Posts in category: Leftist Treason

Machiavelli
Nicollo Machiavelli was an Italian political philosopher. His book The Prince was written in 1513. In it he opined that a ruler, who in establishing a kingdom or a republic used violence to accomplish his ends, should be excused when the intentions were “good” and the results were “beneficial.” From his philosophy we derive the common saying “the ends justify the means.”

Niebuhr
Reinhold Niebuhr was a leftist theologian who ran for the U.S. Congress on the Socialist ticket in 1932. Democrat James Comey, in his analysis of the writings of his hero Niebuhr, commented thusly: “the Christian in politics must be willing to transgress any purely Christian ethic. He must be willing to sin in the name of justice.” Comey used the name Reinhold Niebuhr as his personal Twitter handle, a clear testament to his affection for his own interpretation of Niebuhr’s political philosophy. When Comey’s interpretation of Mr. Niebuhr’s ethical philosophies were exposed in the conservative media, Comey abruptly changed his Twitter handle. Was it to hide his interpretations from being widely known? Almost certainly—Machiavelli would be so proud! Barack Obama said of Niebuhr “I love him. He is one of my favorite philosophers.” Hillary Clinton is also a Reinhold Niebuhr fan. As leftists, they clearly interpreted his works in the same manner as Mr. Comey.

When we evaluate the sentence “he must be willing to sin in the name of justice” we find that sin of course is an act committed in defiance of at minimum the Ten Commandments found in the Old Testament, from which we derive the basis of the Christian ethic.

Which commandments then would James Comey and others who adhere to their interpretation of Niebuhr’s philosophy feel comfortable breaking to further a cause that they would consider just by their definition?  Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor? Comey tacitly implies that in politics lying is acceptable in the furtherance of their definition of justice. Would they bear false witness by withholding crucial evidence, or actually offering false evidence? It seems so, if it could be useful in the furtherance of what they consider to be justice by their revised definition.

So when Mr. Comey claimed regarding Hillary Clinton that “no reasonable prosecutor” would prosecute her for her clear felonies, and hence the F.B.I. would not either, what we may now assume is that he may simply have been lying to prevent what he saw as a threat to what he considered a just result—the furtherance of the leftist movement in America, of which he and Hillary Clinton are members. Prosecuting and convicting a prominent Democrat leader would have hurt the leftist cause badly. This to Mr. Comey would clearly set back the cause of his adopted form of “justice” and called for sinning in the name of said justice.

It should be noted that Comey voted for Gus Hall, the Communist Party USA candidate in the 1976 presidential election, as did John Brennan, who ran Obama’s C.I.A. Hall rose to General Secretary of the CPUSA and was then awarded the Soviet Order of Lenin, after having originally studied for two years at the International Lenin School in Moscow. So in point of fact Comey voted for a communist candidate who was trained in the communist Soviet Union. May it not be reasonably inferred then that Comey is at minimum a communist sympathizer, in light of his vote for a Communist Party USA candidate? Is communism not the political philosophy whose leaders have murdered 100 million citizens of communist countries in the philosophy’s short history, of which Comey was clearly historically aware? Is this not the ultimate social injustice? Apparently not in the mind of James Comey, nor of John Brennan.

Gramsci
The Italian communist, Antonio Gramsci, lived at the time of Stalin. He was the head of the Italian communist party. Gramsci sought to foment an Italian revolution similar to the Bolshevik Revolution that had been previously successful in Russia. His efforts were completely thwarted by the nature of the Italian citizenry, which was wholly devoted to God through their Catholic faith, and therefore disinclined to replace God with the State, which is a prerequisite to the adoption of communism. The institutions of the Italian culture and society—the schools, the courts, the media, the police, the military—were based on the church, and solidly held up the Italian government, making it impervious to subversive attacks against it. Therefore Gramsci failed miserably in his attempts at Italian governmental overthrow.

Gramsci was imprisoned 20 years for his subversion, where he ruminated daily about what he might have done differently in order to have had success with his Italian revolution. He realized that there first needed to be a concerted effort to weaken and finally destroy the supportive institutions that prop up any western democracy, and particularly that of the United States, in order to make it more effective to then attack the weakened government and topple it in favor of a communist replacement regime. His writings have elevated Gramsci into the upper echelons of the communist pantheon, and his strategies have been widely read and carefully applied by hard leftists, including those in the U.S., for many decades.

In Gramsci’s Prison Diaries, written during his incarceration, he elaborated on his newly developed tactics to attack the institutions of any target society. He encouraged fellow revolutionaries to infiltrate the furthest left political party in the target country and to eventually take it over (which has clearly happened in today’s Democratic Party in America) He taught his followers to attack every tenet of the traditional church in order to diminish its influence in society. This strategy and effort has clearly been underway in America for quite some time. He encouraged the infiltration of the school system by fellow travelers in order to propagandize students into the communist philosophy and to teach philosophies counter to the tenets of the church and traditional Americann society. Some of these tenets include that marriage is only between a man and a woman, that homosexuality is not normal and is indeed a sin, and that God created only two distinct genders. As is easily seen, each of these and other base tenets of the church is under sustained attack by the hard left in America and throughout most of the world. And of course they are—most hard leftists leaders in the U.S. are intimately familiar with Gramsci’s philosophies and writings, and are at work utilizing his tactics in order to arrive at a different revolutionary outcome in the United States than was possible in Italy in Gramsci’s time.

Social Justice
By “sinning in the name of justice” James Comey does not mean actual traditional justice, in its long accepted definition, which is exactly what the keeping of the commandments secures for any population. If one does not bear false witness, but instead gives others only factual information on which to base their decisions—this is just. If he follows the commandment thou shall not steal, he allows others to keep the earned fruit of their labors—this is just. Traditional and eternal justice is arrived at by following the commandments, which is defined as just treatment and culminates in a state of actual societal justice.

Social justice is arrived at by the breaking of any of the commandments—which in essence is unjust in reality—in order to bring about by whatever means necessary the non-traditional definition of justice—the equal economic outcome of all citizens regardless of their willingness to work, their talents, their contributions to society, or the tragic resultant economic losses to their overall society that always results from such an attempt, ending in the impoverishment of the entire population, including the exact populations the left purports to be lifting up. Social justice is in effect the usurping of the original all wise and eternal lawgiver and his declared definition of justice, and replacing him within society with a select group of mortal, fallible humans beings who then define their own subjective version of what are to be considered just actions and policies in society, according to their human and therefore potentially flawed opinions.

The political philosophy of James Comey relative to the gaining of political power and the making of societal revolution, is in essence the same as that of Joseph Stalin, who proclaimed “you cannot make a revolution with silk gloves.” Stalin utilized these same Machiavellian principles to justify the murder of 20 million of his fellow Soviet citizens whom he felt stood in the way of the social justice goals of the Soviet Union. Mr. Comey clearly interprets Niebuhr’s writings as concluding that it is just and right to break any purely Christian ethic or commandment, and that would it seems include the commandment against murder, which Joseph Stalin broke day after day against the population enslaved within his Soviet Union. Could that be why the American hard left has such a difficult time fully objecting to the atrocities of Stalin?

In light of James Comey’s stated political philosophy, which runs counter to the biblical ethics of justice long accepted by the American public—is there any reason to consider his past actions as having ever been actually honest according to our common traditional ethic of honesty? Since, according to his own words, he does not share a common set of ethics with the American public, can he ever really be believed, and should he ever have been in control of an investigative division of the American government originally devoted to the furtherance of justice, which should clearly have its operating basis in truth and actual traditional justice?

James Comey voted for the American communist Gus Hall for president, whose political philosophies he has never disavowed. Obviously his higher loyalty is to the long term communist revolution, not the societal principles and ethics that gave birth to and undergird the American republic. He was not then nor is he now fit to hold any position in the American government. Mr. Comey could not then nor now pass a traditional F.B.I. background check conducted by his own former agency in order to serve as janitor at any federal building because of his documented communist leanings and associations. Yet he was chosen without any meaningful congressional oversight to serve as the director of the agency established to safeguard the original American principles of truth and justice, made possible specifically because Congress no longer requires such vetting for subversive political leanings and associations, nor is the now politically captured F.B.I. inclined to pursue traditionally subversive elements in our society and government.

Was the Democrat Hillary Clinton not exercising the same Machiavellian principle when she lied to Congress as to whether she had any classified e.mails on her home server? Or when she had aids smash her smart phones with hammers in order to make information on them unavailable for the normal required public scrutiny of a government employee’s communications? Was she not simply bearing false witness, breaking our traditional moral code, in the service of what she considers to be a higher law? That “higher law” would be the furtherance of the socialist revolution long sought by the American hard left in order to forcibly foist on the populace their coercive and twisted version of social justice and socialist governance. Covering her tracks and getting away with it all, in her mind, has protected and furthered that revolution, keeping hidden what we have to assume are subversive communications that she engaged in. Why else would she go to such great lengths to hide the content of her communication devices? She also was and is now unfit to be employed in government by the American people, as she was working without holding the common ethic of justice held by the vast majority of Americans. Hillary also could not pass a traditional F.B.I. background check due to her philosophical leanings and hard left associations, but is seems none is required to serve as our country’s first lady, to serve as our Secretary of State, nor to run for the office of President of the United States.

Democratic Party Machiavellian and Gramscian Policies: AFDC
During the New Deal under President Franklin Roosevelt, legislation was passed called Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Under the rubric of compassion, the program provided for income assistance to low income American families. One of the stipulations of the program was that it would be provided only to households without a father living in the home, which was indicated as a severe disadvantaging criterion. The implied compassion under which Democratic lawmakers introduced the bill was supposedly expressed through the elevated economic assistance offered to these families. But as the left traditionally follows the tenets of Machiavelli, Niebuhr, and Gramsci, what might have been the actual obfuscated background reasoning behind the legislation?

The end result of AFDC was that poor black fathers were heavily financially incentivized to move out of their own nuclear family homes that contained their children and children’s mother, separating the fathers physically from both. This resulted in great emotional suffering for black children, and especially black boys. Then ensued, as a result of this legislation, the rise of black inner city gangs, as these disenfranchised boys sought to belong to any meaningful social construct that they had lost when their fathers left. Inner city violence exploded. Concurrently occurred the shattering of the American black family in general, which went from having the highest level of intact traditional families of any racial group in America, to thereafter having the lowest level, and the highest level of absentee fatherhood. Today, seven out of ten black children are born out of wedlock—fatherless black households are the statistical norm. In retrospect, did any form of justice ensue from this legislation?

Judged from a traditional American ethical framework, AFDC would seem to have been simply a legislative mistake, that had unintended negative consequences. But when judged through the prism of the teachings of Machiavelli and Gramsci carried forward through the Democratic Party, a different probability arises. Could not the results of AFDC have been easily foreseen by anyone even slightly inclined to predict the clear potential consequences? Was it not obvious that poor but intact black families would be strongly financially incentivized by the proffered governmental assistance after moving fathers out of their family homes? And would this not clearly then have broken these black boys spirits and led to social unrest and crime? Would this then not clearly have financially impoverished the American black family further, by encouraging black fathers to leave the support of their children to the government, leaving these families then even more financially dependent on government assistance in the future? And would this not then have clearly driven the black family to ally themselves more closely with the American political party that would offer the most unearned benefits in response to their resultant increased financial need, therefore resulting in a more dependent and loyal constituency for the Democratic Party?

The Latin phrase cui bono—to whose benefit—is always a guide to understanding the background reasoning for any action or policy introduction. Who exactly benefited from the black family being weakened and further impoverished, when it was easily predictable that this would be the result of AFDC? Clearly not the black family for which the legislation was supposedly crafted—but the Democratic Party did. They gained an almost totally loyal constituency group, who in their socially and financially weakened condition needed the Democratic Party then more than ever for financial benefits, as the economic undergirding of their families had been effectively shattered. The long used phrase “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime” has been completely inverted. The Democrats subscribe more closely to the philosophy “separate all those who would like to fish together today, take away their fishing rods and their bait, break their legs so they can’t walk to the river, and they will rely on you to give them fish for a lifetime.” And because of this they will vote for you in perpetuity. An added benefit to the left under Gramscian theory is the breakdown of the black family structure for its own sake, which directly undermines the church teaching that a family is comprised of a father, mother, and children living together. Many black families have now abandoned this teaching as a result of government policies that financially disincentivized the holding together of their families. This greatly weakens the influence of the church in black society, furthering a goal of Antonio Gramsci with the methods of Machiavelli.

Democratic Machiavellian and Gramscian Policies: Immigration
As the left continues to seek to keep our borders open to unfettered illegal immigration inflows, they seem to care not at all for the displacement of American workers in our job market. It would seem that the Democrats have calculated that alienating Americans who are forced into unemployment or underemployment by illegal immigration is of less political importance than the addition of millions of illegal aliens to the Democratic Party voting rolls, as they traditionally vote at a 70% rate for the Democratic Party in the first generation.  As is typical of the followers of the aforementioned political philosophers, they cloak their policies in “compassion,” when the real intent is gaining un-earned political hegemony.

The left knows that if they can bring in millions of foreign workers into our political mainstream, regardless of the negative consequences to the American worker, they will gain millions of new first generation voters to their cause. Using this tactic, they seek to eventually gain political dominance over conservative Americans, and that this will bring them to the brink of instituting an authoritative socialist state to rule over us all. Again, the political philosophies of Machiavelli, Niebuhr, and Gramsci guide their intentions and actions, as they strive to use deception and even violence if necessary to bring them closer to their ideal of political justice—the complete subjugation of the American conservative, who holds contrary and completely antithetical views of what is the best philosophical, cultural, and political structure of American society, and who default to our original religious tenets, traditions, and Constitution.

Democratic Machiavellian and Gramscian Policies: The 2020 Elections
The political philosophies of Machiavelli, Niebuhr, and Gramsci undergirded the Democratic Party approach to the 2020 presidential election. Since President Trump represented the single greatest threat to the furtherance of the hard leftist revolution in the U.S., with his concerted attempts to counter the results of Gramscian theory by strengthening the country economically, militarily, and by promoting and strengthening our traditional culture, the “ends” became of primary importance—he must be defeated.  The “means” devised and employed were massive voter fraud, turning a decisive victory for Trump into his narrow defeat. With leftist media and politicians bearing false witness as to the fraud committed, all of course without remorse nor shame as in their minds social justice was served—the fraud was effectively pulled off and covered. And now the left is moving quickly in 2021 to codify their recently effective methods, seeking to make mail-in balloting mandatory in every state in the nation, while removing any effective identification requirement to prove actual eligibility to vote, thereby enabling the cheating to be institutionalized, and to completely negate the conservative vote in our country. In other words, conservative voters will no longer have any representation commensurate with actual vote totals for candidates for our federal and state governments, and will have no resultant say in their policies. Thus there will now be no truly effective counterbalance to the hard leftist policies of the Democratic Party. Only submission and powerless objections, or counter revolutionary action, will be the possible remaining conservative reactions as the left completely radicalizes our federal government and our election processes.

Where Are The Limits To The Machiavellian Evil The Hard Left Will Commit?
With the philosophies of Machiavelli and Gramsci as their operating principles, the question must be asked—what if any are the limitations to the commandments the Democrats will transgress in their pursuit of their ultimate goals when they have effectively and permanently rendered the voting input of half the American population moot by means of bearing false witness through election fraud? And under what principles would they then place any limitations on the extent to which they would oppress conservatives? Those reading who operate in their lives with respect to the commandments and to a traditional definition of justice assume in general that Democrats would limit their future commission of evil out of respect to conscience, as they themselves would. This assumes that hard leftists think like traditional Americans do—yet they clearly don’t.  It is a grave misunderstanding of the hard leftist mindset, and of their decision making processes relative to human ethics. They do not share our common values and morality. They accept no limits on the extent to which they will go should it serve their political ends.  They intend to force a form of government on us that is diametrically opposed to our ideals and values. When we look out at the communist regimes of countries that the American left has supported, we see outrageous atrocities having then been committed, and in many cases still being committed today. From Stalin, to Mao, to Ho Chi Minh, to Castro, to Chavez, to Maduro, to Xi Jinping—the American left has supported, justified, and lionized them all—because their desired ends are identical.

Most American leftists in our government are Maoist Communists, supporting foremost the tenets and policies of Chinese communism, and are either supportive of or actually colluding with the Chinese Communist Party. Yet Communist China uses slave labor to produce consumer goods. China is currently committing  genocide against the Uighur minority within China, enslaving them in 380 concentration camps, subjecting their women to mass rape by their Chinese captors in order to dilute their gene pool, subjecting them to forced sterilization in order to eventually end the very existence of their people. Are not socialist/communist regimes supposed to have instituted a more just form of government, reflected in equitable treatment of all sectors of their populations? Apparently not. And how do American leftists justify their associations and support for the CCP? They remain silent on this subject, but the phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” seems to describe their motivations well relative to China. Traditional America is their enemy, therefore America’s enemy China is their friend, with whom they share a common philosophy and sympathy. They do not seek any form of actual social justice as a true ethic, nor do they require it of their ally China, but instead use the concept as a useful lever to overturn American institutions holding up our traditional form of government, which stands in the way of the realization of their totalitarian socialist world dream. Should American leftists gain sufficient political power, they will immediately drop all pretense and commence the oppression of all forces that stand against their revolution, as their philosophical allies in China have already done, and in particular will harshly persecute all politically conservative Americans who stand against communism, and in support of our traditional religious, civic, and political culture.

Are U.S. concentration camps inhabited by American conservatives in our American future? It is quite possibly so, should we not find the means to reverse the recent political developments that have given leftists virtually complete control of our government and culture in perpetuity. Since communists know no moral nor ethical boundaries, it is safe to assume that negotiating with them from our current state of cultural and political weakness is untenable. There clearly is no viable and ultimately effective way to resist the current communist revolution taking place in America short of counter-revolutionary action. Mao Zedong, who founded the Chinese Communist Party, famously stated that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” When dealing with current day communists who faithfully follow Mao’s teachings and always resort to suppressive violence when they gain sufficient political power, American conservatives must adopt an effective counter-balancing strategy including the willingness to potentially use arms in self defense against the left, or there is no future for our traditional American republic, nor for the millions of American conservatives living within our borders.  If we do not act, we will live under the boot heel of American communists in the country that those who held to our traditional tenets and beliefs founded and established—and we to our great shame will have neglected and lost.

Even the God of the Bible used what might be construed to be Machiavellian ethics in his commandments to the Israelites to kill entire populations down to the last man, woman, and child. The ends to which he went though were in actuality truly just by eternal traditional principles, as were therefore the harsh means he sometimes employed, without needing to revert to ‘sinning in the name of justice.’ God does not sin as Machiavellians and Gramscians do. He commanded his people the Israelites to slaughter certain whole populations that they encountered, and to leave not one man, woman, nor child alive. These tribes had adopted horrific and degraded practices of human abuse, and God judged the highest good of the world to be their elimination, and for no remnant of their horrific actions to remain on the earth, in order to protect the just societies remaining from being socially contaminated and eventually ruined by their associations with the practices of these tribes. It was akin to a doctor making the difficult decision of cutting off a gangrenous leg to save the rest of the patient’s body.  It was righteous and fully justified. It was a true case of the ends being actually justified, because the ends were wholly good and right. In the case of the hard left practicing Machiavellianism today, the ends are not good, are not justified by any eternal ethic, and do not have the actual good of the country nor the world writ large as their goal. They seek to enslave, to control, to wield totalitarian government control against all dissenters, many of whom are followers of the God of the Bible. They seek to strip us of our human freedoms, and to sanction by law the following of any religion except that which worships their socialist state.

There is one grand difference between God and his people, and those on the left who utilize Machiavellian and Gramscian ethics and tactics in their lives and political pursuits. To choose for the highest actual good of any society is the basis for all of God’s decisions, and should also be for his followers. This is the truest definition of love. Leftists choose ends which always ultimately degrade a society, and bring misery to its people under the guise of justice, for the satisfaction of their perverse desire to become gods themselves and then determine the unlimited means appropriate to arrive at the ends they unwisely and arrogantly choose. The character of the ends chosen, when studied carefully, are clearly seen as divergent between godless communism and the God on which our traditional religiously based constitutional republic was firmly based. In communism, the means and the ends are unjustifiable. In the Soviet Union, the national state culmination of leftist ideology and struggle, the government murdered 30,000,000 of its own citizens for their divergent beliefs, and imprisoned millions more, subjecting them to torture and unspeakable privations, in order to enslave and control them, forcing their adherence to a false and destructive communist philosophy. Soviet citizens lived as virtual captive slaves in their own country.

The United States though, long considered the epitome of traditional religious and civic values, and based historically on godly principles, and having long held to a strict traditional philosophy of justice, has a body count of its own citizens that is infinitesimal by comparison, and traditionally has provided its citizens a level of freedom and potential for happiness that is unparalleled in human history. The means employed to undergird and maintain this great and generally good civilization have in most every situation been sufficiently justified, as will be any similar attempts made in the future by traditional Americans, including in any instance in which we may be compelled to kinetic action to defend our developed civilization.

Conservatives in America have been in a conservatism 1.0 status for many decades, characterized by their awakening to the subversive methods of the left and its attempts to culturally and politically subjugate us, and to eventually foist a totalitarian socialist government upon us.  The conservative 1.0 focus has been on educating and organizing politically to gain power against the left in political self defense. True heroes of this movement have informed and educated millions of conservative Americans as to these realities, and brought out the vote to further conservative ideals. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Diana West, Trevor Loudon, Jeff Nyquist etc. have spent their lives in this educational attempt. Donald Trump has also spent a number of years attempting to place us back generally on a foundation of traditional American values. Yet we find ourselves at a juncture—having been completely overwhelmed in the 2020 elections by fraud, collusion, and deceit—where our conservatism 1.0 heroes no longer have sufficient answers to meet our current reality. It is of no use now to follow traditional political methods in order to have like minded politicians elected to represent our values and ideals, which was a hallmark of conservatism 1.0. This is no longer possible as the left has established an overwhelming level of propaganda control in our schools, media, and government, effectively censoring conservative ideals, and preventing them from being disseminated to the public at large in order to influence our society. They have now also devised means to defraud us of our vote, effectively disenfranchising us through the targeted subversion of our electoral processes. With their current control of the entirety of government, won through fraudulent means, Democrats are pushing to permanently nationalize the methods they employed successfully in the 2020 battleground states, which would in the next four years ensure their political hegemony in perpetuity. Their aggressive use of Machiavellian, and Gramscian principles and policies have brought them to the precipice of a finished revolution here in the states, and if successful they will now take off the gloves and begin their persecution and subjugation of American conservatives who have stood opposed to them.

We are in desperate need of a new approach, an advanced and improved conservatism 2.0, in order to save ourselves from the onslaught by the left that is beginning now against conservatives in America, as we are rapidly being characterized as domestic terrorists to be hunted by a completely politicized F.B.I and Homeland Security. Those of us who carry forward the traditional American religious and political tenets from our forefathers are now the hunted in our own country. We must immediately turn this equation around, and become the pursuers of those who seek to make illegal our traditional lifestyles and beliefs, and persecute and imprison us for who we are and what we believe. We are at the point where only a strong kinetic offensive response will push back on their heels those who are coming for us to politically and physically subjugate us.

This will be a time fraught with danger, as the means to our ends, which are now our political and physical survival, and ultimately our American Renewal, are more limited and much more dangerous. Unless we as American conservatives shake ourselves awake from our fatal lethargy, we will soon find that the noose is already in place and tightened, and escape no longer possible. Living in the normalcy bias—imagining that life will continue along as it always has, and that there is no need to act to prevent disaster—will prove ultimately fatal if continued in. Thinking that we can now be saved by political organizing, or the rebirthing of past conservative figures, or by discovering new political heroes—is a false hope. Those doors have now effectively been closed to us through the effective use of institutionalized voter fraud.

Our organization American Renewal, will be exploring the new philosophies and methods necessary to assure the survival of American conservatives, and of our very republic itself. The time is now for American heroes to stand up and lead us back into freedom. Will you be one of those heroes that history will remember and celebrate for their foresight, resolve, and courage? Or will you be remembered as an American who sat idly by while our republic was destroyed in our time and on our watch?  The time for clear thinking is now, and the time for decisive action is fast approaching…

I hear constant incredulous reactions to the actions of the Biden Administration that have created the horrible situation we find ourselves in in Afghanistan. Our citizens left behind, held hostage for political and financial gain by the Taliban, and subject to the worst of potential outcomes with torture and retributive murder in the traditional horrendous forms of the Taliban.

In early September 2021 on FOX News, host Julie Banderas of the Faulkner Focus interviewed Senator Joni Ernst. Ernst reacted to the Biden Administration negotiating with the Taliban terror organization while Americans were left behind in country at their mercy, abandoned by our military leadership. Ernst said that for Biden to entrust the Taliban is “ludicrous.” She added that she “doesn’t know what President Biden is thinking” by relying on the radical Islamist organization. “I don’t know what President Biden is thinking, and the fact that we allowed the country to fall quickly to the Taliban and not evacuate our American citizens and our Afghan partners is reprehensible.”

Former President Donald Trump, during a rally in Georgia recently, called the Afghanistan withdrawal stupid and incompetent. Sean Hannity recently called Biden incompetent.

And therein lies the problem—Ernst, Trump, and Hannity do not know what Biden is thinking—they don’t understand the true motivations for the disastrous manner in which we pulled out of Afghanistan. An American Senator, a former American President, and a famous conservative talk show host who have clearly not been able to ascertain the base motivations of the hard left in American politics, and can therefore not fully understand their policies and actions, lacking the base understanding from which one can truly understand and then intelligently push back hard with a clear eyed vision against the purposely destructive actions of the left. Ernst, Trump, and Hannity, along with the majority of Republicans in government, have absolutely no idea why Biden and our military leaders are doing what they are doing, and are therefore forced to blindly attribute his actions and those of our military leadership to ineptitude, incompetence, or senility, all of which have absolutely nothing to do with the underlying nature of and the actual reasoning for their actions.

The Latin phrase cui bono—to whose benefit—is always a reliable guide to understanding the ruling motivations of those whose actions seem strange and incongruous in light of the situation. Human beings make decisions and take actions solely to further their desired results, in order to arrive at a conclusion more suitable to the furtherance of their desires and goals. Senator Ernst, former President Trump, and Sean Hannity would be wise to more fully utilize this guiding phrase, and to work their way back intellectually, following the thread of leftist thought and activity through the last century to its clear expression in the current actions of the American left, in order to arrive at a more accurate picture of Biden and the hard left’s actions and intentions relative to the Afghanistan debacle.

Joe Biden was an American senator during the Vietnam War, a war meant to protect our South Vietnamese ally against the communist North Vietnamese army and their attempts to defeat and subjugate the free South. The North sought to overwhelm the South militarily and unify all of Vietnam under a totalitarian communist governmental structure.  The South clung to their supportive alliance with the U.S., seeking to ensure that their country and people might remain free. When President Ford, under tremendous political pressure from Soviet organized American national protests, ordered our military withdrawal from Vietnam, he promised continued military aid in order to allow the South to fight the communists themselves.  But then Senator Joe Biden and other leftist members of congress moved to cut off defensive aid to the South and left the South to defend against the communist North by themselves with little equipment nor ammunition sufficient for the fight. The American government promised to provide defensive aid as we pulled our military out of the country, yet leftist members of congress forced the cutoff of our financial support, leaving the South at the total mercy of the North, which was still heavily funded and armed by the communist Soviet Union and Communist China. President Ford went to Congress after this withdrawal and subsequent U.S. abandonment of the South to simply seek funding to evacuate our citizens and allies, but was opposed by Biden and others in congress. Biden stated that he opposed using U.S. forces temporarily to secure the evacuation—but how else was it to be accomplished, if not under the defense umbrella of American force? Ford was then forced to seek funding from private Christian organizations in order to avoid stranding our South Vietnamese allies in the fallen country where they would have been targeted by the communists and slaughtered. Joe Biden then publicly ridiculed the South Vietnamese refugees fleeing the defeat of the South, and withdrew congressional support from these ally refugees attempting to escape to freedom in the United States. Non governmental charitable organizations had to step up to provide the support necessary to sustain these freedom loving refugees whom the American leftists had abandoned to suffer, doing everything possible to make their lives dangerous and miserable. As opposed to the Biden Administration’s current day total support for immigrants from Latin America, who are historically inclined at a 70% rate to vote for his Democratic Party, the South Vietnamese citizens seeking to flee Vietnam would not be so inclined to vote for any leftist American candidate after gaining final U.S. citizenship, having fled similar murderous leftists in Vietnam. Therefore their value was found wanting, and they were treated accordingly.

Now with the phrase cui bono—to whose benefit—firmly in mind, who exactly were Joe Biden and other leftists actually helping by voting in congress to leave the South vulnerable to their eventual physical defeat?  What were they trying to accomplish?  Were they supporting the long standing American tradition of aiding and standing with those who fight against totalitarian regimes in order to maintain their common freedoms? Clearly not. If they had been, net benefit would have then flowed from the United States government to the freedom loving South Vietnamese people. But it did not. Or were they rather standing in support of the world wide communist movement, seeking to support and provide aid to the communists attempting to subjugate a freedom loving people? Within the framework of cui bono their actions were clearly aimed at stranding the freedom loving South Vietnamese, forcing them into subjugation under the communist regime and hindering any fleeing South Vietnamese citizens from finding a safe haven, all of which only provided a net benefit to the communist North.

After our withdrawal and then complete abandonment of the South, the North imprisoned 1,100,000 South Vietnam citizens in re-education camps, eventually working to death, starving, or shooting 168,000 of them, due directly to the actions of leftist U.S. citizens who promoted anti-war demonstrations—forcing our military withdrawal—and leftist members of congress who then withdrew our remaining financial support for the South and her fleeing citizens. These same leftist members of congress then said nothing about the subsequent slaughter. Cui bono—to whose benefit—instructs us clearly as to which side these Senators were actually on.

Now in the current case of Afghanistan, if any member of the American government were inclined to support our traditional ideal of fighting terrorism and protecting Americans from being terrorized, would they then seek to abandon America citizens to the mercy of those who are committed to institutionalizing such terror and oppression? For whose benefit—cui bono—would any American president withdraw our military while Americans were still in country and then abandon these American citizens to the mercies of the Taliban terrorists? For whose benefit would any American administration abandon a fully functioning Bagram Air Base near the Chinese border to be abandoned and therefore not remain a functioning asset in any future conflict with Communist China, but instead to fall into Chinese hands as it already quickly has, and then to potentially be used against us in a future war?

The actions of the Biden Administration officials and military leaders were clearly not meant to protect American lives, values, and interests in Afghanistan. The resultant benefit of their actions flowed directly to the Taliban and to China, whose benefit the administration clearly sought over the welfare of American citizens and our allies. For those with eyes to see the reality of the situation, it is clear that this administration has abandoned their duty to support and protect America and her citizens, favoring those devoted to terrorizing, attacking, and eventually breaking down our society. But for what ultimate reason would they do this?

The leftist Barack Obama was mentored by a man named Frank Marshall Davis, who was at the time on an F.B.I. watch list for those who were to be immediately arrested in case of war with the communist Soviet Union This fact strongly suggested that Marshall had led the F.B.I. to believe that he would actively aid and abet our communist enemy during a potential war. Obama never denied his relationship with Marshall, but rather confirmed it in his book Dreams from my Father, and never disavowed Marshall’s communist position nor the communist positions of his own declared Kenyan father and American mother.

When Obama became president, he carried out a purge of hundreds of generals and flag officers who were not ideologically aligned with his leftist beliefs, and replaced them with those who were so inclined. Hence we have a military leadership now in place that will generally tow the leftist political line. This same political leadership has accepted Biden’s policies and actions in Afghanistan by pulling out our troops and leaving our citizens and allies at the mercy of our sworn enemies. Cui bono? Clearly to the benefit of our Taliban enemy, but there is more to the story, more peeling of the onion to be done.

Joe Biden is hardly without his communist connections. His initial Senate campaign was financed by the Council for a Livable World, which was later shown to be a Soviet communist initiated and financed organization.

In e.mails gleaned from the Hunter Biden laptop, Joe used the name Peter Henderson, not his own. Henderson was a character in Tom Clancy novels who was a senate aid who then became a Soviet K.G.B. agent. Now what could possibly prompt Biden to use the name of a Soviet spy as his own?

Antonio Gramsci was the leader of the Italian Communist Party at the time of Stalin. Inspired by the success of the Bolshevik Revolution, Gramsci sought to foment a similar revolution in his native Italy but failed miserably and was imprisoned for 20 years for his efforts to subvert the Italian government. During his incarceration he sought to understand the reasonings for his failure and to find remedies to be employed by future communists in the overthrow of Western democracies, focusing primarily on the United States. He surmised that the Italian government was impervious to overthrow because of the cultural institutions that served as its pillars of support—the church, the courts, the educational system, the military, and the Italian family. He suggested that if these institutions had been torn down ahead of time it would have destroyed the foundational pillars of the Italian government, effectively allowing it’s overthrow. He then surmised that such targeted future attacks on the pillars of any Western government could lead to its overthrow, including that of the United States.

Traditionally in America since the inception of the communist ideal introduced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their 1848 pamphlet The Communist Manifesto, the American left and the Communist Party USA had sought violent revolution as the sole means to overthrowing the U.S. government and to convert our traditional governmental system into a communist state. But as in the times of Gramsci in Italy, these attempts failed miserably due to the same supportive institutions holding up the American government. A new framework and strategy was in order in their consideration of American overthrow, and the American left turned to the teachings of Antonio Gramsci.

When it became clear that the communist Soviet Union was slaughtering its own citizens to the tune of 30,000,000 human souls who would not acquiesce to the communist ideal, it became a terrible branding problem for American communists. How could they effectively rail against the oppression by the ruling class when the Russian government had been overthrown by a violent communist revolution purportedly to reverse this oppression, and then this revolutionary regime proceeded to oppress and murder in ways rarely seen before in human history? Clearly a rebranding was in order if their communist beliefs were to be held in any regard in the U.S.  So traditional American communists formed a new movement, calling it the New Left, attempting to separate themselves from the Old Left and its slaughters, and formed an organization to represent its tenets, calling it Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS. Their founding manifesto the Port Huron Statement attempted to maintain communist ideals and policies while deftly distancing themselves from the U.S.S.R., which served as a horrible reminder of what communist policies actually yield in any society when instituted. It was a classic rebranding and propaganda campaign and not in any way an actual renunciation or change of heart in regards to communism—only an attempt at a change in public perception to minimize resistance, and in leftist strategy as to how to accomplish their desired revolution.

So a complete rebranding and redirecting of their entire strategy was carried out. Separating themselves from the clearly also communist Soviet Union and turning to the strategies of Antonio Gramsci, the New Left set their sights on the destruction of every supportive institution holding up American society and the American government. Communist West German student movement leader Rudi Dutschke coined the term “the long march through the institutions” to explain the teachings of Gramsci and their application by the left in their approach towards America and other Western democracies.

When we look back to the actions of the Biden Administration in Afghanistan, withdrawing our military while withdrawing air and logistical support for the remaining Afghan national army and stranding at minimum hundreds of American citizens—cui bono? Well certainly the orthodox Muslim forces benefitted. But why would an American leftist want the benefit to accrue to such forces? Acting in this way strengthened a stated enemy of the U.S., and how could this benefit the Biden Administration? The phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” comes immediately to mind. Since the American left has been traditionally and is still to this day committed to the breakdown of all supportive American institutions, would not any enemy of any American institution be at least their temporary friend? Which institutions suffered because of the Biden Administration’s actions and in what way might that be of benefit to our enemies?

First of all the American military suffered greatly, demoralized badly at the wasting of their member’s lives in defense of Afghanistan, and at being prevented from officially initiating rescue missions for American citizens, effectively leaving them behind to their fate at the hands of the Taliban.  This clearly disillusioned military members, and will subsequently hinder recruitment into the American military and encourage early retirements. Therefore, one of Gramsci’s prescriptions is fulfilled—the weakening of the American military. This is the clear answer to cui bono. What American man or woman now wants to serve in a military that leaves its members behind at the mercy of our enemies? Military enrollment will plummet subsequently, which clearly aids both our orthodox Muslim enemies, and our traditional enemies throughout the communist world, as they will be relatively strengthened militarily in relation to the U.S. and emboldened to spread their destructive forms of government relatively unopposed.

But what other benefit accrues to the “long march through the institutions” by the Biden Administration’s actions? The demoralization of the American public in general certainly comes to mind. The American people and our military have always committed to never leaving our people behind subject to harm in foreign countries. Now the Biden Administration has forced the realization on the American public—we now indeed do leave Americans behind at the mercy of our enemies. And this has cut at the resolve and pride of the American public and caused a widespread state of demoralization.

Yuri Bezmenov, a high level Soviet defector to the United States, stated that one of the goals of the worldwide communist movement is to demoralize a target society in order to weaken it and hasten its overthrow. If the New Left in America is indeed using the playbook of Antonio Gramsci, seeking to further the long march through American foundational institutions—breaking down the moral strength and resolve of those inhabiting these institutions—would not the current actions relative to Afghanistan be a clear furtherance of this agenda? Would not the question of cui bono be therefore effectively answered? And because the left now controls the levers of the democratic vote in America—through ballot harvesting, mailing ballots to deceased citizens and those who did not request them, and then sending their operatives to collect these ballots and fill them in with their leftist candidate’s name without fear of an identification requirement—why should they care that they are operating so brazenly in their long march? There is no counterbalancing political force for them to now be concerned with—they effectively control the voting process, silencing just enough opposing voices from democratic representation in order to win elections and maintain control.

The key to wisdom is understanding the base motivations of all involved in any equation. Fully understanding their reasonings is the primary requisite regardless if these reasonings are clearly and honestly stated, partially obfuscated dishonestly, or entirely hidden by carefully crafted propaganda.

I would posit that the Biden Administration, being now an extension of the New Left in America—fully supporting and benefitting historically communist regimes and the enemies of the U.S.—considers all of their actions through the lens of Gramscian political philosophy—how can our policies and actions further the long march through the institutions that uphold American society and government in order to ultimately accomplish their destruction?

This is the prism through which any clear eyed person must comprehensively evaluate actions by this or any other hard leftist administration. I offer this lens through which to view the actions of today’s Biden administration, as opposed to the naïveté that pervades the analysis of those such as Senator Ernst, former President Trump, and Sean Hannity—who offer us nothing fully useful in their analysis of our actual national predicament, but only further our national confusion, clouding our vision and obscuring our true path forward.

American Renewal

Since the 2020 election fraud allowed the Biden Administration to enter the White House through an illicit election, and gain control of the Senate through the same means, many conservatives predicted that the hard left would use these offices to push to permanently silence and marginalize their political foes, thus clearing the way for the institution of a much more authoritarian socialist governmental structure in the U.S. virtually unopposed.

True to these predictions, Joe Biden on April 15, 2021 issued an Executive Order on “Blocking Property With Respect to Specified Harmful Activities of the Government of the Russian Federation.” This presidential executive order allows the leftist government the legal right, without formal legal charge nor court hearing, to decide to accuse American citizens of “colluding with the Russians” and therefore sanction them through the confiscation of their personal property. This clearly is tyranny, as it circumvents the legal channels traditionally needed for the government to confiscate property. The administration can now simply make the accusation, yet is not under compulsion to present evidence, testimony, nor any kind of proof to be adjudicated in a court of law, and there is no recourse to appeal the decision. This leaves conservative opponents of the current hard leftist administration, should they effectively oppose the administration, open to accusations of virtual treason without basis and proof, and the potential loss of their property, for the sole “crime” of resisting the policies and programs of this leftist government. This should send a chill down the spine of every American dedicated to truth, fair play, and our traditional rule of law.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/04/executive_order_canceling_the_constitution.html

In a previous article titled The Right of Rebellion, I elaborated on the left’s use of psychological projection as a deflective tool in their public discourse. Like a minister railing against sexual sin from the pulpit, yet visiting prostitutes on Friday night—hard left Democrats always accuse their political opponents of what they themselves are doing secretly. For years Democrats have railed against Republicans for being “agents of Russia” accusing them of “colluding with Russia,” though zero evidence has been presented to establish these narratives as true. Yet the Biden administration just recently removed all sanctions President Trump had put in place against the Russian Nord Stream natural gas pipeline between Russia and Germany, greatly aiding Russia in her ambitions to control Europe politically. Trump’s previous policy greatly damaged the Russian plan to sell natural gas to Germany and other European allies of America, effectively denying Russia this revenue source, and the resultant outsized political influence over Europe. The shutting off of Russian natural gas supplies to Europe could easily have been used as a controlling political lever in the region. During a hard German winter, just the threat of curtailing the gas supply would be enough to force Germany to submit to Russian political interests against their better judgement. The Trump Administration sought to prevent this potential Russian control over Europe; the Biden Administration has now reversed this policy, enabling this enhanced Russian influence and control.

Clearly the Trump Administration pursued a policy that did in essence weaken Russian political leverage over our European allies, effectively denying Putin and the Russian Federation the ability to fatten their respective coffers, through the U.S. sanctions against the pipeline participants in an attempt to keep the pipeline from coming online. Conversely, the Biden Administration has now strengthened Russia’s political influence over Europe, which effectively weakens American influence in the region, and increases Russian revenues needed to continue to modernize its nuclear weapons arsenal, which is fashioned and built to be used against America and her allies.

The left incessantly accused Trump of being a “Russian agent” while he was in effect working to weaken the Russian position and Russia’s standing in the world. Yet Biden, hiding the results of his policies relative to Russia behind such accusations, and then furthering the deflective propaganda narrative by issuing an executive order designed to accuse and sanction political foes for their supposed subversive ties to Russia, has in effect taken a quite aggressive step to purposely support and strengthen the Russian position in Europe. Trump was attempting to stop the Russian Nord Stream Pipeline in order to keep Europe out of the destructive sphere of control of the Russian Federation, instead opting to forge a plan to have Europe purchase the surplus natural gas produced in the States through recently developed advanced fracking techniques, which would in effect have greatly strengthened our traditional European alliances, and weakened Russia’s influence over them. Were these the actions of a Russian secret agent? Why would such a Russian agent work against the wishes and goals of their patron state? Would not an actual agent of the Russian Federation work in concert with the goals and interests of the Federation, as has done the Biden Administration? Remember, when the minister rails and rails from the pulpit without ceasing against the sexual sin of others, you can be assured that he is an active participant in what he harshly and incessantly accuses others of doing. The Biden Administration strengthens the hand of Russia, and then rails against conservatives for being “Russian agents.”

The Biden Administration, and by extension the American hard left, is actively preferentially pursuing the interests of America’s current enemies; Russia, China, Iran, et al. By constantly accusing others of being “Russian Agents” and then actually inventing unconstitutional property seizure sanctions against those they falsely accuse, they are pushing their deflective narrative into the zone of comprehensive and all encompassing evil, from whence all totalitarian regimes have begun their active oppression of their fellow citizens. It begins with the issuance of edicts that allow non-legal sanctions against political opponents, and ends with suppression of their political enemies with yet even harsher methods, once their opponents are effectively marginalized and silenced. And most often it ends in re-education camps where a substantial percentage of the inmates lose their lives.

I urge all Americans to consider the actual goals and policies of the Biden Administration, not for the purported character that the hard left attributes to them, but for the nature of their true intent, character, and actual practical results. The Biden Administration is actively and provably furthering the interests of the Russian Federation, the Chinese Communist Party, and the Islamic Republic of Iran. All have declared themselves as mortal enemies of our American republic. Who then is rightfully to be considered the actual American subversive?

The overthrow of this and all potential future hard leftist American administrations is our only hope to save our civilization from the dangerous subversion that now lies within. To have fellow American citizens living on our shores that actively pursue our overthrow at the hands of our mortal foreign enemies is a paradigm that can no longer be suffered if we expect to survive as a nation. Enough is enough. Where are the heroes needed for today’s fight? The time is at hand. Stand and make your indelible mark on American history! Inscribe your names on the wall of the brave who have stood in support of American liberty at the risk of their own lives, ensuring the abiding freedom of themselves, their families, and their fellow countrymen. Gather your weapons and let’s prepare ourselves to take back our country and civilization.

American Renewal

From the inception of our country, its citizens have held certain beliefs and understandings in common, which have served as the foundational bedrock of our American civil contract. These understandings are rooted in our original Judeo/Christian ethic, namely that there is a God above us, that he is benevolent and merciful, and that he in his wisdom has laid down certain tenets and laws in order to guarantee our happiness and social prosperity, and that if followed, these tenets and laws would ensure our established and continued freedoms. Even non-religious Americans have traditionally subscribed to this common understanding—that there are principles of moral law and justice that if adhered to as a society will ensure that society’s peaceful social cohesion.

The original and longstanding practiced tenet of justice within the Judeo/Christian experience was described originally over 2,000 ago in the chronicles of the Bible. To love justice, and to do justice, was written of as a primary virtue, one which ensured the continued safety and happiness of all those to whom it was accorded. Justice was defined as the forced stoppage of a committed wrong against an individual or group of individuals—said wrong being defined by the commandments—and punishment for the unjust offenders, with the assurance that the injustice would not be allowed to continue. The application of traditional justice is what in essence ensures the actual peaceful coexistence of any society, by extending and ensuring the benefits of the moral law written to protect society’s wellbeing. This commitment to moral principles and justice is what allowed the extension of the broad individual rights and freedoms codified in the American Constitution. A population committed to shared moral principles, and to the application of traditional justice to ensure the safety of the citizenry and the continuance of these moral principles, was one who could be trusted with this novel and expansive new set of freedoms.

With the Judeo/Christian ethic firmly established in their minds through the religious beliefs of the original American citizens and their leaders, justice and individual rights were the primary focus of the organization of American society, and in particular of the American Constitution. These base tenets and laws have served as the bulwark of our internal peace for going on 250 years. The American Constitution, which grew out of the Judeo/Christian experience of our original citizens, codified the rights that could be safely given to a society that lived in respect for these philosophical tenets and laws.

Unfortunately, these tenets and laws, and the very nature of justice that springs from them, are under sustained assault in today’s America. There are specific forces at work attempting to undermine our long standing traditional moral tenets and laws, to replace them with new versions invented by men, and to reverse the traditional meaning of justice in our society. To those attempting this revolution, their definition of justice is diametrically opposed to the long standing and traditional definition—that just treatment is meted out in accordance with a set of just and loving commandments—that committing murder is unjust and must be sanctioned—that bearing false witness against your neighbor is unjust and must be sanctioned—that stealing your neighbor’s property is unjust and must be sanctioned.  But to the communist all these moral interpretations are relatively meaningless, and only of secondary and occasional importance. They hold to a different standard of morality and justice—that the struggle for equal economic outcome of all citizens is the absolute standard of morality, and that any other outcome is unjust, and constitutes a violation of their re-defined standard of justice.

Since the original meaning of justice, and the original code of ethics upon which it is built, is religious in nature and origin, communist thought therefore is inherently and diametrically opposed to religion and the concept of God. This is confirmed not only philosophically, but by the actions of every communist regime throughout history. During the reign of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Communists razed 50,000 churches, and drove the religious community underground. The church then had to meet in secret, and was subject to constant persecution and the threat of arrest. In the five years following the Bolshevik Revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were murdered by the regime. In China today, the communist regime closes active churches and persecutes their pastors. The hatred of the traditional Christian religion by all communists is inherent in their contrary interpretations of moral law and justice, and in their aggressive and violent attempts to destroy Christianity itself and its original form of societal justice. Karl Marx, who along with Fredrick Engels first defined communist theory, declared religion “an enemy of the people,” while the first leader of the Soviet Union Vladimir Lenin, stated: “religion and communism are incompatible in theory as well as practice. We must fight religion.”

In today’s America, a weakening of the long held meaning of justice is moving us towards adopting the communist interpretation, putting us in massive danger of losing the traditions and tenets that have held up our society and constitutional form of government for over two centuries. Without these supportive structures our traditional society will most certainly fall. Only an all out push with full resolve to crush these subversive attempts will suffice in the later stages of the revolution we find ourselves in. Our society is under sustained attack. We must awaken fully and fight back with whatever means necessary as defeat would prove to be catastrophic, signifying the end or our lives and our country as we have known them. And many of us would then most assuredly lose our lives at the hands of our communist enemies, as they then turn their attention to retribution.

Imagine a dinner party on the deck of a fine home overlooking the ocean. High above the water, the wine flowed and the conversation was stimulating and interesting. Then one party goer asked everyone to please be quiet for a moment, because he thought he heard a strange noise coming from the basement of the home. As silence ensued, a sawing or hacking sound could be heard emanating from the basement. Three men then went down to the basement to investigate, and found two men busily working, sawing through the massive support pillars in a slow, methodical manner. Hardly looking up from their work, as they sensed no danger from the three men, they continued their slow hard work. The men who had gone to investigate knew what the consequences were of the work, but in their amazed stupor, simply returned to the party, ignoring the sure knowledge that the large deck, holding sixty five inhabitants, and indeed the entire home, was soon to plunge over the cliff into the ocean below, surely killing all the inhabitants. Should this reaction by the three men not serve as the new definition of insanity? They had the numerical advantage, and the ability to overcome the two men, but declined to do so, putting sixty five celebrants in imminent danger of violent death.

What sane man would not rush to detain the men at work destroying the pillars that held up the lives of so many in sure safety, forcefully stopping the work, and then should the two men fight back, not counterattack with full force to save the lives of so many?

Yet this is the exact case in today’s America. We have hard leftists at work sawing and hacking away at the foundations of our society and form of government, with the full intent of seeing it fall. And make no mistake, as can be easily deduced by studying the consequences of historical hard leftists revolutions—many millions will be imprisoned, and millions will be killed. Will we be any less to blame than the three men who had overwhelming force in the basement in their favor, and yet in their disbelief at what was transpiring, and refusal to understand the certain results, neglected to come to their senses, exercise courage, and save their countrymen?

I will ask you the one seminal question upon which the future of our beloved country depends—do you have a working semi-automatic rifle, and 1,000 rounds of ammunition, and do you stand ready to utilize them in defense of your country? If not, simply return to the party and await the inevitable. You have effectively chosen not to prepare to finally stand in her defense. It will prove to be insufficient to ask an enemy in control of virtually all the levels of government, media, academia, and entertainment to “please stop.”  It will also do no good to try to organize politically at this latter stage of their revolution. They have amassed tremendous power as we slept, down to the very control of our communication mediums and election methods and machinery, effectively silencing our voices and stealing our vote, and have shown certainly that they have no intention to do anything else than to finish their demonic work currently unopposed.

Welcome to the party that is now our America! Consider your position carefully, as your decision will add its weight to the developing conservative mind that may provide the national salvation and renewal so sorely needed—or instead add its weight to the currently dominant hard leftist form of American destruction.

American Renewal

Before the advent of modern Western medicine and sophisticated sanitation systems, human beings were relegated to much shorter life spans and constant susceptibility to disabling physical maladies. Whereas people previously were apt to consider their maladies to be simply the will of God, now we see that they were just an indication of our lack of scientific advancement.

The same can be said for the arena of the mind and emotions. Deep depressions and emotional angst were occurrences not previously well understood. Sufferers were considered afflicted by demons or simply to be smitten without remedy by unknown causes. Not that modern psychology in general has offered much better answers than those offered in earlier centuries. The heavy reliance on psychotropic medication in order to mask and further the same lack of understanding of the root causes of these maladies is what generally passes for modern advancement in psychotherapy today. It seems masking symptoms is currently preferred to truly understanding and curing them.

There are avenues of modern psychology that do suggest real evident root causes and solutions, but because of the great difficulty in coming to grips with these causes and applying the solutions, they are not widely applied by the mainstream professional community. They can be understood only esoterically, and not by traditional analysis. They are not understood without the integration of the mind and emotions on a personal level by the professional therapist, who in most cases remains willfully blind to these causes in their own lives, and therefore, as a result, in the lives of their patients.

These more enlightened approaches are designated by numerous titles—primal therapy, regressive therapy, childhood trauma therapy, etc. Their approach springs from the premise that all mental and emotional dysfunction—all neurosis and psychosis—is a product of an inability to process grief and trauma, which is almost always laid down in childhood when the human emotional structure is at its most immature and vulnerable, and the child is unable to face and process the experience. This approach teaches that these blocked traumas must again be accessed in the memory, and this time fully experienced by the now mature adult, who is more able to understand and process the trauma and its resultant grief. They must be experienced and fully reacted to with both the mind and the emotions. Our God given natural human responses must be employed to bring natural healing—expressing anger, crying out in pain, deep weeping. The immature and completely vulnerable childhood system is not equipped to deal with the expressions of a lack of love from a parent—from neglect to emotional, physical, or sexual abuse. It is simply locked away until one is better able to process the experience. But far too often it is simply locked away permanently and then acted out for a lifetime.

Unfortunately most professional therapists prefer to prescribe psychotropic medications, dealing with the chemical imbalances that result from these blocked grief experiences instead of with the experiences themselves which precipitate the chemical imbalances, and therefore setting the internal chemical system back in balance.  Instead of doing the necessary work themselves, and then seeing clearly in order to lead others in their own attempt  to naturally heal, they decide to choose other avenues of approach—mostly to no avail.

While the general field of psychology has offered fresh perspectives to society, irrespective of their limited approach to human healing, there has been a correlative dark purpose applied to the field in general, in order to promote other societal agendas by both some within and without the profession.

When society was informed by the clinical observations of professionals that occurrences from our pasts can lead sufferers to the commission of crime, the assumption was made by many that rather than being correlative, the resultant historical deficit was the root cause of the later committed crime. The conclusion could of course be made then that the criminal was not fully responsible for their crimes, but rather that their criminal act out would not have occurred outside of their original abuse, and that their will and ability to know and to choose differently had been somehow disconnected. This divided allotment of responsibility cut against the grain of America’s long standing Christian heritage and tenets, which had always informed us that each of us was solely responsible for our own actions, and not for those of another, regardless of the circumstances we might find ourselves in. Throughout our history, it was always taught and assumed that no matter if our circumstances were tragic or idyllic, we were never the less still responsible. Whether life started out hard and then became easy, whether it started out easy and then became hard—it made no difference relative to our still remaining moral obligation to God and our fellow man—we were still able to know and to do the right.

As this newly skewed perspective gained a partial foothold in American society, it had a profound affect on our legal profession, and on the adjudication of crime and punishment. Whereas before the introduction of this perspective into society each member was held personally and strictly responsible for their actions no matter their background or experience—thereafter the legal system began modifying its judgements, considering a defendant’s past experiences as at least a partial root cause of the commission of their crime, naturally altering  the nature of the perpetrator’s level of responsibility. The introduction of the insanity plea became a common occurrence in courtrooms throughout the country, allowing in some cases brutal murderers to avoid suffering a fate at all equivalent to their innocent victims. This resultant criminal/victim power imbalance made the physical and emotional suffering of the murdered victim and their families and friends subservient to the past emotional suffering of the perpetrator, though they had committed no crime.

There are historical power structures that find this weakening of the American system of justice beneficial to their ultimate goals.  The leader of the Italian Communist Party at the time of Stalin, Antonio Gramsci, attempted his own version of the Bolshevik Revolution in Italy. He quickly found that the Italian society in general—the Italian family, the Italian Catholic Church, the Italian legal system, and the Italian school system—all stood by as pillars fully supporting the Italian government, rendering it impervious to overthrow. Italy’s legal system threw Gramsci in prison for 25 years for his sedition, where he proceeded to write his Prison Diaries, in which he ruminated on what went wrong during his attempted revolution, and what could have been done differently in order to realize success.

Gramsci came to the conclusion that any attempted overthrow of a Christian oriented nation would be impossible without first attacking, in a long term fashion, the supportive pillars of the target country. He proceeded to chronicle his recommended means of attack, which focused on the breakdown of the Christian church and its traditional tenets as the seminal attempt in order to topple the remaining pillars, which were all based on the church and her teachings.

One of the tenets of the church that has traditionally undergirded American society is the tenet of personally responsibility. Each person is solely, only, and fully responsible for their own actions, and not those of another, in front of God and their fellow citizens.  If, according to the destructive strategy of Antonio Gramsci, this primary tenet of the church can be at least partially degraded, American leftist followers of Gramsci will have scored a victory toward their ultimate goal—subverting the American psychological and legal professions in the ultimate service of their desired revolution.

Considering a criminals childhood experiences and deficits as causative agents in the commission of their crimes, effectively at least partially mitigating their direct responsibility for their crimes—opens the door wide not only for a partial nullification of the preventative influence of the application of strict legal  justice, but also for the subversion and breakdown of the traditional American pillar our legal system represents. It is a direct assault on one of the supportive pillars of American society, as intended.

American Renewal

Upon his exit from the Constitutional Convention of 1787, anxious citizens were gathered outside Liberty Hall to learn what had transpired in the proceedings. A Mrs. Powell of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin answered without hesitation, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Franklin did not reply, “A democracy, if you can keep it.” Political representation secured by American national sovereignty was the primary philosophical basis of the Declaration of Independence written by Franklin’s contemporary Thomas Jefferson. Being shut out of representation in the British legislature, yet being subject to its whims and laws while having no representative say in the making of British law that regulated them, the American Colonists therefore moved to separate themselves through force from the British. When freedom was won by war and America’s national sovereignty was firmly established, colonial leaders set their minds to devise forms to deepen and strengthen the shallow basis that they knew simple democracy to be as a stand alone form of governance.

The colonial leaders knew full well that the whims of men and their potential liberty infringing votes were no basis for a successful governmental structure protective of the personal freedoms and general liberties that they sought to secure for United States citizens. They knew that influential citizens might at any later time convince a majority of their fellow citizens to vote for even the most egregious proposals and to enact the most oppressive laws by simply gathering a majority of citizens to temporarily agree, and thus to enact long enduring laws that would flagrantly strip personal freedoms—freedoms which the colonial leaders sought to enshrine in perpetuity.  They knew that simple democracy was too reliant on present and transitory passions as compared to enduring eternal principles. Franklin commented on another occasion, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Franklin, Jefferson, and the other American founders knew that in order to have a republic that not only secured simple political representation, but also secured broad and permanent personal rights and freedoms for its citizens, a deeper and more sophisticated governmental structure was needed. Franklin’s comment spelled out the need for a buttress to exist that could thwart the whims of a simply democratic and therefore potentially oppressive government. The buttress in that particular case was the Constitutional protection securing the God given right to arm oneself sufficiently to prevent the stripping of personal freedoms and prevention of one’s own personal legal and political subjugation. The vulnerable lamb now not only had a vote, but a Constitutionally protected right to bear equalizing arms sufficient to prevent its own oppression by fellow citizens who might gather a majority of their fellow citizens to agree to its oppression.

The right to carry a defensive weapon to protect oneself from tyranny was certainly the seminal Constitutional right enshrined by our Founders, one secured to defend against the dangers of a strict American democracy. This though was only one of numerous rights they intelligently enshrined in our Constitution in order to fashion a form of governance permanently protective of human freedoms and happiness, while also guaranteeing that each citizen shared in the decisions of self government. The right to speak freely, and to associate with those one saw fit to associate with, were recognized also as God given rights not to be abridged. The right to protect one’s personal papers and communications from their intrusive inspection and confiscation by government authorities was protected by our Constitution. The right to practice one’s religion was also secured, along with other specified constitutional rights.

The hard left in America today is enamored with a political form called Democratic Socialism. It is in effect simply socialism instituted by the agreement of the majority through democratic means. (Communism’s founders Marx and Engels stated that socialism was simply the waypoint between capitalism and communism, the world’s greatest killer in the last century) These purely democratic means towards instituting socialism entail gaining democratic hegemony through mass propaganda programs, suppressing countervailing positions, instituting aggressive voter fraud, propagandizing the general public to accept the purported advantages of the socialist form of government, then effectively instituting it through the popular vote. In order to accomplish this goal, they must indeed degrade the primacy of the Constitution and its protective personal freedoms, and enshrine above it the notion of strict democracy. Leftists in America therefore constantly work to degrade the protections enshrined in the Constitution—speech, assembly, firearm ownership, freedom of worship, etc. and alternatively strive to promote the primacy of strict democracy as a principle—therefore whatever the current crop of in-power politicians see as the new rules would then be the new rules, whether or not they align with our original Constitution and its protection of personal rights or not. If they can convince the populace to vote for Democratic Party policies that strip rights and personal freedoms from the people, their desired form of authoritarian government can then be democratically instituted.

This is the essence of Democratic Socialism, and it must be resisted on all fronts. It’s promoters and their subversive system need to be eventually, if ultimately necessary, faced with overwhelming force in order to block their corrosive philosophies from permanently taking hold in America.

American Renewal