Tag Archives: Communist

Bill Lockwood: Destroying Private Property in America Will Bring Widespread Poverty 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Consider this headline. In Defense of Destroying Private Property. R.H. Lossin writes in the liberal The Nation, that, in the wake of the George Floyd Black Lives Matter rioting, the “mainstream media reaction” “has been surprisingly tempered.” The socialist answer, of course, is that the “property destruction” might just be a “reasonable and articulate expression in itself?” After all, the reasoning goes, “broken windows and burnt cars are simply not commensurate with the violence of state-sanctioned murder or the structural violence of poverty that has placed people of color at a disproportionate risk of dying of Covid-19.”

Lossin even quotes Martin Luther King, Jr. to suggest that looting demonstrated a keen understanding of a political economy organized around repression, exploitation, and disenfranchisement: ‘Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking … knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights.

Call it what you will—Martin Luther King apparently endorsed “abusing property rights.” So does the socialist The Nation media outlet.

This has become a common nightmare reality in America, where the powers-that-be have allowed the BLM rioters to openly and brazenly destroy private property. So widespread has this become that it was not uncommon for store owners to spray-paint homemade wooden signs on the front of their properties that read: “We support BLM, please don’t hurt us.”

Worsening matters even more are the local prosecutors and judges who have no desire to enforce the law or punish those committing the crimes. In denial of common-sense, rioters, looters, even murderers are being released back into the cities by activist judges and anemic justice systems to create more destructive havoc on the citizens. Mobs are growing and violence-mongers are now stalking our streets while private property and even life is being destroyed.

In the end, a society that does not respect private property rights is doomed to regress to the backward state such as is lived in the rest of the world.

The Mystery of Capital

One of the greatest books explaining the essentiality of private property rights to liberty and prosperity is the work of Hernando de Soto entitled “The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West”, But Fails Everywhere Else, published in 2000. De Soto points out the following.

The real nature of private property. The nature of private property is not “part of the physical world” but is about invisible things, explains de Soto. “It is an implicit legal infrastructure hidden deep within their property systems—of which ownership is but the tip of the iceberg.” Formal property law. Without it, there is no such thing as private property.

Property actually is the formal title, the recognized uniform law of the country. It is an integrated system of “legal property rights.” For example, other nations have the same and even more “assets” than the United States. There are far richer countries in terms of natural resources. The difference is that Third World countries do not have the law system that we have and “lack the process to represent their property or create capital.”

To illustrate, if one cannot prove that he or she owned anything – by way of legal title recognized by a uniform law code– then that person will be likely forced to bribe his or her way through bureaucracy, or, with the help of his neighbors, take the law into his own hands.

Consider much of the American Plains Indian culture. Concepts of private property were far different, and practically non-existent. There was absolutely no “law structure” outside of a local band of Indians living together, and even in this small group, accumulation of goods was discouraged. A great man was to give his ponies away—not collect a personal herd.

Owning land was unheard of. The Native Americans simply lived off of it and wandered it freely, hindered only by stronger tribes that warred with them.

This lack of formal property meant that nothing could be borrowed from any “banker,” for there was no collateral—not to mention banks were non-existence in that culture. Subsistence was hand-to-mouth, and might makes right. Rudimentary living. So exactly, without formal property law and a legal system that protects that property, that private property is worthless.

This is exactly the manner in which much of the world now continues to live. De Soto estimates that there is $9.3 Trillion in “dead capital” in foreign and third world countries. Dead, because it is not able to be used to draw upon and create capital. And this is due to the lack of a law system that protects that property.

The lack of legal property thus explains why citizens in developing and former communist nations cannot make profitable contracts with strangers, cannot get credit, insurance , or utilities services: They have no property to lose. Because they have no property to lose, they are taken seriously as contracting partners only by their immediate family and neighbors. People with nothing to lose are trapped in the grubby basement of the pre-capitalist world.

This is the warning to modern America. If our legal system is going to disregard the private ownership of property, the capital in which workers have invested their monies and themselves, then we are moving back to primitive living—to the grubby basement of the pre-capitalist world. And by witnessing the violence-ridden inner cities such as Baltimore or Detroit, that grubby living is not far off.

Either the legal system will protect Americans, or Americans will begin protecting themselves and their properties outside the boundaries of law. Liberal judges are inviting the Wild West.

Wayne Allyn Root: Why Larry Elder Will Win the California Recall Election…But He Will Lose a Rigged Election Just Like Trump 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Wayne Allyn Root

Mohammed Ali once said, “It ain’t bragging if you can back it up.” So, I’m gonna brag. I’ve got the best track record of political predictions anywhere on radio or TV.

I’ve written literally thousands of newspaper columns and commentaries over the past decade. And I’ve written 14 books.

My 15th book comes out on Thursday, “The Great Patriot Protest & Boycott Book.” My book gives away the hard-to-find contact info that will enable 80 million Trump voters to hound, protest and boycott the top 100+ woke companies. With this book, if any company goes woke, we will make you go broke.

Altogether, I may be on the record publicly more than any political oddsmaker, analyst or host in America. I’ve made literally thousands of predictions. I’m batting at least .990. I’ve gotten maybe a half dozen predictions wrong out of thousands.

Gavin Newsom will be recalled and Larry Elder will be the next Governor of California. Except it won’t matter. Because after all the massive Democrat vote fraud is factored in, Gavin Newsom will survive the recall and Larry Elder will lose.

I think Larry’s great. I’ve been a fan of Larry Elder for decades. I started my national radio career as a guest host for Larry. I think Larry Elder is just what the doctor ordered for the tragic mess California is in.

Larry would win-if the legitimate votes were counted honestly. But they aren’t. As communist dictator Joseph Stalin once said, “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”

California is a failed socialist hellhole. Crooked Democrats count the votes in California (and any other Democrat-controlled state).

Larry Elder is about to find out what it’s like to be Donald J. Trump. He’s about to find out what it’s like to have an election stolen by brazen socialist/communist criminals who will stop at nothing to destroy America. He’s about to experience a rigged and stolen election. Just like Trump.

How do I know? Let me count the ways.

First, millions of illegal aliens are voting in California. When they get their drivers licenses at DMV, they are automatically registered to vote. By law, no one is allowed to ask if they are a citizen. No one can ask for valid ID. Millions of illegal alien voters tip the scale for failed socialist Democrats in California. It’s pretty simple- they vote for the party that won’t deport them and will keep welfare checks coming from cradle to grave.

Second, California has sent out tens of millions of mail-in ballots. Just like Biden-Trump in 2020, there is no way to know who’s who. There is no Voter ID. There is no chain of custody. There is no signature verification. There is nothing but millions of fake ballots, signed with fake names.

Fourth, California has ballot harvesting. Anyone can collect thousands of fake ballots, fill them out and hand them in. Democrats have perfected this art.

Lastly, the actual ballots were designed with a flaw. You must fold the ballot to mail it. Computers that scan the votes often auto-cancel the name checked on the fold. Guess who’s name is on the fold out of 46 candidates? Larry Elder. What a coincidence. What a shocker!

So, I’m rooting for you Larry. I know you’d make a great Governor. But sadly, I know it won’t matter. The election is rigged. Your Governorship will be stolen, just as Trump’s presidency was stolen.

The question is, when will conservatives and patriots wake up and do something about it?

GWP: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/wayne-root-larry-elder-will-win-california-recall-electionbut-will-lose-rigged-election-just-like-trump/

Wayne Allyn Root is known as “the Conservative Warrior.” Wayne is the author of the new #1 national bestselling book, “TRUMP RULES”. Wayne is a CEO, entrepreneur and host of the nationally-syndicated “Wayne Allyn Root: Raw & Unfiltered” on USA Radio Network, daily from 6 PM to 9 PM EST and the “WAR RAW” podcast. Visit ROOTforAmerica.com, or listen live at http://usaradio.com/wayne-allyn-root/ or “on demand” 24/7 at iHeartRadio.com.

 

Kathleen Marquardt: THE FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION = PLANNED DYSTOPIA 5 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Kathleen Marquardt

Klaus Schwab has been someone in the background of global machinations for many decades. He is the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF) which he formed in 1971 (fifty years ago) as an International NGO (one of the way too many “civil society” partners of the United Nations). The majority of these NGOs are there to promote and embed Agenda 21/2030/The Green New Deal into every country, no matter how small, in the world. Schwab’s WEF was set up to push Public-Private Cooperation, in other words, fascism, across the globe.

Kimberly Amadeo, President of World Money Watch defines fascism as: “a brutal economic system in which a supreme leader and their government controls the private entities that own the factors of production. The four factors are entrepreneurship, capital goods, natural resources, and labor. A central planning authority directs company leaders to work in the national interest, which actively suppresses those who oppose it”.[i]

To simplify and clarify what Public-Private Partnerships PPPs) are:

In a speech at the Freedom 21 National Conference in Dallas in 2007, Tom DeWeese, president of American Policy Center, noted:

During the first years of the Clinton Administration in the early 1990s, there was much fanfare about a new policy to “reinvent government.” It was sold as a way to make government more efficient and less costly. It would, said its proponents, “bring business technologies to public service.”

Pro-business, anti-big-government conservatives and libertarians were intrigued. The backbone of the plan was a call for “public/private partnerships.” Now that sounded like their kind of program.

Government, they said, would finally tap the tremendous power of the entrepreneurial process and the force of the free market into making government more effective and efficient. It sounded so revolutionary and so American.

Being open-minded and wanting to help us get back to what the framers of the Constitution had built for us, we wanted this to be true. But as Tom pointed out:

Today that “reinvention” has revealed itself to be the policy known as Sustainable Development, which is nothing more than a plan for a top-down managed society. Sustainable Development policy includes population control; development control; technology control; resource control; and in a great sense, thought control.

Sustainable Development is not freedom. Not one of the three principles apply. There is no individuality as it advocates group policies; there is no private property under Sustainable Development – period. And there is no free enterprise as markets and supplies are tightly controlled by the hand of government.

Yet, incredibly, much of the Sustainable policy has been embraced by the “free-trade” movement, which advocates open borders, free trade zones, and one-size fits all regulations, currencies, and the use of public/private partnerships. And many of the biggest proponents of the policy are conservative and libertarian think tanks.

Tom nails it:  Public/Private Partnerships = Government-Sanctioned Monopolies

It is little understood by the general public how public/private partnerships can be used, not as a way to diminish the size of government, but in fact, to increase government’s power.

That’s because no one ever comes forward and tells the general public the entire plan for something as vast as the Security and Prosperity Partnership. No one ever calls for a debate or a vote to implement the plan with public approval.

Instead, it’s done incrementally, a piece at a time, in an easy to disguise program here – a suggestion there. There are few debates or discussions. Even elected officials rarely know the true agenda they are helping to put in place.

Slowly, the whole comes together. By the time people realize the truth, it’s already in place. Policy is set.[ii]

For fifty years the WEF has been using these PPPs to cancel any liberty, individual freedom, and take property rights from individuals. Agenda 21! The Public Private Partnerships are a big tool in relieving us of our property, liberty, and control of our nation. PPPs and Regionalism, with its unelected governing bodies, work hand in hand to destroy our Constitution and the rule of law.

As society breaks down, the globalists welcome the anarchy, chaos, and general social unrest. Next, they need a defining event.

What drew Schwab to set up the WEF?

“The most influential group that spurred the creation of Klaus Schwab’s symposium was the Club of Rome, an influential think tank of the scientific and monied elite that mirrors the World Economic Forum in many ways, including in its promotion of a global governance model led by a technocratic elite. The Club had been founded in 1968 by Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei and Scottish chemist Alexander King during a private meeting at a residence owned by the Rockefeller family in Bellagio, Italy.”[iii]

The Club of Rome spelled out what they view as the true enemy:

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.[iv]”

Realizing that back in the ‘70s, when the above was written, the masses weren’t yet dumbed-down enough to accept that they needed to join VHEMT, the voluntary human extinction movement. The globalist Marxist Left decided a New Ice Age would fit the bill of a major crisis that only they could fix. Oops, it didn’t happen. So, let’s flip it to Global Warming (to go along with the hole in the ozone. Of course, the Earth wasn’t warming. Tweak that, voila, Climate Change. Ignore the fact that the climate changes four times a year, and sometimes daily.

No matter the science. We are facing an apocalyptic threat.

Maurice Strong, former Undersecretary General of the UN, Sec. Gen. of UN Conference on the Environment, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, was called a visionary and a “pioneer of global sustainable development. He was the secretary-general of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit which unveiled Agenda 21, the culmination of decades of scheming, planning, and cajoling to bring about a global government via the UN. He was also a close friend of Klaus Schwab, George Soros, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and many of the rogues’ gallery of One-World government advocates.

In interviews that Strong did with two reporters in Canada wanting to write about their golden boy, both times he talked about his vision of the future. The early vision focused on the WEF:

“Each year, the Word Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics, gather in February. to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead.

 What if a small group of these world leaders were to form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse? It’s February. They are all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered a panic using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies. They’ve jammed the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries . . . I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this.”[v]

Does this sound familiar? Sure sounds plausible to me. In his second theoretical vision, Strong dreams, “what if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive those rich countries would have to sign an agreement, reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is “no”. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, a group decides ‘isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse’.”[vi]

It’s in the works now; it has been for decades. But a statement that most overlook, but it shows that the people on the Left, the globalists, the Fabians, the cultural Marxists, the Communists are all looking for the right bait, the right evil foe to attack.

Strong and Klaus Schwab were good friends; they were also close with David Rockefeller. They were (are, in Schwab’s case) members of that not so secret, secret society, the Bilderburg Group. The Bilderburg Group is approximately 130 political leaders from Europe and North America who meet once a year for informal discussions about major issues. “The Meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed. Thanks to the private nature of the Meeting, the participants take part as individuals rather than in any official capacity, and hence are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather insights. There is no detailed agenda, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.”[vii]

According to Schwab, the fourth Industrial Revolution provides the potential “to robotize humanity, and thus compromise our traditional sources of meaning—work, community, family, identity.[viii]” He also predicts that it will “lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness.[ix]” And it will “upend the existing ways of sensing, calculating, organizing, acting and delivering”. That was a statement from 2015, so don’t think he hasn’t been pushing this for a long time. Now his edicts are getting more definitive, “Even our thinking and behavior will have to dramatically shift. We must have a new social contract centered on Social Justice. We need a change of mindset, moving from short-term to long-term thinking, moving from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder responsibility (ed. note: PPPs). Environmental, social and good governance have to be a measured part of corporate and governmental accountability.”[x][xi]

While Schwab is predicting that his Industrial Revolution will “lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness”, Dr. Anthon Mueller, a German professor of economics, wrote, “The WEF’s great reset project is social engineering at the highest level. Advocates of the reset contend that the UN failed to establish order in the world and could not advance forcefully its agenda of sustainable development—known as Agenda 2030 —because of its bureaucratic, slow, and contradictory way of working. In contrast, the actions of the organizational committee of the World Economic Forum are swift and smart. When a consensus has been formed, it can be implemented by the global elite all over the world.”

Johnny Vedmore at Unlimited Hangout writes, “At the Forum’s (WEF) annual meeting in January 2021, Schwab stressed that the building of trust would be integral to the success of the Great Reset, signalling a subsequent expansion of the initiative’s already massive public relations campaign. Though Schwab called for the building of trust through unspecified “progress,” trust is normally facilitated through transparency. Perhaps that is why so many have declined to trust Mr. Schwab and his motives, as so little is known about the man’s history and background prior to his founding of the World Economic Forum in the early 1970s.”

The Global Technology Governance Summit (GTGS) of the World Economic Forum, meeting in Tokyo (and virtual) the first week of April 2021 has a number of documents to be discussed. One, Harnessing new technologies, states:

“Industry transformation: No industry has been untouched by the global response to COVID-19. The world can no longer operate as it has, and as such markets will have to respond to its new and evolving needs. To survive, every business in the world will have to become a technology company. – Government transformation: The transformation of government will be front and centre in the area of digital infrastructure as technology services become an essential public utility comparable to electricity, water or roads.” In simple terms, Pubic Private Partnerships. The government controls, the businesses follow government orders.

In one of the best articles I’ve read on the Great Reset, Thomas DiLorenzo’s “The Great Nonsense of “The Great Reset”, is this:

[S]ocialism . . . is . . . the society that must emerge if humanity is to cope with . . . the ecological burden that economic growth is placing on the environment . . . . [C]apitalism must be monitored, regulated, and contained to such a degree that it would be difficult to call the final social order capitalism.”    Robert Heilbroner, “After Capitalism,” The New Yorker, Sept. 10, 1990

The above quotation by socialist economist, the late Robert Heilbroner, was written in the context of an article that lamented and mourned the worldwide collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. The great debate between capitalism and socialism was over, he said, and Ludwig von Mises was right about socialism all along, said a man who had spent the past half century promoting socialism in his teaching, speaking, and writing. But do not despair, he told his fellow socialists, for there is one more trick up our sleeves, namely, the Trojan Horse of achieving socialism under the guise of ‘environmentalism.’

“The basic strategy was then, as it is now, to constantly frighten the gullible public with predictions of The End of the World from environmental catastrophe unless we abandon capitalism and adopt socialist central planning. This has always been the one constant theme of the environmentalist movement (not to be confused with the conservation movement which is actually interested in the health of the planet and the humans who occupy it) since the 1960s.  It ignores the fact that the twentieth-century socialist countries like the Soviet Union and China had by far the worse environmental problems on the planet, orders of magnitude worse than in the capitalist countries.”

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order. David Rockefeller at a 1994 UN Dinner

Can a combination of two fraud emergencies, COVID and Climate Change, be the crises that will usher in the globalist dream of a New World Order? If so, and if the inhabitants of what remains of the free world do not get off their duffs and wake up to this threat, Klaus Schwab et al will have achieved the “global transformation” they have spent 100+ years to achieve.

I for one want to see them fail. We, the useless eaters, the nobodies, can stop them. All we have to do is turn over the rock they are under and let the sun shine in. Most people, if they see the truth, will start thinking.

The World Economic Forum summarizes the eight predictions in the following statements:

  1. People will own nothing. Goods are either free of charge or must be lent from the state.
  2. The United States will no longer be the leading superpower, but a handful of countries will dominate.
  3. Organs will not be transplanted but printed.
  4. Meat consumption will be minimized.
  5. Massive displacement of people will take place with billions of refugees.
  6. To limit the emission of carbon dioxide, a global price will be set at an exorbitant level.
  7. People can prepare to go to Mars and start a journey to find alien life.
  8. Western values will be tested to the breaking point.

I cannot believe even half of the American people want to live like that.

We must take back our country a city and a county at a time. All the while, we must get our lesser magistrates to ignore unconstitutional federal laws, throw the bums out of office, and we must educate our children with truth, reason, and sound science.

[i]  Amadeo, K. thebalance.com/fascism

[ii]  Americanpolicy.org/public _private_partnerships

[iii]  Unlimitedhangout.com Schwab

[iv]  Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, p. 85

[v]  Wood, Daniel, West magazine May 1990.

[vi]  Johnston, Jim, British Columbia Report 3, no.22 (May 18,1992).

[vii] Bilderburg Meetings.org

[viii]  https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-h         ow-to-respond/

[ix]  Ibid.

[x]  https://www.weforum.org/press/2020/06/the-great-reset-a-unique-twin-summit-to-begin-2021

[xi]  https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/12/26/german-economist-great-reset-will-cause-a-crash-worse-than-1930s/

Kathleen Marquardt has been an advocate for property rights and freedom for decades. While not intending to be an activist, she has become a leader and an avid supporter of constitutional rights, promoter of civility, sound science, and reason. She serves as Vice President of American Policy Center. Kathleen now writes and speaks on Agenda21/2030, and its threat to our culture and our system of representative government.

Bill Lockwood: Socialism as a Religion 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Marxists profess to reject religion in favor of science, but they cherish a belief that the external universe is evolving with reliable, if not divine, necessity in exactly the direction in which they want it to go. They do not conceive themselves as struggling to build the communist society in a world which is of its own nature indifferent to them. They conceive themselves as traveling toward that society in a world which is like a moving-stairway, but walking in the wrong direction. This is not a scientific, but in the most technical sense, a religious conception of the world. (Max Eastman, Marxism—Is It Science?)

Max Eastman (1883-1969) was a prominent editor, political activist and “prominent radical” who, like many in Woodrow Wilson’s “progressive” America, became infatuated with Marxism. Eastman traveled to the Soviet Union to learn firsthand how to be a good socialist and became friends with Leon Trotsky. Years later, when Eastman became convinced that socialism is void of validity, he reflected upon his time as a Marxist. “I sadly regret the precious twenty years I spent muddling and messing around with this idea, which with enough mental clarity and moral force I might have seen through when I went to Russia in 1922” (Reflections on the Failure of Socialism).

Eastman knew whereof he spoke.

Socialism is not normally classified as a religion, but when its doctrines are examined, it more closely resembles a religious concept than anything else. The only difference between socialism and Christianity is that the latter is grounded upon historical fact while socialistic faith is founded upon unproven assumptions. Communism particularly is a philosophy of faith in the dialectic—the zig-zagging of history onward and upward to a more perfect society.

Nikita Khrushchev was appealing to this “dialectic” when he said that history was on their side and they (Soviet Union) would bury us (J.D. Bales, Communism, Its Faith and Fallacies, p. 102). “Communists represent the antithesis which the dialectic has decreed with destroy us, the thesis. It is this faith which helps keep the rank and file members at their tasks when the going is difficult.” This is also, we might add, why myriads of collegiate students, trained by their Marxist professors, continue to march fanatically to the drumbeat of socialism.

Norman Thomas

Because of the religious nature of socialism, it was a simple matter for Norman Thomas (1884-1968), to trade his ministerial garbs and Presbyterian beliefs for a heaven-on-earth utopia strategy of socialism. He became known as “Mr. Socialist” in America.

Thomas, in turn, was heavily influenced by the 19th-century Social Gospel “theology” developed by Walter Rauschenbusch. Rauschenbusch was himself a Baptist preacher of the 19th century who mixed a version of modernistic “Christianity” together with Marxism to craft what became known as the “social gospel.”

The key to Rauschenbusch’s theology was his concept of the Kingdom of God. To him, this Kingdom was not located in another place called heaven or in a future millennium, but could best be described in modern terms as a level of consciousness in which one recognized the immanence of God in human life and the interconnected, interacting, interdependent nature of the entire human species.

So writes Dr. Elizabeth Balanoff, professor of history at Roosevelt University in Chicago in her paper, “Norman Thomas: Socialism and the Social Gospel.” “Walter Rauschenbusch was convinced that this was the original Christian vision which had been distorted and lost with time, and that it was possible to regain it.”

Because of the religious nature of socialism, H.G. Wells stated: “Socialism is to me a very great thing indeed, the form and substance of my ideal life and all the religion I possess.” Mr. Edmund Optiz, writing in Foundation for Economic Education (1969) observed that “As a religion, Socialism promised a terrestrial paradise, a heaven on earth.” This is why Optiz called Socialism “A Fanatic Faith.”

Max Eastman, in his 1962 book, Reflections on the Failure of Socialism, related that Norman Thomas, “in his rather pathetic Democratic Socialism, A New Appraisal (1953), throws overboard everything that gave distinct meaning to the word socialism, but continues to drive along in the old bandwagon with the name printed on it in large letters.”

For example, Eastman points out, Thomas’ words were “Socialism will do this, …” “Socialism will do that …” But Eastman asks, “how does that differ from what he preached as a Christian minister before his conversion to socialism?” In other words, socialism and Marxism are nothing less than a “religious-type” of conviction that has jettisoned biblical promises of heaven for a “garden of Eden” on earth. As stated succinctly by Mr. Socialism himself, his socialistic philosophy was an “implicit religion.”

Spargo & Arner

Because socialism is in reality an implicit religion, Spargo & Arner, who virtually wrote the textbook on Socialism, called Elements of Socialism (1912), tell us that not only is a “future life” such as heaven an “invention of man” but that God Himself is a “construct of the human mind.” They present socialism as an “alternative to Christianity” which infuses a passion for perfection “without God” and “without heaven.” Further, it is based upon the general theory of evolution (p. 63, 75, 111, 206, 222), which itself is a theory designed to replace belief in God.

As does everything that seeks to replace biblical Christianity, socialism presents a misdiagnosis of what ails mankind. Dishonesty is not “in property ownership” (Spargo & Arner, 23); poverty itself is not an evil (p. 39); world peace is not the ultimate goal (p. 202); and “social injustice” is not the devil incarnate (p. 46). This is why Mr. Edmund Optiz describes socialism as a modern, “this-worldly” religion.

The real problem with man lies within his/her heart—it is called sin. “Above all else, guard your heart, fro everything you do flows from it” (Proverbs 4:23). Sin is a violation or transgression of God’s Almighty Law (1 John 3:4). All men have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory (Romans 6:23). There will be no improvement of society until humanity faces the stark reality of sin imbedded in the heart. Only when the corruption in the world is given its proper diagnosis can people turn to the only real healing—forgiveness in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:21-23).

Alex Newman: UN Human Rights Boss, a Socialist, Slams Trump 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Alex Newman

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet blasted the Trump administration for its policies on immigration, the environment, and more. According to the far-left UN boss, a Chilean socialist with close ties to mass-murdering communist dictatorships, the U.S. government threatens everything from water and children to “human rights.” Many Third World regimes, by contrast, were praised by Bachelet for their alleged progress in complying with UN demands.

Among Bachelet’s most significant targets was the White House effort to secure the border and enforce U.S. immigration law. “Restrictive U.S. migration policies raise significant human rights concerns,” the UN “human rights” chief claimed during a recent session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. “Reducing the number of people trying to enter the country should not be done in disregard of asylum and migrant protections. The situation of children in detention is of particular concern.”

Bachelet, who once defected to the mass-murdering East German dictatorship, was referring to Trump’s attempts to somewhat slow the enormous flow of illegal migrants into the United States — the nation that accepts more immigrants than any other on the planet, by far. How accepting more migrants than any country on Earth could be viewed as “restrictive” was not explained. The claim about children in detention was also left unexplained, with the UN human rights chief not making clear whether she believed having children in tow should constitute a proverbial “get out of jail free” card for any and all criminals.

Another focus of Bachelet’s ire was the Trump administration’s move toward deregulation, particularly on pseudo-environmental concerns. “The United States is also rolling back environmental protections, including for waterways and wetlands,” she complained, referring to Trump’s undoing of the Obama administration’s illegal scheme to federalize control over virtually every mud puddle in the United States. “Untreated pollutants may now be poured directly into millions of miles of streams and rivers, putting ecosystems, drinking water and human health at risk.”

Of course, in the real world, pouring untreated pollutants into a river or stream — and especially into drinking water — is a crime in every single state. Under the U.S. Constitution, which delegates a few limited powers to the central government, federal authorities actually have no regulatory authority over rivers, streams, or other environmental issues. Instead, as the 10th Amendment makes clear, those powers are reserved to the states or to the people who own the property that is affected.

As if to prove that the UN does indeed intend to control every aspect of human life, even the current regulation of fuel standards in the United States is now a target of the UN’s human rights machine. “Weaker fuel emission standards for vehicles, and decreased regulations on the oil and gas industries, could also harm human rights,” claimed Bachelet, as if American energy independence and slightly less onerous (but still unconstitutional) federal regulations on the energy sector were some sort of human rights crisis requiring UN intervention.

Meanwhile, Bachelet had nothing but praises for more than a few brutal regimes that literally remain in power through terror and mass murder. Not a word of condemnation, for instance, was handed out to the mass-murdering Communist Chinese regime, which has millions of dissidents in re-education camps and continues to perpetrate forced abortions, among other horrific violations of actual human rights. Bachelet said only that she welcomes the invitation to visit to “analyze in depth the human rights situation in China,” and that other governments should “do their utmost to combat discrimination” against Chinese people in light of the coronavirus. Seriously.

Regarding her native Chile, which has been under intense attack by communist forces led in part by Venezuelan and Cuban intelligence operatives, Bachelet demanded that authorities there “address the protests’ root causes: inequalities.” In other words, to placate the violent rioters and looters seeking the overthrow of individual liberty and economic freedom with Marxism, Chile must accept more Marxism. Seriously. Her office has apparently “provided recommendations” to Chilean authorities “for a sustainable roadmap guided by human rights norms.”

Of course, this is not the first time Bachelet has attacked the Trump administration and its policies. In fact, last summer, she lashed out against the U.S. government, claiming to be “appalled” and “deeply shocked” by the enforcement of federal immigration law. Taking the globalist extremism to new heights, she even claimed the U.S. government’s practice of detaining illegal immigrant self-proclaimed “families” for prosecution may be “prohibited by international law” for being “cruel” or “degrading.”

“In most of these cases, the migrants and refugees have embarked on perilous journeys with their children in search of protection and dignity and away from violence and hunger,” Bachelet said, displaying either ignorance or dishonesty regarding the true situation at the U.S. border. “When they finally believe they have arrived in safety, they may find themselves separated from their loved ones and locked in undignified conditions. This should never happen anywhere.”

In reality, as the U.S. government has thoroughly documented, human-smuggling rings are using children — some of whom are being trafficked for sex slavery — as a pretext to avoid detention after crossing the border illegally. “They are pairing children with unrelated adults, knowing adults who enter the United States with children won’t be detained,” explained U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, citing a recent Department of Homeland Security Human Smuggling Cell report. Some of those children are kidnapped for the purpose, he continued, noting that once in the United States, they are often sold into sex or labor slavery. Many of the smugglers use fake documents to make it seem like the children are part of their “family.”

Before Bachelet’s comments, Deputy Human Rights High Commissioner Kate Gilmore lambasted the state of Alabama for trying to protect the lives of innocent children, calling the alleged attack on “women’s rights” a “crisis.” Another “human rights” spokesman for the UN also chimed in on the issue, saying the global body was “very concerned” about American states passing laws that “define all unborn children as persons.” In the UN’s view, murdering pre-born babies is a “human right,” while protecting the God-given right to life of those same children is a violation of human rights.

And before Bachelet even took over, her predecessor, a radicalized Islamic prince, was constantly attacking the United States and Trump. So extreme was Prince Zeid bin Ra’ad Al Hussein that he compared the American president’s tactics with those used by the Islamic State (ISIS). He also routinely attacked the God-given rights guaranteed in both the First and Second amendments to the U.S. Constitution, demanding “robust” gun control and draconian restrictions on free speech under the guise of “international human rights law.”

Of course, the UN has a very different view of “human rights” than Americans’ traditional understanding. America’s Founding Fathers declared that rights were endowed upon each individual by God, and that governments are created to protect those pre-existing, unalienable rights. The UN, by contrast, makes clear that governments and international instruments are the source of “rights” (really privileges) and that those pseudo-rights can be revoked or limited by government at will. In Article 29, the UN’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” states that those supposed “rights” may “in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

To understand the depth of the absurdity of UN’s self-proclaimed role as overseer of human rights, consider the fact that the mass-murdering communist dictatorship enslaving Venezuela was recently selected to sit on the UN Human Rights Council. The regimes enslaving Communist China, Cuba, Sudan, and other nations are also welcome. Or consider Bachelet’s own background as a notorious communist operative allied with mass murderer Fidel Castro and other Latin American barbarians. Considering that reality, it is no surprise that brutal dictators are celebrated by the fraudulent UN human rights bureaucracy, while liberty-minded nations are under relentless attack.

President Trump gave a devastating blow to this fraud by ordering the withdrawal of the U.S. government from the UN Human Rights Council in his first term. However, that is not enough. As American taxpayers fork over more than $10 billion each year to fund the UN, much of that money goes into demonizing the United States and trying to subvert its sovereignty. The only sustainable solution to this grotesque reality is a full withdrawal from the UN and all of its agencies. In his second term, Trump would do well to push for that goal with the passage of the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 204). Nothing less will do.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/35073-un-human-rights-boss-a-socialist-slams-trump

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Bill Lockwood: Irreconcilable Differences 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

A recent article in Market Watch by Shawn Langlois highlights a frightening prospect for America’s future. A new survey released by the non-profit Victims of Communism in Washington, D.C., 36% of millennials say they approve of communism, which is up about 10 percentage points from a year ago. Added to that is that 70% of millennials say they are “likely to vote” for a socialist candidate. Further, 22% of the same age bracket say that “private property ought to be abolished.”

This is not merely about lack of education of the youth. It is about mal-education, specifically at the collegiate level, although High Schools and Junior Highs are preparing children for that brainwashing via the doctrine of Climate Change. As these young people begin assuming leadership roles in America, our society will be completely turned up-side down. This is the case precisely because socialism is not simply about economics, but is about a “cultural change.”

Charles Scaliger, in a recent article in The New American print magazine, explains. Socialism is “first and foremost… a social movement, not an economic one. The primary objective of socialism is to destroy the social and moral fabric of society, using economic control as a major tool.”

But this cultural change traces to a different view of human nature than that upon which western civilization has been built. This foundation is a biblical concept of man, nature, and society. Man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27) and life itself is a gift from God. Ideas of limited government, liberty and private property are by-products of this religious heritage.

For this reason, our Founders with one accord referred to this as a Christian nation. On the other hand, all forms of socialism reject this concept of human nature, and consequently, our free society forged by the Bible.

Socialism and Communism

Socialism and communism are two peas in the same pod, as seen from the Victims of Communism poll. Communism is merely a form of socialism. Both seek to overturn society, one by the bullet and the other by the ballot. Both trace their heritage to the philosophy of Karl Marx and his atheistic view of human nature and both therefore fervently reject the concept of human nature as presented by Moses in Genesis. Marx’s view in brief is that man’s nature is created solely by the economic system and one’s relationship to it. Society is therefore changed by altering the economic system.

That both socialism and communism are the same philosophy, consider also the fact that the Labour Party, the Socialist Party in Britain, put out in 1948 a Centennial Edition of The Manifesto of the Communist Party with an introduction written by a fellow socialist, Harold Laski. In 1961 the Socialist Party in America listed The Manifesto on its reading list as a socialist classic. Norman Thomas, who was known in yesteryear America as “Mr. Socialist,” said that the Manifesto was the first formulation of socialism.

Socialism and Fascism

Fascism is also another form of socialism. Professor Thomas DiLorenzo, in his excellent treatment of the entire topic in The Problem with Socialism, points out, for example, that Benito Mussolini was always a socialist. Fascism is merely national socialism as opposed to international socialism. National socialism, or fascism, is content to allow private business to survive as long as they are directed by government subsidies and policies—which is exactly where America is today.

View of Human Nature

Without suggesting that socialists follow Marx in everything, it is the case that all these views—socialism, communism, fascism– explicitly or implicitly accept the view of human nature that Karl Marx set forward. College students today are feasting at Marx’s table which eventually influences them adopt his world-view and specifically his view of human nature. This is why the differences today between the Left and Right are irreconcilable. These views begin at a different place regarding God, nature, and humanity. In reality, socialism itself is atheistic.

See how the atheistic view of human nature lies at the bottom. Mussolini wrote that “The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State….It is opposed to classic liberalism … [which] denied the State in the name of the individual.” (Quoted by DiLorenzo, 68).

The fact is is that Mussolini wanted the individual is to be subsumed into the State. What is the difference between this and the current proposals of the Democratic Party? State redistribution of wealth, income taxes, reparations, minimum wages, universal socialized medicine, guaranteed living income, and more make up the panoply of old socialist ideas pushed by the Democrats. All for the state, very little individual liberty. This is why the Democrats in America are always, and have always been, on a collision course with biblical values.

Vergilius Ferm, in his Encyclopedia of Religion, explains the depth of the conflict between Christianity and socialism:

“American socialism is heir to the tradition of materialism and atheism. It relies on the growth of automatic perfection, not indeed by virtue of the given natural faculties of man, but as the product of causally inevitable economic changes. The result is parallel to that of the liberal utopia, a self-contained world of man, individualistic here, collectivist there, and redeemed from evil, once and for all, by the economic process, much as this requires men conscious of their opportunity. This is an overtly anti-Christian doctrine.”

The social and moral fabric of American society must be remade, per the socialists, aka Democrats. This is also why the war in America occurring now is not simply about politics, left or right. It is all about biblical values and whether we will honor them.

 

William F. Jasper: Socialists Stop Spread of Success 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by William F. Jasper

The United Nations and the Socialist International are waging war against Chile and its conservative president, Sebastián Piñera. Since mid-October, Chile’s capital, Santiago, and other cities across the country have been wracked by violent riots, with dozens of people killed, thousands injured (including hundreds of police and military personnel), thousands arrested, and an enormous amount of destruction of public infrastructure and private property, including train stations, businesses, shops, and supermarkets.

The Piñera government declared a state of emergency and imposed curfews. President Piñera faces a National Congress that is stacked against him, as well as a hostile media, and leftist-controlled universities that serve as hotbeds for revolution.

The United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Michelle Bachelet, has responded to the turmoil by sending a team of UN investigators to Chile to examine allegations of human rights abuse by the Chilean government. This move by the UN should have caused suspicion from the get-go. Why? Well, for one thing, Michelle Bachelet is herself a former president of Chile (two terms, 2006-2010 and 2014-2018) and a virulent opponent of President Piñera. That alone should lead any reasonable observer to suspect, at the very least, that her UN “investigation” is likely to be politically motivated.

However, it goes much deeper than that. Bachelet, a hardcore Marxist, is an ardent admirer of the late communist dictator Fidel Castro, and, as one of her last acts as president of Chile, made a pilgrimage to Cuba to praise Fidel and meet with his designated successor and brother, Raúl Castro, the current communist dictator of Cuba. She is also a supporter of the Marxist regimes in Nicaragua and Venezuela.

In the 1970s, Bachelet left Chile and moved to communist East Germany, then one of the most oppressive dictatorships in the Soviet bloc. Moreover, Bachelet is a longtime member of, and was elected president while the leader of, Chile’s ultra-left Socialist Party, which is a member of the Socialist International, the global cabal of more than 135 national political parties from all continents, including former communist parties that have rebranded themselves as socialist or social democrat.  The secretary-general of the Socialist International is Luis Ayala, a radical Chilean who is a close comrade of Bachelet in the Socialist Party. Bachelet was selected for the UN high commissioner post by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, a former president of the Socialist International. Although barely known in the United States (because it is seldom mentioned by our controlled “mainstream” media — and is even largely ignored by our alternative media), the Socialist International (SI) virtually runs the United Nations and many of its agencies, with Guterres being only the most obvious example of its influence.

Another SI/UN alum is former Chilean President Ricardo Lagos, a former member of Chile’s Socialist Party and one of the Chileans often quoted in recent stories undermining President Piñera. He is also one of the few SI members named to the “Committee of Twelve Distinguished Members of the Socialist International.” In 2007, he was named as a UN special envoy on climate change, along with former SI vice president and UN functionary Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former prime minister of Norway.

Bachelet, Guterres, Lagos, Brundtland, and other SI/UN comrades are welcomed as honored guests at the CFR and other globalist gatherings. Bachelet and Lagos are both members of the elite Club of Madrid, as well as Inter-American Dialogue, where both have served as co-chairs.

The cause of Chile’s current “unrest,” according to the lords of the Fake News Media, was the government’s subway fare hike of 30 pesos, the equivalent of four U.S. cents. Anger over the fare increases, goes the standard line from media commentators, caused spontaneous, “student-led” flash mobs of hundreds of youths to jump the Metro turnstiles in protest, which then escalated to “youth-led” mobs setting buses and Metro stations on fire and looting stores, and then escalated still further and broadened into massive protests, supposedly motivated by “income inequality.”

This is the story we get from the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, CNN, PBS, and the rest of the Deep State media cartel. Most of these “news” reports take their cues on the issue from so-called experts at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Council of the Americas, Inter-American Dialogue, and similar globalist propaganda founts that posture as objective think tanks.

According to Amelia Cheatham, a “Special Assistant” at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), “The turmoil began on October 18 with student-led protests over a metro fare increase.” Her CFR blog post entitled “What’s Behind the Chile Protests?” states that “Political unrest is sweeping Chile, as impatience with inequality grows in what has been one of Latin America’s most prosperous and stable countries.”

President Piñera and other Latin American leaders paint a different picture. “We are at war against a powerful enemy, who is willing to use violence without any limits,” Piñera declared in a late-night televised statement on October 29. “We are very aware that [the perpetrators of riots] have a degree of organization, logistics, typical of a criminal organization,” he said. According to news reports from Chile, Cuban and Venezuelan nationals were arrested as instigators of the rioting. And Chile is not alone in this regard.

On October 22, Argentina’s National Security Council met to consider the wave of violent protest that is sweeping across Latin America. Following the meeting, Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Faurie pointed to Cuba and the Marxist dictatorship of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela as the source of the orchestrated upheavals. “They intend to intervene in the political, institutional and social lives of our countries, threatening us like a Bolivarian hurricane that brings in its winds hunger, poverty, dictatorship, the loss of liberty and a prison sentence,” Faurie charged. “Bolivarian” refers to the political philosophy of Venezuela’s founding father, Simón Bolívar, which has been expropriated and hybridized by Hugo Chávez, Nicolás Maduro, and others of the communist-Left to advance their socialist agendas.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/print-magazine/item/34153-socialists-stop-spread-of-success

William F. Jasper is an American journalist and author, and a senior editor of The New American, and long-time member of the John Birch Society.

David Horowitz: Anatomy of a Lynching/The political uses of race. 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by David Horowitz

Editor/Writer’s note: Anti-white racism and generalized ignorance so permeate our media elites and elected officials today that some common sense reminders are in order. Lynching – named after a Judge Lynch – was a form of Alice-in-Wonderland Frontier Justice: first comes the verdict and the punishment, then the trial.

Although a repugnant racial dimension eventually entered into its practice it was carried out against criminals — white as well as black — whose victims lynch mobs feared would not get justice in the courts. One third of all lynch victims were white. Impatience with due process is endemic to the progressive Left, the #MeToo mobs, the Destroy-Brett-Kavanaugh-Feminists and the Remove-President-Trump-Democrats. Why hold Star Chamber impeachment “inquiries” where the president has no rights if their purpose is really to inquire rather than what it obviously is — to convict and punish?
Below we are reprinting a Frontpage article by David Horowitz about how he learned the truth about the most famous lynching of all, and discovered what its real political agendas were. We are also linking a talk he gave on “progressive racism” which is in effect the lynching mentality of our time.

According to President Obama racism is “part of the DNA” of America, transmitted through the generations from its origins right to the present.  This statement is perhaps the most malicious libel ever uttered by an American president against his own country. It is true that racism became one of the rationales for slavery, an institution America inherited from the British Empire before abolishing it. But slavery existed in Africa for a thousand years before a white person ever set foot there, and for 3,000 years in all societies. It is what peoples of all races and ethnicities imposed on their enemies when they conquered them. Moreover, for 3,000 years no one declared slavery to be immoral – not Aristotle, not Moses, not Jesus, not the African slavers – until white Protestant Christians in England did so towards the end of the 18th Century. At that time, in Britain’s North American colonies a white slave owner named Thomas Jefferson wrote into the birth certificate of a new nation the proposition that liberty is a God-given right, which government cannot take away – and equality too. Within little more than a generation, and at the cost of 350,000 Union lives, slavery was abolished in America, and then rapidly throughout the Western hemisphere.

In other words, every black person alive in this country today owes his or her freedom to America – to the Americans who conceived this nation in liberty and gave their lives to make it so. That is the true DNA of America: liberty, not racism. An unappreciated effect of Obama’s libel is to persuade large numbers of black Americans that it is true, and thus to alienate them from their own country and make them feel like outsiders in a land whose heritage they are a part of. Black people are as American as any race or ethnicity who came or were brought to these shores. They arrived in 1619, before the Mayflower and have been an essential part of America’s culture and history ever since.

Sometimes it takes years to ingest so crucial a fact. Sometimes, even a lifetime is insufficient as President Obama has shown. Even then, the knowledge can be lost through the ignorance or prejudice of the next generations. In the 1960s radicals rallied around the slogan, “You can’t trust anyone over 30,” which was an expression of youthful arrogance and poor judgment. Because youth lack real world experience, the slogan “Be cautious about the conclusions of anyone under 30” would have been a more reasonable counsel.

When I was eleven years old, a book came into our progressive household titled We Charge Genocide. It was published by an organization calling itself the Civil Rights Congress and was a book-length petition calling on the United Nations to condemn the United States for conducting genocide against American Negroes (as they were then referred to). The frontispiece to the book featured a photograph of a lynching that took place in Indiana in August 1930. It was, in fact, the most famous photograph of a lynching, one that was the direct inspiration for Strange Fruit, Billie Holliday’s elegy for the victims. The photograph shows two black men hanging from the limbs of a tree surrounded by a crowd of whites. One man facing the camera points at the hanging bodies with a ghoulish grin.  Everybody who has seen any picture of a lynching has probably seen this photograph.

The image is horrifying but it took me more than 10 years before I had read enough to understand that lynching was actually not devised for black people. To be sure, as practiced, there was a racial dimension to lynching, and an evil one.  But in its origins lynching had no racial dimension. It was just frontier justice – “Let’s not waste time with trials and get on with the punishment.” In the course of my reading I also learned that a third of all known lynching victims – more than a thousand – were white. This tells us two important things: First, that lynching wasn’t just a practice against black people, and second that the victims were punished because they had allegedly committed crimes worthy of hanging. In other words, most lynchings were not about mobs of white racists grabbing black people and stringing them up because of their skin color. They were extra-judicial hangings to punish people for serious crimes of which they had been accused. This is not to say that racial prejudice was not an important factor, as evident in the fact that two-thirds of the lynching victims were black. There were probably prejudicial aspects to the cases where whites were targeted as well, though less obvious and fewer. That is why we provide due process to all as a constitutional right. In any case, the photograph of one lynching or many is not evidence of genocide.

The two men hanged in the famous photograph in We Charge Genocide were named Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith. A third man with them, James Cameron, who was sixteen and also black was not lynched. The three had been arrested, after being accused of murdering a young white factory worker and raping his girlfriend. A mob 2,000 strong had broken into the jail where they were being held, and taken the three men out, and then hanged Shipp and Smith from the tree.
I learned these facts by accident nearly fifty years after I first saw the photograph. I had tuned into a National Public Radio program on which James Cameron, who was then an old man, was being interviewed about what had taken place. According to Cameron, Shipp and Smith had actually committed the murder they were accused of. As for the rape, the white woman who was the alleged victim said afterwards that she had not been raped. So the rape charge was spurious. But the murder charge was not. This does not make the lynching right, but it does call into question whether there was a racial dimension to this incident after all.

Why didn’t the lynch mob hang James Cameron, who was also black and who was accused of the same crime? The answer is that Cameron claimed he didn’t want to participate in the robbery and murder, and stayed in the car. It is possible that he would have been hanged by the lynch mob anyway but the reason he wasn’t was this:  A member of the lynch mob, a white man, stood up for him and affirmed his innocence. Afterwards, Cameron was tried in court and convicted of being an accessory to the crime before the fact. He served four years in prison, and then spent the rest of his life fighting for civil rights, founding three chapters of the NAACP in Indiana. In 1991, the State of Indiana pardoned him. One can find all this out on Wikipedia, if one just looks up “Marion Indiana lynching.”

We Charge Genocide featured the photograph of this lynching as a symbol of America’s racism – of its genocidal white racism. But once the facts are known, this claim is shown to be an unscrupulous misrepresentation of a troubled but more complicated reality. Other facts complicate it more. The genocide petition was presented to the U.N. in December 1951. But at this time a great civil rights revolution in America had already begun, in large part because Americans had just defeated an enemy dedicated to the idea of a “master race.” The conscience of a nation had been awakened, and racial barriers had begun to fall. In 1947 the military was integrated along with the civil service, and Jackie Robinson became the first black athlete allowed to participate in America’s national sport. It was only a couple of years before Brown v. Board of Education integrated the nation’s school systems, and only a few more before segregation and racial discrimination were banned by the Civil Rights Acts.

So why the charge of genocide – a campaign to exterminate an entire people – since it is obviously a malicious libel? It took me 40 years to put together all the facts to arrive at the answer: The Civil Rights Congress, the organization responsible for the petition, was a Communist Party front, and thus the genocide campaign was designed by people who wanted to create a “Soviet America” and help Russia – America’s mortal enemy – to win the Cold War. The extent of Moscow’s control of the American Communist Party was something that the world only learned as a result of the opening of the Soviet archives after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

At the same time the We Charge Genocide petition was being put together, Moscow was conducting a series of arrests in its East European satellites, followed by purge trials and executions many of whose targets were Jews. In Czechoslovakia these purges climaxed in a show trial of the top leaders of the Czech Communist Party who were accused of being part of a “Trotskyite-Titoite-Zionist conspiracy.” Of the thirteen Czech leaders hanged, eleven were Jews, which prompted an international outcry in which the Kremlin was accused of anti-Semitism, a charge it was desperate to counteract. In other words, the “We Charge Genocide” campaign was not about black Americans at all. It was about using blacks as a battering ram against the United States as part of a Kremlin effort to neutralize the bad publicity Moscow was getting for its purges of Jews in Eastern Europe, which then spread to the Soviet Union itself.

The use of blacks as a battering ram against opponents of the left is a progressive tradition that lives on today in the Democratic Party, and the latest version of the Civil Rights Congress is the heavily funded organization called Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter is officially endorsed by the Democratic Party and Democratic funders like George Soros have raised tens of millions of dollars to create a professional army to support its divisive mission. A month before the 2016 elections 100 of Black Lives Matter activists gathered at the University of California Irvine to attack the Los Angeles police department with this chant: “LAPD what you say? How many people have you killed today? LAPD you can’t hide. We charge you with genocide.”

The protest was one of hundreds in the last couple of years conducted across the nation to attack police departments for an alleged “genocidal” war against blacks. There is no factual basis for this charge. According to the Washington Post, for example, police shootings make up 12% of all white and Hispanic homicide deaths, which is three times the proportion of black deaths resulting from police shootings. According to FBI data, over the last 10 years 40% of cop killers have been black, while police officers are killed by blacks at a rate 2.5 times higher  than the rate at which blacks are killed by police.

Equally preposterous is Black Lives Matter’s claim – echoed by many Democrats – that America is a “white supremacist” nation. This is a racist claim, implicating all whites, and particularly absurd since America – now completing the two terms of a black presidency – is perhaps the most tolerant nation on earth. Since the 1990s, America has had two black Secretaries of State, a black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, three black heads of the National Security Council, and thousands of black elected officials at state and municipal levels. Major American cities like Atlanta, Philadelphia and Baltimore are run by blacks, and many more are governed by black mayors, black police chiefs, black judges, non-white majority city councils and black superintendents of schools. How ironic that more than half a century after the end of segregation and the passage of the Civil Rights Acts, after the integration of America’s military and schools and popular culture, this racist incitement should be the emblem of a movement for “social justice.”

FPM: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/10/anatomy-lynching-david-horowitz/

David Horowitz is an American conservative writer. He is a founder and president of the think tank the David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC); editor of the Center’s publication, FrontPage Magazine; and director of Discover the Networks, a website that tracks individuals and groups on the political left.

Alex Newman: Collusion? Deep State CFR Takes HUGE “Donation” From Putin Crony 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Alex Newman

Perhaps there really has been some Russia collusion. The globalist Deep State organization known as the Council on Foreign Relations is under fire after it was exposed taking a massive “donation” from Soviet-born oligarch Len Blavatnik (shown), a close crony of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin and his corrupt minions. The shady billionaire has also been showering money on U.S. politicians on both sides of the aisle.

The $12 million “gift” to the CFR, reported publicly by the New York Post and other publications, was described as “influence buying” by critics. Beyond that, it appears to highlight the broader problem of systemic corruption within the U.S. foreign-policy establishment, which will gladly take “donations” to its foundations in exchange for favors. The Clinton Foundation, for instance, has long been accused of serving as an influence-buying machine for foreign governments. It seems the CFR has a similar problem.

The explosive revelation led to dozens of high-profile figures calling on the controversial “think tank” to return the money. In a letter dated September 18, the coalition of 56 critics noted that Blavatnik “acquired his initial wealth by way of highly questionable transactions in tandem with the regimes of [ex-Kazakhstan president] Nursultan Nazarbayev and Vladimir Putin.”

Then, he used shady tactics to keep and expand his fortune. “Blavatnik protected that wealth in part through strategic alliances with security personnel and practices that would surely be considered criminal in any democracy,” the letter continued, calling on the CFR to return the money to avoid “reputational damage” from associating with somebody like Blavatnik with “close ties to the Kremlin and its kleptocratic network.”

After citing some of the ultra-shady deals Blavatnik has been involved with, the coalition also highlighted his ties to Putin’s circle of cronies. “Blavatnik’s connections to corrupt Putin-supported oligarchs and officials are longstanding and well known,” they wrote. “For example, Blavatnik’s business partners include several individuals who are sanctioned by the United States government, such as Viktor Vekselberg, Oleg Deripaska, and Alexander Makhonov.” Citing Spanish wiretaps, the critics also suggested he had ties to the mafia.

“It is our considered view that Blavatnik uses his ‘philanthropy’— funds obtained by and with the consent of the Kremlin, at the expense of the state budget and the Russian people — at leading western academic and cultural institutions to advance his access to political circles,” the letter blasting the CFR explained. “Such ‘philanthropic’ capital enables the infiltration of the US and UK political and economic establishments at the highest levels.”

But CFR boss Richard Haass, a leading globalist architect, defended the donation and said the response from other CFR members to it had been overwhelmingly “positive.” In fact, the CFR’s website still has a glowing biography of Blavatnik, himself a CFR member, posted online, along with information touting the “Blavatnik internship program,” his giant donation will fund.

The gift by Blavatnik “will further CFR’s efforts to develop the next generation of leaders in government, academia and the private sector,” continued Haass, an anti-Trump globalist who has worked for many years to undermine U.S. national sovereignty. “We are proud to find our selves in such distinguished company,” he added.

On the CFR website, the deep state outfit touted the donation, too. “Blavatnik interns gain new insights into critical foreign policy issues and interact directly with leading experts and practitioners,” it said. “They are offered professional development training to complement their substantive work with a series of skill-based workshops, trainings, and career advice sessions as a foundation for future work in the field of foreign policy and international affairs, and beyond.”

Critics, though, were furious. A leading anti-corruption campaigner in the United States, Sarah Chayes, told the publication Bellingcat that the CFR’s willingness to accept the donation from Blavatnik’s foundation was a case study in the “soft enabling of kleptocracy.” In particular, she said it fit with Blavatnik’s history of working with “image launderers” to help him fix his reputation. Beyond that, “it broadcasts to the Kremlin that if you just disguise your money a little bit, the U.S. system is still fully penetrable.”

Other critics were outraged, too. “It is more than disappointing to see the Council on Foreign Relations take millions of dollars from a shady billionaire like Leonid Blavatnik, and excuse it by claiming the money will help interns,” former chief counsel Elise Bean with the U.S. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations was quoted as saying. “The CFR is helping to neutralize Mr. Blavatnik’s notoriety and extend his influence by enabling him to hitch a ride on its once sterling reputation [sic]. It is painful to see how money talks and the odor of corruption is ignored by CFR leadership when it comes to the Blavatnik millions.”

Another critic who signed the letter, former assistant secretary of state for democracy and human rights David Kramer, lambasted the CFR as well. “All organizations should feel an extra burden to perform due diligence, especially in light of the Epstein scandal with MIT,” Kramer told The New York Post. “We object to Blavatnik’s ties to the Putin regime and how he made his money. I’m sure there are CFR members who are happy to receive a $12 million donation, but if they did some further research, they might raise some questions.”

To understand just how influential the CFR is, consider then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments when it opened an office in Washington. “I have been often to the mother ship in New York City, but it is good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department,” she said. “We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

But far from being a club just for left-wing Democrats, countless leading Republicans are involved too. In a now-infamous video at the CFR’s headquarters, Vice President Dick Cheney bragged that he used to be a director at the organization. “But I never mentioned that when I was campaigning for re-election back home in Wyoming.” The reason why he would seek to conceal his affiliation with the radical think tank is no surprise — thanks to its relentless support for tearing down U.S. independence, it has become politically toxic, especially with conservative voters.

Its anti-American agenda has been known for decades, too. The late U.S. Admiral Chester Ward, a CFR member for almost 20 years before defecting and blowing the whistle, exposed their schemes for all to see. “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government,” warned the widely respected U.S. admiral. “This lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership.”

Ward also hinted at the reason why the CFR’s members would be so violently hostile to Trump’s campaign promises. “In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as ‘America First,’” he said.

Blavatnik has also poured huge sums into the political coffers of American politicians, ranging from President Donald Trump’s inauguration committee and globalist Republican senators to the campaigns of fringe left-wing Democrats Kamala Harris and Ron Wyden. Top recipients among GOP lawmakers include Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and neoconservative Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

 

Blavatnik, a billionaire, maintains U.S. and British citizenship, but was born in Soviet Ukraine. Far from being a self-made businessman, the oligarch made his fortune during the post-Soviet “privatization” of resources — in particular, in his case, aluminum and energy. Following the ostensible collapse of communism, which defectors such as Anatoly Golitsyn warned was a ruse to deceive the West, numerous communist bigwigs connected to the mass-murdering regime re-invented themselves as “businessmen.” And they benefited enormously from the corrupt “privatization” programs that basically handed over vast wealth to “former” communist bosses.

In one especially bizarre “deal” orchestrated by Putin, Blavatnik reportedly earned $7 billion from the sale of an oil company to the state-owned Russian energy giant Rosneft. According to investigations cited in the letter, the Russian government mysteriously overpaid by as much as $3 billion. “Such unexplained sums can then be used by Putin-linked private-sector individuals to further Putin’s interests in foreign countries, including by making donations,” the letter said.

As the scandal surrounding donations made to various institutions by pedophile (and CFR member) Jeffrey Epstein continues to grow, critics of the donation to the CFR warned that the elitist outfit would suffer “reputation damage.” Indeed, Epstein, the elite pedophile who regularly flew prominent CFR-linked people such as President Bill Clinton to his “orgy island,” donated a large sum of money to the CFR, as well. He was a member of the organization, in addition to his membership in the CFR-linked Trilateral Commission and other Deep State fronts.

Another shady figure whose name recently surfaced in connection with establishment circles in Washington, D.C., is Bulgarian-born operative Alexander Vasilev Mirchev. Among other concerns, critics have seized on Mirchev’s well-documented links to the murderous “former” communist regime in Bulgaria, which slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. The Bulgarian “consultant” also has close ties to the regime in Kazakhstan as well as to Putin cronies. According to Bulgarian media reports, Mirchev has been on the radar of U.S. law enforcement for some time, and even came to the attention of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

While it is encouraging to see the growing backlash against Deep State organizations, the outrage needs to go much deeper. For example, amid all the hysteria about alleged “Russian collusion” involving Trump, almost nobody has discussed CFR luminary Henry Kissinger’s close ties to Putin. Indeed, the Russian strongman has publicly referred to Kissinger — a leading proponent of a globalist “New World Order” — as a “trusted adviser” and a “friend.” The two even go to each other’s houses for meals. And yet, the establishment media has said virtually nothing, and Muller is nowhere to be found.

Americans should use this opportunity to demand a proper congressional investigation of the CFR. Late John Birch Society Chairman Larry McDonald, a liberty-minded congressman from Georgia whose plane was shot down by a Soviet fighter jet in 1983, tried to get Congress to investigate the group decades ago. With Putin’s cronies stuffing the CFR’s coffers with suspect cash, a formal investigation into the group — its agenda, its funding, its ties to Russia, and more — is desperately needed. Perhaps Mueller and House Democrats might find some real Russian collusion, after all.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/33676-collusion-deep-state-cfr-takes-huge-donation-from-putin-crony

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

« Older Entries