Politically Correct Clubs

[NOTE: I was going to write a piece about the way language is used by Progressives to control public opinion (I think I still may), but then I thought I could just as easily post the following.  The following is a chapter from a little known book I own.  I warn you now, it is a bit lengthy (it is an entire chapter from a book), but I believe it will be of great interest to those who have some awareness of Saul Alinsky, George Orwell, John Dewey, Edward Bernays and others who have openly espoused the intentional use of our language, schools and media to shape and direct public opinion.  The following may help to explain how the ideas these men advanced have actually been implemented.  I humbly submit this post for your consideration and in the sincere hope that you will find it to be of some value to you.  Thank you for reading it and God bless.]





“What luck for the rulers that men do not think.”

–Adolf Hitler


“You know the one thing that’s wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.”

–President Bill Clinton


“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”

–Charles Darwin


“Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.”

–John Dewey


“Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

–Vladimir Lenin


“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

–George Orwell


“I am now quite sure that ‘Tragedy and Hope’ was suppressed although I do not know why or by whom.”

–Carol Quigley


            By now, time is precious: both in our society and in this book.  I need you to remember back to our discussion in chapter 15 where we discussed why the founders believed faith in the Creator, supported by religion and the Church, strengthened and enforced by schools that also taught our history and how to reason and all supported by a free press was the essential formula necessary to preserve our individual rights and sustain our liberty.  I need you to remember why Franklin wrote these words:

“A Bible and a newspaper in every house, a good school in every district – all studied and appreciated as they merit – are the principal support of virtue, morality, and civil liberty.

I know that the bulk of what I’ve been presenting to you in the last few chapters could brand me a conspiracy theorist.  If you think I’m less than stable, I don’t blame you: I had a difficult time accepting all this myself – at first.  But every time I looked into something, I found people in our government – both past and present – discussing the same ideas, the same motivations and using the same terms.  Admittedly, it is like a chameleon: it changes its color a little bit every time, but the Progressive agenda of the early 20th Century keeps returning to the forefront of our social and political history.  You just have to learn what Progressives believe, then start looking for things that are motivated by these beliefs.  As soon as you do, you’ll see them everywhere.  I need for you to start making the connections for yourself.  I am well aware that you will have a natural resistance to the argument I’ve been trying to make, but I need you to move outside your comfort zone and allow yourself to not only believe these things are possible, to look for possible evidence that they are not only real, but in play in our society today.  Then understand that what follows is not an attack on any individual in either our school system or our media.  It isn’t even an attack on the people who are trying to destroy this nation.  As I’ve already said, they believe what they are trying to do is moral: they see their efforts as a crusade to free you and I from what they see as slavery.  What differentiates good from bad between us is that I seek to leave you with the same liberty our founders won for us: the liberty to decide for yourself what path you travel in your lives.  Those who now seek the destruction of this nation see that as slavery and they now endeavor to “free” you by forcing you to live according to their vision.

A recent survey revealed that nearly 25% of Americans do not know what event we celebrate on the 4th of July?  This shouldn’t surprise you.  Think back to your school days, both in grade school and – if you attended – college.  Do you remember learning any of the things we’ve discussed in this book?  Did you learn about natural rights, where they come from and how they are derived?  Did you learn about logic, critical thinking and argumentative writing?  Did you learn that our founders were – in fact – predominantly Christian, and that the few who might not fit that description still believed in a Creator?  Did you learn in science class that the “Big Bang” theory is how the universe began, but never presented with the philosophical argument that this implies the necessity of a Creator?  Were you taught that evolution is fact, and that science has “proven” that God doesn’t exist?  Were you ever presented with any of the challenges to these prevailing ideas?  Did your school teach you about the Great Awakening, or the social contract?  Did you learn that the United States is a republic and not a democracy, or why our founders set us up as a republic?  Did you know that the Bible was used as a text book and was an acceptable source of law in our courts until the first half of the 20th Century?  Did you know about the role our founders intended for our churches, schools and the press to play in perpetuating our republic?  Did you know any of the things that were said by our current political leaders and the leaders of the early Progressive movement, the quotes and passages I’ve been presenting in the last few chapters?  Did you know any of this from school?  Or, if you are aware of these things, did you have to learn them on your own – after you left school?  Now, do you know why many of us were never taught any of this in grade school and/or college?  If you’ll grab your football and follow me, I’ll do my best to explain political correctness, where I believe it came from, and how it is being used as a club to shape our social consciousness and silence opposition to this effort.

“After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”

             Those words were written by John Dewey, an educational “reformer” who was very active in public education during the early Progressive movement in America.  Under the Wilson Administration, Dewey helped to create the kindergarten system, but it wasn’t for the reasons you might thing.  Dewey was a Progressive, and as such, he believed in a new school of thought that wanted to move from the family unit as the primary means of socializing children to the use of schools to “shape the apples” before they fell from the tree.  In large part, this was the actual purpose behind kindergarten: not to start teaching children earlier to further their education, but to take them away from their parents sooner so as to shape them according to the will of the State.  This isn’t my opinion, Dewey said it very clearly:

“Our problem is not merely to help the students to adjust themselves to world life…[but] to make them as unlike their fathers as we can.”

It is difficult to think there are people in our government who think they are gods; it’s even more difficult to think this mindset may be in our schools teaching our children today.  But they do, and it is possible because such people have already influenced our modern school system.  Again, read from the pen of John Dewey and allow yourself to accept and believe that he means what he says and says what he means:

“The teacher is engaged not simply in the training of individuals, but in the formation of the proper social life…. In this way, the teacher always is the prophet of the true God and the usherer-in of the true Kingdom of God.”

So, why aren’t you and I taught about any of this in school?  Why aren’t we taught about logic, and reason and how to think for ourselves?  Because men like John Dewey don’t want us to think for ourselves.  Again, from John Dewey’s pen, the man who gave us kindergarten:

“Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming where everyone is interdependent.”

Now, read what Vladimir Lenin said again, only, this time, ask yourself if pre-K and other government programs that supposedly “help” parents may have an unspoken purpose:

 “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

 Our founders never intended aspects of government such as education to become centralized in Washington, D.C.  They believed control over such matters were best left to local governments, where parents could have more direct control over what and how their children are taught.  But Progressives have never let up.  They have been pushing their agenda and seeking the centralization of power in this nation since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.  Progressives centralized our education system under Progressive President, Jimmy Carter, because they are all about administration: to force us to live according to the ways they think best.  And, once they had the reins of our schools, they started to institute broad, general changes that have had the effect of “dumbing down” our children. Sweeping changes to national curriculum requirements have led to changes that forced some subjects to be dropped so schools could meet new federal guidelines.  Classes such as Civics, Western Civilization, American history, philosophy, logic and reason and many other subjects are much less prevalent or removed all together from current curriculums.  And, in many school systems, when these things are still taught, they often portray our founders as atheistic, rich, white slave owners.  Our capitalist economic system is also attacked and the “virtues” of communism and socialism are promoted.  Look on the internet for a video called “The Story of Stuff.”  It’s a cartoon styled video attack on Capitalism that paints America as an evil bully, and it’s being played in many classrooms across this country today.  These attacks on our founders as “rich, white slave owners” and on capitalism as “evil and greedy” are just part of the PC agenda.

Since the nationalization of our public school system, the indoctrination of our children has accelerated.  The general principles that are taught to our children which are later used to control what they think about nearly every issue is the PC agenda.  Today, nearly everyone who has attended public school since the late 1970’s has unconsciously accepted at least part of that agenda.  Our children are correctly taught that racism is wrong, but they are also taught that it only applies in one direction, and that it applies to many things that have nothing to do with racism at all.  Our schools now hand out condoms to elementary students.  President Clinton’s Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders, even advocated teaching kindergarten children how to use condoms, as well as teaching them that homosexuality was as acceptable a lifestyle as heterosexuality.  “Hate speech” is another PC principle that is taught to our children, and it is linked to the notion that anything which offends someone can be labeled as “hate speech” because it “harms” the offended party.  Now, setting aside whether or not you agree with any of these issues, ask yourself why our schools are teaching this stuff to our students at younger and younger ages?  If these issues are hard enough to tackle for adults who understand them and who have learned how to reason through complex matters, then what possible sense of reason could lead “educators” to present any of this material to kindergarteners?  Prove me wrong: look this up for yourself.   I’ve no fear of what you’ll find; I’ve looked into it myself.  When you’re done, just ask yourself if you can see even the hint of an unspoken motivation behind all this stuff?  If not, let me see if I can show you something else that might help you see it.

Did you know that the National Teachers Association (NEA) declined to support the right of their members to keep a personal Bible on their desk at school?  Did you also know that this same NEA has endorsed and strongly suggested their members read Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals?”  This should shock you, and I suspect it would – if you understood what this book is.  Let’s start by reading part of the dedication Alinsky wrote for his book:

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”

And from the forward of this same book:


“The revolutionary force today has two targets, moral as well as material… They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world.  It is to this point that I have written this book.  These words are written in desperation, partly because it is what they do and will do that will give meaning to what I and the radicals of my generation have done with our lives.”

 “They are now the vanguard, and they had to start almost from scratch.  Few of us survived the Joe McCarthy holocaust of the early 1950s and of those there are even fewer whose understanding and insights had developed beyond the dialectical materialism or orthodox Marxism.”

 Keep these words in mind as we move into our discussion about the media.  Alinsky is admitting here that McCarthy was right: there were communist revolutionaries in our country and our government, and he actually rooted many of them out.  But then, you’d already know that had you read M. Stanton Evans’ “Blacklisted by History,” but not if you depended on the “main stream media” for your information.  Alinsky is also telling you this book was written to tell the next generation of revolutionary communist radicals how to focus their efforts to better achieve their goals.  Again, you’d know this if you had been watching Glenn Beck on FOX News, or listening to his radio show, but not if you were listening to Chris Matthews for your news.  Or did you miss Matthews saying this during a live broadcast on MSNBC?

“Well, to reach back to one of our heroes from the past, from the ’60s, Saul Alinsky once said that even though both sides have flaws in their arguments and you can always find something nuanced about your own side you don’t like and it’s never perfect, you have to act in the end like there’s simple black and white clarity between your side and the other side or you don’t get anything done….I always try to remind myself of Saul Alinsky when I get confused,..”

 How about Michelle Obama’s August 25, 2008 speech to the Democratic Convention?

“Barack stood up that day,” talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, “and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be…” And, “All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do – that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.” . . .

These words may seem innocent enough – if you haven’t read chapter two of Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”  “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be” are straight out of “Rules for radicals.”  What’s more, chapter two is where Alinsky says that the ends justify the means – period.

Finally, Alinsky linked what the communist radicals do today with the validity of his life’s work.  Do you think men such as Chris Matthews, who publically admitted Saul Alinsky was one of his heroes, would have any different aspirations than Alinsky did?  Or do you see that Matthews is saying he still considers Alinsky’s words when he gets confused?  This is important, because the mainstream media is practicing Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” every day.  Then there’s the matter of “lecturer” Barack Obama (he was never given the title of professor) while at the Chicago.  Instead of teaching Constitutional law as the main stream media constantly reports, Obama taught Machiavellian politics, which is nothing more than “the ends justifies the means” power politics.  There is a rather well known picture of Obama drawing on a chalk board.  When you look at what he was actually writing, you will see Alinsky’s rules for radicals being taught in a Chicago Law school.  The complete list can be found in Appendix E.  Among these rules are:

“RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.”

“RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

 Every time the media attacks a person instead of what that person is saying, they are practicing this rule.  By Alinsky’s own admission, this is irrational.  Remember what we learned about logic?  It’s called an ad hominem attack, and it is a fallacy.  No one who intentionally uses a fallacy can claim to be the most intelligent or most reasonable person in the argument because they are deliberately breaking the rules of logic and reason.   The next time you hear anyone attacking a person and not that person’s ideas or argument, you know the person doing the attacking is irrational and, in most cases, has lost the argument.  Remember what Cicero said:

“When you have no basis for argument, abuse the plaintiff.”

I’ve been trying to tell you that the people attacking this nation today have their roots in the early Progressive movement.  From Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama, they apply the label of Progressive to themselves.  I’ve also been trying to tell you that these people have not given up their goal of a revolution to “fundamentally change” this nation.  Remember all of this, and Alinsky and what Lenin said about taking the kids at the youngest possible age and consider this:

Today, we have a national leader in elementary education and advisor to the President who also happens to be an unrepentant domestic terrorist.  He is the co-founder of the Weather Underground, a domestic terrorist organization that openly declared its goal as the violent overthrow of the U.S. government.  This group published several manifestos, including “Prairie Fire” and “You Don’t Need a Weatherman to Tell Which Way the Wind Blows.”  You can find both of them one online, just search for them.  While with the Weathermen, this person took part in the bombing of several government locations and innocent people were murdered.  To this day, he has never renounced his intention to overthrow this government, or expressed remorse for his actions.  Instead, he has said he wishes he could have done more.  During a radio interview on December 1, 2010, this same person forcefully corrected a reporter who mistakenly suggested he had renounced the use of violence against the government.  His name is William Ayres; more commonly known as Bill Ayres.  He is the same Bill Ayres who is said to have launched President Obama’s career from the living room of his home.  There are other connections between these two men going back a long way.  They are much better acquainted than either of them publically admits, but you can trace those connections for yourself on the internet if you feel the need.  If you look, you will find direct connections between Bill Ayers and Valerie Jarred, the Presidents close friend and advisor.  These connections will also lead to the parents of Jarred and Ayres being directly linked to Alinsky, as well.  The part of his life you might find most interesting is that Bill Ayres is now considered to be a leader in this nation’s elementary education system.  In fact, for many years, he has been helping to set the agenda for our children’s education.  By itself, this means nothing.  It may still mean nothing.   But ask yourself, does everything you just learned about John Dewey, Lenin and Saul Alinsky change whether or not you are ready to just dismiss this as a coincidence?  Or do you think there might be a motivation — other than educating our children — for an unrepentant communist revolutionary to be involved in elementary school education on a national level?

            Now that’s I’ve done what I can in the short space I have to show you that the Progressive desire to mold your children into what the State would have them be is not necessarily dead, we need to return to “Rules for Radicals.”  I would strongly suggest you take time to add this book to your reading list as it is the blueprint for what we now call Political Correctness.  Alinsky’s book is even tied to Barak Obama, or – more precisely – to community organizing.  Alinsky writes:

“The building of many mass power organizations to merge into a national popular power force cannot come without many organizers.”

This is the true purpose behind groups such as ACORN, and labor unions such as SEIU: to create a force by which the have-nots can take power from the haves – again, Alinksy’s words, not mine.  In “Rules for Radicals,” Alinsky says the most important aspect of the community organizer is that of communication.  Ask yourself if you can remember how often you’ve heard the media gushing about how well Obama communicates when he’s getting his way, or lamenting about how Obama needs to do a better job of communicating his message when the people don’t seem to accept his ideas?  Now, if you’re old enough to remember President Reagan, who was known as the great communicator, ask yourself why the media never gave him credit for his abilities.  The answer is simple: Reagan was not a Progressive.  Bush W. was, and the media lambasted him – in part – because they felt he wasn’t a good communicator more than for his policies.  The proof can be found in comparing Bush’s policies to those of Obama: in large part, they are the same – right down to the war and Guantanamo Bay.  Finally, Alinsky said:

“The question may legitimately be raised, why not use other words – words that mean the same but are more peaceful, and do not result in such negative emotional reaction?”

This is where we get “social democracy” instead of communism, or “state capitalism” instead of fascism.  Words are also used to mean more than one thing, so as to deliberately confuse the issue and make two or more groups of people believe they are talking about the same thing.  This is how the people trying to manipulate us can set us against each other: if we each think we’re talking about the same thing but have conflicting different opinions about what the country should do because we’re using the same word to discuss two different things, we get angry with each other without ever really understanding we don’t necessarily disagree with each other.  Make no mistake; part of the PC game plan is to play games with the words we use.  But this is nothing new.  Samuel Adams warned us about it from the very start:

How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!

Nor should you fool yourself about the role the media now plays in our society; they are coordinated in their efforts to shape and control public opinion.  The next time a major story about politics breaks, watch to see if every network doesn’t seems to use the same words and phrases to describe the same things – even FOX News.  This is not a coincidence, and it isn’t an accident of the industry.  The media is choreographed by the power brokers who work behind the scenes.   And, once again, if you know where to look, the people who invented modern media told us what they were doing and how they do it.  Hitler’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbles – the man who said he learned his trade from Wilson’s man, Edward Bernays – also said:

“Not every item of news should be published. Rather must those who control news policies endeavor to make every item of news serve a certain purpose.”

Words that were echoed by Bernays, himself:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.”

 This is done – in part – by limiting what the public can discuss without becoming the target of the medias’ ridicule – as directed by Alinsky’s rules.  Yet, here again, this has already been explained:

 “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

 –Noam Chompsky

An example of what Chomspky is talking about can be seen in the issue of global warming.  This entire notion is a moral equivalent of war: it is a false idea that serves to scare and motivate the masses so they will be willing to sacrifice to save the planet, much as if they were sacrificing during a war to save the nation.  That global warming is a hoax has been exposed several times over, and it was in the media.  Did you hear the report that some of the data that supposedly showed the warming trends was skewed because the leading researcher in the field knowingly used temperature figures for September in October, as well?  When these naturally warmer figures were plugged into the existing computer climate models, they found a warming trend.  Then there were the emails that leaked from the English research universities discussing the falsified data that showed the findings do not support the claims we hear in the media.  Finally, the media reported that the head of the UN’s IPC, the organization established to protect the global environment, has actually admitted that global warming is an excuse to get people to agree to the redistributive Cap-and-trade legislation.  This has all been in the news, yet, if anyone tries to publically discuss it, the media follows Alinksy’s rules and ridicules them as a “denier.”  Progressive, George Orwell, explained it this way some 30 years or so before Alinsky was hailed as a “hero” for saying the same thing:

“At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is “not done”… Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.”

You’ll find this same practice repeated over and over.  In the case of Sarah Palin and the death panels, she was ridiculed.  Yet, if you read what Ezekiel Emanuel calls for in his “Whole Life” healthcare plan – the basis for Obamacare – he says the youngest and oldest members of society should not be afforded priority for scarce healthcare resources.  And, in November 2010, an Obama Administration official came out and said healthcare resources for the elderly will have to be rationed.  Even Obama suggested the elderly will have to accept that they may need to just go home and take pain meds instead of receiving the same care we’re now accustomed to getting.  But, if anyone tries to point any of this out, the media attacks them as being “radical right wingers.”  The accusation that President Obama is a socialist is yet another example.  And, once again, the proof is there, but we’re not allowed to discuss it because it is outside the spectrum of approved opinion.  In this case, however, it isn’t just President Obama.  President Bush said:

“I have to abandon the free market to save the free market.”

This is clearly anti-capitalist.  And then, during the Presidential campaign in 2008, President Obama was speaking specifically about capitalism when he said:

“One reason I am running for President is to put an end to this philosophy [capitalism].”

Any way you slice it, that sounds a lot like this guy:

“My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.”

Those words were spoken by Karl Marx.  But, as I keep saying, anyone who dares to have a rational, logical discussion dealing with these facts in the public arena of ideas today will be attacked by the media.  They will identify you as a threat; isolate you by refusing to let you have time to explain or defend yourself and keeping anyone from coming to your aide; they will make the issue personal to you in some way to turn you against the person and idea; and, finally, they will ridicule that person and his idea until he becomes a pariah – like Joseph McCartney.  But does this make sense?  Is this rational, or is it the opposite of rational – especially in light of Alinsky’s own admission that McCarthy was not only correct about the people he accused of being communists; he succeeded in ridding many of them from our government.  We have lost all sense of reason in this country.

Finally, it is essential that you understand they have lost control of the message and are now moving to seize control of the media.  Radio talk show host and FOX News commentator, Glenn Beck, has done yeoman-like work in helping to expose this attack on our rights and liberty, but the media has failed to silence him.  No doubt you may have heard some bad things about him, but it hasn’t silenced him, nor have the media been able to prove him wrong.  All Mr. Beck has been doing is exposing much of the same material I’ve been presenting, and it’s starting to jeopardize the Progressives’ plan to remake America.  As I’ve told you, lies cannot survive in the light of truth, and everything I’ve followed up on that Mr. Beck has put out not only checked out, but in many cases, he hasn’t told us the worst of what you’ll learn.  So now, the Progressives are moving to create a crisis that will give them an excuse to seize control of the media, and Wiki Leaks is part of the plan.

I’ve already told you that part of the Statist’s MO is to create a crisis and then use it to achieve things he wouldn’t ordinarily be able to do.  In this case, we have Wiki Leaks “threatening” our government’s ability to conduct diplomatic operations as well as that of the other governments’ of the world.  The argument will soon be that the government needs to either shut down Wiki, or the entire globe will collapse into chaos.  We’re also being told the government needs to control the internet for “our own good.”  The claim is we don’t get both sides of the story.  Do you remember what I just told you about Alinsky and how things need to be “explained?”  This is “Rules for Radicals” in action and, unless you knew what I’ve just explained to you, you probably wouldn’t see it.  And it goes further.  Now Al Sharpton is claiming that radio stations playing Rush Limbaugh’s show need to have their licenses revoked by the government because he’s a racist and his speech is “offensive.”  The argument is that this isn’t a 1st Amendment issue because Limbaugh still has a right to speak, it’s a “fairness” issue and the government has a duty to police the public airways and prevent racism or offensive language.  As I keep saying, this is not only using the PC club of racism where there is no evidence (or Limbaugh would have already been prosecuted under existing hate speech and racism laws), it’s also censorship in the name of “protection and fairness.”  There’s just one problem: it is decidedly unconstitutional.  It’s also exactly what Lenin meant when he said:

“The bourgeoisie is many times stronger than we. To give it the weapon of freedom of the press is to ease the enemy’s cause, to help the class enemy. We do not desire to end in suicide, so we will not do this.”

Which is why George Mason, author of our Bill of Rights, said:

“The freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.”

If this still isn’t enough to convince you, then you need to go to your computer and look up Mark Llyod on You Tube.  He’s President Obama’s “diversity Czar.”  He is on video describing Chavez’s election as a great “democratic revolution,” and explaining how it was only accomplished because Chavez seized the media.  Then look up Van Jones, the self-described communist and former White House advisor to President Obama.  You will find many videos of him calling for the takeover of the media as the next step in the revolution.  But this move to censor the press isn’t new, it’s just the most recent attempt to seize the media and shut down any voice of opposition.  Immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing, President Clinton tried to use the event to shut down Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio.  The same Bill Clinton who has said:

“You know the one thing that’s wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.”

To be honest, there are times when I wonder if some conservative radio hosts aren’t intentional plants who were intended to get conservatives to revolt against the government so the Progressives would have the “crisis” they needed to justify their takeover.  If you will remember back to the start of the Tea Party movement, the media was labeling the Tea Party as racist and gun-toting hate mongers.  They even showed a video of a Tea Party member at a rally in Texas with a black rifle slung over his shoulder in attempt to emphasize the point (they never showed you that man was African-American).  And, when the healthcare bill was passed, Nancy Pelosi marched her people directly through the Tea Party rally.  I believe they were deliberately trying to provoke a violent reaction, and, when they didn’t get it, they made up a charge that one of the Congressmen was spit on and had racial slurs used against him.  But despite the number of cameras, one of them even in the group with Pelosi, there has yet to be a single scrap of evidence presented to prove that the name-calling event actually happened.  Trying to get your opponent to react in a manner you can use against him is Alinsky’s rule #10:

“RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.”

This tactic was used in the early to mid-20th Century by labor unions who protested peacefully – though loudly and disruptively – often provoking violent reactions from employers that were then used against the employers to win concessions.  Alinsky credits Gandhi for teaching this tactic to him, and then takes credit for it and community organizing for the success of the civil rights movement.  Today, when the Progressives can’t get their opposition to react in such a manner, they often substitute their own people to create the illusion of opposition violence which is then used by the media to promote the official story without ever telling the People which side was actually being violent.  In today’s world, things are just as the Progressives have said: the truth doesn’t matter, only the idea – or in the case of television – the video.

I would like to end by leaving you with a homework assignment.  If you still have any doubts about the things I’ve been telling you or the argument I’ve been trying to make, then look into these things yourself.   There are two men with whom I’d ask you to start:  George Soros and Van Jones.  Jones now works for a Soros community organizing foundation.  Jones has been credited with writing a pamphlet called “STORM,” which is about the overthrow of this government.  He has never renounced his call for revolution; he’s just said he is willing to change his tactics to achieve his goals.  Nor have Jones or Soros ever ridiculed Glenn Beck for the things Beck has exposed about their plans to bring about a New World Order with open borders.  You tube is the place to start, and, when you find Jones describing “Bottom up, Top Down, Inside Out,” understand this: Bottom up is an uprising and massive civil unrest – the crisis.  Top down is the emergency power the government will invoke to deal with “the crisis.”  And inside out is the “re-education” of the people to accept the new order.  If you think we’re not already subjected to “re-education,” I agree: they don’t call it “re-education,” they call it “diversity,” “sensitivity” and “awareness” training.  But don’t trust me, trust them.  This “bottom up” violence Jones is talking about is exactly what the book “The Coming Insurrection” described and called for in Europe some two years ago, and we see it happening in Europe now.  It is the plan Cloward and Pivon describe, and the system Soros credits for helping him topple at least five other governments.  It’s coming here, and, again, if you’ve been listening, you’ve seen news stories about the military conducting exercises to deal with total economic collapse and massive civil unrest in the United States.  The government has also begun stockpiling food.  These are not coincidences, they are signs.  Please, I beg you, learn to read the signs and look for the connections.  Your liberty – and mine – depend on you knowing the truth.

52 thoughts on “Politically Correct Clubs

  1. I saw that video, a Tea Party protestor was yelling “Kill the Bill” in a congressman’s face, and he was sprayed with spittle; it was not deliberate. But what happened next was interesting.

    The congressman wiped his face, started to walk on, then turned and spoke to the protestor, it was obvious that he was trying get a dialog going. The protestor was taken aback, he had not expected this. After a second’s hesitation, he started yelling ‘Kill The Bill!” again in the representative’s face.

  2. Joe, I have to admit I haven’t read the chapter you provided here very closely, but in a quick skim I don’t see the name of either the book or the author, and it appears to be recent enough that it should be under copyright. I’m no expert in the area, but copying a full chapter without permission could get you in legal trouble even with proper attribution–more without it. http://www.umuc.edu/library/libhow/copyright.cfm

      • “unless I were the author”

        True, assuming there’s no publisher involved who owns the rights. But since you introduced it as “a chapter from a little known book I own,” why would anyone assume you were the author, especially based on what I admitted was quick skim? And while I don’t know how familiar you are with relevant copyright law (and again I’m not expert), I find that many bloggers are clueless about it.

        But I’m curious–why not just take credit for it, if it’s your? Did you think someone else regurgitating Glenn Beck would have more credibility than you do here at this point? 🙂

          • 🙂 By the way, did you see Joe Arpaio’s latest birther nonsense? Drudge has the report, and I eagerly await your post on the subject. Or are you waiting for Beck’s take on it?

            • off topic,
              Utah, B, and me, are not “birthers”

              You know that we are not birthers. You are merely attempting to minimize good essays with that by employing the tactics uncovered and described in this article.

              • “Utah, B, and me, are not ‘birthers'”

                I never thought Utah was. And I apologize if I misunderstood in thinking that you (whom I didn’t mention here, anyway) and perhaps Joe agreed with the birther nonsense. It seemed as though you were going along with it on this thread: https://therionorteline.com/2012/07/14/hmmmm-new-twist-on-birth-certificate-issue/

                “You are merely attempting to minimize good essays …”

                It seems to me that any “minimization” comes less from me than from Joe’s failure to initially claim credit for his work. 🙂

                • You may be a “birther” IF you say:
                  “I am accepting the current whitehouse birth certificate as true and accurate.”
                  Oh, ok…..
                  So: If you DO NOT and if you DO take the whitehouse birth certificate as true & accurate, you are a “birther” !

                  EVERYONE IS NOW A BIRTHER or EVERYONE IS NOT a BIRTHER! So folks, the namecalling of a “birther” now has ZERO meaning.

                  Thanks for clearing that up for me James.

                • Maybe I cleared something up for you, but you’ve just managed to confuse me. Sorry.

                  But if it helps, my definition of a birther is someone who doesn’t believe Obama was born in this country. (Some folks might include those who think he’s a Muslim in the birther category, but I don’t–that’s a whole other kind of nut.) And again, if you aren’t in that category I apologize for thinking you were.

          • Oh, for Pete’s sake! He made a valid point. Why didn’t you just say this is another book that I have written? You should not be ashamed of your work. You’re a very good (albeit long-winded) writer. Your book is on my e-reader and I shall read it when I fly.

            • When someone makes a point with which I agree, I say so. Ask Greg, WM, FC… But – and I’m being serious here – I’ve read little from your buddy that I find to be anything BUT partisan noise.

              • I will concede that SBJ has a different ideology, but I find him reasonable, intelligent, and funny. In other words, whilst I don’t agree with him politically, I find him pleasing to engage with.

  3. Great “essay”.

    In my profession, I have experienced many of these “tactics”. I just didn’t know what they were at the time. I wish I had known this stuff 25 years ago.

    • Once you understand what they are doing and how they do it, you can see them coming even before they bother to answer/object.

      But do not make the mistake of dismissing them. They are serious about their goals and they are driven to put them into practice — which is why the peace-loving INDIVIDUALS have been such easy prey.

      It’s time to form an intellectual Alamo and – this time – we ALL need to ride to their aid when they call.

      • “time to form an intellectual Alamo”

        Judging by the walls, you already have. When I visited the real Alamo, I was surprised at how small it was–but in this case, the diminutive size doesn’t surprise me at all. 🙂

      • Not Alamo, that didn’t work out so well for the Texicans.

        More like; create a new “Texas” and “Rangers” who ride to the aid of other patriots when under attack.

        • The Alamo did EXACTLY what it was meant to do: it rallied the Texans (partially because it no doubt shamed them) and they later chased down and WHIPPED Santa Anna (sp?)

          • 182 Texians felled 600 of the 1800 Mexicans. Santa Anna had to be surprised by the number of casualties he suffered from such a small force. Sam Houston, an experienced officer from previous American Army service, out-officered Santa Anna’s tired, and probably demoralized, forces at San Jacinto.

            Kells, there is the story of “the yellow rose of Texas” who garnered Santa Anna’s attention prior to the Battle of San Jacinto.
            : )

  4. I suspected, within the first 3 paragraphs, this was black’s writing. His style is all over all this piece.

    • “His style is all over all this piece.”

      I agree with you–but as I said above, I skimmed it very quickly this morning (I was on my way to a breakfast). And obviously you’ve been reading Joe’s work longer than I have, so it probably jumped out even more quickly for you.

        • Huh? What the hell are you talking about now? Do you even know? What “threat”?

          Geez, Augger, I’m beginning to worry about you.

          • No, I agree with Augger: your original reply was a threat. You guys are just good at wording things in such a way that you can deny it later. But the world is on to you now – at least, the thinking world is.

            • I know I’m a little slower than most, but will someone show me this (perceived, imagined, real, disguised. open) threat?

              • I suppose it’s all in how you take the other party. James has seldom (if ever) given me the benefit of the doubt in my comments, so, given his ideological makeup and the rise in Left-wing SWATing, (not to mention his history here on the RNL), I didn’t think it prudent to give it to him, either.

              • Especially given that he claims to have “Googled” my screen name but claims he couldn’t find my real name. Either way, his search should have run him across my old business, and since I was in manufacturing of copyrighted materials, one should be able to assume he would have good cause to believe I am well aware of the copyright laws of this nation.

                Just saying… 🙂

                • “he claims to have “Googled” my screen name”

                  I also told you I only went as far as a screen or two, as I recall, and came across nothing other than RNL stuff. I had neither the time nor interest to look further, so I don’t know your real name and have no idea what your former business was. Nor do I care.

            • Sorry, but how could this be a threat? Think about it–for a change. I teach journalism and media classes, advise a student newspaper, and use a lot of media in my class, plus I’m an author and former journalist. I happen to know–and have to tell students all the time–a bit about copyright, and so I thought I’d share the info.

              I spent all of about 2 minutes on your post this morning (you may have noticed when my comment was written), before I went to a breakefast. Had I done more than read the first few paragraphs and then skipped down to find the author’s name (I assumed it would be Glenn Beck or someone from the Blaze, frankly), I’d have probably recognized it was yours. But I did neither.

              Besides, the only one who could “threaten” you with a copyright violation is the writer of the original–and since that’s you, your “threat” claim makes no sense except as yet another example of your lib-hating paranoia. And if you’re so damn sure your work is that distinctive, why play the silly “chapter from a little known book I own” game in the first place. You two are nuts.

    • James is a lib, and something like this is what usually precedes some sort of report against you by people on the left. Yes, given the established record of people holding his ideological beliefs, that IS a threat. They use the courts against people all the time, Kells. It is the reality of the world we live in and only a fool ignores that.

      • You’re nuts. Who am I going to “report” you to, for a copyright violation? People in black helicopters?

          • “I’m nots?”

            No, I said “nuts.” 😉

            “To all of you who jumped on me when I called James names…”

            Actually, you and your witless little buddy have never never stopped insulting me (unless you consider “communist,” “Nazi,” etc. to be compliments)–but as I recall, folks jumped on you (and you apologized, and I accepted) for what you said about my parents. And as I said then, I have a thick skin and don’t particularly care what you call me. I’ve been called much worse by people who were smarter and actually in a position to affect my life.

            • Come to think of it, Joe, you’re right–at least a couple of my comments here crossed the line, and I apologize for insinuating that you’re insane with my “nuts” and “lunatic” comments. I know that you were wrong about my intent here, and I think you’re overly suspicious of my motives and about liberals and communism in general, that you’re sometimes dishonest, and that you try to bully folks who disagree with you. I also enjoy verbal sparring more than I probably should. But the namecalling was a bad reaction on my part, and I apologize.

      • It may have been, but I have to accept that my past behavior sometimes causes people to get the wrong impression when I mean no harm or offense – so does James.

    • “James was merely looking out for you.”

      Thanks, Kells. In fact, I was–but Joe’s apparently a paranoid lunatic, and won’t believe that, even though there’s no real way for me to “threaten” him. You can see my response to him elsewhere on this thread.

      • B.’s no lunatic; he just has a Marine’s mentality. (In other words, he will always be on the offense.) I must say that it frustrates me to no end!

        Enough about him! Did you know that O’Kelly was the president of Ireland? Don’t you feel priviledged to be in my company? O’wait! O’dear! I don’t have the big O in front of my name. Curses!!

        • “he just has a Marine’s mentality”

          Sorry, I’m not buying it. I have a friend who is an ex-Marine who spent years in the Corps and now works in the same Christian university I do. He’s a kind and generous guy who consistently gives people the benefit of the doubt. Joe strikes me more as the type for whom his active service was the highlight of his life and who uses his military experience to justify being a jackass today. Maybe not–you know him better than I do–but I’ve seen little to make me think otherwise.

          “Don’t you feel priviledged to be in my company?”

          Of course. 🙂

          • If you have a friend who is an “ex-Marine,” then you do NOT know ANY Marines. The only EX marine is one we kicked out!!!

            That you do not know this tells those who do EVERYTHING they need to know about how well you know Marines.

          • Joe is just, hmmm, how to explain him, um, abrasive? It is his personality. I suppose I can deal with B. because he doesn’t hold a candle to my mom and my late grandma (they’re from Wisconsin.)

            At the old News Herald site where we used to blog, there was a very liberal fella called buggerthat. I’m giggling now because he got all the boys so worked up! I thought he was awfully fun to play with even though he loathed me. I guess my point is that everybody has their quirks. (Where I think a comment is insightful, B. will probably think it inciteful.)

            Now you’ve brought a song to mind. Pour tu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ3fjQa5Hls

            • His previous comment about my friend perfectly demonstrates what I said: “Joe strikes me more as the type for whom his active service was the highlight of his life and who uses his military experience to justify being a jackass today. Maybe not–you know him better than I do–but I’ve seen little to make me think otherwise.”

              Nice song, though.

        • On further reflection, Joe, you’re right–at least a couple of my comments here crossed the line, and I apologize for insinuating that you’re insane with my “nuts” and “lunatic” comments. I think you’re overly suspicious of my motives and about liberals and communism in general, that you’re sometimes dishonest, and that you try to bully folks who disagree with you. I also like verbal sparring more than I probably should. But the namecalling was a bad reaction on my part, and I apologize.

        • Come on, B. He apologized just like you did. And you know damn well being called a lunatic or nuts is no where close to talking about one’s parents and calling them a POS. No where close.

          You got scolded because you deserved it. If everyone that called someone a nut here got scolded that would be the majority of the posts. You can’t claim being a tough Marine one minute then get your feelings hurt the next over something like this. Then again, Marines are part of the Navy… : )

          In this case the punishments fit the crimes IMO.

  5. Pingback: Eugenics AND Obamacare: The Progressives’ Version Of The “Ultimate Solution” | The Rio Norte Line

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.