appropriate measures to abrogate our country’s membership in the United Nations. And we submit below a partial list of considerations which support this petition.

 

Some Reasons for Withdrawal

1.            The United Nations was founded by Communists to serve Communist purposes.

2.            The most important officials of the United Nations have always been Communist or Marxist who were working visibly and entirely for Communist aims.

3.            Today the United Nations is completely controlled by Communist influences and outright Communist personnel.

4.            The Communists are our deadly enemies who openly boast of their intention to subject the American people to the same form of tyranny now suffered by the people of Soviet Russia and of mainland China.

5.            The communist tyranny converts every country under its rule into a gigantic prison, which offers security of an impoverished sort at the cost of all freedom. And the secret police become far more brutal than the wardens of any normal prison would ever be.

6.            The economic system of Communist countries is based on the philosophy of scarcity, while the American system has been based on the philosophy of abundance. Our design calls for a million salesman to market the too much, where the Communist practice calls for a million ration clerks to divide the too little.

7.            Life within these Communist countries is so shoddy, miserable, and hopeless that countless thousands get themselves killed, or sent to the horror of slave-labor camps, every year, just for even thinking about escape or revolt.

8.            It is the obvious purpose of the Communist bosses, whom George Orwell called the Inner Party, and who now are sometimes called the Insiders, to use the United Nations as the initial framework for extending this cold blooded Communist tyranny over the total population of the earth.

9.            And the longer we stay in the United Nations, the closer we come to the same fate as that of so many nations already behind the curtains. So we say Get Us Out!

The United Nations Ideology

10.          The UN has completely adopted the ideology, purposes, methods, and Aesopian language of the Communists as its own.

11.          In this system of “morality,” for instance, whatever helps the Communists is good, no matter how foul the action might be by civilized standards. And whatever sets back the Communist advance is immoral.

12.          When the UN sent its “peace-keeping force” of cruel mercenaries into the Congo, for example, to destroy the very stable, peaceful, and comparatively prosperous state of Katanga, and thus to bring all of the Congo under Communist control, these mercenaries engaged – on direct UN orders – in the bombing of civilian hospitals and ambulances, and in spreading death and terror as widely as they could. This action was “good,” not “evil,” because the terror helped to carry out Communist plans.

13.          Also, the highest UN officials lied brazenly to the whole world about what had happened until (and even after) the forty-six civilian doctors of Elisabethville, who had lived through this reign of terror, unanimously testified to the truth. Veracity, on the part of the UN officials, would in this case have been considered by them as “immoral,” because it would have been harmful to Communist designs.

14.          To the United Nations hierarchy the world “peace” means, as it always does to the Communists, only one thing. And that is, for any area, a situation where there is no opposition to Communism. Otherwise, in their rationale, there would be no peace, but only strife or potential strife, until the Communists had subjugated the people. (Which they always call “liberation.”)

15.          So all of this drive for a huge military “peacekeeping force” for the UN is a deceptive fraud. What the UN really seeks, and the Insiders of the Conspiracy are seeking for it, is to have enough land, sea, and air armament turned over to it, primarily by the United States, to serve as a sufficiently powerful international police force to achieve and maintain peace – meaning a complete subjugation of the people to Communist rule – all over the world.

16.          In less tangible but even more serious areas of concern, there exists the same subservience of the UN to Communist “principles” and purposes. The Communists seek to weaken, and then eliminate, the three basic human loyalties: Loyalty to God, loyalty to country, and loyalty to family. The UN appears to move even further towards a final goal by seeking to destroy – or to subvert to its own uses – all religion, all governments, and all traditional human institutions.

17.          The truth seems to be that the United Nations is operating as the tool of a Master Conspiracy. It is patiently using subversive long range strategy, through every conceivable form of dirty tactics, to lower the moral, economic, and military strength of the United States down to the level of the leading Communist nations. So that, in accordance with the well known master plan of the Conspiracy’s Insiders, the United States can be “comfortably merged” with Soviet Russia and all the others, under the United Nations as a one-world Communist regime.

18.          And there is no practicable way to offset the separate effects of all the UN’s deception, pressure, and propaganda to that end. The only real answer is to pull our country completely out of this phony pretense of a “parliament of man,” and stand on our own feet again as to our own beliefs and purposes and principles.

 

The present outlook

19.          The United Nations is not getting any stronger today. But, perhaps partly for that very reason, it is getting more audacious, and therefore more dangerous to the United States.

20.          The UN is engaged in a continuous, lying, and vicious effort to destroy altogether the anti-Communist nations or governments that are left anywhere in the world. Outstanding examples are Portugal, Rhodesia, and the Republic of China in Taiwan.

21.          But the UN continues to welcome as new members such incredibly murderous and foul Communist regimes as East Germany and Red China – the latter in flagrant and brazen violation of its own charter.

22.          Because of the size of Red China’s population, it may be normal and permissible for Peking to maintain a staff of about three thousand people as its UN delegation in New York City. This means three thousand Chinese Communists whose suitcases cannot even be opened by American customs officials. It also means the end of all problems on the part of Chou En-lai in connection with transporting his enormous quantities of heroin into the United States.

23.          The United Nations headquarters in New York City are known to be also the very headquarters for Communist espionage operations in the United States. And with Red China in the UN this situation will become tremendously worse. Why should we be so stupid as to help our enemies in every way that we can to weave the rope with which to hang us?

24.          And why pay for it all besides? We have one vote in the UN General Assembly out of 135. Yet a two-thirds voting majority of that General Assembly can be formed out of nations which, all together, pay only five percent of the UN budget. While in one way or another our country finances about forty percent of the total expenditures of the United Nations and all of its worldwide agencies. Why should we be so stupid? Especially since all of that money is being used by the Communist United Nations, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of destroying the independence of our nation and the freedom of our people.

 

We have only scratched the surface of the reasons why the United States should revoke its membership in the United Nations. But even on this basis we earnestly plead with you to Get Us Out!

 

 

Unconstitutional origins of the Endangered Species Act 

By redefining Article 6 of the US Constitution, all globalists now has to do is ratify international treaties that, in total, subvert the Constitution and put all power into their hands. As a consequence, Americans are systematically coming under the control of international law and the United Nations, and flies and suckerfish have more legal rights than people.

 

To most American citizens the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and many other environmental laws are a noble effort to save species from extinction, and to protect the environment from reckless destruction by man. The human tragedy caused by the ESA and other environmental laws is rarely reported, hence most Americans also do not realize that hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens, primarily in rural areas, are needlessly being stripped of their livelihoods and decimated economically by these laws as our government uses them to nationalize their property. 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, the granddaddy of all these anti-human US laws, derives its authority and power from five international treaties, the most prominent being the Western Convention. Section 2, paragraph (4) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 states; "the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction, pursuant to-

 

A.     migratory bird treaties with Canada and Mexico;

B.   the Migratory and Endangered Bird Treaty with Japan;

C.    the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere;

D.   the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries;

E.    the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean;

F.    the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; and

G.   other international agreements; and...

The ESA even extols the fact that it cedes sovereignty to the international community by saying its purpose is to "develop and maintain conservation programs which meet national and international standards." These in turn are "key to meeting the Nation's international commitments." (Bold and italics added for emphasis) 

The Western Convention and the ESA  

Even if they did not know of its existence, most Americans who live in rural America will recognize with alarm some of the key language in The Western Convention because they have witnessed it being applied in their area through the ESA. The goal of The Western Convention is to "protect and preserve in their natural habitat representatives of all species and genera of their native flora and fauna...in sufficient numbers and over areas extensive enough to assure them from becoming extinct through any agency within man's control.... (Bolding and italics added for emphasis)   

Some citizens have even experienced the ESA horror as it has stripped them personally of their right to use their own land. Under the ESA, private property can condemned by the federal government to create the habitat needed, or possibly could be needed, by an endangered fly, sucker fish or beetle, as well as more glamorous species like the bald eagle.  

The Western Convention also provides for the establishment and total protection of National Parks, National Reserves, Nature Monuments and Wilderness Reserves. Within these protected areas, Section 4 of the Western Convention requires the host nation, "to the maximum extent prudent and determinable – shall... designate any habitat of such species which is then considered to be critical habitat." Not surprisingly, in language identical to the Western Convention, Section 4 of the ESA states, "to the maximum extent prudent and determinable–shall...designate any habitat of such species which is then considered to be critical habitat." (Bold and italics added for emphasis) 

According to Article VIII of the Western Convention, all endangered species "shall be protected as completely as possible, and their hunting, killing, capturing, or taking, shall be allowed only with the permission of the appropriate government authorities in the country." Not surprisingly, the concept of full protection, critical habitat and takings is also found in the ESA. Under Section 9 of the ESA, it is unlawful to "take any" endangered "species within the United States or the territorial sea of States," or "take any such species upon the high seas." 

If only National Parks, Reserves, Monuments and wilderness areas received this kind of protection, the treaty would accomplish what most Americans desire. But, it goes far beyond protecting these political designations. Article V also includes " the protection and preservation of flora and fauna within their (the nation's) national boundaries but not included in the national parks, national reserves, nature monuments, or strict wilderness reserves....   (bold and italics added for emphasis) 

Hence all land, public and private is under the jurisdiction of this UN treaty through the ESA. 

The usurpation of the US Constitution 

The UN-administered Western Convention has provided the hammer for denying landowners of their property rights in the US by superseding the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution: 

....No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (bold and italics added for emphasis) 

Most if not all of US environmental natural resource laws have their authority derived from Article VI of the US Constitution, not Article I that defines the eighteen enumerated powers of Congress. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states: 

Congress shall have power to:

Collect Taxes and Duties

Borrow Money

Regulate Commerce

Naturalize Citizens

Coin Money

Punishment of Counterfeiting

Build Post Offices & Post Roads

Promote Inventions

Constitute Lower Courts

Punish High Seas Offences

 Declare War

Raise an Army

Provide a Navy

Make Rules for Military

Call Militia and Suppress Insurrections & Invasions

Organize and Arm Militia

District of Columbia

To Make All Laws for Above Powers, and Powers Vested by the Constitution 

According to the US Constitution, Congress has no power to legislate anything other than in the eighteen areas listed above, and none of those allow Congress to pass environmental law, except number 18, which is defined in Article VI, Clause 2:  

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (Bold and italics added for emphasis)  

As it was originally written, the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The laws of the United States had to be "in pursuance thereof," or subservient to the Constitution. Likewise, treaties could only be made "under the Authority of the United States." Since the authority of the United States comes from the sovereign people who delegated it to the US Constitution, treaties also had to be subservient to it.   

Although the founders thought it obvious and therefore did not include it in the original US Constitution, the sovereignty of the people was spelled out in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. For instance, Amendment IX states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Just to make sure future courts understood this, Amendment X states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. It was the people's ironclad contract that they would never become serfs to the state. (Bold and italics added for emphasis) 

Needless to say, the US Constitution stopped the globalists from implementing their one-world plan dead in their tracts. They knew that something had to be done to override the sovereignty of the individual. In the case of property rights and natural resources, international treaties were used. The Constitution began to be reinterpreted in the case Missouri vs. Holland 252 U.S. 416, 40 S. Ct. 3822, 64 L.Ed 641 (1920). In that decision the US Supreme Court held that the federal government may preempt state control over wildlife under federal legislation implementing the Migratory Bird Treaty. By putting liberal and corrupt judges into lower courts and the Supreme Court, Article 6.2 of the Constitution was gradually reinterpreted to mean:  

...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...  

Such an interpretation fits perfectly within the globalist’s agenda. By redefining Article 6 of the US Constitution, all globalists now has to do is ratify international treaties that, in total, subvert the Constitution and put all power into their hands. As a consequence, Americans are systematically coming under the control of international law and the United Nations, and flies and suckerfish have more legal rights than people. "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." (Romans 1:22-23)

 

 

The Battle of Athens  2 AUGUST 1946

 I. Introduction

 On 2 August 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest, open elections. For years they had asked for state or Federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud -- forged ballots, secret ballot counts, and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies -- by the local political boss. They got no help.

 

These Americans' absolute refusal to knuckle-under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government. These Americans had a choice. Their state's Constitution - Article 1, Section 26 - recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few "gun control" laws had been enacted.

II. The Setting

 These Americans were Tennesseeans of McMinn County, located between Chattanooga and Knoxville, in Eastern Tennessee. The two main towns were Athens and Etowah.

 McMinn Countians had long been independent political thinkers. They also had long:

•accepted bribe-taking by politicians and/or the Sheriff to overlook illicit whiskey-making and gambling;

•financed the sheriff's department from fines - usually for speeding or public drunkenness - which promoted false arrests;

•put up with voting fraud by both Democrats and Republicans.

 Tennessee State law barred voting fraud:

•ballot boxes had to be shown to be empty before voting;

•poll-watchers had to be allowed;

•armed law enforcement officers were barred from polling places;

•ballots had to be counted where any voter could watch.

 

III. The Circumstances 

The Great Depression had ravaged McMinn County. Drought broke many farmers; workforces shrank. The wealthy Cantrell family, of Etowah, backed Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1932 election, hoping New Deal programs would revive the local economy and help Democrats to replace Republicans in the county government. So it proved. 

Paul Cantrell was elected Sheriff in the 1936, 1938, and 1940 elections, but by slim margins. The Sheriff was the key County official. Cantrell was elected to the State Senate in 1942 and 1944; his chief deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected sheriff. In 1946, Paul Cantrell again sought the Sheriff's office. 

IV. World War II Ends; Paul Cantrell's Troubles Begin 

At end-1945, some 3,000 battle-hardened veterans returned to McMinn County. Sheriff Mansfield's deputies had brutalized many in McMinn County; the GIs held Cantrell politically responsible for Mansfield's doings. Early in 1946, some newly-returned ex-GIs decided:

•to challenge Cantrell politically;

•to offer an all ex-GI, non-partisan ticket;

•to promise a fraud-free election.

 

In ads and speeches the GI candidates promised:

•an honest ballot count;

•reform of county government.

 

At a rally, a GI speaker said, "'The principals that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county.'" (Daily Post-Athenian, 17 June 1946, p. 1).

 

At end-July 1946, 159 McMinn County GIs petitioned the FBI to send election monitors. There was no response. The Department of Justice had not responded to McMinn Countians' complaints of election fraud in 1940, 1942, and 1944.

V. From Ballots to Bullets

 The election was held on 1 August. To intimidate voters, Mansfield brought in some 200 armed "deputies". GI poll-watchers were beaten almost at once. At about 3 p.m., Tom Gillespie, an African-American voter, was told by a Sheriff's deputy, "'Nigger, you can't vote here today!!'". Despite being beaten, Gillespie persisted; the enraged deputy shot him. The gunshot drew a crowd. Rumors spread that Gillespie had been "shot in the back"; he later recovered. (C. Stephen Byrum, The Battle of Athens; Paidia Productions, Chattanooga TN, 1987; pp. 155-57).

 

Other deputies detained ex-GI poll-watchers in a polling place, as that made the ballot count "public". A crowd gathered. Sheriff Mansfield told his deputies to disperse the crowd. When the two ex-GIs smashed a big window and escaped, the crowd surged forward. "The deputies, with guns drawn, formed a tight half-circle around the front of the polling place. One deputy, "his gun raised high ...shouted: 'You sons-of-bitches cross this street and I'll kill you!'" (Byrum, p. 165).

 

Mansfield took the ballot boxes to the jail for counting. The deputies seemed to fear immediate attack, by the "people who had just liberated Europe and the South Pacific from two of the most powerful war machines in human history." (Byrum, pp. 168-69).

 

Short of firearms and ammunition, the GIs scoured the county to find them. By borrowing keys to the National Guard and State Guard Armories, they got three M-1 rifles, five .45 semi-automatic pistols, and 24 British Enfield rifles. The armories were nearly empty after the war's end.

 

By eight p.m., a group of GIs and "local boys" headed for the jail to get the ballot boxes. They occupied high ground facing the jail but left the back door unguarded to give the jail's defenders an easy way out.

 

VI. The Battle of Athens 

Three GIs - alerting passersby to danger - were fired on from the jail. Two GIs were wounded. Other GIs returned fire. Those inside the jail mainly used pistols; they also had a "tommy gun" (a .45 caliber Thompson sub-machine gun).

 

Firing subsided after 30 minutes: ammunition ran low and night had fallen. Thick brick walls shielded those inside the jail. Absent radios, the GIs' rifle fire was un-coordinated. "From the hillside, fire rose and fell in disorganized cascades. More than anything else, people were simply 'shooting at the jail'." (Byrum, p. 189). 

Several who ventured into "no man's land", the street in front of the jail, were wounded. One man inside the jail was badly hurt; he recovered. Most sheriff's deputies wanted to hunker down and await rescue. Governor McCord mobilized the State Guard, perhaps to scare the GIs into withdrawing. The State Guard never went to Athens. McCord may have feared that Guard units filled with ex-GIs might not fire on other ex-GIs. 

At about 2 a.m. on 2 August, the GIs forced the issue. Men from Meigs county threw dynamite sticks and damaged the jail's porch. The panicked deputies surrendered. GIs quickly secured the building. Paul Cantrell faded into the night, almost having been shot by a GI who knew him, but whose .45 pistol had jammed. Mansfield's deputies were kept overnight in jail for their own safety. Calm soon returned: the GIs posted guards. The rifles borrowed from the armory were cleaned and returned before sun-up. 

VII. The Aftermath: Restoring Democracy in McMinn County 

In five precincts free of vote fraud, the GI candidate for Sheriff, Knox Henry, won 1,168 votes to Cantrell's 789. Other GI candidates won by similar margins. 

The GIs did not hate Cantrell. They only wanted honest government. On 2 August, a town meeting set up a three-man governing committee. The regular police having fled, six men were chosen to police Athens; a dozen GIs were sent to police Etowah. In addition, "Individual citizens were called upon to form patrols or guard groups, often led by a GI. ...To their credit, however, there is not a single mention of an abuse of power on their behalf." (Byrum, p. 220).

Once the GI candidates' victory had been certified, they cleaned-up county government:

•the jail was fixed;

•newly-elected officials accepted a $5,000 pay limit;

•Mansfield supporters who resigned, were replaced.

 

The general election on 5 November passed quietly. McMinn Countians, having restored the Rule of Law, returned to their daily lives. Pat Mansfield moved back to Georgia. Paul Cantrell set up an auto dealership in Etowah. "Almost everyone who knew Cantrell in the years after the 'Battle' agree that he was not bitter about what had happened." (Byrum, pp. 232-33; see also New York Times, 9 August 1946, p. 8).

 VIII. The Outsiders' Response

 The Battle of Athens made national headlines. Most outsiders' reports had the errors usual in coverage of large-scale, night-time events. A New York Times editorialist on 3 August savaged the GIs, who: 

"...quite obviously - though we hope erroneously - felt that there was no city, county, or State agency to whom they could turn for justice.

... "There is a warning for all of us in the occurrence...and above all a warning for the veterans of McMinn County, who also violated a fundamental principle of democracy when they arrogated to themselves the right of law enforcement for which they had no election mandate. Corruption, when and where it exists, demands reform, and even in the most corrupt and boss-ridden communities there are peaceful means by which reform can be achieved. But there is no substitute, in a democracy, for orderly process." (NYT, 3 Aug 1946, p. 14.)

The editorialist did not see:

•McMinn Countians' many appeals for outside help;

•some ruthless people only respect force;

•that it was wrong to equate use of force by evil-doers (Cantrell and Mansfield) with the righteous (the GIs). 

The New York Times:

•never saw that Cantrell and Mansfield's wholesale election fraud, enforced at gun-point, trampled the Rule of Law;

•feared citizens' restoring the Rule of Law by armed force. 

Other outsiders, e.g., Time and Newsweek, agreed. (See Time, 12 August 1946, p. 20; Newsweek, 12 Aug 1946, p. 31 and 9 September 1946, p. 38). 

The 79th Congress adjourned on 2 August 1946, when the Battle of Athens ended. However, Representative John Jennings, Jr., from Tennessee decried:

•McMinn County's sorry situation under Cantrell and Mansfield;

•the Justice Department's repeated failures to help the McMinn Countians.

Jennings was delighted that "...at long last decency and honesty, liberty and law have returned to the fine county of McMinn...". (Congressional Record, House; U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1946; Appendix, Volume 92, Part 13, p. A4870.)

 IX. The Lessons of Athens

Those who took up arms in Athens, Tennessee:

•wanted honest elections, a cornerstone of our Constitutional order;

•had repeatedly tried to get Federal or State election monitors;

•used armed force so as to minimize harm to the law-breakers;

•showed little malice to the defeated law-breakers;

•restored lawful government.

The Battle of Athens clearly shows:

•how Americans can and should lawfully use armed force;

•why the Rule of Law requires unrestricted access to firearms;

•how civilians with military-type firearms can beat the forces of "law and order".

 

Dictators believe that public order is more important than the Rule of Law. However, Americans reject this idea. Criminals can exploit for selfish ends, the use armed force to restore the Rule of Law. But brutal political repression - as practiced by Cantrell and Mansfield - is lethal to many. An individual criminal can harm a handful of people. Governments alone can brutalize thousands, or millions.

Since 1915, officials of seven governments "gone bad" have committed genocide, murdering at least 56 million persons, including millions of children. "Gun control" clears the way for genocide by giving governments "gone bad" far greater freedom to commit mass murder.

 

Law-abiding McMinn Countians won the Battle of Athens because they were not hamstrung by "gun control". McMinn Countians showed us when citizens can and should use armed force to support the Rule of Law. We are all in their debt.

 This is a bare bones summary of a major report in JPFO's Firearms Sentinel (January 1995). To learn how the gutsy people of Athens, Tennessee did the Framers of the Constitution proud, send $3 to JPFO, 2872 South Wentworth Avenue; Milwaukee, WI 53207; and request the January 1995 Firearms Sentinel. This document is from: chiliast@ideasign.com (A.K. Pritchard)

Council on Foreign Relations

 

Less than 20 years after the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was founded, World War II had arrived and once that war was over, America was ready to join "the League of Nations."

 

America sat down in San Francisco with Alger Hiss and joined the United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations - Alger Hiss, a charter member of the CFR; Alger Hiss, whose sympathy with communism can no longer be denied.

 

The U.N. Charter and constitution is a thin paraphrasing of the Soviet model which Alger Hiss borrowed from when he coauthored it. The U.N. constitution is therefore a Marxist socialist paradigm.

 

World regionalism is spelled out clearly in the U.N. Charter, Chapters 8 through 11, using such terms as "regional arrangements, intergovernmental agreements, and metropolital areas." Advocates of one-world socialism have already divided the world into 85 regions for policing purposes. In adopting the U.N. Charter, Congress has established the Charter as the Supreme Law of the land (Fugi v. State of California, 1950-52).

 

Following are just some of the policies of the United Nations:

• Control of all zoning matters in the United States and the control of our national parks, rivers and historical sites.

• Control over whether women are allowed to have babies.

• Control over the economic and judicial policies of all nations.

• Programs are being processed to create a tax on citizens of the United States as a permanent method of UN funding.

• The United Nation has its own Army and United States soldiers must swear allegiance to this foreign government. Remember Michael New.

 

By Executive Order No. 11647 on Feb. 10, 1972, President Nixon announced the United States was divided into 10 Federal Regional Councils, each controlled by an appointed bureaucrat for the stated purpose of improving coordination of the activities of all levels of government. The 10 federal regions were to be empowered to control all forms of regionalism within the U.S.. Regional divisions supplementing the 10 federal regions include state subregions, federal reserve regions, population regions, and regions to control the land, water and natural resources of America.

 

The goal of regional or metropolitan government is to eventually merge the U.S. into the "New World Order" - a one world socialist state under the United Nations.

 

Regional government is a plan to eventually control all facets of our lives. Executive Order 11490 assigns numerous emergency preparedness functions to federal departments.

 

Financing of regional governments is acquired through Federal Revenue sharing. Revenue sharing is a mechanism whereby the state and local governments become financially dependent upon the federal government. Pressure can then be applied to any level of state government that refuses to comply with the dictates of the regional government rulers. All but 1 of the 10 federal regional capitals is either a Federal Reserve Bank or branch bank city.

 

This is the "One World Government" that Strobe Talbot and Bill Clinton promoted. This is a "government" that allows as members terrorist states, ethnic cleansers like China (remember Tibet) and nations that allow slavery (Sudan) as members.

 

The United Nations destroyed two free nations (Rhodesia and South Africa), two nations which were not politically correct, and so, were forced to their knees. The UN spread vicious lies about Rhosesia and crippled the nation economically, finally turning it over to avowed Communists led by black radical Robert Mugabe - who promptly renamed it Zimbabwe. In the Republic of South Africa its capital, Johannesburg, now ruled by the inept and corrupt Nelsoin Mandela is looking less like the "London of Africa" and a lot more like the Ayatollah Khoemeini's Teheran, Iran. Today Johannesburg is the most dangerous city in the world with one of the highest murder rates.

 

The U.N. human rights committee removed voice and representation from Sudanese who have been defending themselves against their own Government. Khartoum is carrying out a civil and religious war aimed largely at Sudanese Christians and followers of native African religions.

 

We are in the midst of a propaganda campaign desired to scare us and encourage us to see things the way The Order sees them. Since another great depression and financial crisis is almost certain, the nations should move now to organize themselves into a One World Economic Order to insure that even though such a calamity may occur, there will be "a reconstitution of a meaningful international monetary system

More Fabian Socialism & How to Defeat It


Obamacare and Dodd-Frank are prime examples of government over-reach under the guise of healthcare reform and protecting us from unscrupulous free marketers, all to promote a broader agenda – “centralized control” wherein government asserts itself in every arena deemed necessary over an unsuspecting public.
In 1942, Stuart Chase, in “The Road We Are Traveling” spelled out the system the Fabian Society was so intent on implementing. Eerily similar to what is occurring today:

1. strong, centralized government,
2. powerful Executive Branch at the expense of the other two (Congress and Judicial),
3. government control of banking, credit and securities exchange (Dodd-Frank),
4. government control over employment,
5. unemployment insurance, old age pensions (Social Security),
6. universal healthcare (Obamacare), food (SNAP) and housing programs (HUD),
7. access to unlimited government borrowing (grants, student loans, etc.),
8. a managed monetary system (Federal Reserve),
9. government control over foreign trade (proposed Trans Pacific treaty and Atlantic Treaty),
10. government control over natural energy sources (government owns majority of natural resources), transportation and agricultural production (FARM legislation),
11. government regulation of labor (FLRB),
12. youth camps devoted to health discipline, community service and ideological teaching consistent with those of the authorities (Section 5210 Establishing a Ready Reserve Corp. in Obamacare and Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204),and
13. heavy progressive taxation.

Bowyer’s wrote an article in 2008 where he said: “Healthcare will not be nationalized in one fell swoop; they have been studying the failures of Hillarycare. Instead, a parallel system will be created, funded by surcharges on business payroll, which will be superior to many private plans.” Note the countless waivers and exemptions by the Executive Branch without Congressional approval or “legislatively.” New “rules and regulations” can be found almost daily in the Federal Registry regarding healthcare. He further stated:

“The old system (Medicare funds) will be forced to subsidize the new system and there will be a gradual shift from the former to the latter. The only coercion will be the fines, not the participation. A middle-class entitlement will have been created.” Over 700 billion dollars will be taken from Medicare to fund new programs found in Obamacare so what he said came to fruition.
“The offshore drilling ban that was allowed to lapse legislatively will be reinstated through executive means. It may be an executive order, but might just as well be a permit reviewing system that theoretically allows drilling but with endless levels of objection and appeal from anti-growth groups. Wind and solar, on the other hand, will have no permitting problems at all, and a heavy taxpayer subsidy at their backs.” Obama recently reinstituted drilling in the Gulf.

Accountability and transparency? Read TARP and Omnibus legislation passed in 2008 and 2009 – the foundations for Obamacare found its way into these two laws prior to Obamacare ever became law.

Bowyers also said:

“A quick review of the socialist takeovers in Venezuela in 1999, Spain in 2004 and Italy in 2006 show the same pattern–equity markets do most of their plummeting before the Chavez’s of the world take power. Investors anticipate the policy shift in advance; that’s their job.” “It’s not just equity markets, though; debt markets do the same thing. Everywhere I turn I hear complaints about bankers ‘hoarding capital.’ The banks, we’re told, are greedy and miserly, holding onto capital that should be deployed into the marketplace.”
“Well, which is it, miserly or greedy? They’re not the same thing. Banks make money borrowing low and lending high. In fact, they can borrow very, very low right now, as they could during the Great Depression.” Obama vilifies Wall Street, large corporations; the 1%. But, almost all of his appointees and czars come from the various entities he attacks. Who receives all the federal grants and loans? The very organizations and institutions these folks emanated from. What a racket – what a bully pulpit – say one thing, do the opposite.

Remember, Obamacare was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and Presidency without a single Republican vote. Contrary to popular belief Republicans submitted numerous Amendments that would have allowed insurance companies to cross state lines, created health savings accounts, allowed pooling of small businesses, targeted regulations for those with pre-existing conditions and tort reform – NONE were ever allowed to come up for a vote in either House.
“Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison“
by Peter Schweizer exposes questionable activities – deals struck during the legislative process and how the “established political class” enriches itself at the expense of the people. Title speaks for itself.
Billions has been doled out by this administration to supporters, ensuring continued political campaign donations. Think about it – our hard earned money doled out to ‘cronies’ who turn around and ‘donates’ money to fund political campaigns! Only taxpayer money – we can get more.
An entire class of investors increase profit margins based on influence and access to those in power. Schweizer did his research:

“Sen. John F. Kerry, MS (D) in 2009, began buying stock in Teva Pharmaceuticals purchasing nearly $750,000 in November alone. As the bill got closer to passing, the stock value soared. Big Pharma supported the legislative efforts because it would increase the demand for prescription drugs.” Same with insurance companies. The Kerrys cashed in after Obamacare became law, reaping tens of thousands of dollars in capital gains while holding on to more than $1 million in Teva shares.”
“The $573 million loan guarantee for the solar company Solyndra raised eyebrows. About 35 percent of the company was owned by billionaire George Kaiser, who raised money for Obama’s 2008 campaign. Solyndra has since gone bankrupt, workers laid off, but under the terms of the government loan, Mr. Kaiser gets paid before Uncle Sam.” During the bailout of the auto industry the unions benefitted instead of the investors – contrary to bankruptcy laws.
“Over $20.5 billion went to DOE loan recipients, $16.4 billion benefited Obama-connected companies. Similarly, more than $10 billion in stimulus grants and loans were paid out to companies owned or run by Obama “bundlers.” Who benefitted from the “Early Retiree Reinsurance Program” found in Obamacare? Those evil millionaires and billionaires did and frequently benefit financially from legislation passed by Congress in the form of more grants and loans. Warren Buffett, whom the media portrayed as a selfless advocate for higher taxes on the wealthy, benefitted from the Wall Street bailout.

Let’s return to the Fabian Socialist ‘welfare’ ideology. Those promoting this ideology, regardless of party affiliation, are guilty of a type of high treason that deserves the most punitive penalty. Using ‘emotional appeals’ to promote social justice legislation eventually allows them to achieve their highest goal – bringing down our Republic.

“Rather than relying on traditional cultural generosity of the American people, we have allowed the ‘state’ to step in and save the day on the pretense of being the ultimate protector of the common man, provider of security on all fronts from the dangers associated with the inherent problems of free enterprise and terrorists. Well, all this comes at a price – it requires complete submission and compliance, relinquishing our liberty and God given unalienable rights and freedoms.”

The next two election cycles will be telling – the left will spew hate, utilize race baiting, fan the flames on the war on women farce, politicians will vilify, ridicule and attack the opposition with the mainstream media following suit. Silence the opposition. Become an informed voter, do the research, read between the lines and seek the truth.






Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/fabian-socialism-defeat/#i8rjBUsW6PmXRTQU.99

US flies three final Chinese ethnic Uighurs from Guantanamo to Slovakia

Three Chinese Gitmo detainees have been transferred to Slovakia in what the US termed a milestone in the mission to finally close down Guantanamo bay prison. One hundred and fifty five prisoners, however, still remain at the prison.
The ethnic Uighurs Muslim detainees were flown to Bratislava from the US military prison on the island of Cuba, according to an announcement made by Pentagon and State department officials on Tuesday. Yusef Abbas, Saidullah Khalik, and Hajiakbar Abdul Ghuper volunteered to resettle in Slovakia. The country accepted three former inmates in 2010.

Twenty-two Chinese Uighurs had been imprisoned at Guantanamo after being captured by US forces in Afghanistan, according to a Wikileaks-published prisoner list. Six have already been sent to Palau, a pacific island, and 11 others have been dispersed between Bermuda, Albania and Switzerland.

While none of the detainees were deemed terror suspects, the US was unable to repatriate the Uighurs as the Chinese government has a history of mistreating the group as the central Asian border region of Xinjiang has been home to some ethnic unrest. Some were believed to have had weapons training at an Afghan camp, according to the US.

A judge ordered the release of the remaining three in 2008, they were held at the prison camp because of problems in finding somewhere that would actually take them. The US government expressed its gratitude to Slovakia for its ‘humanitarian gesture’, Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, told the New York Times.

Nine detainees have left Guantanamo in December, and 11 since last summer. In April US President Barack Obama expressed his wish to renew efforts to close the prison, which has held prisoners since 2001, starting out with some 750.

In February, many of the men being held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility launched a hunger strike against camp conditions. It was sparked by disrespectful treatment of the Quran. One month into the strike, attorneys for the men, many housed at the facilities infamous Camp 6, said the number refusing food had reached 100.

Following intense efforts to break detainees’ spirits, the number of strikers dwindled to 15 by December. That month, the US military announced it would no longer disclose information about the hunger strikes, saying its release “serves no operational purpose”.

A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than you love yourself.

What the Sex-Change Industry Doesn’t Tell You


The story from Belgium was absolutely tragic. A 44-year-old woman disappointed by her female-to-male surgery decided to die by euthanasia, feeling that the surgery had left her a monster. But the story behind the story is even more tragic.

Of course, if we simply believed the glowing reports in the media, you would think that everyone who has sex-change surgery is perfectly happy with the results. In keeping with that mentality, there’s a new term we are supposed to use—namely, gender-realignment surgery. This replaces the previous new term, sex-reassignment surgery, which replaced the more graphic term, sex-change surgery.
And make no mistake about it: This is a radical surgery involving removing and changing perfectly healthy organs and body parts simply because the person is convinced in his or her mind that the parts shouldn’t be there.
In the case of Belgian Nathan Verhelst, born Nancy Verhelst, she was allowed to die by lethal injection on the grounds of “unbearable psychological suffering.” (It should be noted that one in 50 deaths in Belgium today is the result of euthanasia, but that’s yet another tragic story.)
As reported in Belgian news, Verhelst said after the surgery, “I was ready to celebrate my new birth. But when I looked in the mirror, I was disgusted with myself.
“My new breasts did not match my expectations and my new penis had symptoms of rejection. I do not want to be ... a monster.”
All that is sad enough to read, but the story behind the story is worse still, pointing to the deeper issues involved in Verhelst’s life. Her mother rejected her from birth, having this to say after she received news of her daughter’s death: “When I first saw ‘Nancy,’ my dream was shattered. She was so ugly. I had a ghost birth. Her death does not bother me.”
Have you read anything more cruel from a child’s own mother?
She continues, “For me, this chapter closed. Her death does not bother me. I feel no sorrow, no doubt or remorse. We never had a bond which could therefore not be broken.”
And Nancy/Nathan struggled with this pain of rejection right until the time of her death, as the article reports: “Hours before his [sic] death Mr. Verhelst had spoken of how, as a child, he ‘was the girl that nobody wanted,’ describing how his mother had complained that she’d wished he’d been born a boy.”
Does it take a psychologist to recognize that this was the real root of Verhelst’s problems? That being rejected from birth by her own mother as “so ugly” and as a “ghost birth” and as not being the son her mother wanted was the real cause of her gender confusion? (I’m not saying this is always the case, but it was obviously the case here.)
Walt Heyer is a man who lived through this himself, first with his grandmother dressing him up as girl when he was just a few years old (and praising him for his looks after dressing him up), then some years later suffering repeated sexual abuse at the hands of another man.
As a married man with children, Heyer concluded he really was a woman, going through years of hormone therapy and then having sex-change surgery and becoming Laura, an identity he kept for years, only to realize his deeper problems were never resolved. Not surprisingly, the sex-change doctor he saw also failed to explore Heyer’s other issues.
Eventually Heyer got off hormones, reversed what he could surgically and married another woman, launching the website SexChangeRegret.com. A report on the website today states, “The Belgrade Center for Genital Reconstructive Surgery says that they have received 1,500 requests for reversal surgery.” Why is that?
Heyer's website also links to a story from England last October, which says, “‘I was born a boy, became a girl, and now I want to be a boy again’: Britain’s youngest sex swap patient to reverse her sex change treatment.”

It’s for reasons like these that the John Hopkins University hospital, under the leadership of the famed psychiatrist Dr. Paul McHugh, discontinued sex-change surgery years ago.
As McHugh observed (speaking of male-to-female surgery), “It is not obvious how this patient’s feeling that he is a woman trapped in a man’s body differs from the feeling of a patient with anorexia nervosa that she is obese despite her emaciated, cachectic state. We don’t do liposuction on anorexics. Why amputate the genitals of these poor men? Surely, the fault is in the mind not the member.”

Yet whenever I and others suggest that we should invest our energies in getting into the deeper issues troubling these individuals—whatever their age, helping them from the inside out—we are reviled as being hateful and insensitive.

As for McHugh, the university distinguished service professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins who also served on President George W. Bush’s presidential council on bioethics, he is reviled on transgender websites as being out of step with the times.

And if you wonder where all this is going, then just look at this news from Argentina: “A six-year-old girl, who was born a boy, has become the first transgender child in Argentina to have her new name officially changed on her identity documents.”

Six years old! That’s a time when children can barely tell the difference between reality and fantasy, and yet this little boy, who identified as a girl since he started talking, is now legally (but, of course, not biologically) a girl.

What’s next?
For believers, this much is clear: While having compassion on those who are struggling and pursuing divine strategies for their wholeness, we must celebrate male-female gender distinctions, recognizing the beauty and wisdom of Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

Two pastors have come forward and blown the whistle on a nationwide attempt by FEMA to train up religious leaders as secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to “obey the government” in event of martial law, natural disasters, or a flu pandemic.
FEMA warned the pastors that citizens would stand up for their second amendment rights and to be prepared for rebuttal. In return they were promised to be of the first vaccinated in event of an outbreak and were given ass...urances that they would be covered by full compensation in the event of problems.
Furthermore they encouraged the pastors to preach from Romans 13; a chapter devoted to solely to ‘government submission.’
Here are the pastors disposition on the matter:
Pastor Revere (name changed to protect Pastor):
“We get the picture that we’re going to be standing at the end of some farmer’s lane while he’s standing there with his double barrel, saying we have to confiscate your cows, your chickens, your firearms,” said Pastor Revere.
The Pastor elaborated on how the directives were being smoke screened by an Orwellian alteration of their names.
“They’re not using the term ‘quarantine’ – this is the term they’re going to be using – it’s called ‘social distancing’ don’t you like that one,” said the Pastor.
He also highlighted how detention camps had been renamed to give them a friendly warm veneer.
“Three months ago it was quarantine and relocation centers and now it’s ‘community centers’ and these are going to be activated at the local schools,” he said.
Pastor Revere outlined the plan to carry out mass vaccination and enforced drugging programs in times of crisis such as a bird flu outbreak. 

 

 

FEMA Trains Pastors for Preparation of Martial Law, Firearm Seizures, and Forced Relocation

vineoflifenews.com

Two pastors have come forward and blown the whistle on a nationwide attempt by FEMA to train up religious leaders as secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to "obey the government

Who stole our culture?

Sometime during the last half-century, someone stole our culture. Just 50 years ago, in the 1950s, America was a great place. It was safe. It was decent. Children got good educations in the public schools. Even blue-collar fathers brought home middle-class incomes, so moms could stay home with the kids. Television shows reflected sound, traditional values.

Where did it all go? How did that America become the sleazy, decadent place we live in today – so different that those who grew up prior to the '60s feel like it's a foreign country? Did it just "happen"?

It didn't just "happen." In fact, a deliberate agenda was followed to steal our culture and leave a new and very different one in its place. The story of how and why is one of the most important parts of our nation's history – and it is a story almost no one knows. The people behind it wanted it that way.

What happened, in short, is that America's traditional culture, which had grown up over generations from our Western, Judeo-Christian roots, was swept aside by an ideology. We know that ideology best as "political correctness" or "multi-culturalism." It really is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms in an effort that goes back not to the 1960s, but to World War I. Incredible as it may seem, just as the old economic Marxism of the Soviet Union has faded away, a new cultural Marxism has become the ruling ideology of America's elites. The No. 1 goal of that cultural Marxism, since its creation, has been the destruction of Western culture and the Christian religion

To understand anything, we have to know its history. To understand who stole our culture, we need to take a look at the history of "political correctness."

Early Marxist theory

Before World War I, Marxist theory said that if Europe ever erupted in war, the working classes in every European country would rise in revolt, overthrow their governments and create a new Communist Europe. But when war broke out in the summer of 1914, that didn't happen. Instead, the workers in every European country lined up by the millions to fight their country's enemies. Finally, in 1917, a Communist revolution did occur, in Russia. But attempts to spread that revolution to other countries failed because the workers did not support it.

After World War I ended in 1918, Marxist theorists had to ask themselves the question: What went wrong? As good Marxists, they could not admit Marxist theory had been incorrect. Instead, two leading Marxist intellectuals, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary (Lukacs was considered the most brilliant Marxist thinker since Marx himself) independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interests, that a Communist revolution was impossible in the West, until both could be destroyed. That objective, established as cultural Marxism's goal right at the beginning, has never changed.

A new strategy

Gramsci famously laid out a strategy for destroying Christianity and Western culture, one that has proven all too successful. Instead of calling for a Communist revolution up front, as in Russia, he said Marxists in the West should take political power last, after a "long march through the institutions" – the schools, the media, even the churches, every institution that could influence the culture. That "long march through the institutions" is what America has experienced, especially since the 1960s. Fortunately, Mussolini recognized the danger Gramsci posed and jailed him. His influence remained small until the 1960s, when his works, especially the "Prison Notebooks," were rediscovered.

Georg Lukacs proved more influential. In 1918, he became deputy commissar for culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik regime in Hungary. There, asking, "Who will save us from Western civilization?" he instituted what he called "cultural terrorism." One of its main components was introducing sex education into Hungarian schools. Lukacs realized that if he could destroy the country's traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying its traditional culture and Christian faith.

Far from rallying to Lukacs' "cultural terrorism," the Hungarian working class was so outraged by it that when Romania invaded Hungary, the workers would not fight for the Bela Kun government, and it fell. Lukacs disappeared, but not for long. In 1923, he turned up at a "Marxist Study Week" in Germany, a program sponsored by a young Marxist named Felix Weil who had inherited millions. Weil and the others who attended that study week were fascinated by Lukacs' cultural perspective on Marxism.

The Frankfurt School

Weil responded by using some of his money to set up a new think tank at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany. Originally it was to be called the "Institute for Marxism." But the cultural Marxists realized they could be far more effective if they concealed their real nature and objectives. They convinced Weil to give the new institute a neutral-sounding name, the "Institute for Social Research." Soon known simply as the "Frankfurt School," the Institute for Social Research would become the place where political correctness, as we now know it, was developed. The basic answer to the question "Who stole our culture?" is the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School.

At first, the Institute worked mainly on conventional Marxist issues such as the labor movement. But in 1930, that changed dramatically. That year, the Institute was taken over by a new director, a brilliant young Marxist intellectual named Max Horkheimer. Horkheimer had been strongly influenced by Georg Lukacs. He immediately set to work to turn the Frankfurt School into the place where Lukacs' pioneering work on cultural Marxism could be developed further into a full-blown ideology.

To that end, he brought some new members into the Frankfurt School. Perhaps the most important was Theodor Adorno, who would become Horkheimer's most creative collaborator. Other new members included two psychologists, Eric Fromm and Wilhelm Reich, who were noted promoters of feminism and matriarchy, and a young graduate student named Herbert Marcuse.

Advances in cultural Marxism

With the help of this new blood, Horkheimer made three major advances in the development of cultural Marxism. First, he broke with Marx's view that culture was merely part of society's "superstructure," which was determined by economic factors. He said that on the contrary, culture was an independent and very important factor in shaping a society.

Second, again contrary to Marx, he announced that in the future, the working class would not be the agent of revolution. He left open the question of who would play that role – a question Marcuse answered in the 1950s.

Third, Horkheimer and the other Frankfurt School members decided that the key to destroying Western culture was to cross Marx with Freud. They argued that just as workers were oppressed under capitalism, so under Western culture, everyone lived in a constant state of psychological repression. "Liberating" everyone from that repression became one of cultural Marxism's main goals. Even more important, they realized that psychology offered them a far more powerful tool than philosophy for destroying Western culture: psychological conditioning.

Today, when Hollywood's cultural Marxists want to "normalize" something like homosexuality (thus "liberating" us from "repression"), they put on television show after television show where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual. That is how psychological conditioning works; people absorb the lessons the cultural Marxists want them to learn without even knowing they are being taught.

The Frankfurt School was well on the way to creating political correctness. Then suddenly, fate intervened. In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, where the Frankfurt School was located. Since the Frankfurt School was Marxist, and the Nazis hated Marxism, and since almost all its members were Jewish, it decided to leave Germany. In 1934, the Frankfurt School, including its leading members from Germany, was re-established in New York City with help from Columbia University. Soon, its focus shifted from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to doing so in the United States. It would prove all too successful.

New developments

Taking advantage of American hospitality, the Frankfurt School soon resumed its intellectual work to create cultural Marxism. To its earlier achievements in Germany, it added these new developments.

Critical Theory

To serve its purpose of "negating" Western culture, the Frankfurt School developed a powerful tool it called "Critical Theory." What was the theory? The theory was to criticize. By subjecting every traditional institution, starting with family, to endless, unremitting criticism (the Frankfurt School was careful never to define what it was for, only what it was against), it hoped to bring them down. Critical Theory is the basis for the "studies" departments that now inhabit American colleges and universities. Not surprisingly, those departments are the home turf of academic political correctness.

Studies in prejudice

The Frankfurt School sought to define traditional attitudes on every issue as "prejudice" in a series of academic studies that culminated in Adorno's immensely influential book, "The Authoritarian Personality," published in 1950. They invented a bogus "F-scale" that purported to tie traditional beliefs on sexual morals, relations between men and women and questions touching on the family to support for fascism. Today, the favorite term the politically correct use for anyone who disagrees with them is "fascist."

Domination

The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or "dominance" over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled "oppressors," while other groups were defined as "victims." Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior.

Though Marxists, the members of the Frankfurt School also drew from Nietzsche (someone else they admired for his defiance of traditional morals was the Marquis de Sade). They incorporated into their cultural Marxism what Nietzsche called the "transvaluation of all values." What that means, in plain English, is that all the old sins become virtues, and all the old virtues become sins. Homosexuality is a fine and good thing, but anyone who thinks men and women should have different social roles is an evil "fascist." That is what political correctness now teaches children in public schools all across America. (The Frankfurt School wrote about American public education. It said it did not matter if school children learned any skills or any facts. All that mattered was that they graduate from the schools with the right "attitudes" on certain questions.)

Media and entertainment

Led by Adorno, the Frankfurt School initially opposed the culture industry, which they thought "commodified" culture. Then, they started to listen to Walter Benjamin, a close friend of Horkheimer and Adorno, who argued that cultural Marxism could make powerful use of tools like radio, film and later television to psychologically condition the public. Benjamin's view prevailed, and Horkheimer and Adorno spent the World War II years in Hollywood. It is no accident that the entertainment industry is now cultural Marxism's most powerful weapon.

The growth of Marxism in the United States

After World War II and the defeat of the Nazis, Horkheimer, Adorno and most of the other members of the Frankfurt School returned to Germany, where the Institute re-established itself in Frankfurt with the help of the American occupation authorities. Cultural Marxism in time became the unofficial but all-pervasive ideology of the Federal Republic of Germany.

But hell had not forgotten the United States. Herbert Marcuse remained here, and he set about translating the very difficult academic writings of other members of the Frankfurt School into simpler terms Americans could easily grasp. His book "Eros and Civilization" used the Frankfurt School's crossing of Marx with Freud to argue that if we would only "liberate non-procreative eros" through "polymorphous perversity," we could create a new paradise where there would be only play and no work. "Eros and Civilization" became one of the main texts of the New Left in the 1960s.

Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School's intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals – the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred "victims groups" of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness's favorite words, "tolerance," and gave it a new meaning. He defined "liberating tolerance" as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for "tolerance," they mean Marcuse's "liberating tolerance" (just as when they call for "diversity," they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology).

The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous "guru," he injected the Frankfurt School's cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute's beginning, Marcuse and the few other people "in the know" did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America's traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America's traditional culture lies in ruins.

A counter-strategy

Now you know who stole our culture. The question is, what are we, as Christians and as cultural conservatives, going to do about it?

We can choose between two strategies. The first is to try to retake the existing institutions – the public schools, the universities, the media, the entertainment industry and most of the mainline churches – from the cultural Marxists. They expect us to try to do that, they are ready for it, and we would find ourselves, with but small voice and few resources compared to theirs, making a frontal assault against prepared defensive positions. Any soldier can tell you what that almost always leads to: defeat.

There is another, more promising strategy. We can separate ourselves and our families from the institutions the cultural Marxists control and build new institutions for ourselves, institutions that reflect and will help us recover our traditional Western culture.

Several years ago, my colleague Paul Weyrich wrote an open letter to the conservative movement suggesting this strategy. While most other conservative (really Republican) leaders demurred, his letter resonated powerfully with grass-roots conservatives. Many of them are already part of a movement to secede from the corrupt, dominant culture and create parallel institutions: the homeschooling movement. Similar movements are beginning to offer sound alternatives in other aspects of life, including movements to promote small, often organic family farms and to develop community markets for those farms' products. If Brave New World's motto is "Think globally, act locally," ours should be "Think locally, act locally."

Thus, our strategy for undoing what cultural Marxism has done to America has a certain parallel to its own strategy, as Gramsci laid it out so long ago. Gramsci called for Marxists to undertake a "long march through the institutions." Our counter-strategy would be a long march to create our own institutions. It will not happen quickly, or easily. It will be the work of generations – as was theirs. They were patient, because they knew the "inevitable forces of history" were on their side. Can we not be equally patient, and persevering, knowing that the Maker of history is on ours? -
By William S. Lind -