality, peace, justice and human rights. In the book The Naked Communist, a list of forty five goals was presented. These goals were to present the founding fathers as selfish aristocrats and discredit the U.S. constitution on the grounds that it hampers cooperation between nations. Even mocking this knowledge as a conspiracy could be described as part of this overall strategy.

Why does any of this matter? American’s are overwhelmed in their own country and have no idea where to turn. Everything is being used against us and the stage is being set to implement the final stages of transforming the nation into a full-blown communist state. Our colleges and universities, right under our very noses and with little to no opposition, are indoctrinating our children into communist ideology. If communism had been defeated how could this be happening? By implementing the strategies described in this article, and the only way people will be able to come to terms with it is to accept it as truth and discard the notion that it is a discredited conspiracy theory.

The grand strategy was deception and American’s were deceived by one of their favorite conservative presidents and the notion that he economically defeated communism. Ronald Reagan will long be remembered for bringing down the Berlin Wall and stopping communist expansion. Golitsyn even predicted the Soviets would take the necessary step of tearing down the wall as a means of deceiving the west. Possibly being deceived himself, believing that the result would be a more peaceful world free from a fear of nuclear war, Ronald Reagan signed the  Exchanges and cooperation in Scientific, Technical, Educational, Cultural and Other Fields, agreements with the Soviet Union which gave them influence in our education system.

The agreements call for Cooperation in the field of science and technology and additional agreements in other specific fields, including the humanities and social sciences; the facilitation of the exchange by appropriate organizations of educational and teaching materials, including textbooks, syllabi and curricula, materials on methodology, samples of teaching instruments and audiovisual aids, and the exchange of primary and secondary school textbooks and other teaching materials…the conducting of joint studies on textbooks between appropriate organizations in the United States and the Ministry of Education of the U.S.S.R. (Iserbyt, Soviets in the Classroom)

American’s first reaction to this would be denial. After all, Reagan was an ardent critic of communism whose patriotic speeches on freedom and human dignity inspired generations of Americans. Ronald Reagan was also an actor.  A personality that American’s could relate to. Just as Donald Trump was a reality television star with an enigmatic personality who can capture the attention of a nation. Whether Reagan was deceived or signed these agreements knowing what he was doing will likely never be known. Charlotte Iserbyt, author of The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, makes a compelling case that Reagan had a hand in creating the regional governments the Soviets sought to create while serving as California’s governor.

Things in America are not as they seem. We have been divided along so many lines ̶ politics, race, economics, religion and even along our beliefs of what it means to be free. The illusion being presented to us is one of rival political factions duking it out for the future of our nation. Does this represent reality or is this part of a deceptive strategy? President Trump is loved by his supporters even though many of his actions contradict the things he has promised. The information provided in this article at least lays out the possibility that what we are witnessing is the grand strategy of deception designed to keep Americans locked in their respective ideological boxes. If we do not at least consider this possibility we will have no way of stopping it if it is true.

Gun control and constitutional incompetence in the ranks

In the article Associationism: Replacing Islamic Terror with Right Wing Extremism, the groundwork explaining what we see taking shape in our nation was laid out. Slowly but ever so surely, the fear of Islamic terrorism has been replaced with the image of the gun-toting, patriotic American through a process called associationism. It is simple stimulus-response conditioning. People have been trained to fear terrorism by never ending exposure to trauma causing events ̶   the stimulus just changed from the Islamic terrorist to the American willing to stand up for his rights. Constant news stories depicting mass shooters as white nationalists or disgruntled right-wingers is all it took to create a state of mind where people are willing to surrender their liberty for security. Well, some people anyway.

New York has just created a law enforcement/intelligence unit dedicated to combating so called “right-wing extremism.” The unit is modeled after those that were, after the September 11 attacks, committed to rooting out radical jihadists. Due to a lawsuit filed against NYPD in 2013, all references to Islamic radicalism have been removed from law enforcement training manuals leaving a vacuum that needs to be filled. Naturally, they turned their sights towards those they know will not willingly comply with the unconstitutional gun laws they have recently passed. This is happening at the same time Virginia is promising sweeping gun control and even suggesting the National Guard could be used to enforce it. While the Virginia National Guard released an official statement urging all to remain calm, it wasn’t a refusal to obey unconstitutional orders. The author of the Bearing Arms article suggests that Major General Timothy P. Williams needs to stay neutral and not ruffle any feathers with the Governor right now. This writer disagrees, if they refuse to stand now and let their position be known due to political reasons, it is likely that they will tow the party line when the time comes to make a hard decision. The latest from Virginia is that a bill has been introduced to fire or reprimand all who refuse to enforce their unconstitutional mandates.

Many people believe that military members will refuse to follow unconstitutional orders, and that they will side with the people and the oaths they took to support and defend the constitution. While many will, the sad truth is that a sizable portion of them will not. They will do exactly as they are told. For example, consider the Twenty-Nine Palms Combat Survey. Administered in an unofficial capacity by Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham in 1994, the survey asked 300 Marines 46 different questions. One of which was the following ̶

The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.

Out of three-hundred Marines a staggering 18.6 percent agreed, 7.6 percent strongly agreed and 12.0 had no opinion either way, meaning they could be easily swayed to simply follow orders. This equates to over twelve percent out of only three hundred. Granted, that is only thirty-three people but if the percentages hold true across the whole military then that is a potential two-hundred-twenty-thousand troops willing to confiscate firearms from civilians. This survey, as noted above, was administered in an unofficial capacity for the purpose of writing a thesis on service members lack of constitutional competence. Cunningham assured those questioning his motivations that he was only concerned about "the lack of knowledge among the soldiers about the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and their heritage as Americans."

Consider the current climate in today’s military. Political correctness has run amuck, and many service members have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the public-school system. The numbers are surely much higher than they may have been in 1994 after being subject to the constant anti-gun message and non-stop shootings in the news. There is a growing ignorance about our constitution as many high school textbooks have taken it upon themselves to re-write the second amendment.  Also, consider the fact that the organization “Oath Keepers” was formed in response to National Guard units being ordered to confiscate firearms from civilians after Hurricane Katrina. There were more soldiers willingly following orders in that situation than not. On a more personal note, this author asked an Oklahoma National Guard member if he or his unit would comply with such orders. His response was chilling. He replied by saying his oath meant he had to follow the orders of the president no matter what, and that he would. That is indoctrination and easy susceptibility resulting from ignorance of our constitution.

As tensions rise and more people come together forming second amendment sanctuaries you can rest assured that they will be labeled as domestic terrorists. The federal government already considers people concerned about the loss of gun rights as potential threats to national security. When the laws are passed, and people refuse to comply, the excuse to label them a “potential threat to themselves or others” will be used to enforce extreme risk protection orders against them. This has been part of the plan all along ̶ trap us in a corner and force us to act. It is a perfect storm brewing and the objective is total disarmament. If the National Guard is called there will surely be dissention in the ranks, creating another crisis that will need to be solved.

Someone needs to remind Major General Timothy P. Williams about U.S. Code 18-242. It is a crime to deprive any person of the liberties protected by the United States constitution under the color of law.

The corrupted means of gun control will inevitably corrupt the ends

Last week the nation witnessed two prime examples of the absolute failures of gun control. Florida has been bragging about the success of their red flag gun laws which enable authorities to deny gun owners any rights to due process if they have been identified as being “a threat to themselves or others.” Under many of the red flag laws appearing across the nation, a simple allegation from a neighbor, coworker, or family member is all it takes to have your guns confiscated. It is then up to the accused to prove in a court of law, that they are not dangerous and have no intention of causing any harm with their firearms. Red flag gun laws have been passed in fifteen states since President Trump expressed his support for them. It was the green light signaling it was ok to confiscate guns.

The truth is that Florida’s red flag laws are an abysmal failure, as is all gun control. Since their passage in 2018, red flag laws have been used to confiscate guns from over seventeen hundred people. The problem is that they have no way of knowing whether these people posed any real danger to society. In the meantime, murderers are still committing murder. For example, just over a month ago a seventeen year old boy was shot and killed by a suspect who is still unidentified and on the loose. There isn’t a gun control law that would have prevented that. Red flag laws, as is the case with all gun control, only affects the law abiding.

On Thursday, December fifth, a high-speed chase ended in Miramar with a shoot out between Florida law enforcement and two armed robbers. The suspects were both convicted felons who were imprisoned on multiple armed robbery charges and released in 2017. They were in possession of two handguns. Why are dangerous criminals being released from prison while innocent people are having their guns unconstitutionally confiscated on mere speculation? That is a question no one is asking. On Friday, December sixth, a foreign national and member of the Saudi Arabian military opened fire on a U.S. Navy installation in Florida, killing three and wounding seven others. How did a member of a foreign military obtain a handgun? Isn’t it against the law for foreigners to possess firearms in the United States? We do know that the democrats refused to add any provisions to existing gun control legislation that would notify ICE of any foreigners attempting to buy firearms. Thankfully that did not become law but maybe they felt sorry for him and helped him out. It must be difficult to get flight training in such a white privileged, oppressive nation like America.

Red flag laws are not about public safety. They are a convenient excuse to confiscate firearms from everyday people. The real intentions of gun grabbers are becoming clearer as more states are attempting to pass laws which can only be described as absolute tyranny. Virginia is one example where they are attempting to make felons out of anyone that has anything to do with second amendment activities. In New York, they are attempting to pass a law which would allow tyrants to deny gun purchases based on bias in social media posts. If they were really concerned about public safety, felons convicted multiple times of armed robbery would not be released from prison so easily. It is also abundantly clear that they intend to confiscate guns from people who they deem to be unaligned with their political objectives.

Passing more gun control laws will do nothing to save lives because those seeking to pass them are not being honest about their intentions. They lie and hide their true objectives by claiming that they support the second amendment and are only seeking common sense laws. They know that what they are proposing will have no affect on criminals yet, they are willing to pass them anyway because it is about control, not safety. They have objectives and an armed population is an obstacle. They have no morals or principles, they are only driven by their agenda.

Alinsky writes on the morality of means and ends in Rules for Radicals. He mocks those that believe in traditional Christian morality by saying that corrupted means do not corrupt the ends and that believing in such a concept or being unwilling to corrupt yourself means you do not care about society.

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 the people to be corrupted for them (Alinsky, 1971).

This is the mentality that we are we dealing with. They know they are lying; they know their laws will not stop violent crime, they just don’t care because they believe they know what is best for us. They believe that they are creating a more just and equal society and that is their moral high ground. Whatever they must do to achieve it is fair game because they have convinced themselves of their own greatness. If they must lie and endure the failures of gun control until the one perfect law that fixes everything comes to fruition, they will. The problem is that it will never come. Things will only get worse, and no matter how many gun laws they pass murderers will still murder, even if it isn’t with a gun. This is because corrupted means will inevitably corrupt the ends. How could they not?

The consequences of a population disinterested in politics

Virginians will soon come to realize that not taking an interest in politics will reap its consequences as it was famously said by Raymond Brannen that politics will take an interest in you. In America, people with a dream can go a long way and make something of their lives. This leaves capable men disinterested in the affairs of government. When the halls of congress are absent the hearts of patriots and God-fearing men, shady characters with ambitions of their own take their place and attempt to use the power invested in them to force their twisted vision. The gun control bill in Virginia is a perfect example and can be summed up succinctly with one word ̶ tyranny.

Senate bill 64 seeks to make a felon out of anyone who engages in any training that could potentially cause harm to another for the purpose of causing civil disorder. This includes firearm instructors and even potentially, martial arts instructors. The key words here are “training that will be employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder.” How are they going to prove you are taking a martial arts class so you can riot and protest? The good news is that conservatives and legal gun owners do not generally engage in that type of behavior. Those radical leftists who love to protest however, may have something to worry about. The addition of those words clearly indicates that they fear an armed population. It is also clear that the intent is to destroy the citizen militia.

Gun control advocates try to argue that the text of the second amendment, or even the entirety of the constitution, must be re-interpreted to fit today’s society. The militia clause, they argue, clearly means government run militias, or the National Guard, as many of today’s high school text-books try to teach. Thomas Jefferson foresaw this becoming an issue and specifically stated that the constitution should be interpreted in the spirit in which it was written.

On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed (Adams, The Second Amendment Primer).

At the time of the constitutions drafting the term well regulated was understood to mean well disciplined or well trained (Caplan). Therefore, the term “well-regulated militia, the right of the people” means exactly what it says. A body of citizens well trained in the use of arms not only for self-preservation but for the defense of the country as well. The founding fathers feared a standing army and the second amendment, or a militia made up of the citizens, was the solution.

The necessity of an armed populace, protection against the disarming of the citizenry, and the need to guard against a select militia (meaning a militia of the state) and assure a real militia which could defend liberty against any standing forces which the government might raise were topics interspersed through out the ratification process (Young, The Origins of the Second Amendment).

Virginians are responding to this attack against liberty by forming second amendment sanctuaries. American’s have an independent, warrior spirit and they will not surrender the second amendment to a tyrannical government. The government knows this which is why they are ramping up their efforts to do something on gun control. On the federal level, the Department of Justice, headed by William Barr, is bypassing congress and instituting an aggressive gun control enforcement policy. On the surface it seems reasonable enough in it’s attempts to enforce existing gun laws and go after people who by law, shouldn’t have firearms. Typically, you must read between the lines and connect the dots yourself to get an understanding of the real intent. Barr said the purpose of Project Guardian is to “disrupt those who are mobilizing for violence.” What does that mean? That’s a term that goes well beyond the apprehension of criminals in possession of a firearm. If Virginia senate bill 64 becomes law will those refusing to comply by forming second amendment sanctuaries be considered mobilizing for violence? That is a good possibility considering the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has already designated those concerned about the passage of gun restrictions as “right-wing extremists.”

Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government.  The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.    

The fact that the DOJ would implement a policy, without congress passing any law, promising to vigilantly enforce gun laws is concerning amid the developments in Virginia. As the government continues to seek more gun control, more resistance will result. Just as it is with red flag laws, you are already considered dangerous if you somehow appear on their radar. We have already seen how William Barr deals with those he considers dangerous.

This is the result of good principled men not taking part in the politics that govern their nation. Robert Greenleaf, an essayist known for coining the term “servant leadership” would say that this is the result of God-fearing men failing to exercise their duties as servant leaders and act in accordance with God’s will. When good men fail to act, evil stands in their place.