IT IS HAPPENING HERE!! THE FALL OF AMERICA TO RADICALISM!!


Some people wonder how a great civilization like Russia turned to
communism. And, how did a nation with so many well-educated people
like Germany bring Hitler to power? And, many have been asking, 'can
it happen here?'    When we look at the Obama phenomenon, the answer
is yes. Indeed, it is happening. And, it's even more pathetic than
with the Russians and Germans. Though Russia was a great civilization,
most of its people were ignorant and uneducated. And, Russia had done
through 3 years of war which killed millions and destroyed the
economy.  People became desperate and supported the communists who
promised land, peace, and bread.
As for the Germans, we must keep in mind that they resisted the
radicals of both left and right for 25 years. Germans from 1918 to
1933 went through perhaps the worst economic crisis in modern European
history--at least in Western/Central Europe--, but for the most part,
they tried to stick to democracy. But, the Great Depression that
rocked the world in 1929 and got worse in the early 30s drove more
Germans to vote for Hitler. Even so, Hitler only got 35% of the vote
in 1933. So, Germans turned to radicalism ONLY because they were in
the throes of hell. They turned a blind eye to the dark sides of
Nazism because they were hungry for bread, work, and social order.
And, of course, the Nazis and their supporters were careful to conceal
or underplay the more radical ideas of National Socialism. And, there
were SA thugs in the streets to brutalize the opponents of the Nazis.
Anyway, both Russia and Germany turned to radicalism in truly dire
times when the sky seemed to be falling.

But, what can we say about Americans who are turning to a closet-
Marxist in a time of relatively mild economic downtown?  Most
Americans must know that Obama is the student of Wright and Ayers.
Obama's core philosophy is far leftism.  Like Hitler, he's chose
opportunism and made alliances and won the support of Mainstream
people by 'not making sudden moves'. But, it's all an act. In his
core, Obama is a black nationalist and a Marxist. Also, an
international Marxist who wanted to transfer 350 billion dollars of
American tax payer money in the next 4 yrs to the third world--mostly
Africa. For 20 yrs, he had no problem listening to the sermons,
lectures, and diatribes of Jeremiah Wright. He sought out Bill Ayers
the domestic Marxist terrorist on his own.
Of course, the media have not covered this much. The media will say
they did cover some of it but it didn't gain 'much traction', and so
they dropped it. But, it didn't gain much traction because the media
let it go after mentioning it a few times.  The media decides what
does or doesn't have traction. If the media had brought up the issue
over and over, it would have gained traction. Suppose McCain has ties
to far-right figures. If the media covers it once or twice and then
drop it, it won't have much traction. But, if the media cover it night
and day, week after week, month after month, it gains traction. Bill
Ayers connection hasn't gained much traction because Media have not
attached wheels to it. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy on the part of
the media. They underreport or hide certain stories, and then they say
they didn't cover it much because it didn't have much traction. 99% of
the time, 'traction' of any news story is a matter of what the media
do with them. Also, Obama's connections to Ayers and Wright are so
distressing and disturbing that it was irresponsible on the media to
cover it just mildly. Obama didn't just know those people passingly
but was part of their life and career. So, the media have been to
Obama what Goebbels had been to Hitler: the Ministry of Propaganda.
When Trent Lott made the speech at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday,
the media went crazy over it. When the Duke Lacrosse 'scandal'
happened, the media went totally crazy and covered all night and day
week after week(though the media suppressed the Knoxville massacre
where a gang of blacks attacked, raped, and murdered a white couple).
THAT gave traction to those stories. But, the media have not done the
same with Ayers or Wright. They have not given us long news stories
about the true natures of these men, what they've done, what they've
stood for, etc. or what their relation with Obama has been.  For this
reason, many people still don't know what Ayers or Wright have done in
life or what they really represent. Where is the 20/20 or 60 Minutes
special on the life of Ayers and what he may have taught Obama?
Of course, the media are the way they are because journalism schools
are run by liberals and leftists.  Columbia school of journalism is
one of the most prestigious, and guess who is one of its top
professors?  Victor Navasky, an editor at The Nation magazine who,
like Obama and Ayers, is a closet-Marxist. Navasky is the man who,
against all mounting evidence, argued that the likes of Alger Hiss,
Rosenbergs, etc were all innocent and merely victims of a red-baiting
witchhunt. And, these professors taught our top journalists. So, most
of our top journalists have come under the tutelage or influence of
Marxists and fellow-travelers. Victor Navasky is simply Bill Ayers who
teaches journalism. And, we can guess as to what he's been teaching
his students over the years. So, we have a media made up of people
taught and trained by radicals. Why would these people try to OUT the
real Obama when they secretly share his radical ideas and values?

Also, it must be understood that for the Left, lying is not only a
necessity but a virtue in politics . All politicians have to lie
sometimes. They know it's a necessary evil. But, there is an honor
principle that lying must be the last resort. With the Left and other
radicals, lying is a necessary GOOD. Despite their claim to help the
people, they really look upon the people as idiots who need to be led
by all-knowing radical intellectuals and controlled by all-powerful
bureaucrats. So, they'll lie to the people anyway, anytime, anyhow to
gain power.  It's been said that the Clintons lied TOO EASILY, but the
same could be said for Obama. McCain doesn't seem comfortable when he
tells political lies. And, Bush trips over himself when he has to lie.
And, Romney looks awkward when he lies and flipflops. But, Obama seems
most at home when he lies and lies and lies. And, the media don't call
him on this lies becausel, wink wink, they see it as part of the
radical plan to take power. And, Saul Alinsky didn't start this. It
goes back to Lenin and Trotsky. Leftist intellectuals regard
themselves as knowing The Truth and having The Solutions. They feel
that most people are too stupid, ignorant, dumb, reactionary, and
'bitter' to handle The Truth--just like children can't either.
Parents or adults feel justified in lying to kids because kids have to
be 'protected' and 'looked out for'.  Parents must have power over
children and censor the 'truth' for them. Children are too dumb for
The Truth. This is the leftist view of most Americans. We are too
stupid to have so much freedom and independence. We are not only
ruining ourselves, we are not only ruining our own nation, but we are
ruining the entire world with our infantile greed. The easiest way for
adults to gain power over kids is through fear. Since leftists can't
scare us like the old communists did--threatening to send us to labor
camps--, they scare us that if we don't put them in office, the Big
Bad Bogeyman will come and devour us. So, we need their compassion,
guidance, and portection.
For the left, lying is a virtue. It is a proud rulebook tactic.  It's
like Lenin and Trotsky promising land, freedom, peace, and bread to
gain power, and then turning the people into slaves. It's all there in
Animal Farm. Pigs know everything and other animals must follow the
pigs on faith.

Just notice the way Obama lies and lies and without any conscience
whatsoever. And, look at how the media go along with his lies. Some
say the Media are kool aid drinkers, but they know what they are
doing. They are more like Kool Aid suppliers.
Take the whole charade about Obama and religion. Most liberals and all
leftists are not religious.  Obama joined the church--the most marxist
and radical one at that--only because he knew that the people--the
suckers--were religious. The people at Newsweek and Time have been
trashing religion for decades. So, why are they promoting Obama as a
man of faith--when they poo-pooed Bush whenever he mentioned God?
It's because the liberal and leftist elite look upon the people as
stupid. Since people are stupid and religious, why not use the theme
of religion to make Obama appealing to the 'religous retards'? That is
their game. This is not about Obama or secular liberals serving God,
but about making God serve Obama.  The media charge the Republicans
for acting as though God is on their side, but the liberal media have
been  telling us that God is on Obama's side.  It's all a lie and a
charade. You'd think Obama would be embarassed with all of this, but
it doesn't faze him because his radical rulebook extols lying and
deceit as a virtue in politics.
Indeed, lying is as cool to leftists as espionage was for the Soviet
Union.  It's not a necessary evil but necessary good.

Again, all sides lie. But, there's lying as necessity and lying as
virtue and as a PERMANENT STRATETGY. Trotsky spoke of permanent
revolution, and Antonio Gramsci the Italian Marxist spoke of 'cultural
hegemony'. Cultural Hegemony really amounts to permanent lying. Unlike
Leninism, Cultural Hegemonism seeks to gain power through the
institutions of capitalism and 'bourgeois' democracy. Radicals would
go into business, get fancy education, gain access to institutions,
and work from within--like termites--to bring down or radically change
the system.  If open and honest Khrushchev said, 'we will bury you',
the likes of Obama thinks 'we will burrow into you--and change you
from inside'.  Since the radicals took over the academia and the
media, our most intelligent, talented, and creative people in the
arts, entertainment, etc tend to be of liberal and leftist stripe.
And, anti-intellectualism, non-intellectualism, and uncultured-ism on
the part of conservatives didn't challenge this order. It's truly
embarassing that an average anti-Western/anti-American leftist does
more to create culture and study Western culture than an average
conservative whose idea of culture is TV, Nascar, Hollywood movies
made by liberals, etc.  Your average conservative knows and cares far
less about the great cultural achievements of the West--arts, music,
literature, philosophy, etc--than your average leftist.  Indeed, many
conservatives knock people who care about culture as 'elitists'.
There is bad elitism but there is also good elitism, but conservatives
seemed to have forgotten that.

Anyway, cultural hegemonism can only work through deceit and lying
because radicals seek to gain power THROUGH than directly AGAINST the
capitalist/democratic system. So, they must use lingo that appeals to
the mainstream--vaguer the better: change, hope, reform, etc, which
can mean anything to anyone.  This has also been the strategy of
ACORN. And, these people and organizations don't feel any guilt, any
shame, any doubt.  Indeed, they feel pride. They have such contempt
and hatred for the capitalist/bourgeois system that they feel
absolutely justified in telling whatever lies to get more power.
Honesty and directness are as anathema to them as earnestness is to a
jazz musician. Honesty is lame. Shame is lame. All that matters is the
radical will and style to lie in order to gain power.

Anyway, Lenin and Hitler, two radicals who hid their true agendas,
came to power during times of tremendous duress. But, the idea that
Americans are willing to vote for an obviously deceitful closet-
Marxist, black nationalist, and international welfare-ist just because
we're facing an economic downtown is truly pathetic. Are we so stupid
that we are willing to believe and swallow the vague 'mainstream'
Obama over what he really is? The record is all there to see. Obama's
first Book should be called Dreams of My Struggle. And, his second
book was inspired by Wright, who's no better than a black Hitler. It
ought to be called Audacity of Hate. We are about to elect someone who
chose the likes of Wright as his mentor.   Was Goebbels, Himmler, or
Hess any better than Hitler? If not, why is Obama any better than his
mentor Wright? Obama didn't disown Wright. He only wink wink pretended
to, and the media let him get away with it instead of pressing him on
the issue.  That too was part of the radical strategy of lying and
deceit.  McCain has been afraid to touch that issue because he'll be
accused of neo-McCarthyism. Of course, if McCain has far-right ties,
it would be fair game for the media to attack him on that over and
over.

So, for those who ask, 'can it happen here?', the answer is IT IS
HAPPENING HERE.  Recall that Hitler started out as a hater and
rabblerouser, a community organizer. Both Hitler and Obama were angry
young men with strong prejudices and radical ideas. But, both found
out that that is no path to power. So, Hitler toned down his rhetoric,
made friends with the bourgeoisie, acted as though he didn't really
mean what he wrote in Mein Kampf. He even fooled a lot of German Jews
as most of them chose to remain in Germany when Hitler came to power.
German Jews thought Hitler had either said those crazy things long ago
or said them just for political expediency. They though they could
work with Hilter, and Hitler would mellow out. Boy, were they wrong.
And, remember how Allende came to power in Chile and then used
democracy to undermine democracy and bring Chile to the brink of total
communist takeover? The Chilean military took out Allende and saved
the country whereas the German military allowed Hitler to take more
and more power until Germans lost their freedoms.

Anyway, the REAL Obama is all there in his life story. It is one of
black nationalism, Marxism, ties to radical groups, anti-Americanism,
international socialism, etc. Will Obama be an American Hitler?  No,
he won't gain as much as power as Hitler or Allende. But, he will not
only be the most radical president but the most powerful president
ever. He will not only have a Democratic Congress but the full and
total support of the Media and Academia--dominated by liberal and
leftwing Jews who are mainly responsible for his rise to power. Obama
and the democrats will even use 'fairness doctrine' to clamp down on
Talk Radio and will pass 'hate speech laws' that will ban far right
speech but will allow far left speech(as is the case in Europe and
Canada.) There is a book on the Nazi Seizure of Power. What we are
seeing is a Leftwing Jewish and Black Marxist seizure of power. Obama
will not be checked by the media. The media will only be his ministry
of propaganda. The academia, which is supposed to be a place of
independent thought challenging the powers-that-be, will function
like the official intellectual class in communist nations. Hollywood
is also for Obama and will function as the Ministry of Culture.
Cultually, intellectually, politically, and even economically, the
liberal and leftwing Jews will have and control everything through
Obama. I say even economically because most of the top guys in the new
technologies that are creating the billionaires of the future are
Jews, and over 90% of Jews happen to be liberal or leftist. Why are
they leftist even though they are rich? Because Jewish culture and
tradition call for both profits and prophets. Jews want to control
wealth but also want to use that wealth to control the Truth(media)
and control power(politics).  So, liberal and leftwing Jews want to
amass huge fortunes in business and then support their guys to gain
control over information and power. When we say liberal media, we
really mean the Jewish media. When we say the academia, we know it's
largely Jewish. Also, we know that Jewish and black power are
especially powerful because it's politically incorrect to speak truth
to Jewish or black power.  It's 'anti-semtic' or 'racist'. The liberal
Jews in the media and academia brainwashed us this way. And,
conservatives fell for this B.S. by jumping on the bandwagon of
screaming 'racist' over everything when they should have challenged
the terminological concept from the very beginning.

Also, it's about time conservatives woke up. They blame Obama for
having anti-semitic friends, but notice that over 90% of Jews will
vote for Obama. What do conservatives get from Jews for being so
slavish toward Jews?  Conservatives have supported Israel, have railed
against 'anti-semites', have stood up to Islamic terrorism, etc, etc.
Yet, over 90% of Jews support Obama, despise Bush, and look down on
McCain and Palin. Most Jews are NOT the friends of conservatives no
matter what conservatives do for Jews. Your average Jew laughed at
Sandra Bernhardt's jokes about blacks raping Sarah Palin.   NY, the
center of American culture and intellectual thought--and as thorougly
Jewish as any city can be--has been 100% for Obama.

The coming victory of Obama should finally force conservatives to
reassess their principles and practices. Conservatives have given Jews
everything, Jews have given conservatives almost nothing. Even neocon
Jews are dumping on Palin.   Jewish conservatives should be welcome
and valued within the movement, but the right must not write a blank
check to Jewish power. This is why conservatism should shift away from
the 'National Review' line to the 'American Conservative' line.
National Review has been taken over by neocons and Dilbertarians. And,
son of Bill Buckley, Christopher Buckley, hangs out with the NPR
crowd, is a snotnosed yuppie, and says he might vote for Obama because
he got a hard on for Obama's Dreams of Mein Kampf. If good writing
impresses Chris boy so much, why not goad Gore Vidal for president?
Vidal was certainly a better writer than Bill.
Christopher Buckley for Obama. What does this mean? It adds up to
fashionable yuppie Marxism. Marxism has become a radical chic
philosophy, lifestyle, and means to power for urban sophisticates, the
privileged, the snot-nosed, the sneering and smug jerks.

But, the problem goes back to 2000 when conservatives chose Bush over
McCain. McCain would have been a much better president--one of the
great ones--from 2001 to 2008. He would have done more to control
Republican Congress. He would have been a better war commander. But,
instead conservatives went with lackluster W or wimp.  Conservatives
figured a Buttheadlike dumbass would serve as the perfect puppet of
Old Money and Christian Right. Tax cuts for the rich alienated the
great middle. Religious Right social policies offended many
Americans.
Also, conservatives didn't fight on the cultural front but only in the
opinion front. Conservatives only had Talk Radio which only speaks to
the chorus. Meanwhile, popular culture remained in the control of
liberals who made the movies and TV shows that reached all of us,
shaped how all of us think, changed how all of us feel.  Leftists
became professors who wrote the books that millions of students across
America read. And, Leftists became most of the journalists who control
most of the media.  Conservatives have guns, but the pen and camera
are mightier than the sword.  Perhaps, the Fairness Doctrine will have
a salutory effect. Perhaps, conservatives will leave their comfort
zones and lairs of talk radio and enter into other forms of culture.
Why can't conservatives create their own movie industries, create
their own Oprah-like shows, and so on? Conservatives have been tough
in the fight for Opinion Hegemony but have totally los tthe war for
Cultural hegemony.  Opinions, like the latest news, come and go. But,
culture, like art, is 'forever'. Books, plays, novels, movies, Tv
shows, music, and etc last through the generations. Indeed, isn't it
pathetic that the music that Talk Radio guys play are almost all
liberal? Hannity starts his show with a tune from Bruce Hornsby.
Limbaugh starts his show with a tune from the Pretenders. Others will
play riffs from U2, Cold Play, etc, etc.  All Obama supporters.

Such lack of respect and love for art and culture has weakened
conservatism. Conservatism is supposed to about appreciation,
reverence, and preservation of the best of the past, of the best of
Western Civilization, best of human achievement. So, you'd think many
conservatives are into classical music, literature, art, etc.  But,
look at all the museum curators. Liberal. Look at all the professors.
Liberal. Look at all the classical instrumentalists. Liberal. Look at
most authors. Liberal. (The only kinds of books written by
conservatives are opinion books which merely reiterate stuff said a
zillion times before on radio shows.)  Conservatives bitch about how
the liberals control the arts, media, and academia, but what have they
done to challenge this state of affairs?   Conservative idea of
culture is videogames, guns, cars, and sports(which being dominated by
blacks, is also a bastion of the the Democrats). Nothing wrong with
guns and Nascar, but is this all? Is this what conservatism amounts to
culturally? There's over 3000 yrs of Western Civilization, yet
American conservatism is about country music, guns, and Nascar?   The
left may be critical and harsh on Western culture and civilization,
but at least they read, listen, and look at that stuff. Most
conservatives don't even know what they are supposed to conserve,
preserve, and defend.
We need a cultural movement within conservatism than merely one of
opinions on economics and politics. If a people control culture, they
will have tremendous power even if they don't hold political office.
Even under 8 yrs of Bush, liberals and the left had tremendous power
through culture, academia, and media. But, without political power,
what is conservative power? Just opinions in talk radio?

There should be a new rule. Okay, we already know that you are not a
conservative if you are not for free markets and if you oppose gun
rights. Yes and yes. But, we should also say you're not conservative
if you don't care about, preserve, and appreciate the great cultural
works of your ancestors who produced the greatest ideas in philosophy,
religion, arts, culture, medicine, technology, science, etc.  From
appreciaton and reverence comes inspiration and vision to create new
art and new culture that will say something about our society, about
humanity, about what's good and bad, about what needs to be done,
etc.  But, what kind of culture do we get from the Right?
Creationism!   Where are today's John Fords, Howard Hawks, Sam
Peckinpahs, Alfred Hitchcocks, Raoul Walshes, etc?  Well, there is
Clint Eastwood, but he was trashed by conservatives because of Million
Dollar Baby. Eastwood told a controversial story with no simple
answers so as to make us think about life, society, and moral issues,
but conservatives reduced that fine movie into cops and robbers
morality of 'euthanasia is bad'. Eastwood wasn't saying euthanasia is
good but only that life is very complex, and individuals are compelled
to take extraordinary things; the whole tone of the movie is
pessimsitic about human nature. He wasn't being propagandistic one way
or another, but the voices on the right turned it that way. Art and
culture, unlike polemics, are suppose to invite controversy, raise
troubling questions, tell painful human stories, etc, etc.  Only a
moron would denounce Trojan Women as 'commie leftwing anti-war
propaganda'.   In this sense, a genuinely great work of art can be
liberal or conservative, but it is ART because it's not SIMPLY liberal
or conservative. It has the courage to look at both sides, to
understand that life is far more complex than any ideology can
explain. There have been many great liberal artists and artworks that,
though leaning liberal, have tried to see and understand the world
beyond liberal ideology. But, where is such cultural sensibility on
the right? Most rightwingers just want more Rambo movies!  Eastwood's
"Flags of Our Fathers" and "Letters from Iwo Jima" should serve as
good models for a new kind of Right Culture. Eastwood's patriotism
embraces humanity than merely waves the flag. And, though he knows
that Japan was the bad guy in WWII, he understands there were
honorable soldiers among the Japanese and their stories are also human
stories. What bigness of heart and vision. But, these films were
rejected by the Right and, oh boy, more appreciated by the Left. Not
because those movies were leftwing but because, sad to say, more on
the Left appreciate culture, art, and complexity than those on the
Right. Left is ideologically very rigid but, culturally, they can be
thoughtful and open.

Anyway, we need to start a new Right Culture where all are required to
read at least 10 classic works of literature a year, build up a
classical music collection, read up on the basic of Western
philosophy, read the Bible from cover to cover, and learn to
appreciate at least 20 works of fine art per year. All conservative
parents should introduce their kids to high culture from childhood.
Without culture, man is what? Just an economic animal. And, too much
of conservatism is only about taxes, guns, and nascar. Those are good
but not enough to create a complete conservative, let alone a complete
person.  We need a conservative Oprah-ish figure who leads a cultural
discussion.  Such a person should say that for November, all
conservatives should read 'Trojan Women' by Euripides or 'USA' by John
Dos Passos. Or, it can even be a work by a liberal or a leftist as
long as it inspires intelligent discussion. And, there can discussion
of culture among conservatives through forums, blogs, and even talk
radio. We need more Milt Rosenbergs. (To be sure, Michael Savage
discusses culture and philosophy too.) Conseravatives should start to
bitterly cling to books, art, classical music, culture.   3000
glorious yrs of Western civilization. (And also study other great
cultures as well). There is no law banning conservatives from doing
so. They just won't do it, and so liberals hog culture. But why let
this happen?  Once conservative children are brought up in this kind
of environment, they will want to be the novelists, musicians,
playwrights, actors, and moviemakers of the future. Then, there will
be conservative culture. REAL conservative culture, not just guns and
sixpacks.
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]
Antworten

95 Thesen (04.10.2008 11:27)
Dom (11.10.2008 20:55)