Submitted For Your Consideration - The Left's Playbook

[American Patriot]

Welcome to the twilight zone friends.

I found this in a stack of anarchist books I was looking into. Looks like most of this comes RIGHT OUT of the Left's Rule Book:

THE RULES OF DISINFORMANTION--THE POLITICIAN'S CREDO

Note:
The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are
generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist
to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the
leadership, key players, or planning level of the organized crime syndicate
we know as government.


1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know,
don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc.
If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the
issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant./ Avoid discussing key issues and
instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being
critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as
the "How dare you!" gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers./ Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.


4. Use a straw man./ Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's
argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the
opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists
based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation,
or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their
significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the
charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of
the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule./ This is also known
as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as
variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such
as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists","conspiracy
buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual
deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear
of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run./ In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent
or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be
fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet
and letters-to -the-editor environments where a steady stream of new
identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning
-- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and
never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's
viewpoint.

7. Question motives./ Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to
imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other
bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the
defensive.

8. Invoke authority./ Claim for yourself or associate yourself with
authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to
illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without
discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb./ No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered,
avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any
sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a
conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news./ A derivative of the straw
man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make
charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it
can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it
dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent
charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be
associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash
without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the
opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions./ Using a minor matter or
element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that
some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have
seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply
greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on
your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for
"coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more
serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution./ Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events
surrounding the issue, and the multitude of players and events, paint the
entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following
the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address
the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic./ Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning
backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual
material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions./ Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to
solve the problem at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items
qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions./ This requires creative
thinking unless the act was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence./ If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you
won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject./ Usually in connection with one of the other ploys
listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or
controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more
manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue"
with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to
avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents./ If you can't do anything
else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses
which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and
generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you
avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their
emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by
then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs./ This is perhaps a
variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be
presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and
demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist,
but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be
safely destroyed or withheld, such as a shredded govt. study). In order to
completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and
be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are
acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other
authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence./ Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues
designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful
tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best
when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the
facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a parliamentary committee study, Supreme court test, or other
empowered investigative body.// Subvert the (process) to your benefit and
effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without true public input. Once
convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be acceptable to the
committee/court as evidence when properly handled, damaging evidence can be
discarded. For instance, if you own the judicial/committee officials, it can
insure an official hearing hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is
sealed, refused or buried and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once
a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the govt.
innocent, but it can also be used to obtain authority when seeking to extend
govt. powers) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth./ Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s),
leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via
scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes
favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so
authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions./ If the above does not seem to be working
to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of
unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them
as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics./ If the above methods do not prevail, consider
removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the
need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their meeting
with an accident, an arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their
character by release of damaging information, or merely by proper
intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish or seek less contentious employment./ If you are a key holder
of dirty secrets or otherwise overly operationally illuminated and you think
the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. Find a
cozy non controversial plumb in the public or private sector (secured with
your party loyalty) and evade the heat your policies have created. Or if you
really F****ED up a lot of people....vacate to a third world dictatorship
that understands your brand of politics where your tax swollen bank account
will allow you to live like a king.



[snarfed from an email forwarded by jfa]

[Ryan Ruck]

Wow, that is quite amazing to see what we all generally refer to as the "Left's Playbook" actually written out as a playbook!

I think this deserves a permanent tack like the Communist Goals tacked thread. Also edited the title to better reflect the contents.

[American Patriot]

Thanks!

[Ryan Ruck]

Here you go folks, a perfect example of this playbook in action!

NPR Identifies ‘False Flag’ Anti-Gunner As A ‘Gun Rights Advocate’ On Show

January 19, 2011

National Public Radio demonstrated another example of the intellectual dishonesty of the anti-gun movement by identifying a “false flag” anti-gunner as a “gun rights advocate” on a recent show that called for limits on firearm magazine capacity.

The show, On Point with Tom Ashbrook, aired an episode on Monday, January 17, titled "The 33-Bullet Magazine: How Much Firepower is Too Much?" that was a love letter to the anti-gun crowd. While billed as a "debate" on magazine limits, the guests present were weighted towards the anti-gun side and, no surprise, the consensus they reached called for additional restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights by limiting how much ammunition our firearms can hold.

One of the biggest lies was how NPR represented guest Tracee Larson as a “gun rights advocate and blogger.” Even on the surface the selection of Larson seemed an odd choice as her blog, The Well Heeled Shooter, at that point had only two posts. Why then would NPR pick her as a representative from the gun rights side?

A REAL gun rights blogger, Sebastian from Snowflakes in Hell, knows the answer. In his post, "Astroturfing," Sebastian shows that Tracee Larson was previously a member of the Advisory Board of the American Hunters and Shooters Association, a “false flag” organization that pretended to represent gun rights while actually calling for more gun control.

AHSA was founded by millionaire Ray Schnoenke, a leading contributor to Democratic causes. Schnoenke previously also contributed to Handgun Control, Inc. the predecessor to the Brady Campaign to Stop Gun Violence. If that’s not enough evidence of the true anti-gun rights nature of the AHSA, this Washington Post article discusses how the Obama campaign paid for Schnoenke to travel to 40 events in four states to calm the fears of pro-gun voters during the presidential election.

This brings us back to Tracee Larson: Since the AHSA website went down in October 2010, and the organization has apparently ceased operations, Larson evidently needs a new outlet for her anti-gun rights agenda. Hence the creation of her blog, which premiered after the recent tragedy in Tucson and has only had three posts and gained three followers since then.

It’s amazing that the fine folks at National Public Radio were able to identify Tracee Larson as such a prominent voice for “gun rights advocacy” based on such scant evidence. I look forward to hearing Sarah Brady touted as a “gun rights advocate” in a future NPR broadcast.

[American Patriot]

1. Communists stage fake Tea Party event!
Five Thousand anti-American protestors rallied in New York City over the weekend shutting down Wall Street. Mistakenly believing the event was tied to the Tea Party, some citizens who arrived for the event were aghast at what they saw, while others were using social media networks to encourage participation.


Eric Odom, Director of Interactive Media for Grassfire Nation decided to do some digging and found some very, VERY disconcerting evidence suggesting the event is tied to a radical communist/globalist agenda.


The “Occupy Wall Street� event currently underway in NYC is a project connected to the "Day of Rage" campaign. On the front-end, both look somewhat innocent, but on the backend, they're being coordinated by some dark networks/coalitions.


ACTION: Tea Partiers must not be fooled by this event. Many Ron Paul supporters are spreading the news about the ongoing “Occupy Wall Street� event via Facebook and other social media outlets.


In fact, this is a very dangerous network of groups organizing the event. Ron Paul doesn't align himself with the groups behind the event, and the Tea Party movement is not involved.


Click here to read Eric’s complete report about “Occupy Wall Street� at LibertyNews.com.

[American Patriot]

Liberal media: Conservative views are alien!
From our friends at The Media Research Center

“There is a huge disparity in the media using the words ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ to describe candidates and political personalities,” says Emmy award winning journalist Bernard Goldberg.

During his Labor Day appearance on Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor, Goldberg discussed the shocking findings of a recent Media Research Center study that show the major networks have used the “conservative” label an astounding 20 times more often than they identified liberals!

Underscoring the overt liberal bias, Goldberg said, “This is a media warning label that says ‘conservatives’ are dangerous to your mental health.”

“To liberal journalists, conservatives are out of the mainstream -- are alien, and their views are dangerous,” says Goldberg. Only liberal elitist views are mainstream -- all others are foreign and dangerous.

Given the results of this important study, it is apparent that the use of these kinds of labels is a concerted effort by the Elitist liberal media to cast conservatives in a negative light.

ACTION: That’s why the MRC launched the petition demanding the Leftist media provide a balanced field on their election coverage, and they need your help to counter the leftists’ aggressive efforts. Click here now to sign the MRC petition demanding fair and balanced news coverage in the 2012 Election cycle.

[American Patriot]

Obama to Hispanics: Jobs are yours!
Campaigning for the Hispanic vote, President Obama told a Latino audience that his $447 billion package of tax cuts and public works projects would put more money into the pockets of Latino workers, business owners while increasing opportunities for Hispanics.

In his pandering to the Hispanic communities, during a July speech to the national Council of La Raza, the nation’s largest Hispanic advocacy group that actively supports immigration reforms that favor illegal aliens, Obama bragged that he’d “poached quite a few of your alumni to work in my administration.�

Townhall, in their September 2011 issue reports that since Obama appointed civil rights advocate and former Senior Vice President for La Raza, Cecilia Munoz as his director of intergovernmental affairs, “the organization more than doubled its government cash intake (from $4.1 million in FY 2009 to $11 million in FY 2010).

ACTION: This is Obama’s objective -- his vision for America, and worse yet, he’s counting on you paying for it! This is utterly outrageous and unacceptable. That’s why Grassfire Nation has launched a national petition demanding “No Amnesty for Illegals!� The Hispanic vote is crucial for Obama, and as we are already seeing, he is boasting and promising whatever it takes to gain their support and vote in the upcoming election.

Now with the 2012 election cycle underway, your support for secured borders and no amnesty has never been more important. Please take a moment right now to sign Grassfire Nation’s “No Amnesty for Illegals!� and confront Obama’s distorted vision for America.

[Malsua]

Uhm, just for the record, the whole "Shut down Wall Street" thing, well, about 300 people showed up who were mostly aging hippies and college students. Only a faint hint of patchouli lingered in the air.

On Saturday, they demanded "We promise the banks won't open tomorrow!". They were right, they didn't open. Tomorrow was Sunday.

[American Patriot]

I just posted that cuz it showed up in email this morning.

I laughed about the banks and closing Wall Street knowing it was a weekend. I was rather surprised no one pointed that out to anyone.....

No one said the left was SMART!

[Malsua]

Uhm, just for the record, the whole "Shut down Wall Street" thing, well, about 300 people showed up who were mostly aging hippies and college students. Only a faint hint of patchouli lingered in the air.

On Saturday, they demanded "We promise the banks won't open tomorrow!". They were right, they didn't open. Tomorrow was Sunday.

Someone stole my line.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...rack-they-ran/

Oakland Non-Occupant: I Rack, They Ran


....Ah, the satisfying cla-chunk of a shotgun being racked. Is there a sweeter sound to a threatened property owner? Can anything else send rampaging anarchists running faster, leaving behind only a faint whiff of patchouli and B.O.?...

[American Patriot]

Lol

[American Patriot]

January 2, 2013 The Socialist Mind Game: A Brief Manual

By Oleg Atbashian
We are being played; it's time we learned the game.
Conservatives have their Constitution. Progressives have their Narrative. The current battle for America is between these two concepts, and each side uses different rules to fight it.
One set of rules is consistent with an unchanging objective: limited government and individual freedoms. The other side's rules are as fickle as their goals, which are never fully disclosed beyond the equivocal references to fairness and hyphenated forms of justice. They will have to remain vague and deny their true allegiances until a time when American voters will no longer squirm at the word "socialism."
And yet spotting them isn't that hard. As a bird is known by his feathers, socialists are known by their Game.
First tried and mastered in the USSR, the Game has since been popularized around the world, assuming various forms, names, and colors -- from red to brown to green. It is now taking hold in the United States under the blue web banners of Obama's campaign infomercials.
The laws of society and human nature are such that socialism can only be achieved through a certain sequence of steps and manipulations. For instance, the only way to attain material equality is to confiscate someone's property and give it to others. That necessitates a centralized mechanism of coercion, redistribution, and control. Such a system gives extraordinary corrupting powers to a small centralized elite, while turning the rest of the citizenry into a compliant, obsequious herd.
All those who claimed they can do it differently were doomed to retrace the same path. Once you unleash the ancient powers of collectivism, you have only two options: control the human herd or be trampled underfoot.
Drawing blood is always an option, but there's also a "cleaner" way to control the crowds by manipulating their minds with the cattle prods of collectivist morals and a fictional narrative that supplants the reality.
Let's call it the Mind Game of Manipulative Illusions.
The Game existed since Cain and Abel, but it developed into an art form in the 20th century, with the rise of totalitarian regimes armed with state-controlled education, entertainment, and the media.
For a dictatorship to run efficiently, a sufficient number of people must give the regime a moral license to rule over them. The Mind Game of Manipulative Illusions secures and extends such a license.
Even the Soviet Communists, with all their tools of repression and fear, with all their power over anyone's life and death, were still pressed to play mind games to make the people feel good about the Party rule. Towards the end they went easy on the Game and relaxed their grip on the media, entertainment, and education, accepting the policies of Glasnost. Once they lost the ability to control people's hearts and minds, they also lost their moral license and, with it, the country.
The Game can mutate and adjust to different cultures, but its basic rules always remain as follows:
Socialism is not just about taking away your money; it's also about making you praise the takers as your saviors. You are expected to feel good about being robbed of opportunities, talents, and success. You must agree that "you didn't build that." There must be a popular consensus that the crumbs you are getting back from the government are a sign of caring and largess -- not a meager fraction of your actual earnings. Last but not least, you must sincerely believe that those who are trying to protect you from the thieves are really your enemies and deserve to be destroyed.
Building up and maintaining such an illusion on a massive scale requires participation of the media, education, and entertainment industries in a coordinated, long-term propaganda campaign.
Once the illusion reaches a critical mass, those afflicted by it become immune to facts, numbers, or rational arguments. Confronting them with logic will only cause more resentment, name-calling and, sometimes, violence.
The little game of illusions that President Obama is running under the name of "tax cuts for the middle class" is part of the larger Game; it contains all of the above elements.
The plan is to pass yet another extension of Bush's tax cuts - i.e., to keep the status quo for the most -while excluding families with a joint income of over $250,000. In plain speak, it's a tax hike. But calling things by their real names would be against the rules; this isn't how the Game is played.
This mass mailing from Obama's Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter shows us how to play it:

I hope you had a lovely holiday and all is well. I'm writing with a quick update on the "fiscal cliff" and how you can get involved.

Right now, President Obama is asking you to think about what $2,000 a year means to you and your family -- because Congress needs to hear it.

The Senate has passed a bill that stops taxes from going up for 98 percent of American families, and asks those who can afford it to pay a little more. If the House follows suit, President Obama is ready to sign it as soon as it hits his desk.

If they fail to do so, a typical middle-class family of four will see their taxes go up by $2,000 in just a few short weeks.
President Obama is asking Congress to do the right thing and act before the New Year, but he needs our help. We've got a good track record here: When we make our voices heard and urge Congress to take action -- whether it's about health care, student loans, Wall Street reform, or "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- they listen.

Watch this new video about the President's tax plan, and take a moment to share your story: What does $2,000 a year mean to you and your family?

Listening to Obama now, one could have never guessed that these are the same "Bush's tax cuts," against which he had vigorously campaigned in the past -- just like one could have never learned from his previous speeches that the reviled "tax cuts for the rich" had been saving middle-class families as much as $2,200 a year.
Until recently, the $2,200 amount was treated as classified information, which the Administration and the compliant media deemed unfit for consumption by the unwashed masses. Now that Obama wins reelection and needs to postpone the economic disaster caused by his first term, he "declassifies" the previously subversive amount and parades it on My.BarackObama.com as a centerpiece of his new glorious campaign for the people.
Simply put, Obama first discredits his predecessor's idea, then steals it, bundles it with a job-killing tax hike, and rebrands it as his own benevolent gift to the toiling masses. Judging by responses on Obama's official blog, WhiteHouse.gov, and Twitter, many of his supporters believe they are actually getting something out of it -- but in reality they are about to lose what they have due to the resulting cutbacks, layoffs, and price increases.
As the Game goes on, just feeling good about the imaginary gift is no longer enough. You are expected to participate in spreading this Orwellian fantasy by haranguing Congress with demands of a tax hike while calling it a tax cut.
Join the herd and you will experience the collectivist sense of belonging, entitlement, and empowerment by engaging in quixotic class-struggle against the mythical windmills and all those mean-spirited capitalists who are conspiring to rob you of the rightful $2,200 disbursement. Forget the phrase "policies that got us into this mess"; these policies are now all about "doing the right thing."
You end up with a sincere belief that greedy corporations, Republicans, the Tea Party, and the rest of the profligates opposing Obama's policies are the perfidious enemy who deserves to be punished and purged.
If you're wondering what kind of ignorant, misinformed, and morally misguided fools would fall for this trick, look no further than Obama's most recent 56% job approval rating in the midst of a needlessly prolonged recession. The White House propagandist Stephanie Cutter knows her demographic and constructs simple phrases she believes they can understand. However, one question remains: if the Obama voters are the best and the brightest half of this nation, why does Ms. Cutter talk to them in the tone of a condescending kindergarten teacher?
The Game has a part for everyone, from top to bottom. As the top players obtain unprecedented powers, those at the bottom get high on the palliative illusion of safety and well-being.
That illusion is as powerful as it is addictive; a mere exposure to facts of life will cause the addict to writhe in agony. It is truly the Oxycontin for the masses. No presidential candidate can win on the promise of withdrawal; those who feel entitled to a pain-free existence will only vote for better and stronger illusions. The more the addiction spreads, the slimmer the chances of a realist ever occupying the White House again.
This can last for as long as there are enough productive taxpayers to support the habit. Once they also get hooked, stop working, or the system runs out of resources, expect a fearsome, excruciating withdrawal of epic proportions. Until then, keep rational arguments to yourself unless you crave losing friends and alienating people.
If you tell them that there is no such thing as a pain-free life, they'll think you are some sadistic fascist who thrives on pain and takes pleasure in hurting people.
The problem with that attitude is that pain is nature's way to warn us of danger. If it burns, don't touch it. If it hurts, don't repeat it. People who are born without an ability to feel pain are incapable of learning safe behaviors and are doomed to live a short life of bumps, burns, broken bones, and worse. A pain-free society would be even less viable.
The real choice, therefore, is between the occasional sharp pain of individual effort and the dull, permanent pain of collective misfortune, since redistributive economies always end in misery, shortages, and corruption. Western Europe's gradual introduction of socialism is directly proportional to its gradual economic and moral decline, as evidenced by violent riots in response to inevitable austerity measures.
In the U.S., the pain-free life will be even shorter if the country falls off a cliff.
When the painkillers become useless, The Game remedies it by directing the massive anger toward the opposition.
The perception of a relentless struggle with the opposition must be permanent and persuasive. Even in times of calm and prosperity the people must believe that the opposition is holding them hostage and only the firm, wise guidance of the People's Leader is saving them from imminent ruin. When the opponents are too few, too weak, and too disoriented to put up a real fight, their power and influence must be exaggerated.
The Game has its logic: for socialism to work, there has to be unanimity and compliance. Dissent leads to system malfunctions, causing hardship for all those in the care of the state. That effectively makes the dissenter a traitor and a public enemy. The need to suppress opposition necessitates a totalitarian form of government. While we aren't at that stage yet, the demonization of dissenters has already begun.
Until a time when the opposition can be eliminated completely, having opponents can still be useful: you can steal their ideas, take advantage of their desire to help the economy, and blame them for any of your own failures. In the meantime, certain rules must be followed to control the public opinion and, through it, the opposition itself.
Maintain the perception of being constantly under attack. Don't examine the opponents' beliefs, nor answer their arguments. Discredit any media channels that offer them a platform. Enforce the following media template: the opposition is evil, treasonous, unfathomable, and psychotic. They can't be reasoned with. They are inspired by fascism and financed by a conspiracy of shady oligarchs. Defame their donors. Whatever the mischief you're planning to pull off, accuse them of doing it first; then proceed as planned, describing your actions as a necessary intervention. And above all, ridicule, ridicule, ridicule!
Imagine a scenario in which a theoretical group of left-wing radicals takes over America by playing the Game as described; then answer this question: how would their actions be different from what Obama, the Democrat Party, and their allies are doing today?
The stated intentions and the feel-good, vague rhetoric are just words. If the result is the same, nothing else matters. We lose.
Oleg Atbashian, a writer and graphic artist from the former USSR, currently lives in Florida. He is the creator of ThePeoplesCube.com, a satirical website where he writes under the name of Red Square. He is also the author of Shakedown Socialism.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2Grh1mLUb
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[American Patriot]

January 21, 2013
The Collectivist Mind Game, Part 1: Demonizing the Non-Compliant
By Oleg Atbashian

In the libertarian sci-fi classic, "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress," Robert A. Heinlein describes a successful revolution of the individualistic, free-market-oriented residents of the Moon against the Earth's tyrannical big government. The ins and outs of agitating and organizing the masses to fight the oppressive Authority feel just as realistic as the finer points of everyday life in the underground Lunar cities of the future.

The proposed revolutionary scenario could even serve as a workable model for similar real-life endeavors, if only the renowned futurist author hadn't neglected to factor in the immanent function of any oppressive regime: systemic brainwashing of its subjects through the media, education, and entertainment channels.

If the tyrants on Earth were worth their salt, all the freedom-loving colonists would be subjected to an intense, manipulative indoctrination, which would shape their self-image as small and sinful "little guys" vis-Ã*-vis the powerful, virtuous government that serves the powerless and protects them against all enemies, including themselves.

Thus, the government's propagandistic narrative would establish the illusion of a society divided into three major classes: the ruling government class, endowed with benevolent powers to guide or punish; the majority class of hapless losers, whose survival depended on the government's largesse and protection; and an unquantifiable class of demonized mysterious enemies of the government and, by extension, of the people, who would be the perceived culprits of all failures, hardships, and misery of the little guys' everyday existence.

The majority class would itself be divided into an assortment of narrow-interest groups, held together only by the glue of government's redistributive, pacifying and equalizing powers, as well as by their shared hostility towards the designated "enemies."

The prevailing feelings in such a society would be the collectivist fervor, envy of individual achievers, fear of chaos in the absence of the government's protection, hatred of anti-government elements, and hope for a better future once all the hidden enemies are unveiled and eliminated.

This makes Heinlein's scenario of a free-market revolution highly unlikely. No self-respecting oppressive regime would start a crackdown on the rebels without priming the population with a mass-media campaign that would show how big government benefits most of the people, and how the resistance is destroying the lives of the common folk. As a minimum, the government would parade a poor little girl crying on camera because she and her family suffered from the hands of the rebels. Even those who didn't hate the rebels before would hate them now.

In a society shaped by the government's mind games of manipulative illusions, a dissenter sticks out like a sore thumb. Once the resistance has been demonized, its members will be quickly identified and denounced by the compliant citizenry, labeled as the enemy, and be dealt with by law enforcement.

In the end, the self-preservation of modern-day totalitarianism is ensured, not so much by the secret police with its army of snitches and brutal enforcers, as by modern technologies of psychological manipulation through the media, education, and entertainment.

Perhaps, Heinlein's tyrannical regime came off so hapless because the author had had no experience of living in a totalitarian statist system. Writing The Moon in the early 1960s, he likely modeled the actions of the Lunar Authority on the methods used by the U.S. government against the Communists. And, as we now know, the U.S. government failed that mission, just like the Lunar Authority did in Heinlein's novel.

The FBI mostly relied on surveillance, infiltration, and recruiting of informants. Occasional amateur propaganda designed to immunize Americans against the seductive statist rhetoric turned out to be a flash in the pan. It was child's play compared to the vast arsenal deployed by the KGB and its affiliates in Communist countries.

The United States at the time didn't have an all-encompassing, totalitarian propaganda machine like its enemies did. State-enforced mind control, by definition, is incompatible with the principles of living in a free world. Statists, on the other hand, have no such limitations; playing mind games for them is a way of life. This makes it asymmetrical warfare.

Statists, of course, would like to have everything shared -- except their power. In free democracies they always demand their share of political power -- and always get what they want. However, once they are in power, they keep it to themselves and demonize the opposition.

The Marxist ideal of Communism is an altruistic collectivist society of the future, in which there will be no need for government, family, or private property. Freed from capitalist exploitation, people are expected to unleash their full potential and create unprecedented material abundance. The selfish notion of the pursuit of individual happiness will wither away. There will be no money, no greed, no deprivation, and, therefore, no crime.

However, since a society can't directly leap from capitalism into communism, Marx reasoned that a dictatorial socialist state would be a necessary transition in order to develop the required material base, help to spread the revolution around the world, and to condition the people's minds by uprooting greed and selfishness (or to eliminate those individuals who can't be conditioned).

Leaving the debunking of utopian follies for another time, let's just say that the totalitarian socialist state is where they always get bogged down. Despite their ideal of a stateless future, the leftists invariably become ruthless and uncompromising statists. It no longer matters whether it's a doctrinaire Marxist socialism or "corporate" fascism; if the end result is evil, original intentions don't count.

In Russia, the communists used to demonize their opponents long before the Revolution, which made it easier for them to physically eliminate the opposition later. As soon as they were in full control of the government, they began to demonize entire segments of the society, subcultures, and classes of people whom they deemed incapable of change.

Observe a visual example of communist demonization: an agitprop poster titled "Enemies of the 5-Year Plan," more broadly interpreted as "enemies of socialism" and, by extension, "enemies of the people."

A disparaging verse at the bottom describes who the enemies are:

The wealthy landowner
The kulak (a pejorative term for a wealthy farmer who "exploits" hired labor)
The drunk
The clergy (a Russian Orthodox Priest)
The bourgeois press (a non-compliant, independent journalist)
The capitalist (a banker, industrialist, merchant)
The Menshevik (a political opponent from a different communist faction)
The surviving remnants of the pre-revolutionary law enforcement and the military

The wealthy farmers, being the most numerous group and the most likely to resist the collectivization of agriculture, were subjected to the most vicious dehumanization reminiscent of the anti-Semitic propaganda in Nazi Germany.

Note this Lenin quote on another dehumanizing poster: "The kulaks are the most bestial, brutal and savage exploiters, who in the history of other countries have time and again restored the power of the landlords, tsars, priests and capitalists." (Full quote in Russian)

The demonization of the kulaks laid the groundwork for their subsequent annihilation. Facing a peasant rebellion, Lenin sent the following telegram to his henchmen: "Hang publicly (in full view of the people) no fewer than one hundred known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers. Make their names public. Take away all their grain. Make a list of the next group of hostages. Do it in such a fashion that for hundreds of miles around the people might see, tremble, realize, and scream: 'they are strangling, and will strangle to death, the bloodsucking kulaks'."

Other non-compliant citizens were dealt with in a similar fashion. "Statements from the few survivors, published in émigré newspapers the following year, describe Sevastopol, one of the towns that suffered most heavily under the repressions, as 'the city of the hanged.' 'From Nakhimovsky, all one could see was the hanging bodies of officers, soldiers, and civilians arrested in the streets. The town was dead, and the only people left alive were hiding in lofts or basements. All the walls, shop fronts, and telegraph poles were covered with posters calling for 'Death to the traitors.' They were hanging people for fun." -- The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stephane Courtois et al, pg 107

These were not aberrations, but logical consequences of the Marxist theory. According to Karl Marx, "there is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new -- revolutionary terror."





Oleg Atbashian, a writer and graphic artist from the former USSR, is the author of Shakedown Socialism, of which David Horowitz said, "I hope everyone reads this book." In 1994 he moved to the U.S. with the hope of living in a country ruled by reason and common sense, appreciative of its freedoms and prosperity. To his dismay, he discovered a nation deeply infected by the leftist disease of "progressivism" that was arresting true societal progress. American movies, TV, and news media reminded him of his former occupation as a visual propaganda artist for the Communist Party -- a job he reluctantly held, as he knew that no intelligent person would take such art-by-numbers agitprop seriously. Oleg is the creator of a satirical website ThePeoplesCube.com, which Rush Limbaugh described on his show as "a Stalinist version of The Onion." His graphic work frequently appears in the American Thinker.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2IpEkfD6S
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[American Patriot]

January 22, 2013
The Collectivist Mind Game, Part 2: Demonizing the Opposition
By Oleg Atbashian

Part 1: Demonizing the Non-Compliant

Most modern-day leftists in Western countries have abandoned the idea of a violent revolution, having replaced it with "the long march through the institutions" as part of the culture war to transform the society through cultural hegemony. Instead of commanding firing squads, they play mind games of manipulative illusions, in which the demonization of dissent plays a crucial role. The basic premise hasn't changed: as much as the statists want you to love them, they want you to hate their opponents even more.

Until a time when political opposition can be eliminated completely, having opponents can still be useful: you can steal their ideas, take advantage of their desire to help the economy, and blame them for any of your own failures. In the meantime, certain rules must be followed to control the public opinion and, through it, the opposition itself.

Maintain the perception of being constantly under attack. Don't examine the opponents' beliefs, nor answer their arguments. Discredit any media channels that offer them a platform. Enforce the following media template: the opposition is evil, treasonous, unfathomable, and psychotic. They can't be reasoned with. They are inspired by fascism and financed by a conspiracy of shady oligarchs. Defame their donors. Whatever the mischief you're planning to pull off, accuse them of doing it first; then proceed as planned, describing your actions as a necessary intervention. And ridicule, ridicule, ridicule!

This is what made it easy for Stalin to purge his opponents: by the time he charged them with treason, the orchestrated media coverage had already made them universally hated. Having purged all of his enemies, Stalin continued to manufacture the evidence of their presence. There came a time when even the true believers were being rounded up and forced to confess publicly about one or another fabricated "crime" against the people and the Party. Some did it to avoid torture, some to save their families, and some even cooperated out of the altruistic desire to support the illusion and keep everyone else's beautiful dream alive. Unfortunately for them, that beautiful dream required human sacrifice.

At the same time, Stalin used the only remaining high-ranking Jew in his government, Lazar Kaganovich, as a perpetual scapegoat. Himself a ruthless henchman who organized a number of purges, Kaganovich ended up serving in the capacity of an unpunishable bumbling idiot, a "token Jew," and a darkly comic relief. Implicitly blamed for one government blunder after another, this Joe Biden of Stalin's regime was moved from ministry to ministry only to be blamed again and reassigned to yet another top-level position. As expected, the people's reaction was a universal loathing and bewilderment: how can Comrade Stalin be so soft and trusting of this evil Jew? Kaganovich outlived them all; he died in 1991, among friends and family, at the age of 97.

Across the ocean, years later, the same rules still apply. The perception of a relentless struggle with the opposition must be permanent and persuasive. Even in the times of calm and prosperity the people must think that the opposition is holding them hostage and only the firm, wise guidance of the People's Leader is saving them from imminent ruin. When the opponents are too few, too weak, and too disoriented to put up a real fight, their power and influence must be exaggerated.

Ever since "crybaby" John Boehner became the GOP House Speaker, the media grotesquely overstated the effectiveness of his fruitless, anemic leadership. Among other things, this patent exaggeration allowed Obama to maintain his saintly image while shifting the responsibility for the staggering economy onto "Republican obstructionism."

The following quotes by "citizen journalists" exemplify the public outrage created by the media template of demonizing the opposition. Unlike the honed professionals who can mask their agenda with superficial objectivity, these amateurs let their emotions run wild without realizing that they are being played. Like children, they connect the preprinted dots and eagerly tell us what they see:

Opposition is anti-American: The Republican leaders have remained consistent with their agenda of obstructing the President clearly putting their party ahead of the American people.

Opposition is racist: How far do you think Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner and his cohorts in the House will go in their campaign to defeat America's first black President?

Opposition is grotesquely absurd: The clowns - Boehner and McConnell - ignored the needs of the nation to do what they thought was best for themselves . . . to solidify their positions of power and secure their own political futures by tearing down President Obama and America in the process.

Opposition is deceitful: In their effort to make President Obama look weak, Republicans played a dangerous game with the debt ceiling and in the process threw away America's triple-A credit rating... Those Republican obstructionists really know how to twist the facts to support the anti-Obama political campaign.

Opposition is undemocratic: They have essentially fought to block anything and everything the Democrats have proposed and offered nothing in the way of alternatives. So egregious is their barricade of democracy that they have no defense against charges of deliberate sabotage at the expense of American citizens.

Opposition is mind-boggling: Missing from President Obama's acceptance speech in Charlotte last Thursday is one potent argument: An attack on obstructionist Republicans in Congress. ... It's a mystery because a major reason the economy has not done better under Mr. Obama is that Republicans have blocked virtually every initiative he has proposed, even when the president, especially in the early months of his administration, tailored many of his proposals to attract Republican support.

Opposition is guilty of treason: If an enemy declared war on the American economy, the United States would spare no effort to remove that threat to its prosperity and national security. So it was with Osama Bin Laden... But when the Republican Party threatens ... to sabotage the U.S. economy if its debt ceiling demands are not met, the media instead calls that treason a "debate." ... And that's not politics as usual. That's treason.

Just like painting by numbers doesn't make one an artist, actors or singers who are good at articulating prepared lines don't automatically become articulate thinkers. Being in the business of selling emotions rather than rational arguments, they connect the same old media dots as any other amateur -- but do it with extra flair and aplomb. Extrapolating the lines allows them to see horns on the head of the opposition. VoilÃ*! They can't shut up about such an amazing insight.

Harry Belafonte even went as far as suggest that Obama should "work like a third world dictator and just put all these guys in jail" -- because, obviously, since the Republicans "are violating the American desire," the "only thing left for Barack Obama to do" is to pull a Stalin: praise Barack and jail the opposition.

Even if he said this in jest, Belafonte's call for political repressions is a logical extension of the ideas shared by many celebrities who have been swayed by and are now promoting the leftist cultural hegemony. That includes Woody Allen, who said this in an interview to a Spanish-language magazine: "It would be good... if [President Obama] could be dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly."

This begs a question: if Obama is not a socialist, why do his supporters interpret his reelection as "the American desire" to establish a totalitarian dictatorship -- and think this would be a good thing? So much for "socialism with a human face."

No wonder the "hegemonized" Hollywood filmmakers (starting with Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator), can never truthfully depict either the Soviet or Nazi totalitarian regimes. Unable to fathom the motives of their fictional villains, they wind up supplanting the collectivist realities of socialism (be it national socialism or international socialism) with grotesque caricatures of improbable monsters, uncultured brutes, neurotic sociopaths, or sadistic, sexually repressed perverts. It never occurs to them that unspeakable crimes could be committed in the name of "the common good" by very ordinary, altruistic people -- out of an all too familiar desire to "do a lot of good things quickly" through dictatorial powers. Such a notion would be too terrifying, of course, because they might just recognize their own reflection in the mirror.

Though many of them may have seen this quote by C.S. Lewis, it is doubtful that their conditioned minds are capable of grasping its meaning: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive... [T]hose who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Their young audiences, deprived of adequate education and learning about history and current events from Hollywood movies and TV shows, will not recognize the symptoms of an encroaching totalitarianism either. Upon hearing a dissenter who disparages the benevolent guidance of the state, they will immediately recognize a stereotype that is being relentlessly demonized and dehumanized on their screens: the ignorant, close-minded, right-wing nut job. Chances are they will smugly ridicule him with the jokes they heard from their favorite media personalities. In another generation, they may as well feel morally obligated to report the dissenter to the authorities -- and be thrilled at the chance to partake in the historic mission of crushing the remnants of the evil reactionaries, even if they happen to be their parents.

Today's American intellectuals are retracing the steps of their Soviet predecessors in the early days of the socialist dictatorship. Having had hopes to see the workers' paradise in their lifetime, many came to regret their misguided enthusiasm, as they themselves fell victim to the popular illusions they helped to induce, when a mere slip of a tongue, a drunken remark, or an accusation by someone in the new generation of socialist intellectuals who wanted to take their job, wife, or apartment, led them to be lumped with any of the large assortment of the thoroughly demonized and dehumanized "enemies of the people."

There is only one way to redistribute wealth: human sacrifice, with optional variations of manipulative mind games to ease the pain and maintain control over the population. All those who claimed they can do it differently were doomed, sooner or later, to retrace the same path.



Oleg Atbashian, a writer and graphic artist from the former USSR, is the author of Shakedown Socialism, of which David Horowitz said, "I hope everyone reads this book." In 1994 he moved to the U.S. with the hope of living in a country ruled by reason and common sense, appreciative of its freedoms and prosperity. To his dismay, he discovered a nation deeply infected by the leftist disease of "progressivism" that was arresting true societal progress. American movies, TV, and news media reminded him of his former occupation as a visual propaganda artist for the Communist Party -- a job he reluctantly held, as he knew that no intelligent person would take such art-by-numbers agitprop seriously. Oleg is the creator of a satirical website ThePeoplesCube.com, which Rush Limbaugh described on his show as "a Stalinist version of The Onion." His graphic work frequently appears in the American Thinker.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2IpFIdHz9
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[American Patriot]

January 23, 2013
The Collectivist Mind Game, Part 3: Demonizing Human Nature
By Oleg Atbashian

Part 1: Demonizing the Non-Compliant

Part 2: Demonizing the Opposition

If Robert Heinlein were to write The Moon today (see Part 1), there's no doubt his notion of the future oppressive global government on Earth would be very different. With such forces at play, the free-market revolution in Lunar colonies would likewise be fought by different means, struggling to overcome the tidal wave of government indoctrination and demonization, in addition to an army of statist looters hiding behind the army of statist moochers, who will be hiding behind an army of statist Blue Helmets of the statist United Nations.

That would be an asymmetrical warfare if ever there was one. The individualist free-market rebels wouldn't be able to respond in kind by playing the collectivist mind games with the statists because it would turn them into their own enemies. Their only hope would be to learn to recognize the game when it is being played, not to fall for any of its seductive illusions, methodically expose the players at every turn, call every little manipulative trick in their arsenal for what it is, and help to immunize the rest against its corruptive influence.

The tidal wave of propaganda notwithstanding, the rebels would still have the most important ally on their side -- human nature. No matter into what society they are born and what mind conditioning they receive, people will never stop being competitive individuals. They will always long for individual freedom, rationality, objectivity, personal achievement, and the pursuit of a better life for themselves and their families.

Without these traits humanity would never have risen from the ignorant tribal collectivism of hunters and gatherers, with its brutal mores, dark superstitions, and average life expectancy of 30 years, when few lived long enough to develop complete self-awareness, formulate a coherent individual thought, and pass it onto others. There would be no division of labor, no markets, and no capitalist wealth to sustain the advances in science, arts, and technology -- let alone to feed the multitudes of Marxist intellectuals and statist plutocrats. There would be nothing to lose and nothing to fight for.

Admittedly, the Marxist notion of human progress is a spiral that would return humanity to that stateless, moneyless, classless, and selfless collectivism -- except on a higher level. For that purpose they must, so to speak, put the genie of individualism back into the bottle, and the only way they can do it is by demonizing human nature itself.

However, the 74 years of the morbid Soviet experiment failed to breed the New Collectivist Man. The communist "engineers of human souls" isolated millions of people from the rest of humanity by sealing off the nation's borders and creating a pressurized Marxist bubble. They rearranged the society, rewrote history, and reorganized the culture. They subjected several generations of children to intense mind programming. They blocked all undesirable news sources, books, films, and music. They rewarded "correct" thoughts and impulses, and punished the "incorrect" ones. They demonized greed, selfishness, individualism, and self-interest. They taught altruism, collectivism, and self-sacrifice. They ran relentless campaigns that dehumanized non-compliant individuals.

Ultimately, not a single trait of human nature had changed. In the months before the collapse, the indisputable failure of collective farming forced the Soviet communists to resurrect the idea of individual farms -- and, in order to survive, Chinese communists reverted to private entrepreneurship, while maintaining the pretense of Marxist orthodoxy.

This alone should be enough to discredit the fundamental Marxist doctrine that the human mind is a "social construct" shaped entirely by manipulation and social conditioning. As an unintended consequence, the Soviet experiment proved the existence of something that Marxist science has always denied: that our individual thoughts, motives, and actions are governed, on the most part, by absolute moral standards, which are objectively derived from the unchangeable nature of human beings and the nature of the world.

Obviously, it is more beneficial to accept human nature in its entirety as an absolute standard and to build the society on that foundation, rather than to erect an artificial construct first and rearrange the foundation later, trying to discard parts that don't fit into the design.

And yet that failed philosophy is now flourishing in America's academia and leftist think tanks, which currently formulate U.S. government policies.

From the economy to crime prevention to education to foreign relations, America's policies today are based on the Marxist premise that crime results from poverty, economic crisis results from greed, injustice results from capitalist exploitation, corruption results from the free markets, and militant Islamism results from Western colonialism. Therefore, peace and harmony can only be achieved through equal redistribution of wealth, appeasement, and a global effort to reshape human nature through politically correct, collectivist indoctrination.

Predictably, a faulty premise leads to a faulty outcome: the economy is stumbling, education is failing, corruption is spreading, crime is rising, and militant Islamism is gaining more ground. Instead of creating the New Man, the suppression and demonization of natural human traits breeds moral and intellectual freaks. Where normalcy is outlawed, abnormalities flourish.

The most damaging outcome of this fallacy, however, is also the least visible -- and thus rarely mentioned: the government effort to demonize our individual thoughts, impulses, and human nature itself can only result in the eventual dehumanization of our society, turning independent American citizens into mindless statistical units, spiritless cogs in the machine, and powerless subjects of the state, ripe for abuse by any sociopathic government official with dictatorial tendencies.

The Game can only exist in symbiosis with big government. They equally need each other for survival, nourishment, and expansion. Downsizing the government would not only deprive the Game of its nourishment, but would remove the very reason for its existence. Of course, the Game's state sponsor can also be a foreign government -- as it was with the network of KGB influence agents -- but that is a matter for another discussion.

A free-market revolution's primary function, therefore, would be to discard any policies or government structures that are based on the collectivist philosophy of demonization and dehumanization of the individual, starting with the Department of Education.

Human nature has taken us this far; there is every reason to believe it will continue to help us in the future.

* * *

In the meantime, a domestic influence operation known as OFA (Obama for America), is reorganizing, renaming itself Organizing for Action, and assuming a tax-exempt legal structure. It would be a mistake to think that since Obama is no longer running for office, his campaign outfit has outlived its purpose. Without its thundering acoustics, Obama would be as helpless as a lip-synching artist whose soundtrack went silent in the middle of an act. The introduction and perpetuation of a collectivist, statist frame of reference among American voters was not only a prerequisite for Obama's victory; it remains a vital ingredient of his governing style as the nation's most powerful community organizer.

As such, even though OFA is not directly bankrolled by the U.S. Treasury, it has become an indispensable part of today's big-government operation -- the American version of the Department of Agitation and Propaganda, if you will -- and, as every bureaucracy, it has no intention of downsizing. Having taken the Game to an unprecedented level and reaching its peak performance during the "fiscal cliff's" hate week -- rivaling in effectiveness the erstwhile Propaganda Department of the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee -- OFA is planning to solidify its structure and influence with a so-called Obama Campaign Legacy Conference.

Regrettably, the legacy of Obama campaign is not that of achievements in bettering the country, but rather that of perfecting shameless crowd manipulation aimed at grabbing more power and transforming America into something it was never meant to be.

In an email to supporters, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina writes, "Issues like immigration, climate change, and gun violence will be debated over these next four years, and President Obama is ready to take them on -- but he needs us by his side. Our goal is to help him get things done, but also to help change how things get done in Washington in the first place."

Thus, in addition to being a tradition in presidential elections, emotional manipulation is now also being geared to become an official replacement for a traditional legislative process. Marx would have described this as a great qualitative leap forward.

Messina further describes OFA as "an advantage that no previous president has enjoyed and one that has the potential to reshape our politics for years to come."

Judging by past performance, the vague "reshaping of our politics" here translates into a very concrete subjugation of the legislative and judicial branches to the executive dictate and the elimination of the constitutional principle of checks and balances.

If this plan works, Obama and his Czars will be simply telling Congress and the courts what to do, as his Department of Agitation and Propaganda will discredit and demonize all non-compliant legislators and judges with coordinated "hate weeks" in the media and staged street protests, all the while feeding illusions of a major historic battle between good and evil to the misinformed public, who will eagerly play the part of a crowd with pitchforks and torches, especially if motivated with promises of more government handouts.

Any surviving opposition will thus be pressured and intimidated into submission, one by one, until the last resisting judge, congressman, or any other troublemaker is either removed from office or gives up the fight and succumbs to the Orwellian alternative reality, letting Obama fundamentally transform America as advertised. Thereafter, we may as well live in a Lunar colony -- so small will be our chance to uproot the new ruling Party who will be setting the terms, framing the debate, writing the narrative, and otherwise stage-managing the bamboozled, easily manipulated subjects of the new "people's republic."

We may well be witnessing a pivotal moment in creating a system, against which a future free-market revolution will be fought. Let's hope it won't be merely a plot device in a libertarian sci-fi novel, because if this revolution doesn't happen in real life, manuscripts of such nature may soon become inadmissible for publication.

Oleg Atbashian, a writer and graphic artist from the former USSR, is the author of Shakedown Socialism, of which David Horowitz said, "I hope everyone reads this book." In 1994 he moved to the U.S. with the hope of living in a country ruled by reason and common sense, appreciative of its freedoms and prosperity. To his dismay, he discovered a nation deeply infected by the leftist disease of "progressivism" that was arresting true societal progress. American movies, TV, and news media reminded him of his former occupation as a visual propaganda artist for the Communist Party -- a job he reluctantly held, as he knew that no intelligent person would take such art-by-numbers agitprop seriously. Oleg is the creator of a satirical website ThePeoplesCube.com, which Rush Limbaugh described on his show as "a Stalinist version of The Onion." His graphic work frequently appears in the American Thinker.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2IpFNPm4F
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[American Patriot]

Well, the TRUTH comes out now...

I guess the White House will rearrange ANYONE's WORDS to get to their agenda and if that doesn't work, they will just rewrite someone else's work.

Bindi Irwin 'frustrated' over Hillary Clinton office article revision

• By Kristin Shorten
• News Limited Network
• January 25, 2013 12:00AM

• Increase Text Size
• Decrease Text Size
• Print
• Email

Tweet


Bindi Irwin, star of Bindi's Bootcamp on ABC3, upset over handling of her article. Picture: supplied Source: news.com.au



Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.


Hillary Clinton tries to silence Bindi Irwin








End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.


WILDLIFE warrior Bindi Irwin has spoken of her devastation after an article she was asked to write for US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was scrapped.



The 14-year-old wildlife campaigner said she was "saddened" and "frustrated" after being forced to withdraw a 1000-word essay she wrote on the overpopulation of the planet for Secretary Clinton's e-journal.


After spending hours of "school time" writing the piece for the Go Wild - Coming Together for Conservation edition last month, it was drastically edited before Bindi withdrew it in protest.


"When I got the essay back after they edited it, it was completely different. I hadn't said anything they had put in ... my words were twisted and altered and changed. I was a little bit shocked to tell you the truth," she said.


"I was really sad and I think it was more frustration because I'm trying so hard to get the message across and I guess some people don't want to listen.









"The true test of freedom of speech is when someone says something you don't like."


But the daughter of the late Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin vowed to continue to speak out about population issues even if it makes her unpopular.


"When I bring up population with people they just want to change the subject," she said.
"I think it's nice if we can just start talking about it.


"I don't believe there's any one solution for our population crisis but I think if we're able to open up the Pandora's Box and start discussing it change can be made."


Bindi said she wrote the essay, urging people to discuss population by using the simple analogy of throwing a party and having too many guests turn up, after discussing population with entrepreneur Dick Smith.


"I really sat down and thought about what messages I wanted to get across, what I talked about with Dick Smith and my own experiences," she said.


"I sat down on my own and wrote the entire thing myself. I just used the resources I had around me for specific facts and then wrote it from my heart. The essay is me.


"I got it down to 1000 words and read it to mum and we sent it through, so you can see why after all that work it was a little bit devastating."


Despite her disappointment, Bindi who said it was "important to stand up for what you believe in" said she would still consider contributing to the e-journal in future.


"I haven't heard back but hopefully in the near future I might hear from them," she said.


"It hasn't damaged my admiration for Hillary Clinton. I would love to see her running for president one day because she's doing a really great job.


"I'd like to keep the option open but I would have loved it if they'd reconsidered," she said.


"As I'm growing up I hope to be able to start tackling these bigger issues facing our world."


The US State Department has not responded to News Limited.

[American Patriot]

May 2, 2013 Stupid college liberal activist fakes rape threat from a conservative and gets caught

Rick Moran

This one should go in the book "Stupid Liberal Tricks." A University of Wyoming female liberal activist faked a Facebook message from a conservative where she was threatened with rape.

A well-known female liberal blogger and radio host at the University of Wyoming (UW) is being accused by police of fabricating a rape threat against herself to appear as if it came from a conservative.



The obscene message directed at activist Meg Lanker-Simons was posted on a college "crush" Facebook page earlier this week and immediately ignited outrage from the college community.



"I want to hate f**k Meg Lanker-Simons so hard. That chick that runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn't care who knows it," it read. "I think its hot and it makes me angry. One night with me and shes gonna be a good Republican bitch," the post reads, according to a screenshot.



efore the post was removed, Lanker-Simons commented on it and on her own blog, calling it "disgusting, misogynistic, and apparently something the admins of this page think is a perfectly acceptable sentiment."



She also encouraged the poster to seek help at the UW Counseling service and ends with the advice:



"Instead of focusing on how angry and turned on me 'running my mouth' makes you, perhaps you should listen instead. You might learn something."



But on Monday, The University of Wyoming Police Department issued a citation to Lanker-Simons for "interference" for "false statements she made to the UW Police Department," according to a UW statement referred to by Laramie Boomerang Online.



"Subject admitted to making a controversial post on UW Crushes webpage and then lied about not doing it," according to the citation.



The University of Wyoming also confirmed a statement that the police had ""obtained substantial evidence verifying that the offending Facebook post came from Lanker-Simons' computer, while the computer was in her possession."

How dumb is that? Instead of going off campus and using a computer at a coffee shop, or going to the library and using one there, she used her own personal computer to send a message to herself.



The young lady gained some noteriety in 2010 when she successfully sued the university for yanking an invitation for Bill Ayers to speak.



But the stupidity is just beginning. A Facebook page has sprung up declaring that Lanker-Simons is innocent:

Since police cited her, supporters have a constructed a Facebook page entitled "Meg Lanker-Simons is innocent."
"Meg Lanker-Simons is innocent we believe what she did was justified and deserves not to be held accountable for her accusations we stand behind you sister," reads that page's description.

Yes, I suppose lying to police and smearing conservatives is "justified" - if you're a totally whacked out liberal with the morals of an alley cat and possess the critical thinking skills of a marmoset.


Read more: http
://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/05/stupid_college_liberal_activist_fakes_rape_threat_ from_a_conservative_and_gets_caught.html#ixzz2SFpX oJHa
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[Malsua]

""I want to hate f**k Meg Lanker-Simons so hard. That chick that runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn't care who knows it," it read. "I think its hot and it makes me angry. One night with me and shes gonna be a good Republican bitch,"

Said no one, ever. Liberals, when you go about faking stories, there needs to be an element of truth in it. It's NOT plausible in this case.

[American Patriot]

"said... no one ever..."












Never... Ever....

[American Patriot]

With a name like "Meg Skanker-hyphenated-whatever".... to boot.