Americans Warned of ‘Revolution from Above’and the Appearance of the ‘Messiah’
Anyone that has spent more than five minutes delving into the background of the progressive media’s appointed Messiah — the self-professed Marxist radical community organizer and “regular” attendee of the Jeremiah Wright school of America-hatred — a man so well-versed in the tactics of the leftist agitator Saul Alinsky that he was dubbed “the master” — current American president Barack Hussein Obama is wholly unsurprised by the authoritarian and borderline totalitarian trajectory of the nation.
As a student of Soviet history, a fluent speaker of Russian and a journalist who worked a short walk from Red Square in the old state press building of ITAR-TASS, I’ve always been impressed by the accounts of KGB defectors describing national politics in America. One such account is that of Yuri Bezmenov, who was a KGB propaganda specialist embedded in the Canadian press, who describes the open (i.e. non-clandestine) effort to ideologically subvert the United States:
The most fascinating thing about this interview is that there is no talk of grand conspiracies. No microphones in Coca-Cola bottles, no cloak-and-dagger exchanges of briefcases, no blowing up of bridges, and none of the “James Bond cliches” that animate the public imagination about espionage. What Bezmenov says is this:
“Ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate, overt and open. You can see it with your own eyes. All you have to do… all American mass media has to do… is to unplug their bananas from their ears, open up their eyes, and they can see it. There’s no mystery. There’s nothing to do with espionage. I know that espionage, intelligence gathering, looks more romantic. It sells more deodorants through their advertising, probably. That’s why your Hollywood producers are so crazy about James Bond type of thrillers.
But in reality, the main emphasis of the KGB is not in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and opinion of many defectors of my caliber. Only about 15% of time, money and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process, which we call either ideological subversion or “active measures,” aktivniye meripriyatiye in the language of the KGB, or psychological warfare.
What it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country. It’s a great brainwashing process, which goes very slow, and it’s divided in four basic stages.
The first one being demoralization — it takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years which it requires to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism or American patriotism.
The result? The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the 1960s, drop-outs or ‘half-baked intellectuals,’ are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern.
You cannot change their mind. Even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. In other words, these people… the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To rid society of these people, you need another 15 to 20 years to educate a new generation of patriotically minded and commonsense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society.”
During the last half of the decade, I attended a PhD. program in Political Science, and personally studied Marx & Marxism, Post-Soviet Russia, and also the intersection of civil liberties and the “war on terror.” I can say with certainty that the majority of professors on the faculty were one variant or another of Marxist; and tellingly, one professor claimed to be on the fence between Keynesianism and Marxist-Leninism. Far more common in academia than even the doctrinaire paleomarxist is the “neomarxist,” who believes in such things as “social justice” and spreading Marxist ideas through doubletalk and spreading redistributionist values through the culture.
No… America having once been a free society, all those who would have sought to weaken the U.S. would have to have done to undermine it, or even turn it into a vehicle for advancing their own political agenda, would be to embed self-defeating ideas in the minds of the intelligentsia and have them indoctrinate teachers, journalists, and artists, all the way down to schoolchildren, and as a new initiative would have it about “free” daycare, toddlers.
“Progressive” ideas would be taught in school K-12 and their antitheses of liberty and individual rights stripped from the curriculum. Government would become in the minds of the misled a means of equalizing wealth and achieving the needs of the poor. The indispensable concept is that government as and intermediary between civil and economic relations would be deemed necessary in order to protect people from each other and themselves.
Bezmenov’s ideas are not fanciful relics of the Red Scare fears that many Americans felt during the Reagan-era generation. The left-wing program he described — demoralization, destablization, crisis, and normalization — is specific and relevant. Does anyone doubt that the Obama administration’s goal is to capitalize on crisis as a way of furthering its agenda? Both Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel have explicitly used language advocating never letting a good crisis go to waste.
The way to get both progressives and “conservatives” to cede to this concept is to spread the notion that government is needed to control others. On the leftist side, the idea that economic justice demands redistribution and government intervention would become the norm.
On the right side, the fear that Muslims are everywhere and likely to blow up a shopping mall near you would become widespread; and thus, the matrix-like government sweep of information to protect us from the ubiquitous threat of Islam writ large could be accepted as a necessary evil. Never mind that there are hundreds of millions of Americans who want nothing to do with Islam culturally, and an easy solution is to keep people from terrorist states out of the country to begin with.
Like socialized medicine. Anticipating the looming disaster of Obamacare, whose privacy-destroying implications are only now being grasped, along with the dismantling of Americans’ right to self-determination, former President Ronald Reagan had this to say (worth quoting at length):
“Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.
There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent over owning more than 19,000 businesses covering different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.
But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.”
The American people continue to reject socialized medicine, and so they protested against it in 2010. And as any reader of Saul Alinsky could have predicted, the government was turned against the protesters. The IRS’ tax exempt office acted as an instrument of political suppression and refused to authorize tea party, conservative and pro-Constitution groups in the manner it would rubberstamp progressive groups.
But why should we be surprised? Between 94% and 98% of the campaign contributions of the National Treasury Employees Union representing the IRS were given to Democrats in the last few national elections. Professors were major donors to the Obama campaign in the last election. The 90%-95% level of support given to Democrats by professors, teachers, artists, lawyers, bureaucrats and minorities is simply unnatural for a purportedly free society. It smacks of patron-client cronyism and a concerted, organized program to select fellow-travelers for offices across the land.
It is highly disturbing to see this form of political correctness seeping into the U.S. military. Todd Starnes reports that a soldier is being reprimanded for even reading Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. One can be sure if he were reading one of Barack Obama’s autobiographies, not a word would have been said to him.
But in one sense, one could understand why the military brass who are sympathetic to the progressive agenda, having been educated in America’s universities, would be skittish about allowing the enlisted men to read such “reactionary” ideas as the ones animating the American revolution of limited government, liberty and individual rights. Never mind that the entire military and the Commander-in-Chief swear loyalty to the U.S. Constitution. But “what difference does it make,” right?