Rapture verdict ad 1

Use Of The Articles On This Site

If you would like to use any of the articles on this site on your own blog or website, that is perfectly fine. What we require is that you make no edits to the content of the article and that you include a direct link back to the article source.
Disasters Can Happen

Before We Can Capture The West We Must Capture The Culture

bro-62693_640Guest Post Peter Wood

In this my last article I expand on subjects already touched on in previous articles and attempt to draw together the various strands of the socialist totalitarianism currently undermining Western democratic societies – liberation theology, ecology, eugenics, homosexuality, feminism and multiculturalism – all bound together by the tyrannical bonds of political correctness.

The Coming Totalitarian World Of The Power Elites And The Zombie Populations Which Make It Possible

From their places of honor in hell, Marx, Stalin and Mao Zedong must have been laughing, when on arrival in La Paz during his recent tour of South America, Pope Francis was presented with a wooden crucifix carved in the form of a hammer and sickle by Bolivian President Evo Morales. By having the cross formed into a hammer and sickle Morales was effectively replacing the Son of God as the savior of mankind with communism. One of the founders of liberation theology, Peruvian theologian Gustavo Gutierrez, praised the “new atmosphere” under the Italo-Argintine leader of the Catholic world and self-professed disciple of liberation theology, Pope Francis. Gutierrez declared that:  “The conflictual aspect of social, economic and political liberation expresses the aspirations of oppressed classes and people.”

Pope John Paul II and the other opponents of liberation theology took issue with what it said about the basic meaning of human life and the things important to living that life. On his arrival in the Nicaragua of Daniel Ortega in 1983, Pope John Paul castigated a priest-collaborator who served the Sandinista Marxist regime as culture minister and, while in Managua, he warned Catholics they were being threatened by “unacceptable ideological precepts.”

Liberation theology, a mixture of secular humanitarian goals to end poverty and injustice, Marxist social analysis and concepts and misconstrued biblical precepts has its roots in the communist doctrines of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891 – 1937) who wrote:

“Before we can capture the West we must capture the culture. For only if we change the culture can we change how people think and believe, and then a new generation will not only come to accept but to embrace what their fathers would have resisted to the death.”

Had liberation theology been around in Gramsci’s time he would certainly have embraced it. Both liberation theology and Gramsci are determined to persuade people to identify themselves according to their economic status. Poor people in particular must be encouraged to think of themselves first and foremost as poor. Moreover, the poor should be taught to feel resentment toward the rich and to blame them for their poverty. Liberationists replace the traditional object of theology, the exegesis of scripture, with the worldly objectives of materialism and socialism.

For Gramsci the cultural unity of Christian Europeans was the enemy. So long as poor people thought their Christian identity was of paramount importance, they would readily join forces with Christian elites against atheist revolutionaries. Thus would-be communist tyrants who seek to dominate entire populations must devise some means of inducing their victims to enslave themselves. Changing the culture meant re-educating people to alter their primary self-identification. Revolutionaries should concentrate on taking over social institutions, until all the transmitters of culture – schools, works of art and literature, media outlets and most especially churches, convey the belief that material progress, material wealth, and material comfort are the most meaningful elements of human life. “Succeed here and taking over the government becomes a relatively painless adjustment to the changed social situation” promised Gramsci

Aldous Huxley, author of the classic anti-totalitarian novel Brave New World, hypothesized that the most efficient totalitarian system would be one in which the rulers would control a population of slaves who would not have to be coerced, because they would love their servitude. In Huxley’s model of the total state, the population is controlled through the use of sex, drugs, vapid entertainment, government-generated slogans, and manufactured social fads.

Soviet Russian dissident and author Alexander Zinovyev, describes how the West and particularly the United States, is descending into a totalitarian culture of the sort predicted by Huxley:

“It is enough to switch on the TV, go to the movies, open a best-seller or listen to the ubiquitous music and you’ll find them propagating the cult of sex, violence and money. Noble slogans about tolerance and respect for others are concealing those three pillars of totalitarian democracy.” – Le Figaro 24 July, 1999

Zinovyev, who was persecuted as a dissident under the Brezhnev regime, understands  the way in which those intent on total power work to undermine the cultural institutions of a free society:

“Often, power cannot be seized through the sudden imposition of a total dictatorship, instead, it must be obtained through the process of patient gradualism – the persistent subversion of vital institutions and the incremental consolidation of power.”

These efforts draw upon a blueprint drawn-up by Gramsci, who recognized that the creation of the total state requires the seizure of the “mediating institutions” that insulate the individual from the power of the government –  the family, organized religion etc. and a systematic redefinition of the culture in order to sustain the new political order. The battle cry of Gramsci’s disciples is: “capture the culture!”

The elites in Brussels and Washington are committed to a Gramscian collectivizing of the planet and in order to do this they need the money of the international monopoly capitalists with whom they co-operate, just as Hitler and Stalin co-operated in the 1930s; even though they were enemies they saw mutual advantage in working together. To achieve this goal all distinguishing cultural and racial characteristics must be erased, classes must be leveled, differences must be obliterated. When a multinational corporation wants to sell its products worldwide it has to appeal to all colors, creeds, and nationalities. No one’s feelings must be hurt, all races, cultures and religions must be equal.  So these global players make sure that when the time comes to pick the nations leaders they always promote those whom they have bought through their campaign contributions and who are willing to do their bidding. For these unscrupulous politicians it is irrelevant whether their votes come from criminals, illegal immigrants or Hmong tribesmen and so the diversity myth is promoted on a global scale by a Devil’s triangle of collectivist ideologues, international monopoly capitalists and the vote-hungry politicians.

“The Great Helmsman” Mao Tse-Tung, said “not to have the correct political orientation is like not having a soul.” It’s always interesting to me how the name God and godly attributes are never far from the mouths of atheists, admittedly mostly as expletives, but what would the mass murderer Mao Tse-Tung know about having a soul?

By the late 1980s Maoist political correctness was well established in Western universities. The final stage of development, which we are witnessing now, is all the other “-isims” which now dominate university curricula – anti-racism, feminism, structuralism, post-modernism and post- Christianism. The result is a new and virulent strain of totalitarianism with parallels to the Communist era. No successful society shows a spontaneous tendency towards multiculturalism or multiracialism. Successful and enduring societies show a high degree of homogeneity. Those who propagate multiculturalism realize that if they are to transform Western society into strictly regulated, racial-feminist totalitarian bureaucracies they must first undermine it. Just as under Communism in the Soviet Union every aspect of life had to be brought under political control in order for the commissars to impose their vision of society, the multiculturalists strive to control and dominate every aspect of people’s lives. Unlike the hard tyranny of the Soviets, theirs is a more subtle, tyranny, one with which imprisons people in a mental rather than a physical gulag. Today’s political correctness is none other than a variation on the Communist brainwashing and terror.

What makes multiculturalism particularly insidious and difficult to combat is that it usurps the moral and intellectual infrastructure of the West. Although it claims to champion the deepest held beliefs of the West, it is in fact a perversion and systematic undermining of the very idea of the West. Today we are made to believe that diversity is strength, perversity is virtue, success is oppression, and that by endlessly repeating these ideas they will be echoed by a public ignorant of the mental imprisonment to which they are being led.

Just as with the communist revolutions the multicultural revolution sows subversion everywhere.  Judicial activism undermines the rule of law, state imposed “tolerance” is by definition intolerant; universities, which should be havens of free enquiry, practice censorship that rivals that of the Soviets. At the same time there is a relentless drive for the equality of the lowest common denominator: the plays of Shakespeare, the trashy novels of Buchi Emecheta, and rap music are all texts with “equally valid perspectives”. Most American universities and public schools now run compulsory “white privilege seminars” which students are required to attend. The seminars purport to demonstrate how the white majority has been living off the backs of minorities, and especially blacks, for centuries. A “white privilege tax” on whites has also been suggested. It would be impossible to think up a more socially divisive program designed to increase racial tensions if one tried. http://msps.nd.edu/programs/white-privilege-seminar/class-announcement/   Rutgers University has told its students that “there is no such thing as free speech” and says that “bias acts” include “verbal, written, physical or psychological acts that threaten or harm a person or group on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, ancestry, disability, marital status, civil union status, domestic partnership status, atypical heredity or cellular blood trait (whatever that means).” – and with this kind of gobbledygook the psychological prison walls are built. https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/259894/there-no-such-thing-free-speech-rutgers-university-daniel-greenfield

In his study The Two Revolutions: Gramsci and the Dilemmas of Western Marxism, Marxist theoretician Carl Boggs emphasizes that:

“The transition to socialism must occur on two distinct but interwoven levels – the state and the economy. Those seeking the triumph of socialist revolution will not prevail by simply overthrowing the existing state machinery, or destroying the old institutions, or even bringing into power leaders calling themselves communists. Beneath the level of insurrection and statecraft there must be a gradual conquest of social power, initiated by popular subversive forces emerging from within the very heart of capitalist society”.

Alfred Willi Rudi Dutschke described this process as “the long march through the institutions” – the Marxist conquest of universities, schools, the news media, entertainment, churches and other key institutions. Dutschke who fled the German Democratic Republic because he didn’t want to live in a socialist system, had no problem in calling for the Gramscian overthrow of Western democracy and replacing it with the one he had fled.

The success of the Gramscian cultural assault upon Western society was confirmed by Michael Walzer in the winter 1996 issue of the Marxist journal Dissent. As evidence that the revolutionary left is winning the Gramscian “war of position” Walzer cited, among other developments:

  •  The visible impact of feminism.
  •  The effects of affirmative action.
  •  The emergence of gay rights politics, and the attention paid to it in the media.
  •  The acceptance of cultural pluralism.
  •  The transformation of family life, including rising divorce rates, changing sexual mores, single parent households.
  •  The progress of secularization, the dwindling appeal of Christianity and its removal from the public sphere.
  •  The virtual abolition of capital punishment.
  •  The legalization of abortion.

All of these developments, Walzer admitted, were imposed upon society by “liberal elites” rather than being driven by the pressure of a popular movement, and  “reflect the leftism of lawyers, judges, federal bureaucrats, academics, school teachers, social workers, journalists, film and television producers.”

The “elites” referred to by Walzer also include the left wing of the ruling class who through tax-exempt foundations have generously underwritten subversive “change agents” in the United States for decades. Great care has been taken by the architects of the cultural war to make it appear that the onslaught is a spontaneous revolution arising from the masses. In his 1968 book The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary, New Left radical James Kunen describes how emissaries from Rockefeller interests financed demonstrations in Chicago and other cities and men from Business International Round Tables offered to buy up a few radicals from the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), a domestic terrorist network allied with Moscow and Havana. “These [bought] men are now among the world’s leading industrialists, they are the left wing of the ruling class.” wrote Kunen. One objective of the establishment, said Kunen, “was to help the New Left make a lot of radical commotion so they [the corporate elites] could look more in the center as they moved to the left.”

The Gramscian role of changing the West’s sexual mores was assigned to sexologist Alfred Kinsey, who in 1948 published Sexual Behavior in the Human Male which fired the opening shots in the “sexual revolution”. Underwritten by the Rockefeller Foundation and eagerly embraced by strategically placed subversives in the academic institutions of law and social sciences, the Kinsey report targeted the moral foundations of western culture and opened a Pandora’s Box of social evils, including promiscuity, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, pornography, and the sexual exploitation of children.

Dr. Judith Reisman has carefully documented in her two exposes, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, and Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, the methods employed by Kinsey and his despicable associates which included “scientifically supervised” episodes of child molestation, as well as the use of convicted sex offenders and other deviants as the “representative sample” of American society. On the basis of this fraudulent research, Kinsey insisted that, at any given time, 95% of adult American males were actively engaged in some form of deviant sexual behavior. The widely accepted myth that 10% of the population is homosexual is the most obvious illustration of Kinsey’s influence. Dr. Reisman writes:

“The Kinsey cabal’s malign influence extends far beyond the mainstreaming of homosexuality. Kinsey and his accomplices set out with the intention to topple, or greatly weaken, laws concerning rape, seduction, prostitution, sodomy, bestiality, indecent exposure, incest, bigamy, nudity, obscenity, adultery, fornication, adult-child sex, illicit cohabitation, pornography and narcotics”.

With the help of the Gramscian “change agents” who had infiltrated legal and academic institutions, Kinsey and his colleagues were able to decimate scores of what he described as “antiquated laws and social standards”.

The most obvious and effective assault upon the traditional home is that which has been waged by the feminist movement. This assault with the unstinting financial support of the power elite has effectively conquered all political parties. Few recognize that modern feminism has its origins in the Soviet-aligned Communist movement.

“While we build the movement uniting women against their oppression, we try to win over the most conscious women to join us in building a revolutionary party that can unite all oppressed sectors of the population.” wrote Leon Trotsky in 1917. The women’s liberation movement is a central part of the socialist revolution.

Betty Friedan, the acknowledged “founding mother” of American feminism, was among the “most conscious women” referred to by Trotsky.

Despite her carefully choreographed public image as a typical suburban housewife driven into radical politics by the frustrations of domestic life which she called a “comfortable concentration camp”, Friedan was a professional propagandist for the American Communist Party. Former New Left activist David Horowitz remarks that “prior to being anointed leader of the Women’s Movement, Friedan was a Stalinist and the political intimate of America’s Cold War fifth column.”

In the Communist Manifesto Karl Marx called for the abolition of the family. To supplant western democracy with a Soviet style dictatorship it would be necessary to eradicate the traditional family and to supplant it with the state. Friedan’s disciple Shulamith Firestone wrote in her 1970 tract The Dialectic of Sex: “Unless revolution uproots the basic organization, the biological family, the tapeworm of exploitation will never be annihilated.”

Feminist revolutionary Ellen Willis wrote in the November 14, 1981 issue of The Nation:

“Feminism is not just an issue or a group of issues, it is the cutting edge of a revolution in cultural and moral values. The objective of every feminist reform, from legal abortion to child-care programs, is to undermine traditional family values.”

According to a confidant of President John F. Kennedy, journalist Benjamin Bradlee, Kennedy told him privately in 1963 that:

“He was all for people solving their problems by abortion and specifically told me I could not use that for publication in Newsweek.”

In the same year, Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher explained to his co-conspirators that laws protecting the unborn could only be changed “inch by inch and foot by foot, but not a mile at a time”.

“I am in favor of abortion on demand, but feel from the practical point of view that such a social revolution should evolve by stages.”

Mary Meehan author of the accepted history of the abortion revolution, wrote in the Fall 1998 issue of Human Life Review:

“Encouraged by the youth rebellion against the establishment in the 1960s, women’s rights organizations forced public debate on the abortion issue and the U.S. Supreme Court gave them a huge victory with its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. However, a wealth of inside information, now available in private and government archives, documents that abortion supporters received enormous aid both financial and non-financial from the American establishment.”

Socialist and anti-Christian agitator Margaret Sanger, founder of the Birth Control League later re-named Planned Parenthood, shared membership with the Rockefellers in the American Eugenics Society (AES) and benefited greatly from their financial support. Not only did Sanger liaise between the power elite and street-level agitators, she was also a link between the AES and its counterpart in National Socialist Germany. The April 1933 issue of Sanger’s Birth Control Review, which was devoted to the subject of eugenic sterilization, featured an article by Dr. Ernst Rudin, a high official of the Nazi regime. Hitler openly admired the AES. When this affinity became a political liability for the AES in the late 1930s, it was John D. Rockefeller the 3rds financial support that kept the organization alive. It was at this same time, Meehan notes, that the AES and its allies began to advocate a “substantial loosening of anti-abortion laws.”

In 1952, to pave the way for the advent of the “unthinkable”, John D. Rockefeller the 3rd and AES’s Frederick Osborn founded The Population Council. Mary Meehan points out the work of The Population Council was to convince “government leaders in poor nations that they had a serious population problem and then show them how to solve it through population control”. Of course, these “unthinkable” designs were not intended solely for export to other countries. In the Winter 1992-93 issue of Foreign Affairs Michael S. Teitelbaum of the CFR’s Study Group on Population and U.S. Foreign Policy wrote in an article entitled Elite Public Opinion on Population Matters:

“By the early 1960s, Republican and Democratic, conservative and liberal alike had shifted closer to the opinion advanced by Rockefeller a decade earlier. Key figures in the Kennedy administration initiated the first U.S. foreign policy initiatives on population, in spite of opposition from the Catholic Church. To undertake the task of demolishing laws protecting the unborn, the Rockefeller-led power elite created the National Association for the Reform of Abortion Laws, (NARAL), now known as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.”

NARAL co-founder Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who has since become a stalwart pro-life advocate, described the group as “the radicals” and “the Bolsheviks” says:

“We would settle for nothing less than striking down all existing abortion statutes and substituting abortion on demand. One of NARAL’s most successful tactics was to blame the church for the death of every woman from a botched abortion. There were perhaps 300 or so deaths from criminal abortions annually in the United States in the sixties, But in its press releases NARAL claimed to have data that supported a figure of 5,000.”

With the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, all remaining protection for the unborn and those in the process of being born was removed. But the grisly abortion toll, 55 million since the Roe v. Wade decision, is just one aspect of the social revolution brought about by the power elite’s eugenicist movement. In a 1967 science magazine essay, population control advocate Kinglsey Davis wrote:

“The conditions that cause births to be wanted or unwanted are beyond the control of family planning. The social structure and economy must be changed before a deliberate reduction in the birthrate can be achieved. Changes basic enough to affect motivation for having children would be changes in the structure of the family, in the position of women and in sexual mores.”

In a 1969 memo which was published in the October 1970 issue of Family Planning Perspectives, Planned Parenthood Vice President Frederick Jaffe elaborated upon Davis’s blueprint for a eugenicist social revolution. The memo grouped possible “fertility control” options into four categories: “Social Constraints,” “Economic Deterrents/Incentives,” “Social Controls,” and “Housing Policies.” The category of Social Constraints included “the encouragement of increased homosexuality,” the restructuring of the family by “altering the image of the ideal family” and encouraging women to work outside the home, and if all else failed “the placement of “fertility control agents in the water supply.” While mass sterilization has not yet been carried out, all of the other elements of this blueprint have been.

The “gay rights” movement was founded in the 1950s by the Mattachine Society, by Marxists Harry Hay and Rudi Gernreich. The ongoing and successful campaign to normalize homosexuality is the product of a cunning strategy that uses the mass media, especially entertainment, and other establishment controlled institutions to “re-educate” the public. The strategy was outlined, with stunning candor, in After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990’s, by homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. Taking a page from Gramsci, the authors urged that the Lavender Lobby mount a full-scale propaganda war to bring about the “conversion” of America through a “planned psychological attack.” Through such means, they predicted, Americans would be “cured” of their opposition to homosexual perversion, “whether they like it or not”.

We are told by academics, journalists and politicians that Western society has “evolved” on issues like abortion and homosexuality, but while thinking, beliefs and laws may change moral truth doesn’t. Christianity has taught for 2,000 years that homosexual acts are morally decadent and lead to socially destructive behavior. The late Roman Empire and Weimar Germany are the two examples of indulgent attitudes toward homosexual conduct among other morally decadent practices, nudism for example, which almost certainly contributed to their moral and physical

demise. How can morally decadent practices bring about the physical demise of a nation? When the moral foundation of a nation is destroyed morally decadent people rise to political power. The decision of the US Supreme Court to redefine marriage as not exclusively between a man and a woman represents another stride forward for the revolution preached by Antonio Gramsci.

Political correctness (politicbeskaya pravil nost) dates back to the Soviet Union of the 1920s, and was the extension of political control in education, psychiatry, ethics, and behavior. It was an essential component of the attempt to make sure that all aspects of life were consistent with ideological orthodoxy which is the distinctive feature of all totalitarianism. In the post-Stalin period, political correctness meant that dissent was seen as a symptom of mental illness, the treatment for which was incarceration in a mental institution.

In the Communist era, the totalitarian state was built on violence. The purpose of the l930s purges and the Great Terror of the French Revolution which was Stalin’s model for the purges of the 1930’s and Mao’s model for the Cultural Revolution was to use violence against “class enemies” to compel loyalty. Party members signed death warrants for “enemies of the people” knowing that the accused were innocent, but believing in the correctness of the charges. In the 1930s, collective guilt justified murdering millions of Russian peasants. In his book The Horror of Sorrowing Robert Conquest writes: “the state’s view of this class was that not one of them was guilty of anything, but they belonged to the class that was guilty of everything” (p. 143). Stigmatizing entire institutions and groups makes it much easier to carry out wholesale change.

This is the beauty of “racism” and “sexism” for today’s culture attackers, sin can be extended far beyond individuals to include institutions, literature, language, history, laws, customs, entire civilizations. The charge of “institutional racism” is no different than declaring an entire class an enemy of the people. “Racism” and “sexism”: are multiculturalism’s assault weapons, just as class warfare was for Communists, and the effects are the same. If a crime can be collectivized, all can be guilty because they belong to the wrong group. When young whites are victims of racial preferences they are today’s version of the Russian peasants. Even if they themselves have never oppressed anyone, they belong to the race that is “guilty of everything”. A good example of this anti-white racism known as “affirmative action” previously known by the contradictory term “positive discrimination” is the way in which most American public universities select future students from oversubscribed applications. They work on a 100 point credit system. A maximum of 50 points are awarded for academic ability (SAT scores) a further maximum 10 points if the applicant belongs to a minority i.e. is non-white, a maximum 10 points if the applicant is a woman, a maximum 10 points if the applicant comes from a poor family, a maximum 10 points if the applicant is an athlete and a maximum 10 points if the applicant is disabled. The US has long since ceased to be a meritocracy. Government ordained quotas for minorities and women are the rule in practically all areas of public life.

The Russian experiment with revolution and totalitarian social engineering has been chronicled by two of that country’s greatest writers, Dostoyevsky and Solzhenitsyn. They dissect the methods and psychology of totalitarian control. Dostoyevsky’s The Devils is unequaled as a penetrating analysis of the revolutionary and totalitarian mind. The “devils” are radical students of the middle and upper classes flirting with something they do not understand. The ruling class seeks to ingratiate itself with them. The universities have essentially declared war on society at large. The cry of the student radical is “freedom!” Freedom, from the established norms of society, freedom from manners, freedom from inequality, freedom from the past. Russia’s descent into vice and insanity is a powerful warning of when a nation declares war on the past in the hope of building a worldly paradise. Dostoyevsky did not live to see the abominations he predicted, but Solzhenitsyn experienced them firsthand. His books The Gulag Archipelago and August 1914 attempt to account for the dreadful fate that befell Russia after 1917. Solzhenitsyn identifies education, and the way teachers saw their duty as instilling hostility to all forms of traditional authority, as the major factors that explain why Russia’s youth was seduced by revolutionary ideas. In the West from the 1960s on today successive generations have been told that truth resides in class, sex, race and or sexual orientation. Truth is not something to be established by rational enquiry, but depends on the perspective of the speaker. In the multicultural world, a person’s perspective is “valued” according to class. Feminists, blacks, environmentalists, and homosexuals have a greater claim to truth because they are oppressed. They see truth more clearly than the white heterosexual men who “oppress” them. This is a perfect mirror image of the Marxist proletariat’s moral and intellectual superiority over the bourgeoisie. Today, “oppression” confers a “privileged perspective” that is essentially infallible. To borrow an expression from Chief Justice Robert Bork’s book Slouching Towards Gomorrah, “non-whites and feminists are case hardened against logical argument” just as Communist true believers are. Feminists and anti-racist activists openly reject objective truth. Confident that they have intimidated their opposition, feminists are able to make all kinds of demands on the assumption that men and women are in every way equal. When outcomes do not match that belief, it is taken as only more evidence of white male devilry.

One of the most anti-intellectual occurrences in the West today, particularly in the Universities and media, is the readiness to treat feminism as a major contribution to human knowledge and to submit to its absurdities. In their fear of being labeled bigots the silent majority submit without a fight and accept without question the arguments and demands of the feminists. Peter Verkovensky, who orchestrates murder and mayhem in Dostoyevsky’s The Devils, expresses it so: “All I have to do is raise my voice and tell them that they are not sufficiently liberal”. The race card players play the same game. Accuse a liberal of racism or sexism and watch them fall apart in an orgy of self-flagellation and Marxist self-criticism.

Ancient liberties and assumptions of innocence mean nothing when it comes to the charge of racism. You are guilty until proven innocent, and even then you are forever suspect. An accusation of racism has much the same effect as an accusation of witchcraft did in 17th century Salem. If diversity had real benefits, whites would want more of it and would ask that even more cities in the U.S. and Europe be handed over to immigrants. Of course, whites are not rushing to embrace diversity and multiculturalism; most are in headlong flight in the opposite direction. When a city or part of a city is taken over by non-whites, those whites who can afford to move out, not because they are racists but because of the anti-white racism, drug dealing, rape and violence which it brings with it. Valuing diversity is a luxury for people who do not have to suffer its “benefits”.

A multicultural society is inherently prone to conflict, which is why there is a large growth in government bureaucracies with the task of resolving disputes along racial and cultural lines. These disputes can never be resolved permanently because the bureaucrats deny one of the major causes – race. That is why the term “multicultural” is used rather than the more precise “multiracial”. Ever more changes and legislation are introduced to break resistance in the host society to the acceptance of racial minorities. This only creates more demands, and encourages the war against whites and their civilization.

How is such a radical program carried forward? The Soviet Union had a pervasive system of censorship however the situation in the West is not so straight forward and it is not comparable to Soviet-style government censorship. Yet there is a deliberate suppression of dissent in the form of hate speech laws. Arthur Jensen, Hans Eysenck, J. Philippe Rushton, Chris Brand, Michael Levin, and Glayde Whitney in the USA, Geert Wilders in Holland, Michel Houellebecq in France, Åke Green in Sweden, Jesper Langballe in Denmark, Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang in Great Britain und Thilo Sarrazin in Germany, to name but a few have all been prosecuted and/or vilified for their racial views or for speaking out against the Islamization of Europe. This is just the sort of intellectual terror practiced in the Soviet Union. But the leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, is allowed to publicly call for the murder of whites without being brought to account. For these things to happen in countries which claim to be pillars of Western liberal democracy is an indication of the intolerant nature of multiculturalism.


A method of opinion control more subtle than outright censorship is use of fictional role models. Today, the feminist and anti-racist theme is continuously worked into films and television and are examples of Bartold Brecht’s principle that  Marxist art must show the world not as it is but as it ought to be. That is why we have so many screen portrayals of wise black judges, culturally sensitive women who show their insensitive male colleagues how not to be sexist and racist, minority computer geniuses, clever businesswomen who make their male counterparts look stupid, corrupt white policemen who frame innocent young blacks and liberal society’s biggest problem – degenerate white males. This is almost a direct borrowing from the Soviet socialist realism, with its idealized depictions of loyal communist proletarians routing capitalist vermin. Multiculturalism has the same objectives as Soviet Communism. It is absolute in its pursuit of its various agendas, yet it relativizes all other perspectives in its attack on its enemies.

The totalitarian multiculturalism aspiration is an ideology to end all other ideologies. Multiculturalism must eliminate all opposition everywhere. There can be no safe havens for counter-revolutionaries. Once it is established the multicultural paradise must be defended at all costs. Orthodoxy must be maintained with all the resources of the state. Such a society would be well on its way to being totalitarian. It might not have concentration camps, but it would have re-education centers and sensitivity training for those still engaged in “white male hegemonic discourse”. Rather than the outright totalitarianism of the Soviet state there would be a softer version in which people’s minds would be the wards of the state, they would be liberated from the burden of having to think for themselves and therefore unable to fall into the heresy of political incorrectness.

A key part of President Obama’s radical reorganization of society is the Federal Government’s unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race. The government is prying into personal information at the most local levels for the purpose of “racial and economic justice” in order to document “inequalities between minorities and whites”. This Orwellian stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which the Obama administration is already using to make “disparate impact” cases against banks that don’t make enough prime mortgage loans to minorities, schools that suspend too many blacks for violence or indiscipline, cities that don’t offer enough low-income housing for minorities and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.

The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing database, which the Department of Housing and Urban Development unveiled in July last year is to racially redistribute the nation through radical housing policies. ZIP code by ZIP code it will map every US neighborhood by four racial groups: white, Asian, black or African-American, and Hispanic/Latino, and publish “geospatial data” pinpointing “racial imbalances”. Federally funded cities deemed segregated will be pressured to change their zoning laws to allow construction of more subsidized housing in affluent suburbs, and relocate inner-city minorities to these predominantly white areas.

Meanwhile, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, headed by former Congressional Black Caucus leader Mel Watt, is building its own database for racially rebalancing home loans. The so-called National Mortgage Database Project will compile the last 16 years of lending data, broken down by race, and hold everything from individual credit scores and employment records. The FHFA will share the information with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which acts more like a civil-rights agency for minorities, aggressively investigating lenders for racial bias.

Through its mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection project, the Education Department is gathering information on student suspensions and expulsions, by race, from every public school district in the country. Districts that show “disparities” in discipline will be targeted for reform. Those that don’t comply will be punished. Several already have been forced to revise their discipline policies, which has led to violent disruptions in classrooms. Obama’s political police want to know how many blacks versus whites are enrolled in advanced placement classes for gifted and talented students. Schools with “under-enrolled” blacks and Latinos compared to whites could open themselves up to investigation and lawsuits by the department’s Civil Rights Office.

Such databases have never before existed. Through his political commissars Obama is presiding over the largest collection of personal data in US history. He is creating a diversity police state where government race police and civil-rights lawyers will micromanage demographic outcomes in virtually every aspect of society. As part of this strategy Obama recently permitted the corrupt US Department of Justice over which he wields authority, to overturn the ruling of a US Federal Court of Appeals that prisoners sentenced to illegal terms longer than the law permits must be released once the legal portion of their sentences have been served. The black US Attorney General, Loretta E. Lynch justified her decision by saying:  “Finality of conviction is more important than justice”. And as in 17th century Salem, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China and the Third Reich the next step will be children denouncing their parents and other adults for “crimes against the people.”

Of course, at some time whites may demand an end to being punished for the failures of blacks and other minorities. As Professor Michael Hart argues in The Real American Dilemma:

“A racial partition of the United States is not unthinkable. What happened in the Balkans is not necessarily limited to that part of the world. Race war is not something the power elite deliberately seek but their policies are pushing their nations in that direction.”

Those who march under the banner of multiculturalism are either ignorant of where the journey will take them or they are part of the plan to destroy Western Judeo-Christian civilization and replace it with a racial-feminist totalitarian bureaucracy. Multiculturalism is the road to a special kind of hell that we have already seen in the last century, a hell that mankind, having abandoned and in revolt against God’s order, builds for itself.

With her scientific background Margaret Thatcher was the first world leader to voice alarm over global warming back in 1988. Sir Crispin Tickell the then British representative at the UN had written a book in the 1970s warning that the world was cooling, but he had since become an ardent convert to the belief that it was warming and it was he who convinced Margaret Thatcher into believing in the correctness of the theory. Long before it became fashionable, Margaret Thatcher was converted to the view of the climate change ideology. As she recorded in her memoirs, she made a series of speeches, in Britain and to world bodies, calling for urgent international action, and citing evidence given to the US Senate by the arch-alarmist Jim Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. She found equally persuasive the views of a third prominent convert to the cause, Dr John Houghton, the then head of the UK Meteorological Office. She backed him in the setting up of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, and promised the Meteorological Office lavish funding for its Hadley Center, which she opened in 1990, as a world authority on “human-induced climate change”. The Hadley Center then linked up with the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to become the world leading authority on the world’s surface temperature records. This became the central nexus of influence driving a worldwide scare over global warming and remains so to this day.

In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed Hot Air and Global Warming, Lady Thatcher showed that she had become a climate change skeptic. She questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO², rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of costly and economically damaging schemes to reduce CO² emissions.

What Margaret Thatcher began was soon latched onto by the Left who saw global warming as the ideal stick with which to beat the big bad capitalists who were “destroying the planet in their greed for money.” A carbon credit swap scheme was devised by left-wing academics and made law by left-wing politicians, ostensibly as a means of reducing CO² emissions. The scheme which allows businesses in industrialized countries producing CO² emissions over their quotas to buy CO² credits from countries producing little CO², is none other than a wealth transfer program designed to fleece Western businesses of money and give it to corrupt, mainly African, politicians. The scheme certainly has nothing to do with reducing CO² emissions, and if anything serves to increase them.

In 2011 the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit became the center of a hacked emails scandal. The published emails showed that the head of the unit, Dr Jones and his colleagues, were manipulating global warming data to make it look worse than it really was, colluding with one another on which weather phenomena e.g. hurricanes, flooding etc. to promote as best evidence for their theories, discussing ways to prevent climate change skeptics in the scientific community from getting their work published in scientific journals and discussing devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws. Dr Jones subsequently refused to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record claiming that much of the data from all over the world had simply gotten “lost”. Emails in which scientists were advised to delete large chunks of data after receipt of a freedom of information request constitute a criminal offense; however no action has been taken against Dr Jones and his colleagues by the government which subsidizes the unit’s research to the tune of millions of pounds a year.

Under the influence of his chief scientific adviser Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a fanatical German climate activist and professed atheist, Pope Francis has issued a Papal Encyclical calling on the world to end its use of fossil fuels and to pray to God for the success of the global climate summit in December. What is wrong with the pope’s neo-socialist sermonizing? In asking people to pray for the global climate treaty, Pope Francis solemnly repeats the Green litany of “facts” about melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels, unprecedented droughts, extreme weather events which is based on increasingly questionable and discredited science. Marc Morano of

“The climate encyclical and the process behind it, is rapidly revealing itself to be a blight on the papacy of Francis. The Washington Post has revealed that the Vatican banned a skeptical French scientist, Philippe de Larminat, from participating in its April 28 climate change summit. Meanwhile, Pope Francis has turned to Hans Joachim Schellnhuber who has called for the creation of a CO² budget for every person on planet.”

Climate change has become part of the religious doctrine of the Left along with multiculturalism, homosexuality and feminism and anyone who dares challenge it risks being publicly mobbed by its fanatical adherents. It is just another way in which political correctness is used to silence dissent and enslave whole populations to an ideology and is yet another step in the Gramscian “long march through the institutions.”

Many of the problems afflicting Western societies today do not reflect the march of misconceived social progress, or the process of irreversible social decay. Instead, they reflect the destructive accomplishments of a long-term conspiracy against Western society – a Gramscian assault upon all of the vital institutions that prevent the construction of a totalitarian state.

Peter Wood

Nuremberg, August 2015

Post Scriptum

As I pointed out in my last article when the financial collapse comes it will be followed by a dictatorship. The socialist politicians running the show in Europe and the USA have dutifully implemented the pro-debt policies of the left-wing neo-Keynesian economic anarchists, know that the collapse is coming because it is they who have engineered it. It also explains why the Left is so desperate to fill Europe and America with non-European migrants before this happens. They hope that after the collapse the migrants will secure them political power. If we do see a left-wing dictatorship it will be a Communist one along the lines I have described in the article.

“Nothing is more terrifying to the power elite than a popular embrace of nationalism.” Julius Krein


Some comments made about global warming skeptics from left-wing Journalists, Politicians and Academics:

The BBC directorship has told its reporters: “Stop giving air time to idiot climate change deniers.”


An Australian, Professor Richard Parncutt, an expert for Music Psychology at the University of  Graz in Austria has said that “…climate change deniers should be killed.” This call to murder people was recently removed from his homepage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?


“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.” – Ellen Goodman, Journalistin, Boston Globe (2007)

“It reminds me in some ways of the debate taking place in this country and around the world in the late 1930s – there were people – who said ‘don’t worry! Hitler’s not real! It’ll disappear!’” – Bernie Sanders, US Democratic Senator (2010)

“We have Holocaust deniers; we have climate change deniers. And to be honest, I don’t think there’s a great deal of difference.” – Dr Bill McGuire, University College London (2006)

“Would the media insist on having a Holocaust-denier to balance any report about the Second Word War?” – Caroline Lucas, UK Green Party Member of Parliament (2007)

“In the future climate change deniers will be seen as the Adolph Hitlers of our day, contributing to a holocaust vastly eclipsing the horrors of World War II.” – Chad Kister, Environmental Activist (2008)

“The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. They’ve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they haven’t seen does not exist.” – Professor Charles Larson, American University (2013)

“Climate deniers are less immoral than Holocaust deniers, although they are undoubtedly more dangerous.” – Dr Clive Hamilton, Charles Sturt University (2009)

“Giving in to the [climate change] sceptics would be an act of climate appeasement. This is our Munich moment.” – Chris Huhne, U.K. Minister for Environment, Energy und Climate Change (2011)

“It’s about the climate-change ‘denial industry’, …we should have war crimes trials for these evil bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.” – David Roberts, Grist Magazine (2006)

“Climate change denial is as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.”- George Monbiot, Journalist The Guardian (2006)

“I think these people are anti-science flat-earthers.They are every bit as dangerous as Holocaust deniers.” – Guy Keleny, Journalist The Independent (2013)

Some prominent scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown or that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes rather than human activities. Some of them made their opinion known only once they had retired. Had they done so while still active in their professions, they would probably have been crucified by the real Nazis which I’ve quoted above, and would almost certainly have lost their posts.

* Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks

* Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).

* Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.

* Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.


* John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.

* Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.

* David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.

* Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a Nobel laureate.

* Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.


* Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.

* Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.

* August H. “Augie” Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.

* Reid Bryson (1920–2008), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

* Robert Jastrow (1925–2008) American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist. He was a leading NASA scientist.

* Marcel Leroux (1938–2008) former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin.

* Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.

* Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

* Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

* Timothy Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg.

* Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University.

* Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.

* Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.

* David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.

* Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.

* William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.

* William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University.

* Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.


* Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.

* William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.

* David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.

* Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.

* Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.

* Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.

* Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.

* Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.

* Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University.

* Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.

* Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.

* Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

* Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.

* Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

* Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.

* Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.

* George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.

* Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.

* Les Woodcock, professor emeritus of chemical thermodynamics at the University of Manchester and former NASA scientist.

Be Sociable, Share!
Hi I am Michael160 ABOUT ME160 Follow Me On facebook160 Follow Me On twitterMicheals Book MN Gordon EPAbout MN GordonFollow MN Gordon