[Taken from an interview with ex KGB agent Thomas Schuman (Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov)]
Ideological Subversion: (aka Active Measures/Psychological Warfare)
The process of changing America's perception of reality to such an extent that in spite of an abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their communities and their country.
The Marxist/Leninist brainwashing project goes very slow and is divided in 4 basic stages.
Stage 1: Demoralization
This initial phase takes at least 15 to 20 years by design. That is approximately the time required to "educate" a generation of children. The idea is to expose them to Marxist/Leninist ideas while they have "soft heads". According to Yuri, this process was in full swing by the early 60's. It was also said that the progress of Demoralization in the US was not only beyond the expectations of Andropov, but that much of the work was being done by Americans to Americans. Key influences of this stage were progressive liberal politicians, liberal college professors, and organizations such as the ACLU.
Upon completion of this stage, the subverted are no longer able to assess true information even when the facts are in front of them.
Stage 2: Destabilization
The second phase assumes a 2-5yr time frame. In this phase, the movement no longer cares about the ideals or consumption practices of the indoctrinated. Those things are aspects of the completed subversion or indoctrination phase. At this point, the focus becomes destabilization of:
- Economy
- Foreign Relations
- Defense Systems
State 3: Crisis
In this phase, the details of the crisis are related to the country in question. Historically the crisis is specific to the region being subverted. A credit crisis in one country is more significant than a food crisis would be in another. In our country, the economy is the soft mushy target that provides the most significant reach. This stage is the shortest and may take less than 6 weeks.
This phase includes the destabilization of the economy, promises of "all kinds of goodies", promises of "paradise on earth", elimination of free market principles, and culminates in the placement of "big brother" government.
Stage 4: Normalization
In this final stage, the violent change of power structure and economy born in Crisis leads to normalization that lasts indefinitely. The benevolent dictator(s) will make lots of promises and it will not matter that the promises are not fulfilled. The leftists professors and civil rights organizations that were instrumental in the subversion process will longer be needed or relevant. It is expected that those forces will then become disillusioned with the resulting Marxist/Leninist power structure that shunned them and become bitter enemies of the resulting power system.
"This is what will happen in the United States if you allow all the schmucks to bring the country to crisis." - Yuri
If we see the ACLU attempt to use the US Constitution as a weapon rather than a target, we would likely be in Stage 4 of the Marxist/Leninist/Progressive subversion of the United States of America.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Leflore County TEA Party Planners
This evening I had the opportunity to attend a meeting at the Buckley Library in Poteau. This particular meeting was of the Leflore County TEA Party Planners. I found a diverse group of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. The discussions were consistently directed towards responsible spending, choosing responsible representation, and getting voters interested the issues, the candidates, and showing up to the polls.
This group of people was significantly different than what one would expect after watching CNN and MSNBC coverage of TEA Partys. There were no Republican handlers organizing thought. There were no extremists shouting half baked rhetoric. Contrary to what some media outlets would lead one to believe, these were all rational people using logic to asses the current state of government spending.
One can assume that all TEA Party Planning groups are not created equal. It's possible that there are some out there that are as irresponsible as the politicians that have spawned their need to organize. Since I tend to not believe "everything I read" or think that "It has to be true, I read it on the Internet", it was interesting to meet a group of people that could agree on something. Regardless of political affiliation, our politicians are more interested in getting elected than in representing their constituents in a responsible manner.
This group of people was significantly different than what one would expect after watching CNN and MSNBC coverage of TEA Partys. There were no Republican handlers organizing thought. There were no extremists shouting half baked rhetoric. Contrary to what some media outlets would lead one to believe, these were all rational people using logic to asses the current state of government spending.
One can assume that all TEA Party Planning groups are not created equal. It's possible that there are some out there that are as irresponsible as the politicians that have spawned their need to organize. Since I tend to not believe "everything I read" or think that "It has to be true, I read it on the Internet", it was interesting to meet a group of people that could agree on something. Regardless of political affiliation, our politicians are more interested in getting elected than in representing their constituents in a responsible manner.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
How Hypocritic Is Our Voting?
When we cast votes based on party lines what are we telling our representatives? Should we expect them to make the right decision on an issue when we ourselves use nothing more than party line to determine our vote?
How can we expect our representatives to exercise common sense and responsibility when they vote? How can we be surprised that their decisions are more closely aligned with party line than with right? In a sense, politicians are more honestly representing our vote when they ignore the details of the issue and just vote the party line.
We are leading our representatives by example. We are showing them that we are so disinterested with what is going on that our only need to to have a letter represent us. This abdication of responsibility should subsequently be expected in those that we elect. We should embrace that fact that they have nothing to represent EXCEPT the "letter" (D/R) we have asked them to select.
For the people to vote based on party yet hold their representatives accountable for something other than party is hypocritical. We will never elect politician empowered to make responsible decisions if we do not elect them by making responsible decisions.
How can we expect our representatives to exercise common sense and responsibility when they vote? How can we be surprised that their decisions are more closely aligned with party line than with right? In a sense, politicians are more honestly representing our vote when they ignore the details of the issue and just vote the party line.
We are leading our representatives by example. We are showing them that we are so disinterested with what is going on that our only need to to have a letter represent us. This abdication of responsibility should subsequently be expected in those that we elect. We should embrace that fact that they have nothing to represent EXCEPT the "letter" (D/R) we have asked them to select.
For the people to vote based on party yet hold their representatives accountable for something other than party is hypocritical. We will never elect politician empowered to make responsible decisions if we do not elect them by making responsible decisions.
Friday, October 2, 2009
The Two Party Fallacy
Democrat v. Republican
We're currently caught up in debate about how the two party system should not be scrapped. There is a growing annoyance with the number of Democrats and Republicans that are registering Independent. Libertarian, Green, and Constitution are the largest of the "Third Parties" at the moment.
In order to understand this growth, one must admit what the Democrats and Republicans are not ready to admit. Neither member of this Two Party System represent the people anymore. We are now able to assimilate significantly more information than ever before in the history of politics. We're kept up to date via multiple news sources of varying slant. We have breaking alerts, aggregates, tweets, blogs, etc. The news is not so easily controlled as when there were concise media groups delivering via a few newspapers fed through singular wire media and a couple of broadcast news channels.
As such, people are exposed to a lot more of what goes on in each party. The Democrats are no longer the people fighting to keep slavery alive. The Republicans are no longer the party that issues the Emancipation proclamation that ended slavery. Both parties are exposed as working for special interest dollars that determine their agenda.
Republicans will try to placate the masses by talking about requiring drug testing to receive welfare. However, they will not honestly try to institute something that will send kids to bed hungry because their parents smoked a joint and lost their food stamps.
Democrats will try to placate the masses by promising free health care. However, they will not institute it because their plan is not scalable or designed to work. It is designed to expand government, fail at offering health care, but give a black eye to the Republicans that are obviously the blame in it's failure.
In short, we've reached a level of information and technology that allows each individual citizen to see where each party does or does not line up with their way of thinking. This is allowing us to realize that if we pick one issues out of 100 important issues, we can align with a party. However, if we take all of the issues into account, suddenly neither party has a consistent stand on what we view as right.
At this point, we're unable to follow the sophomoric oversimplification that Democrats help people and Republicans help corporations. While Democrats offer a lot to the people in the form of entitlements, they also make sure they get rich in the process. Republicans have a lot of shady back end deals on their resume, but also keep companies that employ hundreds of thousands of Americans from taking their business overseas.
The fact that both Democrats and Republicans are ultimately working for the good of their party at the expense of the people has provided momentum for these Independent parties. Ultimately, we cannot have 300 million separate parties. However, Independent provides an outlet for those that are vocally ready to leave the partisan mess behind.
Unfortunately, the system is somewhat designed to protect itself. Ross Perot was the most viable Independent candidate we've seen. However, the nature of the Two Party system prevented him from getting the votes and resulted in a split vote which gave the victory to Clinton. What would the result have been if people were able to vote a run off? What would the results have been if he had not run? Pundits have suggested that Perot, one on one, would have beat Clinton or Bush easily.
Should Democrats and Republicans be afraid that people, exposed to information, are able to see the truth and turn away from the party that has turned away from them? Should the people "waste their vote" on an Independent candidate when they can more comfortably "waste their vote" on a candidate that they already know is corrupt and untrustworthy?
While I'm not sure that a Third Party can be viable in current elections, it would seem that the tide is turning. The old way of using a D or an R to indoctrinate your belief system could be coming to an end. The old way of using a D or an R to marginalize the true will of the people should be coming to an end.
We're currently caught up in debate about how the two party system should not be scrapped. There is a growing annoyance with the number of Democrats and Republicans that are registering Independent. Libertarian, Green, and Constitution are the largest of the "Third Parties" at the moment.
In order to understand this growth, one must admit what the Democrats and Republicans are not ready to admit. Neither member of this Two Party System represent the people anymore. We are now able to assimilate significantly more information than ever before in the history of politics. We're kept up to date via multiple news sources of varying slant. We have breaking alerts, aggregates, tweets, blogs, etc. The news is not so easily controlled as when there were concise media groups delivering via a few newspapers fed through singular wire media and a couple of broadcast news channels.
As such, people are exposed to a lot more of what goes on in each party. The Democrats are no longer the people fighting to keep slavery alive. The Republicans are no longer the party that issues the Emancipation proclamation that ended slavery. Both parties are exposed as working for special interest dollars that determine their agenda.
Republicans will try to placate the masses by talking about requiring drug testing to receive welfare. However, they will not honestly try to institute something that will send kids to bed hungry because their parents smoked a joint and lost their food stamps.
Democrats will try to placate the masses by promising free health care. However, they will not institute it because their plan is not scalable or designed to work. It is designed to expand government, fail at offering health care, but give a black eye to the Republicans that are obviously the blame in it's failure.
In short, we've reached a level of information and technology that allows each individual citizen to see where each party does or does not line up with their way of thinking. This is allowing us to realize that if we pick one issues out of 100 important issues, we can align with a party. However, if we take all of the issues into account, suddenly neither party has a consistent stand on what we view as right.
At this point, we're unable to follow the sophomoric oversimplification that Democrats help people and Republicans help corporations. While Democrats offer a lot to the people in the form of entitlements, they also make sure they get rich in the process. Republicans have a lot of shady back end deals on their resume, but also keep companies that employ hundreds of thousands of Americans from taking their business overseas.
The fact that both Democrats and Republicans are ultimately working for the good of their party at the expense of the people has provided momentum for these Independent parties. Ultimately, we cannot have 300 million separate parties. However, Independent provides an outlet for those that are vocally ready to leave the partisan mess behind.
Unfortunately, the system is somewhat designed to protect itself. Ross Perot was the most viable Independent candidate we've seen. However, the nature of the Two Party system prevented him from getting the votes and resulted in a split vote which gave the victory to Clinton. What would the result have been if people were able to vote a run off? What would the results have been if he had not run? Pundits have suggested that Perot, one on one, would have beat Clinton or Bush easily.
Should Democrats and Republicans be afraid that people, exposed to information, are able to see the truth and turn away from the party that has turned away from them? Should the people "waste their vote" on an Independent candidate when they can more comfortably "waste their vote" on a candidate that they already know is corrupt and untrustworthy?
While I'm not sure that a Third Party can be viable in current elections, it would seem that the tide is turning. The old way of using a D or an R to indoctrinate your belief system could be coming to an end. The old way of using a D or an R to marginalize the true will of the people should be coming to an end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)