RUTHFULLY YOURS

Karen McKay (Chapter 17) described with precision the cultural terrorism Marxist George Lukács brought to Hungary as deputy commissar for education and culture in 1919, and Marxist Barack Obama brought to the United States as president in 2008. The ideological motivation for cultural terrorism is purely political, and it is documented in America by W. Cleon Skousen, a former FBI employee, in his 1958 book, The Naked Communist.[i] Skousen lists forty-five communist goals that promote social progressivism, internationalism, societal collapse, and imposition of communism worldwide.

On January 10, 1963, the forty-five communist goals were read into the United States Congressional Record to archive them for future generations. The goals that articulated and exposed the thinking and strategies of the political elite sixty years ago are the same goals and policies being implemented collaboratively by today’s radical leftist Democrat party, corrupt Republicans (RINOs), the colluding media, and the globalists who pull all of their strings. Some of the familiar names are Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Mike Pence, George Soros, Bill Gates, and Klaus Schwab.

Of particular interest in this chapter are Goals 24, 25, 26, 40, and 41:

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free   speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy.”

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

The first Marxist president of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, governed in accordance with socialist Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals (Chapter 14), not the United States Constitution. During his eight-year term, every government institution was politicized to move the country toward socialism.

Obama’s vision of internationalism (global integration) at the expense of national sovereignty (territorial borders) was stated unequivocally during his last speech to the United Nations on September 20, 2016:[ii]

In order to move forward, though, we do have to acknowledge that the existing path to global integration requires a course correction. As too often, those trumpeting the benefits of globalization have ignored inequality within and among nations; have ignored the enduring appeal of ethnic and sectarian identities; have left international institutions ill-equipped, underfunded, under-resourced, in order to handle transnational challenges.

And as these real problems have been neglected, alternative visions of the world have pressed forward both in the wealthiest countries and in the poorest: religious fundamentalism; the politics of ethnicity, or tribe, or sect; aggressive nationalism; a crude populism—sometimes from the far left, but more often from the far right—which seeks to restore what they believe was a better, simpler age free of outside contamination.

We cannot dismiss these visions. They are powerful. They reflect dissatisfaction among too many of our citizens. I do not believe those visions can deliver security or prosperity over the long term, but I do believe that these visions fail to recognize, at a very basic level, our common humanity. Moreover, I believe that the acceleration of travel and technology and telecommunications—together with a global economy that depends on a global supply chain—makes it self-defeating ultimately for those who seek to reverse this progress. Today, a nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself….

So, we need new models for the global marketplace, models that are inclusive and sustainable. And in the same way, we need models of governance that are inclusive and accountable to ordinary people.

Obama was not speaking American English. Consistent with his 2008 promise to “fundamentally transform America,” Obama’s parting 2016 United Nations address was spoken in the Marxist language of deceit.

Words matter. Language is the foundation for community. It is the means by which individuals make themselves understood within groups and why translators are necessary to make them understood outside the group. One of the most powerful weapons of war is the deliberate confusion of the meaning of words within a group. In Islam there is a name for this tactic: taqiyya. It means lying in the service of Islam. Radical socialist Saul Alinsky introduced the concept to America in his 1971 book, Rules for Radicals. He instructed his students to cut their hair, put on a suit, and blend in so that no one would suspect they were trying to overthrow the government of American capitalism and impose socialism.

There is no equivalent word in the English language for the deliberate deception of taqiyya, so I coined the term Alinskiyya. Candidate Barack Obama practiced Alinskiyya when he disguised his radical socialist agenda and promised “hope and change” to an unsuspecting American public. President Obama practiced Alinskiyya when he deliberately rebranded terrorism as workplace violence, and scrubbed all mention of Islamic jihad from national security manuals and training.

Shouting “Allahu Akbar,” self-proclaimed “Soldier of Allah” Palestinian-American Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan went on a killing rampage on November 5, 2009, at the Army base in Killeen, Texas, leaving thirteen American soldiers dead. Obama’s immediate response was to caution against “jumping to conclusions” regarding the shooter and his motivations. On August 23, 2013, Hasan’s trial concluded and he was unanimously convicted on all forty-five counts of killing thirteen fellow soldiers and wounding thirty-two others at Fort Hood. Yet Obama and his administration refused to recognize Hasan’s attack as an act of war, labeling the massacre workplace violence.

Obama’s contemptible designation of the Fort Hood attack as workplace violence instead of combat related or terrorism denied Hasan’s victims the right to receive Purple Heart medals and other veteran benefits they would be entitled to had the attack been properly labeled. And Obama’s deceitful same-day declaration[iii] after Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on July 16, 2015, “We know that what appears to be a lone gunman carried out these attacks,” diverted public attention from Islamic terrorism to the absurd, politically motivated, mental health explanation of lone-wolf attacks.

It took six years and a provision in the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act that expanded eligibility to include an attack by a “foreign terrorist organization” for the U.S. Army to finally approve the medals and benefits to victims of the Fort Hood and Chattanooga jihadi terrorist attacks.

Radical Islamic terrorism is the violent expression of Islam’s goal of world dominion, and changing the meaning of words by taqiyya is stealth jihad. To an Islamist, the word peace means the whole world is Muslim and sharia law, the law of Islam, governs the world. Redefining jihadi terrorism as mental illness is a powerful political tactic used to intentionally confuse the public and engage their humanitarianism to view terrorists as victims who need understanding and refuge, instead of recognizing the existential threat such terrorists pose to a nation.

Why would any civilized Western society deliberately rebrand terrorism as mental illness and become an apologist for the barbarity of terrorists and sharia law? To make sense of the nonsensical, it is necessary to examine the motives of the participants. Leftist leaders across the world in Germany, Sweden, England, Canada, Australia, and the Democrat party in the U.S. believe in internationalism and one-world government. Their political platforms reject national sovereignty and seek to destroy Western capitalist infrastructures and replace them with socialism—the stepping-stone to one-world government.

Anarchists and terrorists provide leftist politicians here and abroad the social chaos and instability necessary to dupe the unsuspecting public into surrendering their freedoms for promises of government safety. Once the government imposes martial law to quell social chaos, it is a very short step to internationalizing the police force and imposing one-world government.

The anarchists, including George Soros’s paid political protesters, believe they will realize their Utopian dream of one-world government, social justice, and income equality. The Islamists believe they will realize their dream of a one-world caliphate ruled by religious sharia law. What neither group realizes is that they are Lenin’s useful idiots for the globalist elite, who manipulate both groups to create the instability required for the elite to impose their own dystopian one-world government.

Lord Bertrand Russell’s 1952 book, The Impact of Science on Society,[iv] unapologetically describes in chilling detail the intention of globalist elites in England and America, including the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, to impose one-world government to solve the purported Malthusian problem of Earth’s resources being unable to sustain population growth. They envision a binary sociopolitical system of masters and slaves where they are the masters served by an enslaved population—everyone else is simply eliminated.

At the 1992 Bilderberg Conference, an annual private meeting of the political elite established in 1954, Henry Kissinger remarked:[v]

Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government.

The social chaos that Henry Kissinger described in 1992 is fomented and financed today by the globalist elite, and implemented by leftist leaders who are too arrogant to realize they are participating in their own destruction. In case anyone doubts the reality of the elitist one-world-government intention, just read David Rockefeller’s own words at Bilderberg and in his book Memoirs (2002),[vi] where he admits he is part of a secret cabal working to destroy the United States and create a New World Order. These claims are not unhinged conspiracy theories—they are the sinister, long-range plans of a determined few to enslave and rule the world.

Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one-world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. (Memoirs, p. 405)

We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a World Government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries. (David Rockefeller, Bilderberg 1991)[vii]

Obama’s message to the world, delivered at the United Nations a few weeks prior to the 2016 election, was meant to reaffirm his commitment to internationalism in legacy candidate Hillary Clinton’s anticipated presidency. The election of President Donald Trump stunned the Democrats, who responded by savaging him with four years of Alinsky’s Rule 13:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

Trump’s presidency was a temporary setback in globalism’s War on America. The 2020 election put Joe Biden in the White House, and Obama began serving his third term. The Democrats were back in business, the regime’s allegiance to global governance renewed.

The Biden-Obama-Harris regime recommitted the United States to United Nations Agenda 2030 and its 17 Sustainable Goals, designed for international control of “sovereign” governments. Target 7 of Sustainable Development Goal (DG) 4, “Quality Education,” stipulates that “all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through…global citizenship.”

The regime also pledged to rejoin UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations aimed at “promoting world peace and security through international cooperation in education, arts, sciences, and culture.” The Trump administration had withdrawn from UNESCO on December 31, 2018, citing the need for sweeping reform of the organization.

The educational reformation that Obama launched and escalated in his first two terms was put into high gear in his third. UNESCO’s 2022 report, “Where Do We Stand on Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship Education,”[viii] lists two primary outcome-based goals and features an internationalized educational curriculum that indoctrinates students worldwide with belief in the benefits of collectivism, internationalism, and the LGBTQ+ agenda:

By 2030, ensure all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development.

Education should be infused with the aims and purposes set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, the Constitution of UNESCO and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “In order to enable every person to contribute actively to the fulfilment of [these] aims…and promote international solidarity and co-operation, the following objectives should be regarded as major guiding principles of education policy:

• an international dimension and a global perspective in education at all levels and in all its forms;
• understanding and respect for all peoples, their cultures, civilizations, values and ways of life, including domestic ethnic cultures and cultures of other nations;
• awareness of the increasing global interdependence between peoples and nations;
• abilities to communicate with others;
• awareness not only of the rights but also the duties incumbent on individuals, social groups and nations towards each other;
• understanding of the necessity for international solidarity and co-operation;
• readiness on the part of the individual to participate in solving the problems of his community, his country and the world at large.”

The influencers in America embraced these goals and objectives with religious zeal, and the National Education Association (NEA), the largest labor union in the United States, representing public school teachers and support personnel from preschool to university graduate programs, joined them. Why?

The answer is found in those communist goals cited above: Goals 24, 25, 26, 40, and 41. Obama’s Marxist America required educational indoctrination in schools, away from parental influence. The tactical plan was the seismic shift to Outcome-Based Education in America that aligned with the UN’s internationalized OBE curriculum. The plan’s success relied on exploiting the difference between univocal and equivocal use of language.

Dr. Dianne N. Irving defines this particular deceit in her March 29, 2019, essay, “‘Social Justice’ Today Grounded in Marxist Communist ‘Liberation Theology’“:[ix]

A term or phrase used “univocally” means that the same term or phrase has only one meaning; a term or phrase used “equivocally” means that the same term or phrase is used but it has a different meaning [e.g., “bank” can mean where you keep your money, or it can mean the earthen side along a river (a river bank), etc.].

Before teaching the History of Philosophy I discovered how the equivocal use of major terms/phrases can be used as a political tool without people realizing what is going on. This was made crystal clear in the terrific book I read by historian of philosophy Etienne Gilson, ‘Being’ And Some Philosophers, in which he explained how the major term in philosophy—”being” (the subject of metaphysics, from which all other sub-fields of philosophy flow)—was used equivocally over 20 times throughout the entire History of Philosophy. (E.g., for some schools of philosophy, it meant “matter only”; for others it meant “form only”; for others it meant “form and matter”; for others it meant “esse”, etc.). Same term, different meanings––and thus different consequences.

There is a seismic difference in meaning between the way Americans use and understand the word democracy and the term critical thinking, and the way Marxists use and understand them. In colloquial usage, Americans often use the word democracy synonymously with our constitutional republic. They are not synonymous. This error has been exploited by Marxists, who use the term democracy as a synonym for socialism or communism, or both. When Marxists, including Obama, talk about their battle for democracy, they are quoting directly from The Communist Manifesto.[x] The words of communism’s supreme leaders, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, are the primary source of Marxist equivocation:

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible….

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc., (The Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.Proletarians and Communists, pp. 54–56).

The phrase critical thinking is another example of Marxist linguistic obfuscation. In American colloquial usage, critical thinking is the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment. Critical thinking is an essential survival skill for an independent, autonomous, rational adult in a constitutional republic. Marxists use the same phrase to describe the thought process necessary to actively criticize that which exists in service of Marxist Critical Theory, a social theory designed to destabilize and collapse Western society from within, particularly the nuclear family structure. Another quote from The Communist Manifesto describes replacing home education with education by the state, to rescue children from the exploitation of their parents!

Abolition (Aufhebung) of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations when we replace home education by social. (TheCommunist Manifesto, Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists, pp. 47–48).

A third example from The Communist Manifesto asserts communism’s internationalism.

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality….

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end. (The Communist Manifesto, Chapter II.Proletarians and Communists, pp. 50–51).

The final pages of The Communist Manifesto exhort the working classes of the world to unite in proletarian internationalism to defeat capitalism, raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, and achieve communist Utopia—heaven on Earth:

In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.

Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!

(The Communist Manifesto, Chapter IV. Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties, p. 79).

The heaven on Earth promised by the ideological genus of Marxism, including all of its myriad species, seduce impatient, regressed millennials whose infantile longings make them susceptible to the deceitful promises of their Marxist leaders. Regressed adults lack the developed critical-thinking skills required to question the feasibility of Marxist promises, and to examine the actual outcome in communist countries, like Cuba, where the same Utopian promises were made. Regressed adults don’t question why people risk their lives on rafts to escape communism and find freedom in America. They don’t ask why the rafts always float from Havana to Miami—never in the opposite direction.

American Marxism is lipstick painted on an old feudal pig, marketed worldwide by skilled equivocators. It is collectivist political candy in a shiny new wrapper, dangled in front of psychologically regressed millennials, who forfeit their children’s freedom in exchange for deceitful promises of heaven on Earth made by humanitarian hucksters in government, the United Nations, and the World Economic Forum.

On June 12, 2023, UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay formally announced the request of the United States to return to the institution. This means the Biden-Obama-Harris regime plans to return to UNESCO’s internationalized educational curriculum and ideological Marxism, marketed as deliverance from capitalist inequality and oppression. Its curriculum promises worldwide “diversity, equity, and inclusion” through what it calls “critical thinking” and “democracy.” The Great Reset is the new normal of feudal enslavement in globalism’s planetary Unistate, governed under the auspices of the lethally corrupt United Nations and its specialized organizations and agencies.

 

---

[i]  The Naked Communist, W. Cleon Skousen, Waking Lion Press, 1958; https://archive.org/details/B-001-002-046

[ii]  United Nations on September 20, 2016; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzcxT8XOKw4

[iii]  declaration; https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/16/statement-president-shooting-chattanooga-tn

[iv]  The Impact of Science on Society, Bertrand Russell, Simon and Schuster, 1952, Routledge Classics, 2016 edition; https://archive.org/details/impactofscienceo00russ

[v]  Henry Kissinger remarked; https://rense.com/general11/ksss.htm

[vi]  Memoirs, David Rockefeller, Random House, 2002; https://archive.org/details/davidrockefeller00davi

[vii] David Rockefeller, Bilderberg 1991; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/03/no_author/david-rockefellers-chilling-speech-bilderberg/

[viii]  Where Do We Stand on Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship Education; https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381362

[ix]  ‘Social Justice’ Today Grounded in Marxist Communist ‘Liberation Theology’: https://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_246socialjusticecommunist.html

[x]  The Communist Manifesto (1848), Karl Marx, Henry Regnery Company, Gateway Edition, 1965; https://archive.org/details/ComManifesto