[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.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
How Accurate/Fair Is The Voting In Your District?
When thinking about voting, one can go back to the early years of school where we are taught that each member of the community puts their ballot in the box, has their vote counted, and the election results are tallied up to find the winner. In the most simplistic form, barring fraud, that is what happens.
Many members of communities all across our great country do not realize the impact of their geographical district even though most of us have heard the term "Gerrymandering". Even those that are familiar with the term may not always understand the effect of redistricting. In short, district layout can have a significant effect on the election results as it can be used to "stack the deck" for the gain of a particular party or candidate.
We are now about 200 years into the use of the term Gerrymandering. It is derived from a Massachusetts governor in the early 1800s. He happened to sign a bill that redistricted his state in a manner that benefited his party. The resulting district looked similar to a salamander.
Other than the term gerrymander, the process is often referred to as "Packing" and "Cracking". Packing is the process of getting a concentrated voter demographic into a district in order to maximize their voting effect. Cracking is the process of breaking up the voting demographic in order to suppress it's influence.
Even in our current day and age, there are still signs of this process in district maps across the nation. Some favor Democrats while some favor Republicans. In short, they all circumvent the will of the people in favor of the whim of those in power at the time of redistricting.
For this reason, we can understand how some voters are essentially being robbed of their right to be represented. While they are legally able to vote, they are put into a district where their vote will fall under the threshold of influence. This type of packing and cracking, while not childs play, is also not rocket science. When redistricting, one simply has to break the precincts down by analyzing their voting results. With this information, it can be identified on the map which precincts favor Left/Right/Democrat/Republican/Etc.
Using this information, the district can easily be redrawn in a manner that spreads the "opposition" voters out among other districts that vote favorably. This prevents the opposition from getting a majority, as their votes are divided and placed into the "favored" districts. Since they will never put more than 50% of the opposition into a district, that opposition will have it's votes negated.
This is an unfortunate attempt to replace fair voting and constitutionally guaranteed representation with corrupt politics. The people in power, when given the unchecked ability to stay in power, will find methods such as this to do so.
This is something that we need to consider the next time our area is up for redistricting. We need to make sure that we are paying attention to our elected officials so that they may act responsibly. Ultimately, we would benefit to have a politician work for the community than to have one exposed for being corrupt. While it might be an uncomfortable change for a politician to know they are being watched like a hawk, it would also help them stay on the honest path that we're so often accusing our elected officials from leaving behind once in office.
Many members of communities all across our great country do not realize the impact of their geographical district even though most of us have heard the term "Gerrymandering". Even those that are familiar with the term may not always understand the effect of redistricting. In short, district layout can have a significant effect on the election results as it can be used to "stack the deck" for the gain of a particular party or candidate.
We are now about 200 years into the use of the term Gerrymandering. It is derived from a Massachusetts governor in the early 1800s. He happened to sign a bill that redistricted his state in a manner that benefited his party. The resulting district looked similar to a salamander.
Other than the term gerrymander, the process is often referred to as "Packing" and "Cracking". Packing is the process of getting a concentrated voter demographic into a district in order to maximize their voting effect. Cracking is the process of breaking up the voting demographic in order to suppress it's influence.
Even in our current day and age, there are still signs of this process in district maps across the nation. Some favor Democrats while some favor Republicans. In short, they all circumvent the will of the people in favor of the whim of those in power at the time of redistricting.
For this reason, we can understand how some voters are essentially being robbed of their right to be represented. While they are legally able to vote, they are put into a district where their vote will fall under the threshold of influence. This type of packing and cracking, while not childs play, is also not rocket science. When redistricting, one simply has to break the precincts down by analyzing their voting results. With this information, it can be identified on the map which precincts favor Left/Right/Democrat/Republican/Etc.
Using this information, the district can easily be redrawn in a manner that spreads the "opposition" voters out among other districts that vote favorably. This prevents the opposition from getting a majority, as their votes are divided and placed into the "favored" districts. Since they will never put more than 50% of the opposition into a district, that opposition will have it's votes negated.
This is an unfortunate attempt to replace fair voting and constitutionally guaranteed representation with corrupt politics. The people in power, when given the unchecked ability to stay in power, will find methods such as this to do so.
This is something that we need to consider the next time our area is up for redistricting. We need to make sure that we are paying attention to our elected officials so that they may act responsibly. Ultimately, we would benefit to have a politician work for the community than to have one exposed for being corrupt. While it might be an uncomfortable change for a politician to know they are being watched like a hawk, it would also help them stay on the honest path that we're so often accusing our elected officials from leaving behind once in office.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
To Which Party Do You Belong?
There are a couple of ways in which people make their ballot choices. In many cases, one will simply select the names that have their letter, a "D" or an "R" next to them. This type of voting lets the candidates off the hook with a significant portion of the voting population. The commonplace nature of this habit allows the candidate to cater to those that are "not" voting for his/her particular letter in order to collect more support.
The frustrating thing about this type of voting is the lack of accountability the voters hand over to the candidate. In reality, we as voters, are not simply "D" or "R". The alignment to a letter has become part of the construct of manipulation which propagates the corruption that we vocally despise.
The most simplistic descriptions of party alignment fall into the following realms:
D: Liberal
R: Conservative
However, this is an entirely misleading oversimplification. A "D" in one part of the country may have significant differences with a "D" in another part of the country. The same can be said for "R". To make matters even worse, there are a lot more letter that must be accounted for which usually fall under "I" (Independent: Libertarian, Green, Socialist, etc).
To break through the construct, we can see that the "smoke and mirrors" hiding the core problem do not account for the fact that we are generally falling into a couple more enlightening categories: Social and Economic.
Within those two categories, one will notice the labels of Liberal, Moderate, and Conservative. This yields 6 different core ideologies (each with an exponential number of sub ideologies) that must be rolled up into whichever letter they apply to their party choice.
1. Socially Liberal
2. Socially Moderate
3. Socially Conservative
4. Economically Liberal
5. Economically Moderate
6. Economically Conservative
Choosing a party to identify with does not necessarily accommodate the fact that not all members of a party are consistent with their level of slant to a particular side of the isle. There are cases where Democrats are more conservative than some Republicans and some Republicans are more liberal than some Democrats.
As far as the people at large go, Democrats are usually considered "for the people" and Republicans are considered "for big business". However, that is not an all encompassing description of our political reality.
An Oklahoma Democrat, for example, is considered significantly more Conservative than a California Republican. This leads to the point that I'm trying to make. There is not a simple Left to Right scale that determines if we are Democrat or Republican. There is a deeper scope depending upon what part the issue we're aligned with. This acknowledgment of the broader picture is the exact reason that the Two Party System is feeling the presence of additional parties. "We the people" are finding that when we're not appropriately represented, that an alternative exists.
The frustrating thing about this type of voting is the lack of accountability the voters hand over to the candidate. In reality, we as voters, are not simply "D" or "R". The alignment to a letter has become part of the construct of manipulation which propagates the corruption that we vocally despise.
The most simplistic descriptions of party alignment fall into the following realms:
D: Liberal
R: Conservative
However, this is an entirely misleading oversimplification. A "D" in one part of the country may have significant differences with a "D" in another part of the country. The same can be said for "R". To make matters even worse, there are a lot more letter that must be accounted for which usually fall under "I" (Independent: Libertarian, Green, Socialist, etc).
To break through the construct, we can see that the "smoke and mirrors" hiding the core problem do not account for the fact that we are generally falling into a couple more enlightening categories: Social and Economic.
Within those two categories, one will notice the labels of Liberal, Moderate, and Conservative. This yields 6 different core ideologies (each with an exponential number of sub ideologies) that must be rolled up into whichever letter they apply to their party choice.
1. Socially Liberal
2. Socially Moderate
3. Socially Conservative
4. Economically Liberal
5. Economically Moderate
6. Economically Conservative
Choosing a party to identify with does not necessarily accommodate the fact that not all members of a party are consistent with their level of slant to a particular side of the isle. There are cases where Democrats are more conservative than some Republicans and some Republicans are more liberal than some Democrats.
As far as the people at large go, Democrats are usually considered "for the people" and Republicans are considered "for big business". However, that is not an all encompassing description of our political reality.
An Oklahoma Democrat, for example, is considered significantly more Conservative than a California Republican. This leads to the point that I'm trying to make. There is not a simple Left to Right scale that determines if we are Democrat or Republican. There is a deeper scope depending upon what part the issue we're aligned with. This acknowledgment of the broader picture is the exact reason that the Two Party System is feeling the presence of additional parties. "We the people" are finding that when we're not appropriately represented, that an alternative exists.
How Represented Are We?
In light of the current political stage, we are forced to wonder if our elected officials are working for us. In recent years, it has become more apparent that the voters are not the people being represented but rather the people exploited in order to harvest votes and stay in office.
It was once said that there are not enough good people in office. It has also been said that power corrupts. Following those two statements, it is summarily said that good people may run for office, but are corrupted by the time they are elected. Given the information we have, it would seem that the corruption associated to power is so prevalent that it is impossible to navigate the money required for political office without being corrupted by the process.
As a member of a region that is rich in common sense and diverse in community, it seems that corruption does not have to be an insurmountable force. We must first acknowledge that "we" control who represents us. We have the ability to hire and fire those individuals. Essentially, their responsibility to us is balanced by our responsibility to keep them honest.
Just as "locks don't keep bad people out, they keep honest people honest", the people within our community need to keep their representatives honest by paying attention to what they do "after" they are elected. It could be said that a lot of our representatives could have stayed on the right path if they knew their community was paying attention.
It was once said that there are not enough good people in office. It has also been said that power corrupts. Following those two statements, it is summarily said that good people may run for office, but are corrupted by the time they are elected. Given the information we have, it would seem that the corruption associated to power is so prevalent that it is impossible to navigate the money required for political office without being corrupted by the process.
As a member of a region that is rich in common sense and diverse in community, it seems that corruption does not have to be an insurmountable force. We must first acknowledge that "we" control who represents us. We have the ability to hire and fire those individuals. Essentially, their responsibility to us is balanced by our responsibility to keep them honest.
Just as "locks don't keep bad people out, they keep honest people honest", the people within our community need to keep their representatives honest by paying attention to what they do "after" they are elected. It could be said that a lot of our representatives could have stayed on the right path if they knew their community was paying attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)