Tyrants don't know that they are tyrants. Darkness never reveals itself as evil, but as an angel of light. Evil doers do not recognize the danger of their actions because they are not committing evil for the sake of evil, but perform their deeds with the best of intentions for the common good for all of humanity. The end-game, after all, is a collectivist utopia, and how can anyone argue against a perfect society where we are all brothers and sisters sitting among the flowers talking about how much we love each other?
To the political pragmatist a perfect society is one where the individuals of the community finally release themselves from the bonds of the evolutionary concept of "survival of the fittest," and give in to a mutually cooperative society, a communal society, where one's personal concerns never exceed those of the community. The collective, in a tyrant's utopia, becomes the sole purpose for living, and the members of that society become nothing more than organisms that function together for the betterment of the overall brotherhood of humankind.
The journey to that utopia, however, can be a difficult one, because individuality is a tough habit for the average human to let go of. The person must be socially engineered to let go of their individuality, and be educated in the joys of having no possessions, no wealth, and no individual desires. Only then can the utopia take full shape, and achieve a fully functioning structure. However, there are those who refuse to relinquish their individual freedoms, their monetary incentives, and their love affair with being able to make their own choices that may, or may not, be beneficial to the collective community. Therefore, the opposition must be silenced, and forced to comply with the new camp, or be eliminated from the community altogether. On the path to utopia, a society must be turned against itself until it abhors the values that led to its prosperity, and then it may be rebuilt in the manner the ruling elite requires through revolution. Then, a new generation can be raised that has no memory of the old society, and therefore, no desire to return to the oppression of liberty.
Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals was written by radical statist and community organizer Saul Alinsky, his last book, published in 1971 shortly before his death.
Considered a tough talking, street smart agitator to his liberal activist followers, Alinsky’s popularity was among those that sought reform, and the birth of socialist programs that would allegedly level the equality playing field. Alinsky led the battle against the politicians and corporations of his day, while devising a strategy to topple the capitalistic society in America.
Nobody truly knows if today’s liberal progressives are students of Alinsky’s teachings, but Alinsky’s ghost seems to have been resurrected during the Barack Obama presidency because of the similarities between the Obama administration’s tactics, and the strategies promoted by Alinsky. Not all liberal left progressive Democrats have read Alinsky's writings, or know about Alinsky's tactics, but his strategies are universal, and everyone to the left of center in the political arena, from President Obama and Hillary Clinton, on down to your local tyrant on the city council, is playing by Alinsky's rules.
The statists on the left, as per Alinsky's teachings, portray a level of power that they don't actually have. The hardcore progressives in this country may only comprise 14% of the population, and their allies inhabiting the homosexual agenda are only about 2% of the population. Yet, they have a majority of Americans believing that one in four people are gay, and that the nation has taken a final leftward lurch that we cannot pull out of.
Coupled with the younger generation who are willing to commit violent agitation after being indoctrinated in the school system, the rise of the liberal left even has conservatives believing they are no longer the majority in this country.
Newt Gingrich, during his 2012 presidential campaign was among those verbally referring to Saul Alinsky, stating that the Republican battle against Barack Obama is “American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky…If you believe as we do in the Declaration of Independence and you think that's a better source than Saul Alinsky, welcome to the team…The president believes in a kind of Saul Alinsky radicalism which would lead to a secular European socialist model."
Andrew Breitbart picked up on Obama’s likely connection to Saul Alinsky’s teachings, commenting on his website, "the media does not want you to know that the president is a radical's radical whose presidency itself is a love song to a socialist 'community organizer.'"
Gingrich and Breitbart brought to the attention of Americans that Obama is something worse than a socialist and a radical. It was becoming apparent that Obama's administration is guided by Alinsky's ideas. Breitbart, wrote another conservative blogger, had caught "the president with his hand in the communist cookie jar."
After Obama entered the White House, Fox News' Glenn Beck linked the new President to Alinsky, whom Beck viewed as a Marxist Machiavelli whose ideas for radical change had infiltrated the Democratic Party and mainstream liberalism.
Saul Alinsky reshaped activism in America by bringing the art of agitation to the angry urban neighborhoods and religious congregations during the height of a progressive uprising against the Vietnam War. These successes marked the beginning of modern community organizing - from which Barack Obama was bred and trained.
Alinsky's books claimed to provide a a vision for a renewed democracy. Learned constitutional originalists and history buffs know that democracy is the problem. Democracy is the road to socialism, as Karl Marx put it. Democracy is mob-rule, which turns into mob violence. Alinsky knew this. He activated social workers and activists, empowering them to question the decisions made by those in power. The organizer's job, he said, is to agitate people to recognize their own self-interest and then help them mobilize to challenge the bastions of power and privilege. Organizers have to show people that many problems they view as personal troubles can only be solved through collective action.
Alinsky taught that confrontation and conflict were often necessary to change power relations. One way to achieve that, he believed, was to "personalize" an issue -- to identify the person who has the power and authority to make a decision that will change institutional practices. Alinsky believed it was necessary to "rub raw the resentments of the people in the community." That meant getting people involved in small-scale battles so they could experience success, and then take that confidence to tackle larger targets and issues.
During the 1960s, Alinsky was particularly scornful of the student New Left and the campus anti-war movement. He believed that they relied too much on protests, demonstrations, and media celebrities and did not understand the importance of building organizations. He also considered their sometimes-revolutionary rhetoric silly, utopian, dogmatic, and alienating to their potential working-class base.
Alinsky's ideas took hold and influenced organizers and activists around the country. Community groups emerged and adopted Alinsky's ideas. Environmental organizations drew on Alinsky's ideas, as well.
Tens of thousands of organizers and activists have been directly or indirectly influenced by Alinsky's ideas about organizing. Ones like Barack Obama did not work for Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation but for another church-based community organizing group in Chicago's poor neighborhoods from 1985 to 1988.
The dismantling of America is a purposeful endeavor being orchestrated by design. The statists who have taken full control of one political party, is nearing their goal of having fully infiltrated both political parties, and are committing a coup that is designed to fundamentally change the American System. Through their revolutionary coup they are challenging the concepts of the Freedom of Speech and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Religious institutions are under attack, and the complicit press is assisting the statists in destroying our Judeo-Christian foundation. The freedom of information, now a forgotten relic in the minds of the mainstream media, is even under assault in technology, with the federal communications commission seizing control of the internet in a recent departmental vote. As crime skyrockets, the occurrence of illegal search and seizure is also going up. Of course, the lack of due process has been with us for a while, through the IRS, and Child Protective Services. The court system has become nothing more than a rubber stamp for the statists, interpreting the law any way they desire, and using it to silence dissent.
We have betrayed, and cheapened, life with abortion and euthanasia, while poisoning the concept of equality with "fairness" and the idea of "equal outcome." We have allowed the federal government to crush property rights from real estate to personal possessions. The statists have taken over the education of our youth, and with programs like Common Core, are dumbing down the future of America with a curriculum that is indoctrinational in nature. The entertainment industry has sold out to tyranny, and promotes, along with the politicians, class warfare, civil unrest, and the vision of a dim world. Operation Jade Helm reminds us of the Department of Homeland Security list of offenses that makes one a domestic terrorist - a definition that is, in its simplest terms, one that places any dissent to statism as being radical, defining all of those who dare to stand against the statists as being domestic terrorists. The condition of needing to deal with the constitutionalist radicals (or should we say "rebels") has convinced the statists to work on eliminating the concept of the Freedom of Association, largely through political correctness, but the law is following obediently, as will the police state.
Benjamin Franklin said, "Only a virtuous society is capable of freedom," so morality has been targeted. A God-fearing society places biblical standards above those of a tyrannical government, so the faith that led the nation to prosperity must be squashed. Modernism, or shall we say "humanism," must become the religion of the day. Human Nature is easy to sway, and the citizens are easy to turn away from God, for all they need are gifts from the treasury to convince them that tyranny is in their best interest. It is the tyrant's goal to provide everything they can in material benefits to the citizens, for if a citizen is being taken care of by a benevolent government, the citizen will welcome bondage, and turn away from the religion of his father.
The gifts are swiftly taken away through taxation, but the citizens welcome taxes because as Karl Marx explained, progressive taxation allows for a redistribution of wealth, a way to punish the rich for daring to succeed - and it is all accomplished in the name of "fairness," "equality," and "social justice." In the end, the economy suffers because the takers begin to outnumber the producers, so the government is forced to print fiat money, to load the system with artificial wealth, in the hopes that bondage can survive the absence of a free market.
If any dissent remains after tyranny gains a foothold, the statist will then use mental health as an excuse to disarm, contain, and arrest any remaining rebels. The statists will do all of this with the assistance of the international community, for internationalism will also help stamp out any nation that dares to seek liberty and stand against the global understanding of a worldwide ruling elite. The citizenry will fall in line nicely, for they will be told that their bondage to government will save the planet from an environmental disaster, and a standing army policing the streets will protect them from the radicals who dare to unpatriotically stand against the political elite. So as the government takes over the means of production, redefines the family unit, and uses the village to raise the children (under the watchful eye of government minions), the people fall into a condition of slavery. But the people will relish their peace and safety, for by then, all opposition will have been silenced, and eliminated.
"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism." - Karl Marx
The politicians are always working on tweaking freedom of speech because political correctness has turned out not to be oppressive enough. They use back doors and side entrances to attack freedom of speech, because if they came in the front door, you would know what they were up to, and you would use your freedom of speech to stop them. The political leaders tell you their actions against your liberty is for your own protection, because apparently you can't be trusted with it.
In today's political environment we have to be careful what we say and write because we don't want to offend someone who carries in their pocket a desire to destroy us. Government, therefore, in the name of decency and "the right thing to do," limit our speech through any means necessary. Political campaigns have become one of their favorite targets, for if you use your freedom of speech in support of your favorite candidate, the ruling elite might lose their positions of power. Therefore, in the 2016 election, the liberal left is going full throttle, using violence to shutdown their opposition, and mini-riots to keep their opposition from having a chance to gain a position of power.
Curbing freedom of speech in association with political campaigns through monetary limitations and violent agitation is not the only assault currently being launched against freedom of speech. Another side entrance into limiting the free speech of Americans is through the claim that government is trying to protect speech in media, and online.
Double-speak?
The leftists finally had to abandon the Fairness Doctrine, which required a ready response in opposition to any political opinion dealt on the air, be it television or radio, because people realized it was a way for government to control opinion in the media. So, defeated by the loss of the Fairness Doctrine, the ones who wish to take away freedom of speech have turned to the internet, calling their bid for government dictatorship over the web "Net Neutrality."
The concept presented, in its simplest form, is that private enterprise can't be trusted. The deep pocketed profit-hounds will try to make money off of you by charging for internet access in tiers, as cable companies have done with television content. Since the capitalist pigs want to charge you for their services as they create more innovation in the industry, government must protect access to the internet by the average Joe-Public. In order to protect the product that internet providers want to make impossible for you to be able to afford, government must step in and take control, and dictate the terms, for your protection - which will in turn halt all innovation.
Congress has rejected the idea over and over, and so has the courts (not that that matters), so the FCC (which falls under Obama's Executive Branch) illegally took matters into their own hands. But seizing that power is not enough. . . it never is with these people. They want more. The Democrat Party wants to move forward to make sure that not only Net Neutrality becomes the law of the land with sweeping new powers, but that it extends way beyond just the internet. Remember, the ruling elite truly believes that if government is not controlling something, and dictating terms over everything attached, the greedy choices of individuals trying to make a profit will ruin everything.
Individualism at any level sickens these people. They want to criminalize individual dissent, be it punishment for denying the man-made climate change hoax, or punishing people for daring to not fully accept the mental illnesses of homosexuality or being a cross-dresser (and mutilating one's genitals to try to look like the gender that doesn't match one's chromosomes). As far as they are concerned, that kind of free choice and thought must be bound, gagged, and put out of commission. . . but that's a different conversation.
Liberal left statists say that freedom is an immoral free-for-all, but the theory of a free market is not true. It is their job to make sure you are willing to be as freaky sexually as you want, while killing any greedy drive for profit. And if you don't comply, they'll create laws to force big business to kill their own businesses with bad business practices and nobody will be able to combat it with a better product because the big business types would never be allowed to sell their product for profit.
If those who would take your freedom of speech from you are willing to suspend suburban Chicago firefighters because they refused to remove patriotic stickers posted on their helmets and lockers two days before the 9/11 remembrance, riot at Trump rallies to silence his supporters and the Republican candidate, and if they are willing to riot at the drop of the hat if anyone (without evidence) calls a white cop racist, how long before the same kind of action will be taken against you for daring to post material in opposition to the reigning political faction in Washington on a website, in a newspaper, or in a video? Who long before it becomes a crime to say anything that is against leftism, Islam or homosexuality while walking on the sidewalk?
If you believe it is in your best interest to allow government to take power over certain things, it won't be long before government takes power over certain things that are not in your best interest.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment