communism

White Privilege, An Enormously Successful Communist Agenda

White Privilege, An Enormously Successful Communist Agenda

By David Risselada •

The white privilege narrative continues to advance in America. Increasingly, the idea that white people are responsible for the ills of minorities is being pushed in our society to the point that an all-out, genuine hatred for white people is taking hold. Students in our universities are being taught that America, and her system of government, was designed explicitly for white men and that it enables them to exploit minorities for their own benefit. White people, according to the radical left, are recipients of unearned privileges and enjoy the protections of institutions that were designed exclusively for their economic system of capitalism. Furthermore, students are taught that minorities cannot discriminate against white men because they have no institutional power. In other words, because of white privilege it is morally acceptable to discriminate against white men based purely on their race because they are privileged. The goal of the white privilege lie is to create the illusion that minorities are living in a system of oppression, held down by a nation rooted in white supremacy. Unfortunately, this may be true.
The latest example of this white privilege mania comes from a professor of math education at the University of Illinois, Rochelle Gutierrez. She claims that the teaching of algebra and geometry perpetuate white privilege. Her arguments posit the notion that white men are often credited with success in mathematics and demonstrate a greater capability in math than minorities. Furthermore, she claims that this advances racism in society, particularly if minority students are performing worse than whites. She is arguing that mathematics should now be taught from a political angle which would help make students aware of white privilege.
Wouldn’t the idea that mathematics pushes white privilege and racism stem form a supremacist attitude in the first place? Wouldn’t an individual that believes black people for example, are not as capable as members of another race of doing algebra really be saying they believe that race is superior to blacks? What happens in instances where a black student is performing better than a white student? Does that student now have privilege or are they still a victim of white supremacy?
The truth of white privilege is that it is a useful tool used to create hate and discontent in our society, and that blacks really may be victims of white supremacist agenda.  Just not from the United States.
The idea of using race as a weapon has its origins in the Communist Revolution in the early twentieth century. Leon Trotsky, leader of the revolutionary army, allegedly coined the term racism to discredit the eastern Europeans who stood in the way of communist objectives. In modern America the term white privilege is being used as a weapon to silence pro-American opinions which might threaten the left-wing agenda of wealth re-distribution. Creating the illusion that a certain segment of our society is the recipient of unearned privileges based purely on skin color is sure to cause the necessary angst needed to cause the cultural revolution the left has been desiring for years.
Furthermore, the race based agenda can be traced back further to Italian communist, Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci, author of the Prison Notebooks, which outlined a detailed plan which entailed a march through the institutions to bring about social change, understood that the traditional Marxist idea of dividing society into an oppressed and oppressor class had not worked. Therefore, he turned his gaze upon cultural norms and further divided society into numerous oppressed groups. The word “hegemony”  is used to describe the influence the dominant culture has over the rest of society. Gramsci coined the term “counter-hegemony” in order to destroy the influence of a dominant culture by turning every social group into an oppressed victim of that culture. White privilege, or white supremacy, is being used to define a dominant, oppressive culture in the United States in this manner. Every other social group whether they be blacks, Latinos, gays, transgenders, feminists and now even people who may not be good at math are victims of white privilege and white supremacy.
“It becomes clear that one cannot understand either the meteoric rise or apparent immunity of political correctness to attack without understanding Gramsci. Rarely would I recommend studying a Marxist social philosopher, but this guy merits our attention. Gramsci (1891-1937) agreed with Karl Marx that every society could be divided into “oppressor” and “oppressed” classes (e.g., Marx’s own “bourgeois” and “proletariat”), but for the first time, expanded the latter into an ensemble of subordinate, marginalized groups instead of a single, homogeneous group. Whereas Marx had spoken only of the proletariat, Gramsci spoke not just of property less workers but also of “woman, racial minorities and many ‘criminals.’” Fonte documents how Gramsci distinguished two ways the dominant group exercises control, whereas Marx had only written of one. First, there is direct domination through coercion or force – political might in service of the economic interests of the bourgeoisie. Second, there is what Gramsci calls hegemony, which means the pervasive and mostly tacit use of a system of values that supports and reinforces the interests of the dominant groups. The repressed groups may not even know they are repressed, in Gramsci’s view, because they have internalized the system of values that justifies their repression. They have internalized a “false consciousness” and become unwitting participants in their own domination.”
If that isn’t enough former Communist Party member Manning Johnson wrote a book in 1958 detailing his experience in the Communist Party USA, called Color, Communism and Common Sense. In this book he details his experience as a black man with the Communist Party and a plot to use black Americans to bring about communism in America. The communists exploited and created grievances which put the black man at odds with the American capitalist system.
Manning states that he was in a position of power within the ranks of the Communist Party and while in this position he began to see just how the American black man was being used to push a policy of division. He claims that white communists lorded over blacks within the party, and their activities were directed by those working at the Kremlin under the guise of white and black men uniting to bring capitalism to its knees. The communists claimed to be the champion of the black man and all his struggles despite the fact they never benefited from the millions raised by communist front groups posing as civil rights organizations. Today, the Democrat party claims to be the leader in defending civil rights of the American oppressed and down trodden even though they govern over the clear majority of inner city ghettos. Black Americans have been voting Democrat for decades and have not benefited from the millions of dollars raised by corrupt politicians to win elections. Through the white privilege narrative Democrats have convinced black Americans that they have a reason to be bitter towards whites. They have been taught they are oppressed victims unable to rise out of poverty because of white privilege.
In chapter 7 of Color, Communism, and Common Sense, Manning points to the specific plan to blame the white man for all the black man’s problems. This is essentially what the white privilege philosophy has done. The white privilege lie has destroyed the ability of many black men to take responsibility for themselves as they are now trapped in a generational welfare mentality, which is an essential ingredient to bringing about communism. According to Manning, the objectives of the communists were to make the black man feel sorry for himself, blame whites for their failures, ignore opportunities around him, make him jealous of the success of other races in America, and condition him to look for quick easy solutions as substitutes to honest effort in a competitive market.
The expected results were to be a population of underclass citizens who blamed the white man’s system of government as being everything that is wrong in their lives. Isn’t that what we are seeing today? An effort to indoctrinate black people into the idea that the society they live in is designed for privileged whites who exploit minorities? The entire agenda revolves around the idea of creating a communist revolutionary army by teaching the minorities they are victims of white supremacy. At the time being it seems to have been enormously successful as nearly every facet of our society from football to algebra now has the white privilege stigma attached to it.
Freedom relies upon a population exercising good judgment and personal responsibility. If a populations ability to take responsibility for their own actions is compromised, then freedom has little chance. If you can’t take responsibility for yourself, someone will have to take responsibility of you. This is something that the communists understood very well, and they have systematically destroyed America’s sense of personal responsibility by not only creating an atmosphere of mistrust and jealously among minority cultures but by demoralizing and demonizing the majority. Many people in America are now afraid to speak for their values because they are likely to be labeled racist for doing so. The true white supremacists are those seeking to use race as a means of obtaining power. Most Americans believe that people achieve things based on merit and the effort they put into something.
White privilege posits the idea that blacks and other minorities suffer because they are not capable, and they need the iron fist of government leveling the playing field to make things fair. This simply is not true. People of all nationalities come to this great country and make something of themselves, they may not be millionaires, but they don’t have to be. They achieved more than they would have in their home country. Black people in America continue to be taught the politics of resentment, making them prime recruits for the cultural revolution desired by the left. If the Democrats and the communists really cared about the black man, they would look at the predicament they are in and start teaching them that they have opportunity in America. After all, the left believes that whatever you are taught in your formative years tends to develop into unshakable convictions.
“Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished … The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at: first, that influences of the home are ‘obstructive’ and verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective … It is for the future scientist to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”
Bertrand Russell quoting Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the head of philosophy & psychology who influenced Hegel and others – Prussian University in Berlin, 1810
If they really cared, wouldn’t they teach them they are just as capable as anyone else instead of setting in stone the convictions of envy?

David Risselada is a former U.S. Serviceman, commentator, and author of the book “Not on My Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education.” 

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY, 1 comment
The 45 Communist Goals Part 1-The Discrediting of Americanism

The 45 Communist Goals Part 1-The Discrediting of Americanism

By David Risselada •

America is upside down. Her values and traditions have been completely destroyed and re-defined to the point that much of the population couldn’t define them. The stigmatism of racism and bigotry have so successfully been attached to patriotism that many fear standing up for what they believe.
People know there is something wrong and attribute this non-sense to political correctness or a bunch of sissified liberals who demand that they live their lives without the discomfort of opinions they don’t like. Many Americans fail to face the fact that this is a deliberate attack upon the psyche of our nation. An attack designed to demoralize our people and change the very nature of human being. It is in fact, a full blown Psychopolitical assault and the end goal is the complete subversion of our culture and an American population that is so thoroughly weakened psychologically, that they willingly seek further government control of their lives. In other words, a Communist takeover of the country is near completion without a shot being fired and the application of the Soviet Manual on Psychopolics was how it was accomplished.
What is Psychopolitics? It is an application of psychological warfare designed to breakdown the will of the people in a nation marked for conquest. Global Communism has been the goal of the Communist movement since it’s inception and America is the one nation where the people have a governing structure that empowers them to resist. We have the right to politically oppose our elected officials policies, the right to assemble, the right to bear arms. In other words our constitution was designed to protect and empower the dignity and freewill of the individual human being. To conquer America an enemy would have to defeat us militarily, which no country can do, or convince us to willingly accept Communism. By working incessantly to create the impression that America is the problem in the world, they can then offer Communism as a solution. The following are goals of the Communist party which were originally published in a book called the Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen.

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

The main theme of these three goals is the discrediting of the United States, its founding and its culture. Today, students in American universities are taught that America is a nation founded on unfairness, selfishness and bigotry. Issues like wealth inequality are used to turn the idea of “all men being created equal” on its head. The idea that the American founding revolved around the owning of slaves and the exploitation of another’s labor is used to present the founding as illegitimate while Communism, or Communitarianism, is offered up as a solution that will make everyone equal. This is part of the demoralization process and it is designed to make people confused about the values they once believed in or at the very least, afraid to stand and defend them. Consider the following quote from the Manual on Psychopolitics, page 41.

Defamation is the best and foremost weapon of Psychopolitics on the broad field.  Continual and constant degradation of national leaders, national institutions, national practices, and national heroes must be systematically carried out, but this is the chief function of Communist Party Members, in general,* not the Psychopolitician. The realm of defamation and degradation, of the psychopolitician, is Man himself. By attacking the character and morals of Man himself, and by bringing about, through contamination of youth, a general degraded feeling, command of the populace is facilitated to a very marked degree. 

This explains the constant attacks on the character of our nation by the media, academic institutions and certain government officials. In an effort to make people hate the constitution and display a desire for change they have deliberately turned America into a nation that oppresses instead of liberates, that discriminates instead of empowers and imprisons instead of enlightens.

Italian Communist, Antonio Gramsciaided in this effort through his understanding of Psychopolitics and Marxist principles. The Communists, being frustrated that they couldn’t pit the so called proletariat against those that employed them needed a new way to bring about Communism. Gramsci developed the theory of Counter Hegemony. What this entailed was the creating of social groups that stood opposed to the influence exerted by the dominant social group. To put it more simply, the dividing of Americans into different social classes was a deliberate act to cause conflict. We are no longer an America united on the principles of liberty and justice but an America divided into groups where everyone thinks they are entitled to their own brand of social justice. The one thing that these groups all have in common is that they are oppressed victims of America’s unfair economic system and blatant bigotry.

Examine the very first paragraph of this article again. Understanding what is said here is imperative if you are to understand the real agenda. In America today we have scientific turmoil with lies of climate change and little boys using the girls bathroom in school. We have economic depression looming over us with a national debt in the tens of trillions and trillions more in unfunded liabilities. We have a welfare system that cannot support the needs of those dependent on it without taking more from the producing class. Groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter, paid protestors hired to wreak havoc on our streets are intent on doing so in an effort to stir up conflict. Finally, the redefining of our values and the labeling of anyone opposed to political correctness has created a mistrust for our neighbors. All of this is done on purpose to bring this country to its knees and subdue the population into accepting its own demise.

The Communists believe in Darwinian evolution. It is their belief that man is an animal who needs to be programmed how to behave. The idea that man has a will of his own is scoffed at and ridiculed. Much of the Communist mindset has been developed through the mental science discovered by Russians like Pavlov. They believe we are nothing more than an organism which operates on the principles of stimulus/response programming. There is some truth to this assertion; however, man is more than that, much more. The vast majority of Americans, despite this constant psychopolitical assault on our character, are still Christians. We believe in the morals and values this country was founded on and when necessary, we will bind together to prove the lies wrong. The media is in literal shock at the response of the average American to Hurricane Harvey. If one were to believe the media’s depiction of America then they would assume that all minorities are being left behind and that LGBT Americans are being forced to drown in flood waters. The truth is that the vast majority of us simply don’t care what social group the Communists and Psychopoliticians have assigned to you. You’re an American and a human being and because of that you won’t be left behind. This is why we are still a country and the Communists haven’t won yet. This is why in the end, they won’t win.

David Risselada is a former U.S. Serviceman, commentator, and author of the book “Not on My Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education.” 

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY, 0 comments
Beware the ‘Useful’ in ‘Useful Idiots’

Beware the ‘Useful’ in ‘Useful Idiots’

By Erik Rush •

One would think that the backlash of public outrage and declining revenues of the National Football League following the antics of quarterback Colin Kaepernick (who, during the 2016 season, took up the practice of kneeling for the national anthem in order to highlight alleged racial injustice) would not only have tempered his misplaced and inappropriate protest, but would have encouraged other players, the NFL, and sports-related organizations to take a more respectful and cautious stance on the issue. This has obviously not been the case.

While America’s pro football fans do not consist solely of firebreathing conservatives, the character of the sport – team spirit, fair play, and a will to win – is closely tied to traditional American values. These values are of course antithetical to the values of those on the left, who are lauding Kaepernick’s exploits as though he was a nascent Mahatma Gandhi.

Recently on a radio talk show, I listened to a reasonably friendly debate, moderated by the show’s host, between a Kaepernick advocate and one of his detractors. The athlete was described as “thoughtful” and “principled” by his defender, which I found laughable on at least a couple of levels.

I’ve mentioned on many occasions that successful people of color who decry racial inequality with the vigor of those who might justifiably have done so in 1955 are either ignorant of the real causes and conditions surrounding some ethnic minorities’ current pain, attention-seekers, or outright ideologues. This is underscored by the fact that there is an entire pantheon of prominent black multimillionaires in America who are widely loved and respected by people across the continuum of ethnicity, which was most definitely not the case in 1955.

Finally, there’s the fact that these ignoramuses are typically aligned with the far left, whose objectives have universally served to decrease rather than increase opportunities for people of color.

At this point in our history, there’s no reason whatsoever that a successful person of color who perceives racial inequality in America should find it necessary to express themselves through abjectly disrespectful displays such as refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. This nation and the opportunities made available to Colin Kaepernick through the extensive sacrifices of Americans of all ethnic persuasions have provided him with an enviable living. Such facts give the lie to Kaepernick being thoughtful or principled.

On September 3, the website Politico featured a commentary called “The Martyring of Colin Kaepernick,” which was even more laughable. Citing recent race-related events in Charlottesville, Virginia, it painted a picture of a circumspect young black man who was being scapegoated for his stand on institutional racism, rather than one who was dedicatedly making himself a pariah for his insistence upon framing his protest in a belligerent and disrespectful manner.

Unfortunately, rather than giving like-minded individuals in sports pause, it appears that Kaepernick’s idiocy is communicable, and has infected some of his NFL colleagues, despite the fact that his ongoing protest has damaged his ability to get signed to a team. Recently, police and emergency services unions were compelled to decline an invitation from the Cleveland Browns to hold an American flag for the team’s season opener after some Browns players emulated Kaepernick and knelt for the national anthem during a preseason game.

In a slightly different but related vein: Since the political left, which controls the public school system and most universities in this country, has ensured that such fundamental concepts as basic economics are not understood by millions of adult Americans, individuals who blindly get on board to continually raise the minimum wage are largely ignorant of the detrimental effects this inevitably has on the economy. Some of these have signed on with Fight for 15, the activist group whose goal is to raise the national minimum wage to $15 an hour.

As reported on the Fox Business website on Sept. 2, one of Fight for 15’s more recent stated objectives is the ousting of Republican governors in 2018. This is highly indicative of the fact that this movement is being fueled by the far left, which has ever sought to stultify our economy.

The most sinister aspects of all this, whether we’re talking about black football players who’ve bought into the lie of institutional racism, Fight for 15, Latinos upbraiding the president for his decision to reverse Barack Obama’s executive amnesty for illegal immigrants (DACA), or bubbleheaded actresses bragging on their string of abortions, are the attempt of the far left to appropriate the moral high ground on issues upon which they’ve decided to focus, and the newfound vigor with which it is advancing its overall agenda through blatantly deceptive news coverage and orchestrated protests. As we know, the latter are quite often shot through with thousands of bought-and-paid-for participants.

Many of us have been encouraged by the fact that increasing numbers of Americans are waking up to the left’s treachery, and by the election of Donald Trump as president. In light of the determination demonstrated by those on the far left however, we should remember that they did manage to successfully co-opt the civil rights agenda in America after their political opponents did all the heavy lifting, and that their doing likewise with regard to any of these contentious issues is a very real possibility.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
Was Charlottesville a False Flag?

Was Charlottesville a False Flag?

by Bob Bennett •

Was the unrest in Charlottesville, Virginia on Saturday, August 12th a riot by white supremacists, as the Media has labeled it, or something even more sinister? Was it a false-flag attack orchestrated by the Left and Democrats to permanently damage the president and compel Americans to view everything through the lens of racism?

How the Media purposefully misreported the incident

In the wake of the violence in Charlottesville, the ever-Trump-unfriendly media has focused on the president’s failure to immediately call out those protesting the Robert E. Lee statue’s removal, many—but not all—of whom were white nationalists and neo-Nazis. On the day of the incident, he said, “‘We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides,’ quoted the Los Angeles Times, “then, looking into the camera, he repeated, ‘On many sides.’”

After a storm of criticism for not calling out the Klan, et al., the next day the White House issued a statement saying “of course” the president had included in his condemnation “white supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazi and all extremist groups,” and that he “called for national unity and bringing all Americans together.” But the press continued to rip him for, as the LA Times put it, “not denouncing the far-right groups that initiated the violence, and the man who drove into a crowd of counter-protesters that left Heather Heyer dead.”

After again blasting “the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups,” on Monday, and the Media’s continued harsh criticism, Trump told the press on Tuesday, that he didn’t initially attack those groups because “unlike you,” he waited for the facts to come out before making a more specific call-out, and the death hadn’t occurred yet.

On Wednesday, August 16th the leftist Media berated the president throughout the day for saying there was violence on both sides—an indisputable fact. That fact has consistently been ignored—no, concealed—by the press. The front page of the Wall Street Journal, for example, on Thursday reported on CEOs deciding to dissolve one of Trump’s business councils and his dissolution of the other council, using the boldest headline on the page, screaming, “CEOs Scrap Trump Panels.”

The story said the CEOs made the decision after Trump’s Tuesday press conference “during which he appeared to apportion blame equally between white supremacy groups and counterprotesters.” No mention that the “counterprotesters” were largely composed of the violent far-left group Antifa, a group that arose in Germany where they worked with the government to demonize critics of Muslim migration. The name of the group was also omitted in a second story on page A5, also with the largest headline on the page: “Trump Remarks Rattle His Staff, Threaten Agenda.”

Readers had to flip to page A13, to find the truth about Charlottesville, in an opinion piece by Daniel Henninger:

It was a pitched battle between two organized mobs—the white nationalist groups on the right and the badly underreported Antifa, or “antifascist,” groups on the hard-as-stone left. Stories about Antifa’s organized violence are trickling out now, but there is no conceivable journalistic defense for having waited so long to inform the public about this dangerous movement.

The misreporting of the Charlottesville riot, casting it as a riot of the alt-right and neo-Nazis, has been used to cast the president as a racist for blaming both sides for the violence—even after having previously calling out the white supremacists, etc. For example, CNN’s Jim Acosta said “We saw the president’s true colors today, and I’m not sure they were red, white and blue.” This miscasting has been used to demand that conservatives like Bannon, Miller and Gorka be expelled from the White House.

In truth, it’s not at all settled that the “far-right groups” initiated the violence, unless just being labeled “alt-right” and being there in Charlottesville constitutes initiating violence. Jason Kessler, the organizer of the rally, called Unite the Right, indicated that his group was attacked by the Left, composed largely of Antifa, the same group that led a violent protest in DC on Inauguration Day and another in Berkeley, protesting Milo Yanopoulos.

Jordan Schachtel, in Conservative Review, characterizes Antifa as “an extremist, left-wing group,” that “has viciously beaten supporters of the president and attacked police officers, and Antifa’s mob violence has resulted in the destruction of private property nationwide.”

He reports that “Much of the mainstream Left has chosen to link up with radical, fringe organizations that agree with much of Antifa’s communist/socialist/anarchist ideology.

Their mission is to undermine the Trump Administration, he says; but of course, all of these groups mean to undermine capitalism.

And it seems that the police are making a practice of standing back and allowing Antifa to do as it pleases. What’s that all about?

Did Virginia authorities deliberately allow Antifa to attack Unite the Right?

The Wall Street Journal wrote, “Mr. Kessler contended that the police intentionally held back Saturday as counter-protestors attacked people trying to attend a rally to protest the removal of a statue of confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.” (The police also stood by and watched as protestors pulled down a century-old Confederate statue in Durham, NC the next day.)

“‘They were using aerosol cans as flamethrowers, they were pointing rifles at us, they were throwing bricks at our vehicles,’ Mr. Kessler said. ‘And the Charlottesville police department stood down and allowed it all to happen.’” A police spokesperson denied there was an order to stand down.

Another reporter described it this way:

“Hundreds and hundreds of Antifa, weird BLM, idiots dressed like clowns,” said Goldy, a reporter for the Canadian news site The Rebel.media. She continued:

The police failed to uphold the law. They failed to keep the opposing groups separate even when tensions ran red hot, and they failed to be present in the moments before the scene became deadly.

You see, the car attack was not the only horrific scene that day. There were countless incidents of illegal deployment of mace, guns drawn, sticks and flag poles used–and from left-wing demonstrators more often than the right.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The NY Times tweeted:

https://twitter.com/SherylNYT/status/896575560650035200

Even the ACLU said the police stood back and watched. Here are portions of a statement from the Virginia ACLU’s executive director, Claire Gastanaga:

We are horrified by the violence that took place in Charlottesville on Saturday and the tragic loss of life that resulted from it. The ACLU of Virginia does not support violence. We do not support Nazis. We support the Constitution and laws of the United States….

We asked the city to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and ensure people’s safety at the protest. It failed to do so.… Our role is to ensure that the system works the same for everyone….

It is the responsibility of law enforcement to ensure safety of both protesters and counter-protesters. The policing on Saturday was not effective in preventing violence. I was there and brought concerns directly to the secretary of public safety and the head of the Virginia State Police about the way that the barricades in the park limiting access by the arriving demonstrators and the lack of any physical separation of the protesters and counter-protesters on the street were contributing to the potential of violence. They did not respond. In fact, law enforcement was standing passively by, seeming to be waiting for violence to take place, so that they would have grounds to declare an emergency, declare an ‘unlawful assembly’ and clear the area. [Emphasis in the original.]

She also said that “An affidavit from the police chief said that they expected twice as many counter-protesters (2,000) as protesters (1,000).”

The Virginia ACLU also tweeted this:

Since authorities expected Antifa to outnumber the statue protestors, questions arise about what the Virginia State Police reportedly did, after declaring an unlawful assembly, pursuant to a declared State of Emergency, presumably by the Democrat Virginia governor, Terry McAuliffe—a longtime Clinton ally. The Mayor of Charlottesville, Michael Signer, is also a Democrat.

Pax Dickinson, writing in a Daily Caller op-ed, lays out in detail the events leading up to the violence, including an easy-to-comprehend diagram overlaid on a Google Maps image. He was a speaker in Kessler’s group, which was confined by barriers into two pens, in the park. “The barricade layout was as police described to organizers it would be, and speakers received a briefing on this the day before.” Virginia State Police controlled the north, east and west sides of the park. “To the south was an uncontrolled chaos full of Antifa.”

He adds that “Contact between the two sides was isolated to those positions and relatively under control from my vantage point…Shortly after all rally attendees were present in the park, word began to spread that a State of Emergency had been declared, presumably by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe. At my position in Pen 2, people were confused by this. It seemed unnecessary and preemptive since the rally seemed fairly well under control at this point.”

After a few minutes, Dickinson wrote, Virginia State Police announced over a loudspeaker that they had been declared an unlawful assembly, and were instructed to leave the park or be arrested.

“We’re pushed through the barricade at the south end of 1st St. and onto Market St., which was lined on both sides with mobs of screaming Antifa with no police presence whatsoever. We ran west on Market St, running a gauntlet of Antifa throwing bottles, sticks, and rocks.”

Hawk Newsome, president of Black Lives Matter of Greater NY, told CNN: “The police actually allowed us to square off against each other,” Newsome said. “There were fights and the police were standing a block away the entire time. It’s almost as if they wanted us to fight each other.”

The insanity of what the VSP did, obviously under orders, points to a false flag.

I see this episode as the denial of First Amendment rights by state authorities and using Antifa to punish the group they disagreed with.

The First Amendment trashed

What has been forgotten, in the media-driven furor in the wake of the Charlottesville, VA violence is the First Amendment. The Constitution protects speech, so long as it doesn’t incite “imminent lawless action.” [Brandenburg v Ohio].

That protection includes hate speech, pursuant to the SCOTUS ruling, R.A.V. v City of St. Paul.

In that case, teenagers who had burned a cross on the lawn of a black family were charged under a local ordinance “which prohibits the display of a symbol which ‘arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender,’ said oyez.org. In short, though it may be odious, speech cannot be barred solely because of its content.

In R.A.V., the High Court added that “Government has no authority ‘to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow the Marquis of Queensbury Rules.’”

But that’s the very thing the Virginia and the city of Charlottesville did, last weekend. Why didn’t I didn’t mention that Kessler is a white supremacist, as the MSM has labeled him? Because it makes no difference: under the Constitution: he had a right to speak.

If you think the loathsome views of white supremacists and Nazis should be an exception to the First Amendment, answer this: Who decides what’s loathsome—Antifa? CAIR?

Photo credit: By Cville dog – Own work, Public Domain

 

Bob Bennett is a New York-based writer who has written op-eds for the Wall Street Journal and the NY Post, and has appeared on Fox and Friends and America’s Newsroom. He has traveled widely and written travel pieces for the NY Post, a cover article for the Jewish Press, and an op-ed for the medical journal Cancer Biotherapy & Radioimmunotherapy. Bob was also award-winning producer of a travel radio show heard on New York stations: WMCA, WNWK and 50,000 watt WOR and the national Sky Angel Network. He now blogs on Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Community and Red State Diaries.

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY, 0 comments
Communism: New and Improved for 21st Century

Communism: New and Improved for 21st Century

This month, Gawker.com conducted an interview with John Bachtell, national chairman of the Communist Party USA. Bachtell, 59, was essentially a red diaper baby; his parents were leftists who were active in various radical causes during the 1950s and 1960s, although the article portrays them as civil rights crusaders.

These days, according to the article, Bachtell mainly organizes for progressive Democrats, a statement that’s more pregnant of meaning than most I have heard.

Now, I’m not even going to pretend to be objective here; remember, I’m the guy who said that the federal government, the states, organized militias – someone – should have taken it upon themselves to cut down communist marchers with tommy guns en masse back in the 1920s, that communism should have been banned outright, and that comprehensive counterintelligence programs should have been implemented to quash the advancement of any person or organization even remotely evidencing communist or socialist leanings.

Had these things occurred, America would not at this very moment be teetering on the brink of totalitarian collectivism with a cabal of subversive radicals at the helm. I acknowledge that such action would have been an abrogation of certain parties’ civil rights, but given the lack of regard that the ascendant left has shown for individual rights and the Constitution, we have no reasonable expectation that these things will even exist once the left has cemented its power. Hence my justification.

That said, I find it quite surreal when I hear communists – and even some liberals –intellectualizing around the supposed virtues of Marxism and regurgitating pitifully threadbare anti-capitalist condemnation. It is only owing to Marxists’ flair for propaganda that they still manage to get away with espousing egalitarian values despite having murdered nearly a half-billion people during the last century.

To a degree, this “marketing of Marxism” is that of which the Gawker interview mainly consisted. One really ought to read the interview in its entirety to glean a sufficient understanding of the sham and duplicity in which radical leftists routinely engage.

Bachtell would have us believe that the CPUSA is far-removed from Cold War-era communism. It has been documented that the Weather Underground (the violent communist group founded by Obama crony Bill Ayers) was working toward a communist revolution in America featuring re-education centers and a purge (mass execution) of some 25 million “diehard capitalists.”

Well, Ayers and many of those who thought that way at the time are still around; some have great political influence, and a few even work in the White House.

I’m afraid that’s not quite “far-removed” enough for me.

Recently, investigative journalists Alan Jones and Mary Fanning published an article based upon their investigation into the origins narrative, identity and eligibility questions that have swirled around Barack Hussein Obama since before he took office. (Regular readers will be aware that WND has long been at the vanguard of such efforts.)

While their investigation did corroborate some things we know to be true regarding Obama’s identity fraud and lifelong subversive associations, it provided much more information pertaining to the extent of communist infiltration in America 50 years ago. The fact that Obama’s parents and extended family had ties to prominent individuals involved in this pursuit became almost incidental.

One chilling detail revealed by Jones and Fanning involved a Soviet double agent who secretly transported Soviet spies and Nazis into the United States during the late 1940s and 1950s; under the pretext of humanitarianism, these operatives were designated as “refugees.”

Of course, this is eerily similar to the comprehensive program of “refugee resettlement” initiated by Obama and involving tens of thousands of unvetted individuals from destabilized Muslim nations like Syria and Somalia being spirited into the U.S..

Marxists are fond of arguing that capitalism and democratic republics don’t work. In America, dedicated leftists have put forth a great deal of effort in sabotaging the mechanisms thereof, then citing the results of their sabotage as validating their criticism. It’s akin to claiming a particular brand of automobile is inferior, then surreptitiously adding water to its gas tank in order to ensure its poor performance, thus “proving” your point.

Similarly, every leader of every failed or failing communist state has pointed to the policies of other nations (usually freer, capitalist ones) to deflect the blame for their own abysmal management. Though in some instances these nations were completely closed to outside influences for many years, leftist despots invariably attempted to convince their citizens that culpability for their destitution lay in malevolent external forces.

Denial on a grand scale, abdication of personal responsibility and victimhood – the same concepts leftist leaders instill into individuals within society – they also practice geopolitically.

The art (or science; take your pick) of mass manipulation has never been more sophisticated than at this moment. Part of this is owing to technology. Another aspect is refinement over time. This is the chief reason that at present, most Americans are incapable of conceptualizing (let alone anticipating) far-reaching disasters such as the recent debt crisis in Greece, with its government confiscation of private bank deposits and rioting, occurring here.

Sure, times are tough, but we’ve weathered those before. Obama is still a pretty cool guy, even after seven years of catastrophic serial “miscalculations.” Why, no one’s even discussing the fact that our government arriving at a 5 percent unemployment rate – with 95 million Americans missing from a labor force of 160 million – has got to involve some really weird math.

With that conditioning at work, factor in a little denial and mental laziness and it’s a cinch most Americans couldn’t even begin to process the scenario Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground had in store for us – even if they saw it coming, armored, down Main Street.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 1 comment
America’s New World Disorder

America’s New World Disorder

Two weeks ago in this space, I posed the question of why some think Hillary Clinton is unelectable as president due to crimes committed while serving as secretary of state, when the same pro-left media spin machine and gutless Republican leaders are on the scene now as in 2008, when Barack Hussein Obama was elected.

Over the last six years, the comportment of GOP leaders in particular, given the unprecedented threat represented by this administration, speaks to a dramatic alteration in course and intention on their part, not unlike that which occurs when the ship captain’s cabin door bursts open and the roaring mutineers pile in.

It’s as though the entire Congress, the executive branch, the press and to some extent even the federal judiciary have become a sort of Supreme Soviet (as in the former U.S.S.R.) body of government. Therein, we now have our very own Councils of Ministers, Politburo and Secretariats among elected officials, federal courts and innumerable government departments, bureaus and offices.

As I pointed out in my WND column of July 9, 2014, the chagrined claims of the White House around their handling of the 2014 “undocumented minor” border crisis were complete Soviet-style spin, given that they had orchestrated the crisis to start with. To this day, the administration continues to employ said chagrined claims, though the smoking gun, a federal Request For Information (RFI), remains viewable online.

A few days ago, a federal judge ruled that hundreds of those illegal immigrants who remain in U.S. holding facilities must be released, calling conditions in which they are being held “deplorable.” And they definitely are deplorable.

The press called this a “setback” for President Obama’s immigration policy, although I am hard-pressed to figure out how that might be.

Since 2013, the Obama administration has released (rather than deported) over 68,000 foreign nationals with criminal convictions and pending charges from detention centers and into the streets as though they were school children going home for the summer. As we’ve seen pointedly demonstrated in recent weeks, the recidivism rate of these wastes of nucleic acids is staggering.

More than 68,000 (mostly) women and children were apprehended on our southern border last summer. While officials laboriously pondered whether they had a right to stay, as some may recall, thousands of minors from among them were spirited away to attend school in communities across America.

Shortly after that, there were numerous outbreaks of exotic respiratory and neurological ailments among school-age American children, resulting in several deaths.

We knew last summer that conditions in which the immigrant surge partygoers were living were ghastly. Most regular WND readers will remember the appalling accounts given by health-care practitioners treating the arrivals, and others who visited the detention centers. Are we to believe that the government couldn’t find a way to improve those conditions in a year?

It would have been a childishly simple matter for the administration to “allow” the habitability of the detention centers to deteriorate, then instruct their radical pals at the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law in Los Angeles to file suit against the government in order to secure the detainees’ release, while rendering the administration “blameless.”

The resulting lawsuit was indeed filed after two months of negotiations between CHRCL and the Justice Department failed to identify measures that could improve conditions in the detention centers – a claim that is beyond preposterous. Did not the customary liberal solution – throwing vast amounts of taxpayer money at the detention centers’ budgets – occur to anyone?

It has always been Obama’s intention to unleash legions of culturally bankrupt foreign scum upon the American citizenry. It is now occurring on several fronts.

How is that a “setback” for his immigration policy?

Late last week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi summarily exonerated abortion provider Planned Parenthood of selling fetal tissue (baby parts) after undercover videos surfaced capturing senior members of Planned Parenthood discussing how the organization did precisely that.

Calling the whole matter “a controversy that doesn’t exist,” Pelosi suggested that those calling for an investigation of Planned Parenthood should themselves be investigated.

This reminds me of one manner in which the Soviets (and the Nazis and other totalitarian regimes) disposed of agitators, reformers, or others whose cut of jib they didn’t particularly care for: Falsely accuse them of crimes in the same area they were attempting to address or reform, and have them imprisoned or killed. That sent the same message to other potential reformers that Comrade Pelosi was attempting to convey to us: Utter one disagreeable peep, and we will bring the full weight of government power to bear upon you.

Finally, during one of the Senate’s infrequent Sunday votes last week, several senior Republicans reprimanded Sen. Ted Cruz for his recent criticism of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Cruz accused McConnell of lying when the latter denied having struck a deal to resuscitate the Export-Import Bank and its attendant corporate welfare infrastructure.

“Squabbling and sanctimony may be tolerated in other venues and perhaps on the campaign trail,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah (who has been in the Senate since the Cretaceous Period), “but they have no place among colleagues in the United States Senate.”

I never run out of reasons to be mortified by this bunch. Here we have ranking Senate Republicans defending a majority leader who has proved himself to be the political whore to end all political whores – and that’s putting it mildly. Having thrown in on so many legislative issues with the Marxist Islamist saboteur who occupies the White House and his congressional minions (which House Speaker John Boehner has also done), McConnell’s status far exceeds mere political whoredom.

Instead of standing with Cruz, the leading senators of the Republican Party deliberately, calculatingly and publicly assumed the mantle of apparatchiks in this twisted New Disorder, and did so casually, as though it were all as natural as a sunny summer day.

I would submit that there is no punishment sufficient for such vile treachery. Nevertheless, I’ll settle for whatever we happen to have on hand when the time comes.

Originally published at WorldNetDaily

 

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
The Silencing of America’s Majority

The Silencing of America’s Majority

Four days after nine people were gunned down at the African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, the church’s doors opened to an overflow crowd of congregants and supporters. Since Senior Pastor Rev. Clementa Pinckney was among those killed on June 17, Rev. Norvel Goff, a former New York pastor and presiding elder at another South Carolina AME Church, led the service.

Goff provided abundant commentary on the surviving family members’ displays of dignity, and their willingness to forgive the shooter, Dylann Storm Roof. His oratory both reflected and underscored the sentiment behind this community of Christians which, instead of degenerating into anger and hatred over Roof’s foul deeds, came together in fellowship.

The reverend also remarked that the doors of the church opening so soon after the tragedy was sure to have sent “a message to the demons in Hell.”

Excuse me?

A message to who?

“Demons in Hell,” did he say?

Well, let’s see… He is a Christian pastor after all, so who should we suppose his adversaries might be – Snidely Whiplash? The Riddler?

Whereupon we shall commence with this week’s object lesson, which once again features liberal racism and hypocrisy…

According to the emergent leftist doctrine, people who actually believe in primitive twaddle like demons are on a par with the developmentally disabled; they certainly have no right to participate in public discourse. Recall how Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was raked across the coals by the liberal press recently for statements concerning his Catholic beliefs.

So if that’s the case, then why should the usual liberal detractors care if Dylann Roof ventilated a bunch of these mentally retarded cavemen?

Well, since they were black, of course the crime fits very nicely into the narrative the left is currently pushing, that we have a serious problem with “right wing racist domestic terrorism” and white supremacy in general. Simply put, they elected to set aside their antipathy for Christians so that they might capitalize on the racial aspects of Roof’s crime.

There are at least two other reasons that liberals overlooked their hatred of Christians in the case of the Charleston shootings. One is that those on the left view blacks as a primitive breed to begin with, so their Christianity is of no more concern than if they were practicing Santeria, Voodoo, or worshiping The Great Bright Disk That Crosses The Sky.

Another reason is that in having managed to control blacks politically (as well as subverting many through false Christian doctrines like Liberation Theology), what they actually believe doesn’t matter as long as they continue to provide the requisite political support. Blacks have given leftist leaders no indication that they will cease doing so.

The agitators finally did make it down to South Carolina, because two days after the Charleston AME church re-opened and a block away, the former head of the New Black Panther Party, Malik Zulu Shabazz, and Shaka Shakur, another black nationalist, were calling for war against whites. Shabazz is the president of an organization called Black Lawyers for Justice, the group that was instrumental in spurring on rioters in Baltimore following the Freddie Gray shooting.

In front of a crowd of several hundred black Charleston residents, Shakur declared in urban patois that Dylann Roof ‘s attack had been a coordinated plan, that he was “a solider” who carried out “his mission.”

Shakur then asked the crowd, “When you gonna carry out yours?”

Shakur said that Roof had been trained and equipped by shadowy white boogeymen whom he could not identify. Both he and Shabazz suggested that audience members “complete the work” of Denmark Vesey, who led a violent slave revolt in 1822 and killed a bunch of white people.

Shakur had no proof whatsoever of anything he said – yet he and Shabazz were allowed to stand there at length and incite Americans to kill other Americans. Conversely, a white individual cannot criticize our president’s tie without being pilloried for racism.

This double standard is quite similar to that of militant homosexuals being allowed to call for the complete disenfranchisement of Christians, the burning of their businesses, and even violent action against them – yet woe be unto the Christian who criticizes homosexuals or their attendant political agenda, no matter how diplomatically it is done.

A majority of Americans who do not subscribe to the left’s racial orthodoxy or the legitimacy of the homosexual agenda continue to be intimidated into submission through nothing more than invective and lies. The pace of this project (which also involves other demographic subgroups) has been accelerated and its strength fortified by the Obama administration, whose noxious domestic agenda demands division and dysfunction.

The sad irony is that substantial gains could still be made against the left if more of us were willing to go on the offensive, and stop dreading their empty screeches of “homophobe” or “racist” as though they were the Wicked Witch of the West in a water balloon fight.

Little do those who have given in and now hold their beliefs in abeyance know that they have fallen for a cheap communist tactic crafted by a cheap communist twerp (“Rules for Radicals” author Saul Alinsky). Their silence however, will buy our enemies enough time to codify their perversities into law with the cooperation of the weak, the corrupted, and cowards in high places.

Then, as occurred once before, while some citizens hide neighbors now legally considered persona non grata in their cellars and walls, others will dutifully turn them over to authorities to face a grim fate because, after all…

“It’s the law of the land.”

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 0 comments
Why There Can Be No Coexistence With The Left

Why There Can Be No Coexistence With The Left

Assuming they can take a break from bitterly clinging to their guns and religion for a few minutes, I’m going to set a bona fide goal for those liberty-loving Americans out there with a passion for our founding principles and the Constitution. What may surprise some in that camp is that it’s the very same goal toward which those on the political left strive.

At first blush, some of these patriots – perhaps many – will find this goal rhetorically indelicate, if not undemocratic, or even (dare I say it?) – “extreme.”

By the time they’re done reading this, however, I would hope that they perceive the dangerous folly in such thinking.

The goal is simple, and it is as follows: We must utterly vanquish the political opponents we currently face. One can see why I said it’s identical to the ultimate goal of the left, and why they never articulate it openly. While they espouse love of country, liberty, the democratic process and say they believe we have as much of a right to our ideals and beliefs as they do theirs, these are patent deceptions.

Time and again, their actions make it abundantly clear that they intend to eradicate our ideals and beliefs if at all possible.

So, as contrary to our model of government and collective conscience as this may sound, utterly neutralizing the left (completely disenfranchising those who ascribe to leftist doctrine and dismantling all of their established political, cultural and legal constructs) is an imperative because they never had any intention of coexisting with those of differing ideologies.

A key difference between us and the political left is that we’ve always been here, but they have not. What I mean by this is that throughout the history of our nation, the intentions of the governed and those who rose to govern were fairly closely aligned. There were instances of major divergence – such as those who wound up at odds over slavery or the right of women to vote – but principally, we had somewhat differing means to generally the same ends.

Though the left-right paradigm with which contemporary Americans were raised has come to mean less and less (because so many politicians advance leftist policies regardless of political party), we do need to bear in mind that it is a very recent political model.

The reason politicians have perpetuated the observance of this left-right archetype in recent years is because it became eminently useful to them in manipulating the electorate – and this means big-government closet socialists like many prominent Republicans have demonstrated themselves to be, as well as outright communists like Barack Obama and his co-conspirators.

The core truth is that the ideology, motives and methods of the left are manifestly evil, and always have been.

I don’t know if I coined the phrase in relation to liberalism being “communism on the installment plan,” but I don’t know of anyone else who uses it. Whoever gets the credit, I believe it is an accurate statement because not only has liberalism itself changed incrementally over the last several decades, it has also managed to subvert those occupying other nodes along the political continuum.

This is because liberalism (as opposed to early 20th-century progressivism) has always been driven by hardcore communists. Because they are intrinsically diabolical, they misrepresent their intentions, then foment division, hatred and civil unrest. Finally, they institutionalize injustice, oppressing and terrorizing the governed, illegally appropriating the fruits of their labors and making atrocity commonplace.

This is why in 1983, President Ronald Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as an “evil empire.” It wasn’t a case of baseless name-calling.

With the end of the Cold War, many Americans presumed that the struggle against communism was over. I’m not sure why, since potent communistic influences remained in the world. In any event, I seriously doubt that in the early 1990s many conservatives could have imagined a Marxist-Leninist cabal calling the shots in our nation’s capital less than 20 years hence.

The empirical evidence demonstrates that liberalism inevitably morphs into communism (oligarchical collectivist totalitarianism). Whether it comes about quickly through revolution or slowly through attrition doesn’t matter much in the end.

Thus, liberalism is fundamentally just as malignant as communism – which we should have been able to ascertain, given that its effects over the last 50 years included increasing moral ambivalence, escalating levels of corruption in government and business sectors, class warfare, dissolution of the family (including high rates of divorce and illegitimate births), loss of reverence for the sanctity of life, rampant drug use, antipathy for the nation itself and transposition of the very concepts of good and evil.

And those only represent the evidence of America’s domestic deterioration.

I hope this has sufficiently illustrated that the liberal-embryonic-communist wholesale destroyers of everything good and decent have not always been among us. Those who follow evil dictates have always been among us, but never before in America have we seen a faction bent on pernicious societal nihilism achieve enduring influence and political power.

Those who are generally peaceful, industrious and generous, who would prefer to mind their own business as they pursue life, liberty and happiness have always been here. Actually, they are most people. Knowledge of this truth is what motivated our nation’s founders to so inextricably enshrine the concepts of individual liberty and Natural Law into its founding documents.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns, 1 comment

When the government fears the people

29 Jan. 08,       2014 05.54“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

– Thomas Jefferson

Given the stunning advances Western society made over the last hundred years both socially and technologically, most Americans grew up with the belief that things would always “turn out for the best” in the long run, and this was a chief underpinning of our worldview. Despite having fought such foes as Adolf Hitler and weathered the prolonged tensions and fears of the Cold War, even these had come to inspiring conclusions. I think that until very recently, few Americans ever considered a fundamental paradigm shift for the worse.

Our positive worldview has been a two-edged sword of sorts. On the one hand, it tempered our resolve and conviction; when you believe you’re going to win, it can go a long way toward manifesting that victory. On the other hand, given such an outlook, one – or a nation – might get lulled into a false sense of security. I believe that this is, in part, precisely what occurred with regard to the American people and the enemies from within against whom we are now engaged.

We believed that given the promise the future and our aggregate potential held, and our ability to contribute to the betterment of those around the globe, who would even want to stand against us?

Those who have a desire to foment or prolong human suffering – that’s who.

Read more…

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns