Why not invite a Patriot?

web posted March 4, 2002
In the coming months, university commencement speakers will dish out the same interminably dull, moth-eaten anti-American slogans they've been serving up for decades. The same old authoritarian leftists and empty-headed Hollywood show horses will be trotted out for the usual honors. The elite media will inform us that these demagogues reflect the best American values. The rest of us lumpen patriots, those of us who live in "fly over country" will be roundly ignored or sneered at by the over-stuffed glitterati as they congratulate each other's humanitarianism. With a nation at war, the commencement farce will be an even more glaring demonstration of how out of touch the American university is with average Americans and genuine American ideals.
This year, especially this year, why not invite a patriot? Why not invite someone who instinctively understands the nature of the war we have been in since September 11? Most Americans understand that those who crashed planes into the World Trade Center and who chopped off the head of Daniel Pearl believe that they are commanded by their god to kill Jews and infidels. They are conducting Jihad to create a Dar el-Salaam or a world that has completely submitted to Islam. While most Muslims are no more true believers in Islam than most Germans believed in Nazism or most Russians believed in Communism, nevertheless, it is imperative that we understand the texts and beliefs of that element that does believe. This won't be discussed on commencement day.

Haven't we heard all that Chomsky has to say?

In the spirit of honest intellectual dialogue, something universities         claim to foster, a frank discussion should take place regarding the anti-American ideas that prevail in the Islamic world and how those ideas run concurrent on many American campuses. In a recent Gallup poll conducted in Islamic nations 61 per cent of those polled believed that Arabs were not involved in the World Trade Center attack and a high percentage expressed the opinion that the attacks were justifiable. This outright lie is sustained by leftist conspiracy theories that blame America, Israel, and the capitalist west generally for all negative events in the world. Leftist professors such as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Lani Guinier and many others weave sinister anti-American conspiracy theories in order create a sense of contempt and loathing for our Republic and its principles of freedom. Their hatred for this country has led them to justify the attack and their propaganda has contributed to an anti-American atmosphere in the world today especially in the Islamic world.
It is, of course, necessary to criticize our government and to root out corruption. The leftist culture that pervades on the American campus today is, criticizing the government not as a means of setting it back on the right course, but to undermine the very foundations of free market capitalism, limited representative government, and the maintenance of moral standards as a positive ideal. With their ample salaries, benefits, and tenure, leftist professors try to change a system that offers the only hope for the rest of us as we struggle to accumulate some capital and independence for our families and ourselves. The leftist professors believe, along with their fellow travelers in government, entertainment, the media, and business, that they possess a superior intelligence which gives them the         right to run the lives of the rest of us from cradle to grave and that we should smile and thank them for the privilege of receiving their tender ministrations. They scoff at the concept of self-rule, sovereignty, and individual identity.
Why not hear from someone who is paying up to 40 per cent of his income in taxes? This burden requires increasing amounts of time spent away from family in order to support the ever-expanding government. Many of you think that government exists to solve social ills and has an obligation, therefore, to extract capital from the earner and creator. Many of you will probably go on to work in that vast bureaucracy so, before you go, why not hear from someone who will be paying your salary? This won't likely happen on commencement day.
Our nation, and our very lives, are under assault today from a foreign enemy that seeks to annihilate us. Were all in the same boat in this regard as the enemy doesn't discriminate between liberal and conservative, rich or poor as they blow up buildings and kill thousands. We are all in this together whether we like it or not and we will either sink or swim together. Anyone who thinks that the threat is over should be viewed as insane. If you refuse to support the war effort out of a sense of patriotism and respect for our way of life, you should still support your country if for no other reason than to protect your own life and future. We must not forget that were all survivors of the September 11th attack.
As the comic strip character Pogo said, "I've seen the enemy and the enemy is us" and this describes the present culture on most American campuses. You represent the best and the brightest and the cream of the crop. Your parents sacrificed greatly to send you here and their ability to provide you with this rarefied experience didn't simply fall out of the sky. They were able to provide you with an experience envied by all of us, and a life of prosperity and freedom unequalled in world history, because they live in an America that your commencement speakers will be loathe to discuss. Someday, probably soon, many of you will be in positions where your decisions, and philosophy, will have a direct effect on the freedoms and even the lives of the rest of us. Why not, just this once, invite a patriot? 
Chuck Morse is a talk show host on WROL 950 AM in Boston.

Was Hitler a Communist?

Little is known about Hitler before 1920 as many who knew him in his early years were murdered in the 1934 Nazi purge known as the night of a thousand knives. Additionally, files about Hitler’s life in Vienna were likely expunged when the Nazis entered the city in 1938.

One persistent rumor about Hitler, not proven, was that he was a male prostitute in Vienna where he lived in the years leading up to his move to Munich and the outbreak of the world war in 1914. It is known that he lived in Vienna as a bohemian artist and that he associated with the artist community. Hitler had inherited money from his late father and as a result he never had to work.

This left him with enough time to study politics and, according to his own autobiography, Mein Kampf, he immersed himself in Marxist studies. In spite of his brave actions during the war, actions which earned him the Iron Cross, he was never promoted higher than the rank of corporal. There has been some speculation that this lack of promotion might have been due to his communist associations or politics. The truth will never be known as his war records disappeared.

After the armistice of November, 1918, Hitler returned to Munich around the same time that Kurt Eisner, a left-wing leader of the Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany (USPD) declared Bavaria to be a free state and a Socialist Republic on November 8, 1918. Eisner, who was subsequently assassinated on his way to submit his resignation to German authorities on February 21, 1919, had overthrown the seven centuries old Wittlesbach monarchy and had formed an alliance with the Soviet Union.

Eisner’s assassination was followed by an uprising that led to a brief and violent Bavarian Soviet Republic under Eugen Levine which lasted from April to May, 1919. A photograph has survived that seems to indicate that Hitler marched in Kurt Eisner’s funeral procession. The Freikorps, made up of German army personnel returning from the war, and under the command of German General Franz Ritter von Epp, responded to the attempted Soviet takeover in Bavaria by marching into Munich in May, 1919. The short lived Bavarian Soviet Republic was crushed, many of its leaders were executed, and thousands of its irregulars were imprisoned.

Along with thousands of other soldiers, Hitler was arrested and imprisoned assumedly for his support of the Soviet uprising although the exact reasons for his arrest have never been clear. Hitler, assumedly seeking to make a deal to win his freedom and to save his reputation, volunteered to serve the German government as a spy and to identify other soldiers who had supported the two Bavarian socialist regimes. Hitler thus began working for an official commission investigating the Bavarian uprisings. It can be assumed that Hitler knew the various subversives involved in the Soviet inspired attempted coup as why else would the German authorities entrust him to infiltrate these cadres? One question that will likely remain unanswered was how many of Hitler’s friends, who might have taken part in the Soviet conspiracy, joined him in the nascent German Workers Party, later to be known as the Nazi party.

Bavarian authorities asked Hitler infiltrate the small and recently formed German Workers Party in 1920. It is reasonable to assume that the German authorities were concerned that the new party might be a communist cell and their might have been reasons for this suspicion. Hitler was impressed by the party leader Anton Drexler who favored a strong central government, what he called a non-Jewish version of Socialism, and a strong spirit of fraternity among all Germans.

Thus was born the nationalist strain of socialism that would become the trademark of the German Nazi State. Drawing inspiration from the same European enlightenment font that gave birth to Communism, Nazism patented socialism in one state as opposed to the Communist model which was a one world socialist collective. The German language is structured in such a way that when an organization has two names the second name is the formal name and the first name is a descriptive qualifier. Thus the term National Socialist was understood to mean the socialist party that was a nationalist socialist party.

Hate crime at Rutgers University

Former Rutgers University student Dharun Ravi was convicted on Friday, March 15, of a political crime, a so-called “hate crime”. Ravi, the defendant, had invaded the privacy of his Rutgers roommate, Tyler Clementi, when he secretly filmed Clementi kissing a man and then placing the film on his Twitter account. Tragically, Tyler Clementi committed suicide three days later. Ravi’s conviction for his actions in this case was proper and was in the tradition of our system of jurisprudence. His additional conviction for his motives however, his so-called hate crime conviction, whether valid or not, smacks of totalitarianism.

The foundation of our American system of justice is based upon the principle that a person is to be judged not according to his motives but according his actions. In cases of trials for crimes, and in the context of due process, such factors as intent and motive are key elements of proof and, as such, these factors should be presented as evidence. In fact, if a prosecutor fails to present such evidence this could lead to a mistrial. Evidence pertaining to motive has always been, and rightfully, included in a criminal trial and this evidence includes the prejudice or bigotry of the defendant. This goes to motive and intent to commit the crime. Thus, in a trial setting, if the prosecutor presents evidence to indicate that the defendant had something against the victim because of the person’s race, religion, or sexual orientation, this evidence justly serves as a legitimate factor toward conviction.

But when a law places such evidence as hate and prejudice, evidence that has traditionally been applied to motive, as a separate and as an additional crime in and of itself, one that would possibly require a separate ruling, a separate conviction, and a separate punishment, such a law establishes a political crime. Political crimes have been typical of totalitarian regimes such as Communist China which executes an average of 50 thousand political prisoners per year. In China, political crimes are arbitrary and range across the board. In essence, the Chinese government makes up the crime and applies it against its opposition. The German Nazis were also known for this interpretation of jurisprudence as well. Nazi Germany established a separate court system, a “people’s court” as a means of trying and convicting those accused of “crimes against the state” and these crimes included so-called genetic crimes.

Local and state governments are absolutely operating within the American tradition when they establish laws against bullying as was rightfully argued in this case. Bullying is an action that is provable by evidence. Having said this, the legal system should be an institution of last resort, particularly in these cases, as the institution, in this case a College, should act en loco parentis and engage in the best good faith effort to establish policies and standards of behavior and to punish violators internally. Only in extreme situations should the government be brought in to adjudicate.

The Rutgers University case was such an extreme situation. No private citizen should ever be subject to the humiliation of having what he does in the bedroom secretly taped and flashed on a screen for public viewing. This egregious crime, and the horrifying magnification of the crime by the tragic consequence of the poor victim traumatized to the point of taking his own life, should not blind us, however, to the principle that political crimes, crimes against motive as opposed to crimes against actions, have no place in a free society.

Are the top 1% richest Americans liberal?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Of course they’re liberal, overwhelmingly liberal, progressive, left-wing, or however they might be labeled these days. The Top 1%, those who were aptly identified by Occupy Wall Street, used to be called the “Eastern Seaboard Liberal Establishment.” President Dwight D. Eisenhower lifted the curtain slightly in his farewell address to the nation when he referred to the liberal establishment as the “military-industrial complex.”

Who are the top 1% richest individuals and corporations in America? A glimpse at the biggest, the richest, and the most powerful actors in a number of areas reveals the wealth and power of the liberal/left establishment and they’re getting richer and more powerful as they concentrate more wealth and power into their own hands. The top multi-national corporations are run by and are largely owned by liberals while the mid-sized and smaller corporations have an increasing representation of conservatives as the scale goes smaller. 

This is also the pattern when it comes to American foundations, academia, the media, cultural institutions, insurance, real-estate, inherited wealth, and certainly non-profits.

The biggest banks and investment firms are liberal and so are big oil, big pharma, and the medical establishment. The biggest player in the American oil business has always been the Rockefeller family going back to John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil. The Rockefellers are the quintessence of American liberalism as they have spearheaded such liberal causes as “progressive” education, eugenics, and internationalism. The Rockefeller institute founded Planned Parenthood which more openly focused on eugenics and population control before World War II and also the research of Alfred Kinsey. The Rockefellers have long sought to take over the Republican Party by driving out the conservatives. Other liberal families with oil interests include Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum and the Gore and Kennedy families.

Even a cursory examination of the boards of directors, the top employees, and the largest share-holders of the biggest American corporations reads like a Who’s Who of the Liberal establishment. The 3 biggest foundations, Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie, are liberal as is the Tides Foundation and most of the other big players. The top academic institutions in America are unquestionably dominated by liberals. The biggest TV and print media outlets are liberal as is the booming internet industry. The Forbes Magazine list of the 100 richest Americans is made up of about 75% liberals.

What are some of the tell-tale signs that the top 1% is left-liberal? The orientation of the biggest corporations is a free trade agenda that allows them to operate in a world without borders and without national loyalty, ideas that they view as outdated. The biggest corporations overwhelmingly support liberal causes, big government regulation and laws to cut out competition, and high taxes that they don’t pay, due to their international position, but serve to cull the investment capital of potential competitors. Franklin D. Roosevelt protected the interests of the biggest American corporations, referred to by the short-hand term “Wall Street” when he included in the establishment of the Federal Trade Commission laws that would prevent the formation of local and regional stock exchanges. This created a virtual investment monopoly for the liberal biggest corporations trading on Wall Street. A more recent example of liberal legislation is the Dodd-Frank reforms which enshrine bailouts for the liberal banks that are “too big to fail” while regulating the smaller and generally more conservative banks.

There certainly are a few members of the top 1% that are conservative and we all know their names since they stand out like a sore thumb. The most famous example is the Koch Brothers who have financed libertarian initiatives that would limit the size of government and allow for more capital formation in the hands of the smaller players where conservatives can be found. Koch industries employs tens of thousands of Americans and David Koch has donated almost a billion dollars of his own money to charities. Because they are the exception to the rule, the Koch’s have been called out by the perhaps well-meaning but utterly clueless Occupy Wall Streeters.

The Communist Public Education System

During the Elian Gonzeles affair, the Washington Times interviewed Luis Fernandez, the spokesmen for the unofficial Cuban consulate in the Washington D.C area. In one of those rare instances of candor that provide us with insight into the totalitarian mind, Fernandez, while referring to little Elian as "a possession of the Cuban government", discussed the fact that the Cuban constitution grants to the State the responsibility of raising children. He pointed out that Cuban law requires parents to insure that their children obtain a "communist personality" and "influences contrary to communist development" are outlawed. When I read this, I was amazed by how much our own system of public education mirrors that of the enslaved island across the Florida Strait.

William Z. Foster, Chairman of the American Communist Party, in his book "Toward Soviet America", published 1932, describes the Communist agenda for American education:
"Among the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution are...(a) National Department of Education...the studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism, and the general ethics of the new Socialist society".
John Dewey, revered by our education establishment as the father of "progressive" education, stated in 1899, "Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent".

The goal of Dewey, Foster, and their followers, known as the "frontier thinkers", or "change agents", was to teach young people not to think for themselves. They sought to accomplish this evil agenda by replacing such "bourgeois affectations" as literacy, science, math, American history, language, and other disciplines, with content vacant and mentally dissonant whole language, social studies, sex education, values clarification and guessing. They replaced character development and conceptions of morality with moral relativism. They "molded" our young people into semi-lobotomized cogs of the corporate State. We taxpayers are paying for the enthronement of their goal with the resulting mental, moral, and, increasingly, physical destruction of our children.

In the period leading up to World War II, there emerged amongst our education elite a strange and toxic amalgam of right wing eugenic ideas, exemplified by the Hitlerism of Nazi Socialism, and the authoritarian Marxist concepts that enthralled change agents like Dewey. Max Mason, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, which was heavily invested in education, in 1933, was inspired by "The Geneticist's Manifesto" which was written by Nobel Prize winning eastern European scientist Hermann Muller. The theme of this treatise was planned breeding. Mason felt that the concepts described in this Manifesto could be adopted toward "the control of human behavior". Around the same time, the director of the National Education Association announced that his organization expected "to accomplish by education what dictators in Europe are seeking to do by compulsion and force". Compulsion, through political power rather than through the direct force of arms, became the underpinning of our education system.
New York City Teacher of the Year John Taylor Gatto, in his excellent new book "The Underground History of American Education", identifies three documents, introduced between 1967 and 1974, which had a pivotal impact on teacher training. The first one, "Designing Education" published by the Education Department, re-defined the term "education" to mean "a means to achieve important economic and social goals of a national character". Gatto comments that "State education agencies would henceforth act as on-site federal enforcers, ensuring the compliance of local schools with central directives. Each state education department was assigned the task of becoming an 'agent of change' and advised to 'lose its independent identity as well as its authority' in order to 'form a partnership with the federal government"

The second document described by Gatto is the "Behavioral Science Teacher Education Project" which outlines as its goals "impersonal manipulation" through schooling, in which "few will be able to maintain control over their opinions...each individual receives at birth a multi-purpose identification number", and "chemical experimentation" on minors would be normal procedure. Needless to say, since this document was introduced in the late 1960's, young people have been used as guinea pigs by the "change agents" with Ritalin, Prozac etc. The increase in school violence has accompanied the introduction of these controlled substances.

The "Behavioral Science Teacher Education Project" advocates a future "in which a small elite" control all important matters. Children are taught, through demonstration, that their classmates are so cruel and incapable of self-discipline that they need to be controlled and regulated for the good of society. Schooling is to focus on "pleasure cultivation" and on "other attitudes and skills compatible with a non-work world." At the same time, teachers would be stripped of the means of maintaining discipline in the classroom. This would be replaced by "due process" and "children's rights". Hence, the planned breakdown of discipline.

The third document, University of Chicago Professor Benjamin Blooms classic"Taxonomy of Educational Objectives" is described as, in Blooms own words, "a tool to classify the ways individuals are to act, think, or feel as the result of some unit of instruction". Through behavioral psychology, children would learn proper thoughts, feelings, and actions and have their "improper" attitudes brought from home "remediated". Testing would be implemented at all levels to determine progress. The change agents are treating our children like Pavlov's dog. These documents laid the foundation for our modern education with Mastery Learning, Outcome Based Education, School to Work, and whatever else they're marketing.

Our Republic is predicated on democratic principles such as self rule, self interest, and informed choice. The change agents are, theoretically, free to offer their educational wares to the public on the free market. Let the consumer decide which type of education is most suited to his needs and in the best interests of his precious sons and daughters. Let parents decide whether or not they want their children to learn to think for themselves, or what type of moral standards they want their children exposed to. Let the taxpayer receive a full and honest accounting with regard to the nature of the education system existing in their community and the long term effect of that education on our society. Let the truth be told.

Of course, the change agents don't operate in the realm of free choice nor are they believers in truth or freedom. They realize that a parent would have to be certifiably insane to knowingly subject their beloved child to such rigors. They travel in the rarefied authoritarian world of the philosopher King who will "mould" our youngsters into "human resources" to serve some bizarre conception of a "greater good". Such an educational system, given that it contradicts human nature and common sense, can only be implemented at the point of a gun.
The change agents seek to eradicate the American way of life. They conspire to deprive our children of the tools needed for them to find their own individual destiny. They fool us into paying for this privilege and we've paid dearly. Our children are being used to fulfill a sick totalitarian agenda.

The Nazism of Abu Mazen

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/17/181847.shtml

The Nazism of Abu Mazen

Friday, April 18, 2003

Mahmoud Abbas, aka Abu Mazen, is now the prime minister designate of the Palestinian Authority. The so-called moderate is being touted as the future leader of a new potential Palestinian State that is scheduled to be carved out of Israel and ethnically cleansed of its Jews.

Abu Mazen was one of the primary movers behind the Oslo debacle, but now Israel, after the bloody frenzy against Israeli Jews over these last several years, is once again being brass-knuckled by the international community to try again. This time, they say, it really will work; the "tough choices" really will bring about peace.

Who is this so-called moderate, Abu Mazen? He was the author of a book, which at the present time seems to have slipped through an Orwellian memory hole, called "The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism."

In this book, as reported by Israeli editor Arie Stav in the 1995 issue of the Israeli journal Nativ, Abu Mazen refutes the Nazi Holocaust as "The Zionist fantasy, the fantastic lie that six million Jews were killed." Additionally, Abu Mazen writes that he believes that there were only about 890,000 Jewish victims in Nazi Germany and that these victims were actually the victims of a Zionist-Nazi plot.

How many Arab leaders today embrace these bizarre and sickening Nazi-type conspiracy theories? An Arabic translation of "Mein Kampf" has been widely disseminated in the Arab world since shortly after World War II, and Adolf Hitler’s definition of Zionism is well known and often quoted.

In "Mein Kampf," Hitler said of Zionism: "They [Zionists] do not have any intention to establish a Jewish state in Palestine in order to settle there. They only fight for one place in which they [can base] a central organization for carrying out their global plot, a city of refuge for criminals and a training center for the scoundrels of the future."

Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, is often referred to as the founder of the so-called Palestinian national movement. The Mufti spent World War II in Berlin, where he was the prime minister of a Nazi-Muslim government in exile. Hitler greeted the Mufti as a head of state and promised him that after he won the war in Europe he would conquer the Arab world and solve the Jewish problem in Palestine.

Photos and testimony have the Mufti touring the death camps, and letters exist of the Mufti imploring Nazis and pro-Nazi heads of state to exterminate their Jews.

The PLO maintained long and well-documented ties with Nazi and neo-Nazi organizations. Since the advent of Oslo, the PLO, now the Palestinian Authority, has downplayed its Nazi orientation so as to fool the useful idiots on the American and Israeli Jewish left.

Nevertheless, in August of 1995, when the Israeli and Western-financed and -armed Palestinian Authority police force finished its training, the graduates were sworn in with the Nazi salute.

The commander of Force 17, which serves as Yasir Arafat’s personal praetorian guard and which has been linked to some of the worst atrocities against Israeli Jews in the present Intifada, is Fawsi Salim el Mahdi, better known by his nome de guerre “Abu Hitler.” El Mahdi acquired the nickname after naming his two sons Eichmann and Hitler.

Europe underwent de-Nazification after the war and perhaps the same will be done in Iraq. Nazism, however, still maintains a lethal grip on the minds and souls of many Arabs, particularly the ruling classes. As Israelis know all too well, Nazism was exported to and took root in the Arab world.

The Gramsci Factor

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/758715/posts

The Gramsci Factor 
www.chuckmorse.com ^ | September 21, 2002 | Chuck Morse 

Posted on Fri Sep 27 2002 20:07:10 GMT-0300 (Atlantic Daylight Time) by Tailgunner Joe

Tactics introduced by Italian communist Antonio Gramsci in the 1930's have contributed greatly to the decline of the west. High taxes, government regulations, the toleration of illegal aliens and possible terrorists, the erosion of national defense, gun grabbing, political correctness, the dumbing down and drugging of children and the deliberate corruption of their morals, the anti human element pervading in the environmental movement, the norming of abortion, euthanasia, divorce, homosexuality, and other issues, are manifestations of the Gramsci factor. Gramci called for a gradual transfer of legislative power from elected bodies to appointed bureaucracies where un-natural and authoritarian international socialism could be quietly implemented by force. The natural outgrowth of this has been a sense of loss of control expressed by such phenomena as voter apathy. Americans are surrendering their G-d given rights without knowing it. We are encouraged to think of ourselves as members of proscribed groups with pre-determined values rather than as individuals. America is gradually becoming a subsidiary of a one-world government, which goes by various euphemisms such as "the international community." The Gramsci factor is at play in all of this.

Antonio Gramsci, co-founder of the Italian Communist Party in 1921, after spending time in Stalinist Russia, realized that a revolutionary Marxist/Stalinist approach to world socialism would fail in western societies. He realized that the western democracies appreciated the benefits of individual rights, patriotism, and faith in the creator and that these ideas were deeply engrained and would not be easily surrendered. Instead of violent Marxist revolution, Gramsci would advocate a "long march through the institutions before socialism and relativism would be victorious." His believed that "capitalist bourgeois society" could be seduced into accepting communism through the gradual seduction of the western mind. Wildly popular amongst leftists but not widely known in the broader culture, Gramsci would author over 33 books while in an Italian prison where he died in 1937.

Gramscian ideas differ from those of a 19th century British Fabian socialism that called for a creeping conquest of the free world through the gradual changing of the letter and meaning of the law. Fabians established the devastatingly successful ACLU for that purpose. Gramsci took communism a step further by advocating a literal change of human consciousness itself. This would be accomplished through the infiltration and gradual control of dominant western cultural, educational and media institutions.

Gramscian communists, such as Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm, and later Herbert Marcuse, established the Frankfort School at Columbia University in the 1930's with the goal of producing "a new stratum of intellectuals" that would be charged with dominating western culture. The Frankfort School invented "critical theory" which is based on the premise that there is no such thing as objective reality. Everything is "perception" according to critical theory, and perception is controlled by ruling elites who decide what is real. Once the false premise is accepted that an individual's perception is formed by the environment rather than by an intrinsic ability to identify truth, the Gramcian communist, consumed by an insufferable sense of his own superiority, feels entitled to obtain and wield power over the masses for the sake of creating new and better realities and perceptions. The Granscian actually believes that he is morally obligated, based on an overarching sense of superiority, to control others and enforce change.

While Marxism, calls for the fomenting of violent conflict between classes, races etc, and Fabian Socialism seeks control over the system of justice and the literal language of the law, Gramscian communism seeks control over culture, established religion, media, education, and other areas where intellectual discourse takes place. Psychiatry, with its pretensions to knowledge of the innermost being, is a major bailiwick for Gramscian communists. It should be noted that the regressive theories of socialism, when enthroned, have already led to the liquidation of over 100 million human beings and a Holocaust against the Jews of Europe.

How can we fight this ever-encroaching behemoth as it colonizes our minds and casts dark clouds over our future? The difficulty lies in the fact that Gramscian communists are not bound to the same objective standards of truth as the rest of us. Given that communism is nothing more than a quest by power-hungry elitists toward the attainment of power for themselves, communists will do virtually anything, whether overt or covert, to achieve their goals. Perhaps the answer is that genuinely progressive lovers of freedom need to recognize that their primary weapon is their addiction to truth, or, as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated, "the laws of nature and of nature's God." Vociferously standing up for truth could go a long way toward saving this nation from a slide into totalitarianism.

We need to state that we are answerable to a creator of the universe, not to "enlightened" elites who seek to refashion reality in their own image while attempting to overthrow the Creator. Marx was not as much an atheist as he was anti-G-d. We need to state that our freedom is predicated on the recognition of individual sovereignty and that the individual, in order to enjoy the fruits of freedom, is capable of discerning objective morality and fashioning his life within the limitations of nature.

We must insist that our children be taught in such a manner that they will be able to develop the cognitive abilities that will enable them to function as sovereign individuals rather than what they get now which is political propaganda meant to create confusion, dissonance and docility. We must insist that our culture protect the innocence of our children. We must return a sense of honor and privilege in American citizenship and insist on standards of behavior for guests within our borders. We must re-assert the sovereignty of our federation of states and dis-entangle ourselves from involvements that sacrifice our freedoms and its accompanying prosperity on the alter of world socialism.