John R. Houk
© May 14, 2016
Remarkably the
New
York Times (
a Left-oriented News
Paper) has exposed one of President Barack Hussein Obama facilitators
between the Administration and the press. Ben Rhodes was tasked to selling the
Iran Nuke deal and manipulated the press info on Iranian Navy boarding an American
Navy vessel and humiliating U.S. sailors. Rhodes relationship to Obama is
evidently chief liar to the American voter. David Samuels wrote a masterful
profile on Rhodes showing that political manipulation and misdirection that
painted a picture of dealings with Iran
that simply and deceptively did not exist.
In essence the Obama-Rhodes team is a propaganda machine
that sells a bill of goods based on deception. Since parallels in history tend
to repeat over the years you should ask yourself, “What political duo in
history reminds of present day Obama-Rhodes?”
I’ll tell you what time in history struck me. The
Obama-Rhodes propaganda team reminds of the Hitler-Goebbels team that convinced
Germans that the Nazi Party goals and ideals would transform Germany into a
master of nations.
Adolf Hitler - Joseph Goebbels 1933
The difference between Obama-Rhodes/Hitler-Goebbels are the
tactics of global domination. Hitler viewed military power to impose Nazism in
ruthless world domination coloring every nefarious action as a glorious moment
for the Aryan race. Obama is a Leftist globalist utilizing Gramsci’s Marxist
principles of stealth to transform nations from within by delegitimizing the indigenous
culture slowly. If slow delegitimizing of culture is successful in a
democratic-style government, the people have the illusion they voted in a more
favorable Marxist cultural paradigm rather than the individual rights of
innovation and property goals as a pursuit of happiness. Thus the pursuit of
happiness is taken from the people and turned over to the government to make
all the decisions for how a person lives materially and ethically.
Briefly look at
Joseph Goebbels’ art of
manipulation and you will see how Obama used Ben Rhodes.
Goebbels’ most famous quote (ironically some historians believe is wrongly attributed) that is
still the paradigm of Leftist manipulation in the 21st century:
A Goebbels quote that is probably closer to what he actually
said:
“If you tell a lie big enough and
keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be
maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the
political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes
vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent,
for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth
is the greatest enemy of the State.” (
Ibid.)
And a Goebbels quote I was less familiar with but discovered
in my research that is most applicable to Obama-Rhodes:
“Propaganda works best when those
who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free
will.” (
Ibid.)
The last Goebbels quote is exactly the manipulation used on
the press, Congress and American voters!
Fred Fleitz made this observation pertaining Obama-Rhodes
and foreign policy in the National Review:
It would do you well to read that entire Fleitz article.
Something to think about is that a Hillary Clinton
presidency would simply be a continuation of the Obama Administration deception
to the American public as well as the furthering of Obama’s Gramsciesq
transformation of America and a New World Order.
YOU NEED to understand what a Gramsci transformation agenda
looks like:
Specifically, Gramsci called for
Marxists to spread their ideology in a gradual, incremental, stealth manner, by
infiltrating all existing societal institutions and embedding it, largely
without being noticed, in the popular mind. This, he emphasized, was to be an evolutionary,
rather than a revolutionary, process that, over a period of decades, would
cause an ever-increasing number of people to embrace Marxist thought, until at
last it achieved hegemony. Gramsci described this approach as a “long march through
the institutions.” Among the key institutions that would need to be infiltrated
were the cinema and theater, the schools and universities, the seminaries and
churches, the media, the courts, the labor unions, and at least one major
political party. According to Gramsci, these institutions constituted society's
“superstructure,”
which, if captured and reshaped by Marxists, could lead the masses to abandon
capitalism of their own volition, entirely without resistance or objection. (From
Determine
The Networks but cross posted at
SlantRight 2.0
-
Gramsci
the Eurocommunist and Obamunism; posted by John R. Houk;
4/2/13)
Antonio Gramsci photo 79th Anniversary of Death
You clueless American voters that support Obama and Hillary
YOU are supporting the Gramsci Marxist Transformation. Ergo you millennial voters
that think Hillary or Sanders will make your life better are deceiving
yourselves into Marxist slavery.
Here is a good look at what
Marxist slavery looks like from the excerpted thoughts of Chuck Braman:
Karl Marx claimed that economics
determines history, and that one's economic class determines one's ideas.
Ironically, he proved himself wrong, in a deadly way. The twelve-thousand word
propaganda tract written by Marx in 1848 and known as The Communist Manifesto
was a concise summary of many ideas which Marx himself created. These ideas
proceeded to shape the history of the twentieth century, including its
political and economic history, as well as the ideas of most twentieth century
intellectuals. This history included approximately one hundred million innocent
citizens slaughtered by Marxist governments, millions more enslaved by Marxist
governments, international conflicts on an unprecedented scale, and an
intellectual tradition that, at present, is thoroughly entrenched in the
humanities and is in the process of destroying the ideas and ideals of the
West. …
…
The underlying epistemological
error that Marx commits early in the Manifesto is the advocacy of a form of
intellectual determinism and relativism which denies both free will and
objectivity by claiming that the truth and falsehood of one's ideas bear no
objective status and are determined by, and their truth relative to, one's
economic class. He says, "Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the
conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property… don't wrangle
with us so long as you apply… the standard of your bourgeois notions of
freedom, culture, law, etc." And: "Law, morality and religion are…
bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois
interests."
What Marx is claiming here is that
the entire Western philosophic and intellectual tradition, as it had developed
up until his time (and on which, ironically, he was entirely dependent for his
own ideas), is a subjective rationalization used to justify the
"exploitation" of the workers by the capitalists, a tradition
consisting of ideas which are neither consciously chosen by the capitalists,
nor have any basis in fact. Thus, in a single swoop, Marx himself rationalizes
the destruction not only of entire fields, such as law, but of Western culture
as such, including its most fundamental concepts. (Contemporary manifestations
of these Marxian premises taught in modern universities include the doctrines
of "Deconstruction," "Neo-Pragmatism," and
"Multiculturalism.")
… Having dismissed freedom,
culture, morality and law as subjective myths, Marx then feels free to advocate
their outright destruction by the totalitarian State, which he refers to as the
"Communistic modes of… appropriating intellectual products,"
resulting in the elimination of "class culture."
…
… The random killing of groups of
people, linked by class status or profession (such as homeowners and high
school teachers) immediately followed. The "bourgeois notion" of
freedom was eliminated by throwing those who were not murdered outright into
concentration and labor camps. Consistent with Marxian subjectivism, objections
to slave labor were brushed aside by Lenin's associate Karl Radek as "the
bourgeois prejudice of 'freedom of labor'".
Hitler, of course, would soon apply
the same methods on a larger scale in his National Socialism, adapting the
Soviet model to his own ideology by substituting the concept of race for class.
Thus, in Marx's epistemological ideas, began the intellectual subjectivism, the
moral relativism, and mass murder of the totalitarian governments in our
century.
The "Communistic modes of…
appropriating intellectual products" in order to eliminate "class
culture" were made a reality both in the Soviet Union and Red China, whose
leaders, Stalin and Mao, systematically smashed Western culture in
"Cultural Revolutions" in 1946 and 1966-67 respectively. During these
intellectual purges, Western-influenced "bourgeois" scientists and
artists were killed or imprisoned, while their works were destroyed.
The point is the elites of the Democratic Party have already
transformed that political party that is democratic-socialist at best and at
worst a Gramsci-style Marxist destroyer of the founding principles of America’s
Founding Fathers. And that which is even more heinous the Marxist elites of the
current Dem Party are using the same instruments of governing from the Founding
Fathers to undermine America’s founding principles and destroy what has made
America an exceptional nation among nations. A HILLARY VOTE OR NON-TRUMP VOTE IS A VOTE TO END AMERICA as it was
meant to be as a Republic of the people, by the people and for the people.
Further Reading:
The inspiration of my thoughts a FrontPage Mag article by Daniel Greenfield.
JRH 5/14/16
*********************
ANTI-AMERICANISM IS THE FOREIGN POLICY OF FOOLS
But Anti-Americanism is the only foreign policy that the American Left
needs.
May 13, 2016
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the
Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
The
New York Times profile
of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy guru, had plenty of shocking
moments from his attempt to cover up Iran’s abduction of US sailors to his
blatant gloating over the stupidity of the journalists whom he manipulated into
spreading his lies in support of the Iran deal.
But the larger revelation is also simpler. Ben Rhodes knows
next to nothing about foreign policy. He has no idea whether Iran will get
nukes and couldn’t care less whether it’s moderate or not. He’s a failed
fiction writer whose goal is “radically reorienting American policy in the
Middle East in order to make the prospect of American involvement in the
region’s future wars a lot less likely”.
That’s another way of describing a foreign policy built on
isolationism.
Obama’s interviews are liberally spiced with contempt for
the Europeans, whose foreign policy he adopted, and even former Islamist allies
like Turkey are being treated with disdain. He despises both traditional US
allies such as the UK and Israel, but he also has little use for the enemies,
such as Russia and the Sunni Islamists, whom he tried to court. About the only
enemy nation he still likes is Iran.
The first wave of Democratic backlash to the Iraq War was to
champion diplomacy over military intervention. But diplomacy without
intervention proved toothless. All that’s left now is a warped isolationism in
which the US still pays the bills, signs all sorts of meaningless international
accords that compromise our interests, but completely abandons its leadership
role as a world power.
Rhodes sneers at the reporters whom he manipulated as
knowing nothing. And he’s right. But he also doesn’t know anything. The
condition is typical of an American left which has no foreign policy. It only
has an anti-American domestic policy which it projects internationally without
regard to its relevance.
The Iran deal had to happen to defeat “neo-conservatives”,
the “war lobby” and whatever other leftist boogeyman was lurking around the
premises. The men and women doing the defeating, like Rhodes, had zero interest
in what was actually happening in Iran or what its leaders might do with
nuclear weapons. They would tell any lie to help sell the deal because they
were fighting a domestic battle of narratives. Iran wasn’t a real place. It was
a fictional counter in a domestic ideological battle.
This problem did not begin yesterday.
Senator Ted
Kennedy’s
infamous letter to the Soviet leadership was seen as
treasonous. But
as
a practical matter it revealed that an aspiring president had
no interest in the USSR except to use it in a domestic battle against Reagan.
Democrats had similarly supported and then turned against the Iraq War over
domestic politics. Not only had they backed the removal of Saddam Hussein in
the past, but Obama’s regime change in Libya showed that they did not believe
any of their own critiques of regime change or unilateral intervention. Their
foreign policy was based entirely on a domestic agenda.
Earlier generations of Democrats did have a comprehensive
foreign policy based on ideas. It might be wrong, but it did exist. The
Clinton-Kerry generation was very interested in talking about foreign policy,
but viewed it purely in terms of opposing the Vietnam War as a critique of
American power.
They had no other ideas to offer and it showed.
Without the Cold War, the Clinton era reduced foreign policy
to multilateral diplomacy that existed to resolve conflicts and prevent
genocide. But diplomacy proved useless in Rwanda and Bosnia. So Clinton ignored
the former and used ruthless force casually for the latter. Meanwhile his
foreign policy couldn’t process the rise of Al Qaeda and the growing threat of
Islamic terrorism which led inevitably to 9/11.
Hillary Clinton is offering up a freezer fresh version of
the same thing. The policies that failed her badly in Syria, Libya and across
the Middle East are the only foreign policy offerings that she has for sale.
Bill Clinton had no foreign policy. Like Obama, he viewed
foreign policy in terms of his domestic conflicts with Republicans. He tried to
engage diplomatically while retreating militarily. His botched intervention in
Yugoslavia had strong similarities to Obama’s disastrous intervention in Libya.
And a Clinton was behind both.
Hillary Clinton took the Secretary of State position to
build up credibility for a presidential run. The invasion of Libya was a
platform to take her to the White House. Libya did not matter to her. While the
State Department blew through fortunes to finance her self-promotion, the
Benghazi mission lacked basic security. Even the Jihadists who were hired on to
provide security weren’t getting paid.
And that led to the murder of four Americans.
It’s a short distance from Ted Kennedy trying to figure out
how he could use Soviet officials to undermine Reagan and become president to
Hillary Clinton seeing regime change in Libya as a campaign commercial right
down to
the
punchy media-friendly slogan, “We came, We saw, He died.”
Democratic foreign policy is animated by political careerism
and the conviction that American power is the problem. Beyond that lies a deep
and abiding ignorance of the actual conflicts and issues abroad.
The left’s reflexive anti-Americanism makes it easy to
be ignorant while appearing knowledgeable. It allows the conflation of domestic
policy critiques with foreign policy by blaming America for everything.
Anything that doesn’t fit into the neat anti-American box can be waved away
with some clichés about the importance of global communication, global poverty,
trade policies, global warming and reform.
Democrats didn’t have to understand Iraq. They just had to
know it was Bush’s fault. First it was Bush I’s fault for not removing Saddam
Hussein, as Democrats and the media instead he should have. Then it was Bush
II’s fault for removing Saddam, which Democrats and the media had now decided
he shouldn’t have. But blaming Bush I and II didn’t actually teach them
anything about Iraq. And so they had no idea what to do about it.
Bill Clinton ricocheted from bombing Iraq to trying to
trying to ignore it. Obama followed the same course, first trying to ignore it
and then bombing it. Neither of them understood anything about Iraq. While
Obama still boasts of having gotten Iraq right, that’s because no one reminds
him that back in the Senate he was insisting that Iraqis would achieve a
political solution once American soldiers had left.
The political solution they achieved was a bloody civil war
culminating in ISIS.
But Obama’s understanding of Iraq was limited to blaming
America for its problems. He didn’t know anything else and he didn’t feel that
he had to.
The rise of ISIS happened because Democrats didn’t feel they
had to know anything about Iraq except that it was Bush’s fault. When Bush
tried to get Assad to cut off the flow of Al Qaeda terrorists into Iraq,
leading Democrats, including Pelosi and Kerry, rushed to support Assad against
President Bush.
That flow of terrorists from Syria into Iraq eventually
became the basis for ISIS.
It’s no wonder that Obama has never been able to come up
with a working plan for Syria. Blaming Bush is not a plan. And it’s a
particularly bad plan in this case.
Anti-Americanism, like most prejudices, is a license for
ignorance. By embracing a prejudice against their own country, Democrats have
lost any skill at foreign policy that they once had. Instead of learning
anything about the world, they resort to the easy answer of turning away from
the confusing problems of other countries to blame them all on us.
Anti-Americanism is the only foreign policy that they need.
Anti-Americanism is the foreign policy of fools. It’s not smart
power. It’s ignorance and prejudice with a dictionary.
___________________
Obama-Rhodes: America’s Eminent Future?
John R. Houk
© May 14, 2016
___________________
ANTI-AMERICANISM IS THE FOREIGN POLICY OF FOOLS
ABOUT
FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ
FREEDOM CENTER
The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies
whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both
secular and religious, at home and abroad.
The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of
the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm
this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror. The
leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom
Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give
conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are
otherwise excluded. Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the
Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its
family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the
news media, and in national politics throughout the year.
FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political
commentary has 1.5 million visitors and over 870,000 unique visitors a month
(65 million hits) and is linked to over 2000 other websites. The
magazine’s coverage of and commentary about events has been greatly augmented
over the last two years by the presence of four Shillman Fellows in
Journalism underwritten by board member Dr. Robert Shillman. FrontPage has recently
added a blog called “The Point,” run by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield,
which has tripled web traffic.
DiscoverTheNetworks.com, launched in 2005, is the largest publicly accessible
database defining the chief groups and individuals of the Left and their
organizational interlocks. It is a full service encyclopedia of the left
providing an intellectual diagram of its institutional power in American
culture and politics. DTN has had more than 8 million visitors so … READ THE REST
