Left's 'Big Lie' about Trump and GOP explodes

Author Dinesh D'Souza on 'ploy of seizing the Hitler card' 


By Dinesh D'Souza

To hear the left tell it, Donald Trump is a fascist if not actually a Nazi. "I feel Hitler in these streets," actress Ashley Judd chanted around his inauguration. Documentary filmmaker Ken Burns terms Trump "Hitleresque." Columnist Andrew Sullivan terms the GOP today a "neo-fascist party." And MSNBC host Rachel Maddow says, "I've been reading a lot about what it was when Hitler first became chancellor … because I've I think that's possibly where we are."

The charge that Trump and the right are fascists and neo-Nazis is used to establish Trump as an illegitimate president, the GOP as a party in cahoots with him, and to justify getting rid of both "by any means necessary," which is actually the name of one of the many so-called antifascist groups. The media barrage against Trump, the street violence of Antifa and other groups, are all based on the premise that the left is fighting a modern incarnation of the Hitler movement of the 1930s.

I agree that there is a fascist strain in American politics today, but who are the real fascists? Is fascism a phenomenon of the left or the right? This question is rarely asked in a serious way, and I want to give credit to two worthy predecessors who have begun to plough this ground. The first is the economist Friedrich Hayek, whose "The Road to Serfdom," first published in 1944, made the startling claim that Western welfare state democracies, having defeated fascism, were moving inexorably in the fascist direction. Moreover, what is the slave plantation if not a special type of concentration camp? This may seem like an outrageous analogy. How can anyone compare a forced labor system, however unjust, to Nazi camps designed and used to kill people? But, the concentration camps were also work camps. In the German camps and on the Democrat-run plantations, forced labor was employed with "human tools" solely with regard to productivity and with little if any regard for the lives of the workers who were, in both cases, regarded as inferior and even subhuman. The analogy between the two worst compulsory confinement and forced labor systems in human history is not merely legitimate; it is overdue.

Hayek identified fascism as a phenomenon of the left, a cousin of socialism and progressivism. And he warned, "The rise of fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies." While Hayek's book was written in a pedantic, measured tone, appealing to progressives to learn from one who had witnessed firsthand the rise of fascism in Europe, progressive scholars immediately set about reviling Hayek, with one, Herman Finer, accusing him of displaying a "thoroughly Hitlerian contempt for the democratic man."

If you spotted, in this reaction, the familiar progressive ploy of seizing the Hitler card and playing it right back against Hayek, then you are beginning to see the big lie at work. Here is Hayek making a case for how progressives are moving in the direction of Hitler, and without answering this charge and with no supporting evidence whatever, the left turns around and accuses Hayek of being like Hitler.

Jonah Goldberg received pretty much the same treatment for his important book "Liberal Fascism." Goldberg argues, "What we call liberalism – the refurnished edifice of American progressivism – is in fact a descendant of and manifestation of fascism." Goldberg argues that fascism and communism, far from being opposites, are "closely related historical competitors for the same constituents." Goldberg terms progressivism a "sister movement of fascism" no less than Communism, displaying a "family resemblance that few will admit to recognizing."

Goldberg traces innumerable links between progressivism and fascism, spelling out the left-wing laundry list in both the platforms of Mussolini and Hitler, and then showing their parallel in modern American progressivism. Goldberg uses a broad brush, even detecting an odor of fascism in modern progressive environmentalism, vegetarianism, holistic medicine and child care policies. Even though he occasionally overdoes his fascist comparisons, his book is well worth reading for its originality and comprehensiveness. Once again the left set upon Goldberg with a vengeance, charging him with being, of all things, a fascist.                  

Hayek identified fascism as a phenomenon of the left, a cousin of socialism and progressivism. And he warned, "The rise of fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies." While Hayek's book was written in a pedantic, measured tone, appealing to progressives to learn from one who had witnessed firsthand the rise of fascism in Europe, progressive scholars immediately set about reviling Hayek, with one, Herman Finer, accusing him of displaying a "thoroughly Hitlerian contempt for the democratic man."

If you spotted, in this reaction, the familiar progressive ploy of seizing the Hitler card and playing it right back against Hayek, then you are beginning to see the big lie at work. Here is Hayek making a case for how progressives are moving in the direction of Hitler, and without answering this charge and with no supporting evidence whatever, the left turns around and accuses Hayek of being like Hitler.

Jonah Goldberg received pretty much the same treatment for his important book "Liberal Fascism." Goldberg argues, "What we call liberalism – the refurnished edifice of American progressivism – is in fact a descendant of and manifestation of fascism." Goldberg argues that fascism and communism, far from being opposites, are "closely related historical competitors for the same constituents." Goldberg terms progressivism a "sister movement of fascism" no less than Communism, displaying a "family resemblance that few will admit to recognizing."

Goldberg traces innumerable links between progressivism and fascism, spelling out the left-wing laundry list in both the platforms of Mussolini and Hitler, and then showing their parallel in modern American progressivism. Goldberg uses a broad brush, even detecting an odor of fascism in modern progressive environmentalism, vegetarianism, holistic medicine and child care policies. Even though he occasionally overdoes his fascist comparisons, his book is well worth reading for its originality and comprehensiveness. Once again the left set upon Goldberg with a vengeance, charging him with being, of all things, a fascist.            

Moreover, this whole issue has been raised to a completely new level since the publication of historian Stanley Elkins' path-breaking book "Slavery." Elkins not only drew an elaborate comparison of the plantation as a "closed system" akin to a concentration camp, he also showed that slavery produced personality types eerily similar to those described by Nazi camp survivors. So the point is that even on some of the institutions and practices uniquely associated with the Nazis – from genocide to the concentration camp – the Democrats in a sense got there first.                                                                                                                 

It turns out that the left provided the Nazis with some very important policy schemes that the Nazis then murderously implemented in Europe. Hitler, for instance, specifically said he intended to displace and exterminate the Russians, the Poles and the Slavs in precisely the way Americans in the Jacksonian era had displaced and exterminated the native Indians. The Nazi Nuremberg laws were directly modeled on the segregation and anti-miscegenation laws that had been implemented decades earlier in the Democratic South.

Forced sterilization and euthanasia aimed at eliminating racial "defectives" and producing a "superior" Nordic race were two additional schemes the Nazis got from American progressives. This is not my view of the matter; it is the Nazi eugenicists' view of the matter. In the early twentieth century, eugenics and social Darwinism were far more prevalent in America than they were in Germany. Margaret Sanger and her fellow progressive eugenicists didn't get their ideas for killing off undesirables – or preventing their births – from the Nazis; the Nazis got them from their American counterparts who dominated the field of international eugenics. So there is a two-way traffic between Nazism and the American left.

This deeply implicates the heroes of American progressivism: Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. Wilson was a veritable progenitor of American fascism. One may say of him that he was fascist even before fascism became cool. In addition, he was a racist who was almost single-handedly responsible for the revival of the Ku Klux Klan, the organization that according to historian Robert Paxton is the closest American precursor to a Nazi movement.                                                                                                      

Franklin Roosevelt was an avid admirer of Mussolini and one who closely collaborated with the worst racist elements in America, working with them to block anti-lynching laws and exclude blacks from New Deal programs and naming a former Klansman to the Supreme Court. Mussolini, for his part, praised FDR's book "Looking Forward" and basically declared FDR to be a fellow fascist. Hitler too saw FDR as a kindred spirit and the New Deal was widely praised as an American form of fascism in the Nazi Party's official newspaper Volkischer Beobachter and other Nazi publications.       

JFK toured Nazi Germany in the 1930s and came back effusive with praise of Hitler and his theory of Nordic superiority. "I have come to the conclusion," JFK wrote in his diary, "that fascism is right for Germany and Italy." Touring the Rhineland, JFK echoed Nazi propaganda at the time. "The Nordic races appear to be definitely superior to the Romans." Hostility to Hitler, JFK insisted, stems largely from jealousy. "The Germans really are too good – that's why people conspire against them." Even though JFK fought in World War II, he retained a soft spot for Hitler as late as 1945, when he described him as the "stuff of legends…Hitler will emerge from the hate that now surrounds him and come to be regarded as one of the most significant figures to have lived."                                           

So progressives decided to tell a new story, and this is the story that has now become our conventional wisdom. In this story, the very fascism and Nazism that were, on both sides of the Atlantic, recognized as left wing phenomena from the outset now got moved into the right wing column. Suddenly Mussolini and Hitler became "right wingers" and the people who supposedly brought them to power became "conservatives." The left, then, became the glorious resisters of fascism and Nazism.                                                                              

These facts are known to many progressive scholars. But after World War II, as this group came increasingly to dominate the academy – a dominance that was fully consolidated by the late sixties – the progressives recognized how crushing it would be if Americans knew about the actual record of progressivism and the Democratic Party. What if people, especially young people, knew the links between revered progressive figures like Wilson, FDR and JFK on the one hand, and the hated Mussolini and Hitler on the other? Such knowledge would not merely topple progressive heroes from their pedestal. Basically it would be the end of progressivism and the Democratic Party. 

To make this story work, fascism and Nazism had to be largely redefined. The big problem was that Mussolini and Hitler both identified socialism as the core of the fascist and Nazi weltanshauung. Mussolini was the leading figure of Italian revolutionary socialism and never relinquished his allegiance to it. Hitler's party defined itself as championing "national socialism." So the progressives had to figure out how to move these avowed left-wingers to the right, and how to get the “socialism” out of “national socialism.” This was not an easy task.

How to do it? Taking a cue from the Marxists, the left figured out as early as the 1960s that it had to suppress altogether the fact that fascism and Nazism were systems of thought. According to the left-wing historian Denis Mack Smith, "Italian fascism originated not as a doctrine but as a method, as a technique for winning power, and at first its principles were unclear even to its own members." Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat, who is extensively quoted in the media linking Trump to fascism, insists nevertheless that fascism is "one of those words that is very hard to define precisely" because "fascism was all about contradictions, and this kind of ambiguity has remained in fascism."

In reality such nonsense can only be sustained by refusing to take seriously the fascists themselves. As historian A. James Gregor writes, "Under the crabbed influence of the Marxist analysis of fascism, fascist statements are never analyzed as such. They are always 'interpreted.' Fascists are never understood to mean what they say. As a consequence, there has been very little effort, to date, to provide a serious account of fascism as an ideology." Instead the left identified fascism with amorphous tendencies that could just as easily be applied to numerous other political doctrines: authoritarianism, militarism, nationalism and so on.                                                                                                      
Think about this: we know the name of the philosopher of capitalism, Adam Smith. We also know the name of the philosopher of Marxism, Karl Marx. So, quick, what is the name of the philosopher of fascism? Yes, exactly. You don't know. Virtually no one knows. My point is that this is not because there were no foundational thinkers behind fascism – there were several – but rather that the left had to get rid of them in order to avoid confronting their unavoidable socialist and leftist orientation. This is the big lie in full operation.

If statism and collectivism are at the core of fascism, National Socialism adds another explosive ingredient – anti-Semitism. This much is well known. What the progressives have carefully disguised, however, is the degree to which Nazi anti-Semitism grew out of Nazi hatred for capitalism. Hitler draws a crucial distinction between productive capitalism, which he can abide, and finance capitalism, which he associates with the Jews. For Hitler, the Jew is the unproductive money-grubber at the center of finance capitalism, the entrepreneurial swindler par excellence.

This hardly sounds "right wing"; in fact, with some slight modification, it echoes progressive rhetoric about greedy Wall Street investment bankers. Thus progressives realized the necessity of hiding the true basis of Hitler's anti-Semitism, and to do this, anti-Semitism itself had to be redefined.

As you can see, we are dealing with a big, big lie – a lie that keeps getting bigger, and one that encompasses many smaller lies. We need to understand the big lie in all its dimensions in order to be free of it. Once we are free of it, the left is finished. Their power over us is gone. They had the race card and now they have the Nazi card, but they have no other cards left. If they lose this one, they lose their moral capital and are exposed for what they are – the bigoted, thuggish, self-aggrandizing thieves of our lives and liberties. They are the true descendants of Mussolini and Hitler, and in defeating them we can finally lay to rest the ghosts of fascism and Nazism.

READ MORE:

Dinesh D'Souza’s new book "The Big Lie: Exposing The Nazi Roots of the American Left" is published by Regnery.  

God bless,

JohnnyD

 

 

Formally recognize AntiFa as a terrorist organization

Terrorism is defined as “the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims”. This definition is the same definition used to declare ISIS and other groups, as terrorist organizations. AntiFa has earned this title due to its violent actions in multiple cities and their influence in the killings of multiple police officers throughout the United States. It is time for the pentagon to be consistent in its actions – and just as they rightfully declared ISIS a terror group, they must declare AntiFa a terror group – on the grounds of principle, integrity, morality, and safety.

 

Help the petition reach its goal, share with others:

URL: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/formally-recognize-antifa-terrorist-organization-0


God bless,
JohnnyD

Leftist violence goes mainstream in America

'Sustained political street warfare not seen in the U.S. since the 1960s'

From: World Net Daily 

by -  Garth Kant - August 16, 2017

WASHINGTON – Leftists claim they are fighting hate and violence, and they cite the deadly protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, as a prime example.

But the evidence indicates the left is actually spreading hate and violence.

Those are the conclusions of writers for two prominent left-leaning news outlets, the BBC and the Atlantic.

Their articles describe in detail how the taste for violence is seeping from the fringe left into its mainstream.

Peter Beinart’s article for next month’s issue of the Atlantic is titled, “The Rise of the Violent Left.”

Brenna Cammeron’s article for the BBC on Monday was headlined, “Antifa: Left-wing militants on the rise.”

Beinart found:

• “Antifa’s violent tactics have elicited substantial support from the mainstream left.”

• “[I]n the Trump era, the (violent leftist) movement is growing like never before.”

• “From Middlebury to Berkeley to Portland,” the use of violence to deny “Trump supporters their political rights … is on the rise, especially among young people.”

Cammeron discovered, while the “violence and murder of a protester in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend has been attributed to far-right elements … many conservatives say blame should be shared by (the violent leftist group) Antifa.”

That was confirmed from the scene by New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg, who tweeted, “The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding ‘antifa’ beating white nationalists being led out of the park.”

That insight ran counter to the major media narrative that what happened over the weekend in Charlottesville was a prime example of right-wing violence.

That’s because it was a rare clash of actual extremists, due to the presence of white supremacists among the rightists protesting the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville.

However, Antifa and other leftists actually have been regularly attacking mainstream Republicans ever since President Trump became a candidate.

Simply put, the difference is that there were never any right-wing mobs attacking Hillary Clinton supporters, while attacks on Trump supporters by leftists became a familiar sight during the 2016 presidential campaign. And long after.

And, while there is no evidence of a growing right-wing extremist movement, even left-leaning journalists have found abundant evidence of a rapidly growing violent left-wing movement, as well as signs of it going mainstream, along with an increasing normalization of political violence.

Although the name is supposed to stand for “anti-fascist,” John Hinderaker of the Powerline blog described Antifa as actually “a fascist group that has also rioted at Washington, Berkeley, Seattle and other places, (that) typically wears black clothes and masks, arms its members with baseball bats, ax handles and 2x4s, and often attacks random people on the street.”

He called the group’s behavior in Charlottesville as “not much better than usual,” while adding rhetorically, “Who, exactly, brings bats and clubs to a demonstration?”

The left held 47 protests, many violent, against Trump from the day he announced his candidacy for president on June 16, 2015, until his election on Nov. 9, 2016.

That doesn’t include dozens of furious anti-Trump protests, some of which became riots, immediately following the election, in major cities around the nation and the around the world.

In his Atlantic piece, Beinart recalled how leftists “punched and threw eggs at people exiting a Trump rally in San Jose, California,” in June last year, which a website associated with Antifa celebrated as “righteous beatings.”

And how, a few weeks later, 10 people were stabbed at a counter-demonstration by Anti-Fascist Action Sacramento.

Included among all the violent protests after the inauguration of Trump as president, WND reported on the outright call for violence by a Black Lives Matter speaker at an anti-Trump rally in Seattle on Jan. 31.

A woman who described herself as a preschool teacher declared, “We need to start killing people.”

“First off, we need to start killing the White House,” she added. “The White House must die. The White House, your f—ing White House, your f—ing presidents, they must go! F— the White House.”

And, “F— white supremacy, f— the U.S. empire, f— your imperialist a– lives. That s— gotta go.

Beinart further described how leftist violence has actually increased since Trump became president.

In Portland, Oregon, “Masked protesters smashed store windows during multiday demonstrations following Trump’s election,” then, at another rally on June 4, “Antifa activists threw bricks until the police dispersed them with stun grenades and tear gas.”

“Demonstrators have interrupted so many city-council meetings that in February, the council met behind locked doors.”

“A similar cycle has played out at U.C. Berkeley,” observed Beinart. “In February, masked antifascists broke store windows and hurled Molotov cocktails and rocks at police during a rally against the planned speech by Milo Yiannopoulos.”

“The result,” Beinart concluded, “is a level of sustained political street warfare not seen in the U.S. since the 1960s.”

It is, no doubt, because of the increasing violence by the left, that President Trump has insisted on condemning the violence “by both sides” in the clash over the weekend in Charlottesville.

That has enraged the establishment media, as demonstrated at an explosive press conference by the president on Tuesday at Trump Tower in New York.

The major media, Democrats and even establishment Republicans such as Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell and John Kasich have insisted on placing all the blame for the weekend violence on the neo-Nazis at the Charlottesville protests, while ignoring legions of violent leftist counter-protesters.

“What about the ‘alt-left’ that came charging them?” Trump rhetorically asked a combative press.

“Excuse me. What about the alt-left that came charging at the – as you say, the alt-right? Do they have any semblance of guilt? … Let me ask you this. What about the fact they came charging – that they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do.”

“You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch. But there is another side,” insisted the president, adding, “I think there’s blame on both sides.”

Trump also maintained, “But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides … You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”

“Not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch,” declared the president.

Trump had stated a demonstrable truth, recorded by cameras, that there was violence from both sides. But, for some reason, that assertion enraged the press, which responded by trying to portray the president as defending the Nazis.

“Do you think what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?” asked one reporter.

“Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?” asked another.

“I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane,” shot back the president. “What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other and they came at each other with clubs. And it was vicious and it was horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch. But there is another side.”

“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists,” the president explained, “because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

In other words, the president described a mix of good and bad people among the protesters on the right. And then he described the counter-protesters on the left in the same terms.

Trump observed the counter-protesters were a mix of ordinary people and violent leftists: “You had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats.”

But the press insisted that was making a moral equivalence between the ordinary counter-protesters on the left and the Nazi protesters on the right, while ignoring the violent leftists entirely.

Despite the fact journalists have traditionally regarded telling both sides of a story the most important part of their job, an editorial in the Washington Post on Wednesday ridiculed the president for saying there are “two sides to a story,” claiming that was a “false moral equivalency.”

After acknowledging the president had “complained that not everyone who came to the ‘Unite the Right’ rally was a neo-Nazi or white nationalist,” the Post then incongruously claimed, “These comments suggest very strongly that the president of the United States sees moral equivalence between Nazis and those who oppose Nazis.”

In other words, despite the president’s explicit condemnation of the Nazis, his recognition that there were non-Nazis among the protesters on the right was attacked by the Post as support of the Nazis.

And, despite that glaring contradiction, that is the charge now leveled by the president throughout the establishment media, Democrats and establishment Republicans.

In Tuesday’s increasingly surreal press conference, one reporter actually asked the president of the United States, “Are you against the Confederacy?”

But, noting that the nation’s first president was a slave owner, Trump countered: “So, this week it’s Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson’s coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week?

“And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you all – you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

“It’s easy to see where this is going,” because, “Five of our first seven presidents were slave owners,” observed WND Managing Editor David Kupelian, the best-selling author of WND Books’ “The Snapping of the American Mind.”

He continued, “After the Civil War memorials and statues are torn down all across America, what will the left’s next target be? It’s obvious: Memorials commemorating America’s founding generation – people like George Washington, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, all of whom owned slaves.”

That was echoed Tuesday night by Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson, who observed 41 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were slave owners.

He noted slavery was once so ubiquitous that even Native Americans such as the Cherokees owned slaves, long before the arrival of Columbus.

And that if slavery was used as the standard by which to judge historical figures from the past, then no one was safe, including Lincoln.

Indeed, the Lincoln Memorial, dedicated to the president who freed the slaves, was defaced Tuesday with red spray paint that appeared read, “F— law.”

“But,” further observed Kupelian, “this is not, at its deepest level, even really about slavery or racism. What the left is really intent on is annihilating and replacing America’s core operating system – the Constitution.”

“Leftist true believers have contempt for the Constitution because it prescribes a system of very limited government, while what they want is an all-powerful government – with them in charge. Thus they will attempt to overturn the Constitution – like a hated Civil War statue – by discrediting and demonizing those ‘white slave-owners’ who gave that Constitution to us.”

Hatred for traditional America and ordinary Americans by the left can be seen rising along with its use of violence.

Beinart described how the leftist group Direct Action Alliance targeted Portland’s annual Rose Festival because of the Republican Party of Multnomah County planned to take part.

Direct Action Alliance declared, “Fascists plan to march through the streets,” and warned, “Nazis will not march through Portland unopposed.”

The reporter described how, “The alliance said it didn’t object to the Multnomah GOP itself, but to ‘fascists’ who planned to infiltrate its ranks.” Yet, Beinart found the leftists also denouncing mainstream marchers with “Trump flags” and “red MAGA hats” who could “normalize support” for a candidate who was “waging a war of hate, racism and prejudice.”

In other words, hatred of mainstream Republicans was justified because of their ostensible enabling of the “racist” Trump.

Another leftist group, Oregon Students Empowered, created a Facebook page called “Shut down fascism! No nazis in Portland!”

Essentially, everyday Republicans had become the same as Nazis in the eyes of the radical left.

To make that sentiment crystal clear, Markos Moulitsas, the leftist founder of the Daily Kos website, tweeted Sunday, “NRA and American conservatives/Nazis are one and the same.”

To remove any doubt about what he meant, Moulitsas added, “Media and so many still want to pretend we don’t have a neo-Nazi in the White House.”

So what’s going on here?

How did America so suddenly arrive at the point where leftists are accusing mainstream Republicans, and the president they elected, of being Nazis? And using that to justify violent attacks?

It didn’t really happen overnight, according to one well-known political observer on the right.

“The mob mentality follows demagoguery,” former GOP presidential candidate and Rep. Michele Bachmann told WND.

“What we’re witnessing is the fruit of decades of our federally captured public education system. Given hundreds of billions of dollars to spend, public educators in general chose to scuttle teaching objective knowledge facts and information.”

She continued, “In its place they’ve indoctrinated our kids with Marxist/statist/totalitarian attitudes, values and beliefs. The result is a young populace in love with its self-righteousness, and clueless of its ignorance of objective fact.”

Indoctrinating students with leftist values has been long-documented by numerous scholarly studies that have detailed the “long march” by Cultural Marxists through American academia, the media, Hollywood and Washington, ever since the end of World War II.

Those studies include the critically acclaimed book “The Devil’s Pleasure Palace,” by Disney screenwriter and New York Post op-ed columnist Michael Walsh, who told WND last year that the problem lay in Critical Theory, the brainchild of the Frankfurt School, which has come to dominate thinking in American academia with its call to question any and everything.

Walsh said the theory in practice has become an attack on everything of value. He described the real goal of Critical Theory as an attempt to demolish Western civilization.

The author described the work of the Frankfurt School scholars as grounded in an ideology that performed “an unremitting assault on Western values and institutions, including Christianity, the family, conventional sexual morality, nationalistic patriotism … Literally nothing was sacred.”

Those observations were parallel to Bachmann’s, who told WND Wednesday, “For decades our public schools have systematically removed America’s Judeo-Christian foundations. An easily led mob is the result.”

“Emotion and virtue signaling have replaced knowledge and reason,” she added. “As the scripture teaches, when the foundations are removed, what can the people do?”

There is evidence that reason is quite literally being removed from American academia, and that it is increasingly seen as racist by academics.

Why racist?

Because reason was invented by white people, according to philosophy and religion professor John Caputo of Syracuse University.

“I think that what modern philosophers call ‘pure’ reason – the Cartesian ego cogito and Kant’s transcendental consciousness – is a white male Euro-Christian construction,” said Caputo in an interview with the New York Times in 2015.

He explained that “whiteness” had infected reason with racism because such expressions as the “lily whiteness” of “pure reason” were prejudiced.

And that philosophers had equated whiteness with rationality and that everything irrational was “colored.”

The bottom line is American academia has reached the point where it is teaching students that reason is racist and not logical or moral.

And that is not unrelated to the rise in leftist violence, according to Bachmann.

“Without change, violence will continue to increase,” she asserted. “If our public education system re-embraced teaching objective knowledge, facts and information, it would take a generation to see the results.”

Despite painting a bleak outlook, Bachmann was not without hope.

“If America experienced a spiritual reawakening of the God of the Bible we could see a fairly immediate change.”

And she counseled faith.

“That is why the best response is not to despair and curse the darkness, but instead to fervently apply ourselves to prayer beseeching heaven for divine intervention.”

“History proves this is the only method that works.”



God bless,
JohnnyD

 

LET PRESIDENT TRUMP DO HIS JOB

This newly released ad by the Trump campaign team hits hard at liberals who are trying to stop the president’s agenda. Needless to say, it’s sheer power from the time you press the play button until the end.

To some, it might seem odd to have a campaign commercial like this after only six months in office, but these are not normal times. The media has declared war on this Administration, and the only way for Trump to get his message out to the American people is with Twitter (which is limited to 140 characters) and running ads.

This country is divided, but not because of Donald Trump. It’s divided because of Democrats and Republicans keep playing the lying game to Americans and everyday voters getting fed up with it.

Liberals aren’t over Hillary Clinton losing in November. They’ve tried everything from blaming Russia, to James Comey, to hacking, to break-ins, to sabotage, to bad data from the DNC. They have no clue because they do not want to face facts. They lost because America is sick of their tired message.




God bless, 
JohnnyD

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack

Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.

From: The Nation

By Patrick Lawrence - Augist 10, 2017

It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.

The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole. 

All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media. 

Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.

We come now to a moment of great gravity. 

There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

• There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

• Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative.

This article is based on an examination of the documents these forensic experts and intelligence analysts have produced, notably the key papers written over the past several weeks, as well as detailed interviews with many of those conducting investigations and now drawing conclusions from them. Before proceeding into this material, several points bear noting. 

One, there are many other allegations implicating Russians in the 2016 political process. The work I will now report upon does not purport to prove or disprove any of them. Who delivered documents to WikiLeaks? Who was responsible for the “phishing” operation penetrating John Podesta’s e-mail in March 2016? We do not know the answers to such questions. It is entirely possible, indeed, that the answers we deserve and must demand could turn out to be multiple: One thing happened in one case, another thing in another. The new work done on the mid-June and July 5 events bears upon all else in only one respect. We are now on notice: Given that we now stand face to face with very considerable cases of duplicity, it is imperative that all official accounts of these many events be subject to rigorously skeptical questioning. Do we even know that John Podesta’s e-mail was in fact “phished”? What evidence of this has been produced? Such rock-bottom questions as these must now be posed in all other cases. 

Two, houses built on sand and made of cards are bound to collapse, and there can be no surprise that the one resting atop the “hack theory,” as we can call the prevailing wisdom on the DNC events, appears to be in the process of doing so. Neither is there anything far-fetched in a reversal of the truth of this magnitude. American history is replete with similar cases. The Spanish sank the Maine in Havana harbor in February 1898. Iran’s Mossadegh was a Communist. Guatemala’s Árbenz represented a Communist threat to the United States. Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh was a Soviet puppet. The Sandinistas were Communists. The truth of the Maine, a war and a revolution in between, took a century to find the light of day, whereupon the official story disintegrated. We can do better now. It is an odd sensation to live through one of these episodes, especially one as big as Russiagate. But its place atop a long line of precedents can no longer be disputed. 

Three, regardless of what one may think about the investigations and conclusions I will now outline—and, as noted, these investigations continue—there is a bottom line attaching to them. We can even call it a red line. Under no circumstance can it be acceptable that the relevant authorities—the National Security Agency, the Justice Department (via the Federal Bureau of Investigation), and the Central Intelligence Agency—leave these new findings without reply. Not credibly, in any case. Forensic investigators, prominent among them people with decades’ experience at high levels in these very institutions, have put a body of evidence on a table previously left empty. Silence now, should it ensue, cannot be written down as an admission of duplicity, but it will come very close to one. 

It requires no elaboration to apply the above point to the corporate media, which have been flaccidly satisfied with official explanations of the DNC matter from the start. 

Three, regardless of what one may think about the investigations and conclusions I will now outline—and, as noted, these investigations continue—there is a bottom line attaching to them. We can even call it a red line. Under no circumstance can it be acceptable that the relevant authorities—the National Security Agency, the Justice Department (via the Federal Bureau of Investigation), and the Central Intelligence Agency—leave these new findings without reply. Not credibly, in any case. Forensic investigators, prominent among them people with decades’ experience at high levels in these very institutions, have put a body of evidence on a table previously left empty. Silence now, should it ensue, cannot be written down as an admission of duplicity, but it will come very close to one.
It requires no elaboration to apply the above point to the corporate media, which have been flaccidly satisfied with official explanations of the DNC matter from the start. 

Qualified experts working independently of one another began to examine the DNC case immediately after the July 2016 events. Prominent among these is a group comprising former intelligence officers, almost all of whom previously occupied senior positions. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), founded in 2003, now has 30 members, including a few associates with backgrounds in national-security fields other than intelligence. The chief researchers active on the DNC case are four: William Binney, formerly the NSA’s technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis and designer of many agency programs now in use; Kirk Wiebe, formerly a senior analyst at the NSA’s SIGINT Automation Research Center; Edward Loomis, formerly technical director in the NSA’s Office of Signal Processing; and Ray McGovern, an intelligence analyst for nearly three decades and formerly chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch. Most of these men have decades of experience in matters concerning Russian intelligence and the related technologies. This article reflects numerous interviews with all of them conducted in person, via Skype, or by telephone. 

The customary VIPS format is an open letter, typically addressed to the president. The group has written three such letters on the DNC incident, all of which were first published by Robert Parry at www.consortiumnews.com. Here is the latest, dated July 24; it blueprints the forensic work this article explores in detail. They have all argued that the hack theory is wrong and that a locally executed leak is the far more likely explanation. In a letter to Barack Obama dated January 17, three days before he left office, the group explained that the NSA’s known programs are fully capable of capturing all electronic transfers of data. “We strongly suggest that you ask NSA for any evidence it may have indicating that the results of Russian hacking were given to WikiLeaks,” the letter said. “If NSA cannot produce such evidence—and quickly—this would probably mean it does not have any.” 

The day after Parry published this letter, Obama gave his last press conference as president, at which he delivered one of the great gems among the official statements on the DNC e-mail question. “The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking,” the legacy-minded Obama said, “were not conclusive.” There is little to suggest the VIPS letter prompted this remark, but it is typical of the linguistic tap-dancing many officials connected to the case have indulged so as to avoid putting their names on the hack theory and all that derives from it. 

Until recently there was a serious hindrance to the VIPS’s work, and I have just suggested it. The group lacked access to positive data. It had no lump of cyber-material to place on its lab table and analyze, because no official agency had provided any. 

Donald Rumsfeld famously argued with regard to the WMD question in Iraq, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” In essence, Binney and others at VIPS say this logic turns upside down in the DNC case: Based on the knowledge of former officials such as Binney, the group knew that (1) if there was a hack and (2) if Russia was responsible for it, the NSA would have to have evidence of both. Binney and others surmised that the agency and associated institutions were hiding the absence of evidence behind the claim that they had to maintain secrecy to protect NSA programs. “Everything that they say must remain classified is already well-known,” Binney said in an interview. “They’re playing the Wizard of Oz game.” 

New findings indicate this is perfectly true, but until recently the VIPS experts could produce only “negative evidence,” as they put it: The absence of evidence supporting the hack theory demonstrates that it cannot be so. That is all VIPS had. They could allege and assert, but they could not conclude: They were stuck demanding evidence they did not have—if only to prove there was none. 

Research into the DNC case took a fateful turn in early July, when forensic investigators who had been working independently began to share findings and form loose collaborations wherein each could build on the work of others. In this a small, new website called www.disobedientmedia.com proved an important catalyst. Two independent researchers selected it, Snowden-like, as the medium through which to disclose their findings. One of these is known as Forensicator and the other as Adam Carter. On July 9, Adam Carter sent Elizabeth Vos, a co-founder of Disobedient Media, a paper by the Forensicator that split the DNC case open like a coconut. 

By this time Binney and the other technical-side people at VIPS had begun working with a man named Skip Folden. Folden was an IT executive at IBM for 33 years, serving 25 years as the IT program manager in the United States. He has also consulted for Pentagon officials, the FBI, and the Justice Department. Folden is effectively the VIPS group’s liaison to Forensicator, Adam Carter, and other investigators, but neither Folden nor anyone else knows the identity of either Forensicator or Adam Carter. This bears brief explanation. 

The Forensicator’s July 9 document indicates he lives in the Pacific Time Zone, which puts him on the West Coast. His notes describing his investigative procedures support this. But little else is known of him. Adam Carter, in turn, is located in England, but the name is a coy pseudonym: It derives from a character in a BBC espionage series called Spooks. It is protocol in this community, Elizabeth Vos told me in a telephone conversation this week, to respect this degree of anonymity. Kirk Wiebe, the former SIGINT analyst at the NSA, thinks Forensicator could be “someone very good with the FBI,” but there is no certainty. Unanimously, however, all the analysts and forensics investigators interviewed for this column say Forensicator’s advanced expertise, evident in the work he has done, is unassailable. They hold a similarly high opinion of Adam Carter’s work. 

Forensicator is working with the documents published by Guccifer 2.0, focusing for now on the July 5 intrusion into the DNC server. The contents of Guccifer’s files are known—they were published last September—and are not Forensicator’s concern. His work is with the metadata on those files. These data did not come to him via any clandestine means. Forensicator simply has access to them that others did not have. It is this access that prompts Kirk Wiebe and others to suggest that Forensicator may be someone with exceptional talent and training inside an agency such as the FBI. “Forensicator unlocked and then analyzed what had been the locked files Guccifer supposedly took from the DNC server,” Skip Folden explained in an interview. “To do this he would have to have ‘access privilege,’ meaning a key.” 

What has Forensicator proven since he turned his key? How? What has work done atop Forensicator’s findings proven? How? 

Forensicator’s first decisive findings, made public in the paper dated July 9, concerned the volume of the supposedly hacked material and what is called the transfer rate—the time a remote hack would require. The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second. 

These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed. Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania, which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds. 

What is the maximum achievable speed? Forensicator recently ran a test download of a comparable data volume (and using a server speed not available in 2016) 40 miles from his computer via a server 20 miles away and came up with a speed of 11.8 megabytes per second—half what the DNC operation would need were it a hack. Other investigators have built on this finding. Folden and Edward Loomis say a survey published August 3, 2016, by www.speedtest.net/reports is highly reliable and use it as their thumbnail index. It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively. Peak speeds at higher rates were recorded intermittently but still did not reach the required 22.7 megabytes per second. 

“A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer,” Folden said. “Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible.” Last week Forensicator reported on a speed test he conducted more recently. It tightens the case considerably. “Transfer rates of 23 MB/s (Mega Bytes per second) are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance,” he wrote. “Further, local copy speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a USB–2 flash device (thumb drive).” 

Time stamps in the metadata provide further evidence of what happened on July 5. The stamps recording the download indicate that it occurred in the Eastern Daylight Time Zone at approximately 6:45 pm. This confirms that the person entering the DNC system was working somewhere on the East Coast of the United States. In theory the operation could have been conducted from Bangor or Miami or anywhere in between—but not Russia, Romania, or anywhere else outside the EDT zone. Combined with Forensicator’s findings on the transfer rate, the time stamps constitute more evidence that the download was conducted locally, since delivery overheads—conversion of data into packets, addressing, sequencing times, error checks, and the like—degrade all data transfers conducted via the Internet, more or less according to the distance involved. 

In addition, there is the adulteration of the documents Guccifer 2.0 posted on June 15, when he made his first appearance. This came to light when researchers penetrated what Folden calls Guccifer’s top layer of metadata and analyzed what was in the layers beneath. They found that the first five files Guccifer made public had each been run, via ordinary cut-and-paste, through a single template that effectively immersed them in what could plausibly be cast as Russian fingerprints. They were not: The Russian markings were artificially inserted prior to posting. “It’s clear,” another forensics investigator self-identified as HET, wrote in a report on this question, “that metadata was deliberately altered and documents were deliberately pasted into a Russianified [W]ord document with Russian language settings and style headings.” 

To be noted in this connection: The list of the CIA’s cyber-tools WikiLeaks began to release in March and labeled Vault 7 includes one called Marble that is capable of obfuscating the origin of documents in false-flag operations and leaving markings that point to whatever the CIA wants to point to. (The tool can also “de-obfuscate” what it has obfuscated.) It is not known whether this tool was deployed in the Guccifer case, but it is there for such a use. 

It is not yet clear whether documents now shown to have been leaked locally on July 5 were tainted to suggest Russian hacking in the same way the June 15 Guccifer release was. This is among several outstanding questions awaiting answers, and the forensic scientists active on the DNC case are now investigating it. In a note Adam Carter sent to Folden and McGovern last week and copied to me, he reconfirmed the corruption of the June 15 documents, while indicating that his initial work on the July 5 documents—of which much more is to be done—had not yet turned up evidence of doctoring. 

In the meantime, VIPS has assembled a chronology that imposes a persuasive logic on the complex succession of events just reviewed. It is this:

• On June 12 last year, Julian Assange announced that WikiLeaks had and would publish documents pertinent to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. 
• On June 14, CrowdStrike, a cyber-security firm hired by the DNC, announced, without providing evidence, that it had found malware on DNC servers and had evidence that Russians were responsible for planting it.
• On June 15, Guccifer 2.0 first appeared, took responsibility for the “hack” reported on June 14 and claimed to be a WikiLeaks source. It then posted the adulterated documents just described.
• On July 5, Guccifer again claimed he had remotely hacked DNC servers, and the operation was instantly described as another intrusion attributable to Russia. Virtually no media questioned this account.

It does not require too much thought to read into this sequence. With his June 12 announcement, Assange effectively put the DNC on notice that it had a little time, probably not much, to act preemptively against the imminent publication of damaging documents. Did the DNC quickly conjure Guccifer from thin air to create a cyber-saboteur whose fingers point to Russia? There is no evidence of this one way or the other, but emphatically it is legitimate to pose the question in the context of the VIPS chronology. WikiLeaks began publishing on July 22. By that time, the case alleging Russian interference in the 2016 elections process was taking firm root. In short order Assange would be written down as a “Russian agent.” 

By any balanced reckoning, the official case purporting to assign a systematic hacking effort to Russia, the events of mid-June and July 5 last year being the foundation of this case, is shabby to the point taxpayers should ask for their money back. The Intelligence Community Assessment, the supposedly definitive report featuring the “high confidence” dodge, was greeted as farcically flimsy when issued January 6. Ray McGovern calls it a disgrace to the intelligence profession. It is spotlessly free of evidence, front to back, pertaining to any events in which Russia is implicated. James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, admitted in May that “hand-picked” analysts from three agencies (not the 17 previously reported) drafted the ICA. There is a way to understand “hand-picked” that is less obvious than meets the eye: The report was sequestered from rigorous agency-wide reviews. This is the way these people have spoken to us for the past year. 

Behind the ICA lie other indefensible realities. The FBI has never examined the DNC’s computer servers—an omission that is beyond preposterous. It has instead relied on the reports produced by Crowdstrike, a firm that drips with conflicting interests well beyond the fact that it is in the DNC’s employ. Dmitri Alperovitch, its co-founder and chief technology officer, is on the record as vigorously anti-Russian. He is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which suffers the same prejudice. Problems such as this are many. 

“We continue to stand by our report,” CrowdStrike said, upon seeing the VIPS blueprint of the investigation. CrowdStrike argues that by July 5 all malware had been removed from the DNC’s computers. But the presence or absence of malware by that time is entirely immaterial, because the event of July 5 is proven to have been a leak and not a hack. Given that malware has nothing to do with leaks, CrowdStrike’s logic appears to be circular. 

In effect, the new forensic evidence considered here lands in a vacuum. We now enter a period when an official reply should be forthcoming. What the forensic people are now producing constitutes evidence, however one may view it, and it is the first scientifically derived evidence we have into any of the events in which Russia has been implicated. The investigators deserve a response, the betrayed professionals who formed VIPS as the WMD scandal unfolded in 2003 deserve it, and so do the rest of us. The cost of duplicity has rarely been so high. 

I concluded each of the interviews conducted for this column by asking for a degree of confidence in the new findings. These are careful, exacting people as a matter of professional training and standards, and I got careful, exacting replies. 

All those interviewed came in between 90 percent and 100 percent certain that the forensics prove out. I have already quoted Skip Folden’s answer: impossible based on the data. “The laws of physics don’t lie,” Ray McGovern volunteered at one point. “It’s QED, theorem demonstrated,” William Binney said in response to my question. “There’s no evidence out there to get me to change my mind.” When I asked Edward Loomis, a 90 percent man, about the 10 percent he held out, he replied, “I’ve looked at the work and it shows there was no Russian hack. But I didn’t do the work. That’s the 10 percent. I’m a scientist.” 


God bless,
JohnnyD

Jay Stephens Explains Why College Made Her a Conservative

From: The Political Insider

By Matt | Contributor


“Have you ever heard the old saying that a conservative is just a liberal who had been mugged?”

Jay Stephens opens a new video at Prager University by asking this question. The old saying was popularized in the 1960s, during a nationwide crime wave. Naturally, the saying was coined due to the historical fact that conservatives have been tough on crime.

Johnson herself had been mugged – financially – to the tune of $60,000 a year for college, incurring plenty of debt in the process. And what did she learn for all that money? As she quickly discovered without any conservative bias, she discovered that she was being fed liberal propaganda.

Jay Stephens, who accumulated tens of thousands of dollars of debt to finance her education, found that she was only paying for leftist professors to indoctrinate her. After she graduated with what she admitted was a useless degree, she managed to get a job in the private sector, or the “real world” as it could be put.

But enough of my commentary, hear what Stephens has to say for herself as to why college made her a conservative.




God bless,
JohnnyD

The Re-Education of America

From: Canada Free Press

By Linda Goudsmit —— August 7, 2017


I would like to expand upon Ruth King’s brilliant article posted on her website.

“In China The Cultural Revolution, that took place from 1966 until 1976 had a stated goal: to purge capitalism and traditional culture from Chinese society. They instituted brutal labor re-education camps. In America anxious seniors are now worried about SAT scores, interviews and essays that have to demonstrate their passions for justice and human rights and a green planet and diversity. The chief question they ask is not about the price of tuition and room and board or the required courses. They want to know if they will be happy. In late summer of 2018 they will take their trunks with their Che Guevara T shirts, torn designer jeans and grungy sneakers and ingrained ignorance off to campus. And once settled into their cushy dorms, their re-education will commence. Unless they major only in science, they will learn to despise capitalism, national cultural norms, shed all gender pronouns and identity, atone for their privileges by joining all the inviting “anti” groups that rail, riot and demand recognition, avoid reading old white authors, approach every aggression and barbarism with moral relativity, read alt-history, especially about the Middle East and Palestine. They will learn that Mao Zedong of the aforementioned re-education labor camps was a progressive.”

 There is a Cultural Revolution taking place in America today. The stated goal: to purge capitalism and traditional American culture from society. Leftist educational curricula in schools and anti-establishment messaging via television programming (all streaming devices) deliver the dogmatic ideology of the revolution.

The Leftist re-education programming begins long before college. Pre-school educational programs with fanciful characters and talking animals are not benign. Sesame Street creatures are not advocating individual growth, independence, critical thinking skills, excellence, and the merit system which support capitalism and democracy. They are advocating group-think, dependence, passivity, mediocrity, and collectivism which prepare your children for socialism. Students already indoctrinated toward collectivism enter the university re-education programs passive, unaware, and compliant. The re-education curriculum at the university reinforces their passivity and students graduate uninformed, disinformed, and misinformed with degrees in the orthodoxy of liberalism that is tyrannical in its demand for conformity. 

The graduates are now credentialed “authorities” in the social sciences who become zealous members of the Leftist echo chamber that reinforces collectivism and dominates television. The left-wing liberal narrative of political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism is reflected in the programming and commercials being streamed into your household and mobile devices twenty-four hours a day. Television programming and television advertising are in the business of social engineering. They are purging capitalism and traditional culture from American society. They are selling socialism.

Their sales strategy pits subjective reality against objective reality. This is how it works.
     
The Leftist re-education programming presents subjective reality in televised commercials. In the real world of objective reality most families are not intermarried and every play group, luncheon, dinner table, and family picnic does not have one Asian, one white person, one black person, and one Hispanic in attendance. In the real world most couples are not homosexual, white men and women are not all idiots, and black men and women are not all judges, doctors, and lawyers. Why does television programming and commercials portray contrived fabricated scenes and plots of subjective reality instead of factual scenes and plots of objective reality to sell their products? Because they are not selling products they are re-educating America.

The radical left-wing agenda is selling socialism. They are re-educating America on television just like the schools are re-educating America in the classroom. The unreal subjective reality of the programming is intentionally confusing and creates cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the destabilizing state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially relating to behavioral decisions and attitude changes. Cognitive dissonance creates extreme stress because people seek psychological stability and consistency. The contradictory images being televised do not comport with objective reality so they threaten and destabilize the viewer’s sense of what is real. Cognitive dissonance is the psychological equivalent of physical pain - people will do anything to stop it.

Democracy lives in the adult world of objective reality and facts. It embraces diversity that includes differences of opinion, protects freedom of speech, and insists upon individual personal responsibility. Socialism lives in the childish world of make-believe, subjective reality, diversity that excludes differences of opinion, restricts freedom speech, and rejects personal responsibility. The Left seeks to destroy objective reality and create social chaos. WHY?

Social chaos is the prerequisite for seismic social change and the Leftists seek to destroy American democracy and replace it with socialism. How does it work?

The medium is the message. In 1964 Marshall McLuhan explained that the medium is separate from the message and has a separate social effect upon the recipient. Television is the greatest vehicle for social engineering and mass psychological indoctrination ever invented. The images on the screen become familiar and familiarity brings acceptance. The separate social effect of television (including any screening device) is that the images are accepted as reality. For children talking animals and cartoon characters acquire authority. For older kids, adolescents, and adults the characters in the plots become reality and their fictitious lives no matter how anti-establishment become normative and acceptable. The breakdown of rules, restrictions, and cultural norms appears progressive to an adolescent but is in fact extremely regressive to an adult. 

The anti-establishment strategy is to present television commercials and programming that attack established cultural norms of American family, religion, and government with destabilizing images and messages creating cognitive dissonance. By destroying the three pillars of society the Left hopes to advance its agenda of socialism. The Left advertises socialism as the structure that will provide social justice, income equality, and escape from cognitive dissonance. Socialism is advertised as the stabilizing equalizing answer to your problems. Anyone who watches television commercials knows that there is little truth in advertising. Wiping a rag across the shower door does not remove the soap scum.

The truth about Leftist diversity is that it only includes people who LOOK different not people who THINK differently. There are no conservatives invited to the luncheon or sitting at the picnic table. There is no diversity of thought. American democracy is founded on principles of equality, freedom of speech (thought), and individual rights. Socialism is collectivism and values the group over the individual. There is no social justice or income equality in socialism. In the long run socialism never works because as Margaret Thatcher said, “Eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

The re-educated students and television “authorities” indoctrinating America toward collectivism should go back to school and take an actual history lesson. They should read about Che Guevara and how he helped free Cubans from the Batista regime but then enslaved them under the Castro regime. Maybe they will think twice about wearing their Che t-shirts. There is no income equality in socialism - the Castro brothers lived in splendor and the Cuban people still live in poverty. The self-righteous re-educated students should read that socialism is a stepping stone toward globalized one-world government. One-world government is the goal and underlying motive of the elite globalists who are financing the Cultural Revolution in America and fomenting the anti-establishment campaign to re-educate America.

The enthusiastic left-wing liberal lemmings committed to the re-education campaign are too arrogant to understand that they are being used as useful idiots by the globalist elite who have a different end game of their own.  

Socialism with its complete government control is the prerequisite social structure for the globalist elite to internationalize sovereign countries, globalize the police force, and impose one-world government upon the world population. One-world government is the new world order that the globalist elite intend to rule themselves. It is unapologetically described in chilling detail by aristocrat Lord Bertrand Russell in his book “The Impact of Science on Society” written 65 years ago. One-world government is a binary socio-political system of masters and slaves. There is no social justice in one-world government, there is no income equality in one-world government, there are no Leftists, environmentalists, humanitarian hucksters, bullying prevention, diversity, contrived television commercials, or political agitators of any kind in one-world government – only a passive, compliant population of slaves ruled by their globalist elite masters.
President Donald Trump was elected because he believes in America first, American democracy, American sovereignty, rejects socialism, rejects globalism, and demands to live in the adult world of objective reality. President Trump’s insistence upon objective reality has made him the existential enemy of the regressive Left who require subjective reality to sell socialism. President Trump’s insistence upon American sovereignty has also made him the existential enemy of the corrupt establishment politicians and greedy never-Trumpers who require subjective reality to sell globalism. Re-education is the strategy that replaces objective reality with subjective reality to sell socialism and globalism to America. Re-education is the medium for the Cultural Revolution.


God bless,
JohnnyD