Thursday, September 24, 2015

Pope Francis' Speech to Joint Session of Congress -- My concerns are yellow high-lighted

To my readers: 
I have watched Pope Francis' speech to Congress with no small degree of consternation.  In 1981 I opened a file and called it "War on Fundamentalism."  It appears that the present Pope's speech fired a significant salvo in that war against "Fundamentalists" (those believing the fundamentals of Scripture and their religion to be true).  The "we are all one and we are all inter-connected themes of Alice Bailey and other New Agers come through, albeit subtly.  The "technological advances" to facilitate global wealth redistribution, ditto.  And then there were the spiritual examples given by him, the most glaring in my opinion being that of Thomas Merton.  Obviously, Thomas Merton was canonized long ago -- by the THEOSOPHISTS, the mothership of the New Age Movement."
I'm sharing with you the transcript of the Pope's speech.  I honestly can't help but wonder if  Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) has been the victim of a literal Vatican coup.  While there are some issues on which I applaud things this Pope has said -- asking every Catholic parish in Europe to adopt a refugee family -- the balance to me is presently VERY TROUBLING.
I have yellow highlighted some obvious areas of my own concern.  I put a few of my comments in aqua highlighting.  I value your opinions and please
STAY TUNED!
CONSTANCE

Honorable Members of Congress,
Dear Friends,
I am most grateful for your invitation to address this Joint Session of Congress in “the land of the free and the home of the brave”. I would like to think that the reason for this is that I too am a son of this great continent, from which we have all received so much and toward which we share a common responsibility.
Each son or daughter of a given country has a mission, a personal and social responsibility. Your own responsibility as members of Congress is to enable this country, by your legislative activity, to grow as a nation. You are the face of its people, their representatives. You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of all politics. A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care for the people. To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you.
Yours is a work which makes me reflect in two ways on the figure of Moses. On the one hand, the patriarch and lawgiver of the people of Israel symbolizes the need of peoples to keep alive their sense of unity by means of just legislation. On the other, the figure of Moses leads us directly to God and thus to the transcendent dignity of the human being. Moses provides us with a good synthesis of your work: you are asked to protect, by means of the law, the image and likeness fashioned by God on every human face.
Today I would like not only to address you, but through you the entire people of the United States. Here, together with their representatives, I would like to take this opportunity to dialogue with the many thousands of men and women who strive each day to do an honest day’s work, to bring home their daily bread, to save money and –one step at a time – to build a better life for their families. These are men and women who are not concerned simply with paying their taxes, but in their own quiet way sustain the life of society. They generate solidarity by their actions, and they create organizations which offer a helping hand to those most in need.
I would also like to enter into dialogue with the many elderly persons who are a storehouse of wisdom forged by experience, and who seek in many ways, especially through volunteer work, to share their stories and their insights. I know that many of them are retired, but still active; they keep working to build up this land. I also want to dialogue with all those young people who are working to realize their great and noble aspirations, who are not led astray by facile proposals, and who face difficult situations, often as a result of immaturity on the part of many adults. I wish to dialogue with all of you, and I would like to do so through the historical memory of your people.
My visit takes place at a time when men and women of good will are marking the anniversaries of several great Americans. The complexities of history and the reality of human weakness notwithstanding, these men and women, for all their many differences and limitations, were able by hard work and self-sacrifice – some at the cost of their lives – to build a better future. They shaped fundamental values which will endure forever in the spirit of the American people. A people with this spirit can live through many crises, tensions and conflicts, while always finding the resources to move forward, and to do so with dignity. These men and women offer us a way of seeing and interpreting reality. In honoring their memory, we are inspired, even amid conflicts, and in the here and now of each day, to draw upon our deepest cultural reserves.
I would like to mention four of these Americans: Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton.
This year marks the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, the guardian of liberty, who labored tirelessly that “this nation, under God, [might] have a new birth of freedom”. Building a future of freedom requires love of the common good and cooperation in a spirit of subsidiarity and solidarity.
All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation of the world today. Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind. A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms. But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners. The contemporary world, with its open wounds which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization which would divide it into these two camps. We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within. To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place. That is something which you, as a people, reject.
Our response must instead be one of hope and healing, of peace and justice. We are asked to summon the courage and the intelligence to resolve today’s many geopolitical and economic crises. Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are all too apparent. Our efforts must aim at restoring hope, righting wrongs, maintaining commitments, and thus promoting the well-being of individuals and of peoples. We must move forward together, as one, in a renewed spirit of fraternity and solidarity, cooperating generously for the common good.
The challenges facing us today call for a renewal of that spirit of cooperation, which has accomplished so much good throughout the history of the United States. The complexity, the gravity and the urgency of these challenges demand that we pool our resources and talents, and resolve to support one another, with respect for our differences and our convictions of conscience.
In this land, the various religious denominations have greatly contributed to building and strengthening society. It is important that today, as in the past, the voice of faith continue to be heard, for it is a voice of fraternity and love, which tries to bring out the best in each person and in each society. Such cooperation is a powerful resource in the battle to eliminate new global forms of slavery, born of grave injustices which can be overcome only through new policies and new forms of social consensus.
Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, its social life. I do not underestimate the difficulty that this involves, but I encourage you in this effort.
Here too I think of the march which Martin Luther King led from Selma to Montgomery fifty years ago as part of the campaign to fulfill his “dream” of full civil and political rights for African Americans. That dream continues to inspire us all. I am happy that America continues to be, for many, a land of “dreams”. Dreams which lead to action, to participation, to commitment. Dreams which awaken what is deepest and truest in the life of a people.
In recent centuries, millions of people came to this land to pursue their dream of building a future in freedom. We, the people of this continent, are not fearful of foreigners, because most of us were once foreigners. I say this to you as the son of immigrants, knowing that so many of you are also descended from immigrants. Tragically, the rights of those who were here long before us were not always respected. For those peoples and their nations, from the heart of American democracy, I wish to reaffirm my highest esteem and appreciation. Those first contacts were often turbulent and violent, but it is difficult to judge the past by the criteria of the present. Nonetheless, when the stranger in our midst appeals to us, we must not repeat the sins and the errors of the past. We must resolve now to live as nobly and as justly as possible, as we educate new generations not to turn their back on our “neighbors” and everything around us. Building a nation calls us to recognize that we must constantly relate to others, rejecting a mindset of hostility in order to adopt one of reciprocal subsidiarity, in a constant effort to do our best. I am confident that we can do this.
Our world is facing a refugee crisis of a magnitude not seen since the Second World War. This presents us with great challenges and many hard decisions. On this continent, too, thousands of persons are led to travel north in search of a better life for themselves and for their loved ones, in search of greater opportunities. Is this not what we want for our own children? We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation. To respond in a way which is always humane, just and fraternal. We need to avoid a common temptation nowadays: to discard whatever proves troublesome. Let us remember the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Mt 7:12).
This Rule points us in a clear direction. Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated. Let us seek for others the same possibilities which we seek for ourselves. Let us help others to grow, as we would like to be helped ourselves. In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities. The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us. The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.
This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty. I am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes. Recently my brother bishops here in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of the death penalty. Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement to all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation.
In these times when social concerns are so important, I cannot fail to mention the Servant of God Dorothy Day, who founded the Catholic Worker Movement. Her social activism, her passion for justice and for the cause of the oppressed, were inspired by the Gospel, her faith, and the example of the saints.
How much progress has been made in this area in so many parts of the world! How much has been done in these first years of the third millennium to raise people out of extreme poverty! I know that you share my conviction that much more still needs to be done, and that in times of crisis and economic hardship a spirit of global solidarity must not be lost. At the same time I would encourage you to keep in mind all those people around us who are trapped in a cycle of poverty. They too need to be given hope. The fight against poverty and hunger must be fought constantly and on many fronts, especially in its causes. I know that many Americans today, as in the past, are working to deal with this problem.
It goes without saying that part of this great effort is the creation and distribution of wealth. The right use of natural resources, the proper application of technology and the harnessing of the spirit of enterprise are essential elements of an economy which seeks to be modern, inclusive and sustainable. “Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving the world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the area in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good” (Laudato Si’, 129). This common good also includes the earth, a central theme of the encyclical which I recently wrote in order to “enter into dialogue with all people about our common home” (ibid., 3). “We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all” (ibid., 14).
In Laudato Si’, I call for a courageous and responsible effort to “redirect our steps” (ibid., 61), and to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity. I am convinced that we can make a difference and I have no doubt that the United States – and this Congress – have an important role to play. Now is the time for courageous actions and strategies, aimed at implementing a “culture of care” (ibid., 231) and “an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature” (ibid., 139). “We have the freedom needed to limit and direct technology” (ibid., 112); “to devise intelligent ways of… developing and limiting our power” (ibid., 78); and to put technology “at the service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral” (ibid., 112). In this regard, I am confident that America’s outstanding academic and research institutions can make a vital contribution in the years ahead.  [QUERY:  wouldn't the system warned of in Revelation 13 fill the bill here?]
A century ago, at the beginning of the Great War, which Pope Benedict XV termed a “pointless slaughter”, another notable American was born: the Cistercian monk Thomas Merton. He remains a source of spiritual inspiration and a guide for many people. In his autobiography he wrote: “I came into the world. Free by nature, in the image of God, I was nevertheless the prisoner of my own violence and my own selfishness, in the image of the world into which I was born. That world was the picture of Hell, full of men like myself, loving God, and yet hating him; born to love him, living instead in fear of hopeless self-contradictory hungers”. Merton was above all a man of prayer, a thinker who challenged the certitudes of his time and opened new horizons for souls and for the Church. He was also a man of dialogue, a promoter of peace between peoples and religions.  [Doesn't Pope Francis know that Thomas Merton was in effect 'canonized a long time ago -- by the Theosophists and their fellow travelers, including but not limited to Matthew Fox's crowd and Lucis Trust?  Merton was one of Matthew Fox's early mentors!]
From this perspective of dialogue, I would like to recognize the efforts made in recent months to help overcome historic differences linked to painful episodes of the past. It is my duty to build bridges and to help all men and women, in any way possible, to do the same. When countries which have been at odds resume the path of dialogue – a dialogue which may have been interrupted for the most legitimate of reasons – new opportunities open up for all. This has required, and requires, courage and daring, which is not the same as irresponsibility. A good political leader is one who, with the interests of all in mind, seizes the moment in a spirit of openness and pragmatism. A good political leader always opts to initiate processes rather than possessing spaces (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 222-223).
Being at the service of dialogue and peace also means being truly determined to minimize and, in the long term, to end the many armed conflicts throughout our world. Here we have to ask ourselves: Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society? Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood. In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade.
Three sons and a daughter of this land, four individuals and four dreams: Lincoln, liberty; Martin Luther King, liberty in plurality and non-exclusion; Dorothy Day, social justice and the rights of persons; and Thomas Merton, the capacity for dialogue and openness to God.
Four representatives of the American people.
I will end my visit to your country in Philadelphia, where I will take part in the World Meeting of Families. It is my wish that throughout my visit the family should be a recurrent theme. How essential the family has been to the building of this country! And how worthy it remains of our support and encouragement! Yet I cannot hide my concern for the family, which is threatened, perhaps as never before, from within and without. Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family. I can only reiterate the importance and, above all, the richness and the beauty of family life.
In particular, I would like to call attention to those family members who are the most vulnerable, the young. For many of them, a future filled with countless possibilities beckons, yet so many others seem disoriented and aimless, trapped in a hopeless maze of violence, abuse and despair. Their problems are our problems. We cannot avoid them. We need to face them together, to talk about them and to seek effective solutions rather than getting bogged down in discussions. At the risk of oversimplifying, we might say that we live in a culture which pressures young people not to start a family, because they lack possibilities for the future. Yet this same culture presents others with so many options that they too are dissuaded from starting a family.
A nation can be considered great when it defends liberty as Lincoln did, when it fosters a culture which enables people to “dream” of full rights for all their brothers and sisters, as Martin Luther King sought to do; when it strives for justice and the cause of the oppressed, as Dorothy Day did by her tireless work, the fruit of a faith which becomes dialogue and sows peace in the contemplative style of Thomas Merton.
In these remarks I have sought to present some of the richness of your cultural heritage, of the spirit of the American people. It is my desire that this spirit continue to develop and grow, so that as many young people as possible can inherit and dwell in a land which has inspired so many people to dream.

God bless America!

555 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 555   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

"Isaiah Ch 17 and Psalm 83 are not far away at all."

In the works.

The middle east quartet is back in the news. We know who once headed that up.
I wonder if he'll get some phone calls asking for his advice from Ms Mogherini.

Anonymous said...

I would like to add this as a postscript to the link I provided yesterday regarding the crucifixion of Jesus on the cross...

"From God’s perspective, Jesus did exactly what he was supposed to.

He was never meant to lead a political rebellion against the Romans. He expressly told the Roman governor, 'My kingdom is not of this world' (John 18:36).

Instead, he fulfilled God’s plan precisely by dying on the cross."

http://www.catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-pope-francis-really-say-jesus-was-a-failure

Anonymous said...

Marko and Susanna,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about Russia. With respect to the following:

"The 9/11 Truthers, etc, have been brainwashed by Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley (a LaRouchite!) and others, and their "narrative" is being used to further the strategic goals of Russia. According to that narrative, Russia = Good and America = Bad....."

I've noticed that many conservative Christians, such as Shoebat and Buchanan, are saying favourable things about Putin. These people appear to be genuine social conservatives and not RINOs. Growing up I sometimes heard the term "Godless communism," a reference that I believe harkens back to the era of Senator McCarthy. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Godless communism seems to have migrated from Russia to the United States, Canada, and Western Europe, sweeping over these countries via a cultural conquest (as opposed to a military one). If this was the Marxist plan all along, to conquer the formerly Judeo-Christian West by stealth, and if Putin is NOT actually a great defender of Western civilization (and we are only speculating here; as Susanna rightly points out, we cannot see into the heart of another, including Putin), then wouldn't he and the leftists who are transforming America in fact be ALLIES working toward the SAME goal - world Communism - regardless of how they look on the surface to be foils? As I read somewhere the other day, what we used to call "Marxists" are today referred to as "liberals."

I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around the how the Russia = Good and America = Bad meme fits into this picture I have sketched out, and would appreciate your thoughts on same.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 2:07 PM:

Re: "The 9/11 Truthers have been brainwashed"


Yet, for the past 14 years, no one has been able to explain how WTC Building #7 (which was not hit by any plane) fell down.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/160546

Nazi background to Palestinianism. of course jihadi islam existed pre Nazi, but it was ramped up first by British intelligence and then by the Nazis.

Marko said...

Anon. 2:07....

Quoting...

"If this was the Marxist plan all along, to conquer the formerly Judeo-Christian West by stealth, and if Putin is NOT actually a great defender of Western civilization (and we are only speculating here; as Susanna rightly points out, we cannot see into the heart of another, including Putin), then wouldn't he and the leftists who are transforming America in fact be ALLIES working toward the SAME goal - world Communism - regardless of how they look on the surface to be foils?"

Yes, they are allies. Unwitting allies, for the most part, or fellow travelers, or useful idiots, or whatever name you want to give them depending on your current disposition. :^)

The America = Bad and Russia = Good meme is a perception that Russia wants the world to see as reality by its propaganda efforts. It is not reality, not yet anyway. As I've stated before, there is not the moral equivalence between Russia and the United States that many would like to say exists. We help people the world over - and sacrificially. Russia does not. That is just one example. That Russia has infiltrators in the US and liberals and other fellow travelers that make up an increasing percent of the US population still does not make us true allies in the spread of World Communism. They do so by intent, we do so to the extent we have been compromised and penetrated, but our national character is still "American" in the sense of that word that carries with it all that was GOOD about America. Although sadly, it is becoming less and less so. The work of Communism in its attack on our culture that was begun a century ago has progressed well. I am actually surprised that we have not totally collapsed by now, but there is a lot of "cultural inertia" in what was good about the US that is still there.

I hope that makes sense, and I hope I understood what you were asking.

Nyquist has written a very good article investigating the whole "Is Putin a Christian Leader?" question and answers the question better than I have. Go to his webpage, jrnyquist.com, and search for the text "When Conservatives Go Wrong". It is the title of an article he wrote in response to one Pat Buchanan wrote last year that got quite a bit of attention called "Is God Now On Russia's Side?"

Nyquist tells it like he sees it, and many might think he is being too hard on conservatives in what he says, but I'll leave that to you to decide. Every one of his charges against Buchanan is backed up by lots of time and research by himself and others. It is their hard research that gives me reason to think they are correct in their assessment of Russia and where things are going.

You might find lots of other interesting things on his page as well! I encourage anyone who is interested in how I've come to the conclusions I have regarding Russia to spend some time there.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 2:07 P.M.

Re: If this was the Marxist plan all along, to conquer the formerly Judeo-Christian West by stealth, and if Putin is NOT actually a great defender of Western civilization (and we are only speculating here; as Susanna rightly points out, we cannot see into the heart of another, including Putin), then wouldn't he and the leftists who are transforming America in fact be ALLIES working toward the SAME goal - world Communism - regardless of how they look on the surface to be foils?

The Soviet strategy of conquering the Judeo-Christian West by stealth was spelled out for all who would listen by Soviet KGB defector Anatolij Golytsin and others, in his books NEW LIES FOR OLD and THE PERESTROIKA DECEPTION.

Here is a stunning article from American Thinker which lays out some of Golytsin's predictions - 94% of which were accurate.

DID COMMUNISM FAKE ITS OWN DEATH IN 1991?
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/01/did_communism_fake_its_own_dea.html
__________________________________________________________

The article ends by mentioning the work of Jeff Nyquist, who, like me and my fellow Russia watcher Marko, has been watching Russia like a hawk:

Jeff Nyquist, an independent writer and the author of the worst-selling book Origins of the Fourth World War, seems to be the only Western journalist who not only noticed but paid much attention to Golitsyn. Nyquist has written hundreds of articles discussing both Golitsyn's thesis and the slow moral and economic decay of America. Nyquist and Golitsyn both dedicated books to J.J. Angleton, who in 1954 founded the CIA's counterintelligence division.

The present moral and economic bankruptcy emanating from Washington, D.C. and plaguing America portends something far more dangerous than the unintended consequences of electing so many ideological flunkies with bad educations and misguided ideals. The purpose of warfare is not to kill and maim your enemy; it is his social, economic, political, and religious reorientation. Somewhere Sun Tzu is smiling, and it isn't at America.......


http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/01/did_communism_fake_its_own_dea.html
_________________________________________________________

While anti-Communist Senator Joseph McCarthy was excoriated - probably by American communists - for spearheading a "witch hunt" against covert communists here in the United States, it was actually the U.S. House of Representatives which conducted an investigation into suspected communist infiltration of the United States government and cultural institutions vis a vis the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) ......with "un-American" defined as "the attempt to bring about change through unconstitutional means."

A branch of this committee was the Reece Committee whose purpose it was to investigate tax exempt foundations suspected of using their tax exempt status to promote communism. Among the suspect tax exempt foundations was the Carnegie Foundation which eventually gained enormous influence over our education system, the Ford Foundation for whom Barack Obama's mother worked promoting microfinance in Indonesia and the Rockefeller Foundation.

The Director of Research for the Reece Committee was Norman Dodd. And although I have posted the video of the 1982 Norman Dodd interview by G. Edward Griffin several times already, I will post it again here so it can be seen in the context of a possible Marxist plan to conquer by stealth the formerly Judeo-Christian West.

In the video, Mr. Dodd states unequivocally that there was a plan underway on the part of the tax exempt foundations and their colleagues to merge the United States and the Soviet Union.

Norman Dodd On Tax Exempt Foundations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM
__________________________________________________________________

cont.....

Susanna said...

cont...

Now the idea of conquering the Judeo-Christian West by stealth seems to have had its origins in the writings of Italian communist Antonio Gramsci who was the inspiration behind the "Frankfurt School" from which emerged "cultural Marxism."

According to Gramsci's thinking, since it was unlikely that socialism/communism could ever be successfully imposed on the West by way of violent revolution, he proposed a different strategy which involved a long slow march through Western culture.

After the Gramsci-inspired Frankfurt School left Germany during the Nazi years, they set up shop at Columbia University in New York City.

ANTONIO GRAMSCI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci
___________________________________________________

HEGEMONY

Hegemony (UK /hɨˈɡɛməni/ or /ˈhɨdʒɛməni/, US /hɨˈdʒɛməni/ or /ˈhɨdʒɛmoʊni/; Greek: ἡγεμονία hēgemonía, "leadership, rule") is the political, economic, or military predominance or control of one state over others. In Ancient Greece (8th century BCE – 6th century CE), hegemony denoted the politico–military dominance of a city-state over other city-states. The dominant state is known as the hegemon.

The Marxist theory of cultural hegemony, associated particularly with Antonio Gramsci, is the idea that the ruling class can manipulate the value system and mores of a society, so that their view becomes the world view (Weltanschauung): in Terry Eagleton's words, "Gramsci normally uses the word hegemony to mean the ways in which a governing power wins consent to its rule from those it subjugates". In contrast to authoritarian rule, cultural hegemony "is hegemonic only if those affected by it also consent to and struggle over its common sense".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony
___________________________________________________

According to the late Russian KGB/SVR (foreign intelligence) officer Sergei Tretyakov ( a.k.a. "Comrade J" ), who defected to the United States in the year
2000, since the "fall" of communism in the former Soviet Union, the chief enemies of Russia ( now called "targets") are the same as in the former Soviet Union....the United States NATO, and China.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States and Russia entered into what was supposed to be a new era of cooperation. The Cold War was behind us. We could become friends. Many in the U.S. believe today the old Spy-versus-Spy days are finished. The September 11 terrorist attacks shifted the American public's attention away from Russia toward international terrorism, especially Islamic fanaticism. Russia was suddenly, and is today viewed as, an ally, even a friend of the U.S.

In speaking out, I hope to expose how naive this is. During the Cold War, in the Soviet military doctrine there was the definition of the MAIN ENEMY, which was also used by intelligence as a basic guiding principle. It was the United States, followed by NATO and China. What is the official guiding line for the modern SVR today? The terms have changed. It is now called the MAIN TARGET. But it is exactly the same: the United States, followed by NATO and China. Nothing has changed. Russia is doing everything it can today to embarrass the U.S. Let me repeat this. Russia is doing everything it can today to undermine and embarrass the U.S. The SVR rezidenturas in the U.S. are not less, but in some aspects even more active
today than during the Cold War. What should that tell you ?


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18476273
________________________________________________________________

One more thing. The Russian Orthodox Church is seeking hegemony over all of Orthodoxy. Several years ago, Greek Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew II sent a letter to the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate in which he criticized him for peddling the myth according to which Moscow is destined to become "the Third Rome."

Anonymous said...

October 1, 2015

The latest school shooting 'du jour' (41 so far this year!!!) at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon has a website that outlines the fact that the campus was a GUN FREE ZONE where even water pistols were banned.

CBS Seattle reports: “Joe Olson, former president of the college, told The Associated Press the school has only ONE SECURITY OFFICER ON DUTY at a time, and that person ISN'T ARMED.”

This means that innumerable responsible people on campus who COULD HAVE STOPPED the shooter before he was able to carry out his rampage were PROHIBITED from doing so.

In other words, everyone involved was a law abiding citizen . . . EXCEPT the shooter!!!

Meanwhile, President Obama at this evening's news conference no longer seems to care just how TRANSPARENT he sounds with his GUN CONTROL AGENDA . . . when he states that 'thoughts and prayers are not enough.'

Yeah ~ I'm sure that if every American handed over their guns tomorrow, that all murders would stop. Uh huh . . .

Constance Cumbey said...

My condolences to the many friends I made when I spoke in the Roseburg, Oregon area in April 2014. I spent 9 days in that lovely town.

Come quickly Lord Jesus!

Constance

Anonymous said...

Susanna, you wrote: According to Gramsci's thinking, since it was unlikely that socialism/communism could ever be successfully imposed on the West by way of violent revolution, he proposed a different strategy...

This phrase is a little misleading, for socialists never sought violent revolution. Socialism and communism have identical (and deplorable) ends, but have different means of reaching them: communism by violent revolution, socialism by the ballot box and the numerical preponderance of the working class. The working class in the West were not fooled, however, or at least not enough of them; hence the different strategy of wrecking Western education.

I also believe you are inaccurate in looking to Gramsci as the inspiration for that strategy. Gramsci believed that bad education would perpetuate the poor position of the working classes, in fact. Another educational theorist of the Left, Paolo Freire, favored the new teaching methodology, although I do not know whether Freire really believed it offered a better education or whether he knew it was trash and wanted to use it to trash the West. What I do know is that Gramsci disagreed with Freire. For details, see the early paragraphs of E.D. Hirsch's justly famous essay from 20 years ago, Reality's revenge: Research and ideology:

http://home.gwu.edu/~pryder/English11_S02/Hirsch--on%20Grasci%20&%20Friere.htm

Anonymous said...

"for the past 14 years, no one has been able to explain how WTC Building #7 (which was not hit by any plane) fell down."

Not true, Anon@3.02pm! It fell for three reasons: (1) it had been heavily bombed by hundreds of tons of debris from the collapse of one of the twin towers; (2) an uncontrolled fire then raged in it for many hours; (3) it had a unique design, being effectively hung on two concrete uprights because of the infrastructure on top of which it was built. You would not normally construct such a building like that, and it was perfectly safe for regular use but not in the circumstances in which it met its end.

Anonymous said...

In the last few days an Italian journalist called Maurizio Blondet has alleged that the international banking system forced Benedict XVI's resignation by kicking the Vatican out from
its SWIFT system (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), effectively freezing its assets. Blondet claims that the excommunication was lifted as soon as Ratzinger resigned. I have no idea if this is true but it would not be covered by the mainstream media in any case, and it is absolutely relevant to Constance's piece that kicked off this thread. I hope that the claim can be reliably checked.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Christine, I've seen and heard that video too and the phrase "pull it" is used in conversation between a senior firefighter and the building's owner. It is very clear from the conversation that what is meant is "pull [ie remove from the vicinity] the firefighters", for their own safety, as they realised that the building was in danger of collapse.

As well as that context - upon which nobody should comment without hearing the conversation - it is not plausible that the firefighters would be in on any conspiracy that involved the owner to demolish his own building.

As for explosions, by which you mean sudden sharp bangs during the collapse of the buildings on 9/11, how can these be reliably imputed to explosive charges in a timescale of a few cataclysmic seconds during which when air pressure is building up and being explosively released and when giant loadbearing members are suddenly broken?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

WTC7 owner Larry Silverstein used the phrase "pull it" in a 2002 documentary "America Rebuilds". Whether or not the documentary makers interviewed Silverstein for the documentary or merely found footage of him, Silverstein was talking retrospectively, not in real time; see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq-0JIR38V0

If Silverstein planned to demolish his own building, the idea that he would reveal it in an interview is wholly implausible. He could be charged with endangering firemen's lives, wasting firefighting resources when they were badly needed elsewhere,and defrauding insurance companies. Here are his words:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse.

I don't believe there was a conspiracy - look at Muslim hatred of the USA - but even if so then this is not evidence for it.

Marko said...

My apologies for opening the "9/11 Truthers" can of worms here.

I'll just post a link to a couple of good articles by Cliff Kincaid on the topic, and let it rest.

Here are Cliff's articles:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff832.htm

http://www.aim.org/aim-report/agents-provocateurs-and-the-tea-parties/



paul said...

In order to "pull it" there had to be explosives (thermite) already in place, and very strategically placed. It's a process that would have taken weeks.
The 9/11 Truthers say that there was a painting crew coming and going in all three buildings for at least a month before 9/11.
Thermite can be painted onto any surface, and it burns a hell of a lot hotter than anything else.
9/11 Truthers also point out that those buildings were insured by Loyyds of London and that their heating pipes were all lined with asbestos, which was still common practice in the early sixties when they were built. Ababatement of such would have been extremely expensive and time consuming. It may be a case of killing more like three birds with one stone.
I'm just regurgitating what I've heard, of course, but I will say I believe it.
Loyyds of London is the richest of them all. Check out their website.

paul said...

Sorry that's spelled Lloyds of London

Marko said...

Might as well post a link to a Nyquist article on the 9/11 Truth movement as well:

http://www.jrnyquist.com/Right_Wing_Bolshevism_2.html

Anonymous said...

Thermite isn't an explosive, Paul. It burns hot and quite rapidly but it doesn't go bang and there wold not be time in the few seconds in which the buildings collapsed for a widely distributed amount of thermite to burn.

Anonymous said...

Best article yet on Ratzinger's resignation:

https://harvestingthefruit.com/money-sex-and-modernism/

It's responsible enough to point to actions and coincidences of timing rather than prematurely draw conclusions.

Anonymous said...

"I don't believe there was a conspiracy - look at Muslim hatred of the USA - but even if so then this is not evidence for it.

6:56 AM"


Why do so many want to rush to judge this and trample all over and right past the most glaring fact of it all to begin with?

The Truth is, as usual, the biggest casualty of all with the "conspiracy 'round every corner" crowd getting the floor. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and there are certain ones who never seem to quit squeaking...

Anonymous said...

"Why do so many want to rush to judge this and trample all over and right past the most glaring fact of it all to begin with?"

Rush to judge? It's more than a decade since 9/11 and the Islamic view of the USA is obvious. What fact is glaringly obvious to you but not to others?

Susanna said...

Anonymous 5:03

RE: This phrase is a little misleading, for socialists never sought violent revolution. Socialism and communism have identical (and deplorable) ends, but have different means of reaching them: communism by violent revolution, socialism by the ballot box and the numerical preponderance of the working class.

I stand by what I wrote. With all due resect, saying that socialists "never
sought violent revolution" is what is misleading since it was Vladimir Lenin himself who once said "The goal of socialism is communism." And revolutionary communism does in fact advocate violent revolution. Communism is not an ideology in which one believes. Rather, it is a criminal conspiracy in which one enlists. Moreover, Gramsci was not a socialist, he was an Italian communist and leader of the Communist Party of Italy who died in prison.

In Aldous Huxley's classic study of modern totalitarianism, Brave New World, there is a line which epitomizes the concept that Gramsci tried to convey to his party comrades: "A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/15545-gramscis-grand-plan
____________________________________________________

If the goal of socialism is communism, then the idea that socialists never sought violent revolution is part of the euphemism-laden Marxist disinformation strategy - one that would have likely met with Gramsci's approval.

Gramsci's own signal contribution to Marxism was to liberate the Marxist objectives from its prison of economic dogma, thereby dramatically enhancing its ability to subvert Christian society.

In this context, you might want to read

Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage by historian Paul Kengor.

http://www.amazon.com/Takedown-Communists-Progressives-Sabotaged-Marriage/dp/1942475101
__________________________________________

Notice how I used the word "context." Marxists just love the word "context." It is especially useful when in the presence of an indisputable fact. By using the word "context," Marxists don't have to outright deny a fact. All they have to do is to consider/explain it in whatever "context" best serves the cause of socialism.

It is redolent of "who are you going to believe....me or them lyin' eyes of yours???"

Susanna said...

cont...

Another one of the key words to be found in socialist Marx-speak is the word "peace." Grievance-mongering socialists in our own country like to yap about "peace" while covertly exploiting class conflicts and even creating conflicts where none exist ( called "agitation" ) in true Alinsky style so that they can appear to "come to the rescue" with their Marxist "solutions" which are not always necessarily "peaceful" and "non-violent."

The not-so-peaceful activities of "Occupy Wall Street" are but one example.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/282993/occupy-wall-street-blotter-nathaniel-botwinick
________________________________________________________

Re: I also believe you are inaccurate in looking to Gramsci as the inspiration for that strategy. Gramsci believed that bad education would perpetuate the poor position of the working classes, in fact.

"Bad education???" As defined by whom??? An entity like the "progressive" (a.k.a. socialist) National Education Association???

Please!

For socialists, "truth" is whatever serves the cause of world socialism, so if, by a "good education," is meant the type of indoctrination (not education) into the moral relativism and mendacious historical revisionism we are seeing today in the American public education system, both in high school and in colleges like Barack Obama's alma mater, Columbia University, home of the transplanted Frankfurt School, whose "grandfather" was Gramsci, then I strongly beg to differ. This is the kind of so-called "education" which has allegedly been financed by the tax exempt foundations - especially the Carnegie Foundation according to the late Norman Dodd.

Susanna said...



THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL AND ANTONIO GRAMSCI: THEORETICAL CONCERNS IN THE PRACTICE OF CULTURAL CRITICISM AND THEIR "MEANS" TO PRODUCING A NEO-MARXIAN APPROACH

[PDF]
the frankfurt school and antonio gramsci - Open ...

openaccess.bilgi.edu.tr:8080/.../ The%20Frankfurt%20School%20and%20Antonio%20Gra...
___________________________________________________________


Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century Hardcover – September 10, 2010

by Paul Kengor

http://www.amazon.com/Dupes-Americas-Adversaries-Manipulated-Progressives/dp/1935191756

Susanna said...

THE NEW TOTALITARIANS


.... William S. Lind relates that 'cultural Marxism' is an ideology with deep roots. It did not begin with the counter-culture revolution in the mid-1960s. Its roots go back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. These roots, over time, spread to the writings of Herbert Marcuse.

Herbert Marcuse was one of the most prominent Frankfurt School promoters of Critical Theory's social revolution among college and university students in the 1960s. It is instructive to review what he has written on the subject:

"One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the

whole cultural establishment, including the morality of existing society ...

there is one thing we can say with complete assurance. The traditional idea of revolution

and the traditional strategy of revolution have ended. These ideas are old-fashioned ...

what we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system."

This sentiment was first expressed by the early 20th century Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci.

Gramsci, a young communist who died in one of Mussolini's prisons in 1937 at the age of 46, conjured up the notion of a 'quiet' revolution that could be diffused throughout a culture -- over a period of time -- to destroy it from within. He was the first to suggest that the application of psychology to break the traditions, beliefs, morals, and will of a people could be accomplished quietly and without the possibility of resistance. He deduced that "The civilized world had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2,000 years..." and a culture based on this religion could only be captured from within.

Gramsci insisted that alliances with non-Communist leftist groups would be essential to Communist victory. In our time, these would include radical feminist groups, extremist environmental organizations, so-called civil rights movements, anti-police associations, internationalist-minded groups, liberal church denominations, and others. Working together, these groups could create a united front working for the destructive transformation of the old Judeo-Christian culture of the West.


cont...

Susanna said...

cont...

..... By winning 'cultural hegemony,' Gramsci pointed out that they could control the deepest wellsprings of human thought -- through the medium of mass psychology. Indeed, men could be made to 'love their servitude.' In terms of the gospel of the Frankfurt School, resistance to 'cultural Marxism' could be completely negated by placing the resister in a psychic 'iron cage.' The tools of mass psychology could be applied to produce this result.

The essential nature of Antonio Gramsci's revolutionary strategy is reflected in a 1990s book by the American Boomer author, Charles A. Reich, 'The Greening of America.' "There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual and the culture, and it will change the political structure as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence. This is the revolution of the New Generation." Of course this New Generation would be Reich's elite Boomer generation. And the mantra for these New Age 'foot soldiers' of the Frankfurt School prophets, would be 'have the courage to change.'

The Frankfurt School theorized that the 'authoritarian personality' is a product of the patriarchal family. This idea is in turn directly connected to Frederich Engels' 'The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State,' which promotes matriarchy. Furthermore, it was Karl Marx who wrote about the radical notion of a 'community of women' in the Communist manifesto. And it was Karl Marx who wrote disparagingly about the idea that the family was the basic unit of society in 'The German Ideology' of 1845.

'The Authoritarian personality,' studied by the Frankfurt School in the 1940s and 1950s in America, prepared the way for the subsequent warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Herbert Marcuse and his band of social revolutionaries under the guise of 'women's liberation' and the New Left movement in the 1960s. The evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality is intended to mean emasculation of the American male is provided by Abraham Maslow, founder of Third Force Humanist Psychology and a promoter of the psychotherapeutic classroom, who wrote that, '...the next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to general humanness.' The Marxist revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded in accomplishing much of their agenda.......


http://www.newtotalitarians.com/index_files/FrankfurtSchool.htm

Anonymous said...

Dear Susanna, you originally wrote: According to Gramsci's thinking, since it was unlikely that socialism/communism could ever be successfully imposed on the West by way of violent revolution, he proposed a different strategy..., to which I replied:

This phrase is a little misleading, for socialists never sought violent revolution. Socialism and communism have identical (and deplorable) ends, but have different means of reaching them: communism by violent revolution, socialism by the ballot box and the numerical preponderance of the working class. The working class in the West were not fooled, however, or at least not enough of them; hence the different strategy of wrecking Western education.

You have responded: "With all due res[p]ect, saying that socialists "never sought violent revolution" is what is misleading since it was Vladimir Lenin himself who once said "The goal of socialism is communism." And revolutionary communism does in fact advocate violent revolution."

I agree with your last sentence; I said the same, in fact. And I agree with Lenin's quote; as "goal" and "end" are identical I said that too. This is all about definition; perhaps you are using "socialism" in an inclusive sense to include communism, whereas I am using it in an exclusive sense - EITHER socialism OR communism to reach the same goals.

Let me assure you that I am against those goals and therefore against any way of reaching them.

Re Gramsci, what you have done is back up your previously stated position with a reference. You haven't engaged with my comment that he differentiated himself from Freire and that Gramsci, in contrast, believed in solid traditional teaching methods as the best way to empower the working class, even in non-socialist/communist countries. I gave a reference to an essay by E.D. Hirsch which contains a sourced verbatim quote of Gramsci to that effect. How do you explain that, please?

Anonymous said...

"Rush to judge? It's more than a decade since 9/11 and the Islamic view of the USA is obvious. What fact is glaringly obvious to you but not to others?

11:59 AM"

Every kind of conspiracy there is came out within no time after 9/11.
Surely you know that.
Judgment has come upon America (and the world at large) and the Bible was telling us all along who and why. When, how, and what that looks like in detail are becoming much more apparent now.

What is obvious is how people have overlooked the biblical worldview and create their own version but only God can and has called it.

Anonymous said...

The 9/11 event can be an inside job, and still be God's judgement. The corruption that has/is bringing God's judgement is rot from the inside out, that has also greatly corrupted the rest of this world.

Architects + Engineers for 9/11 Truth

www.ge.911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html

also

wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2007/01/billiard-balls-and-momentum.html

Marko said...

Anon. 2:23....

Did you read any of the articles I posted links to about the 9//11 truth movement? Two by Cliff Kincaid, and one by Jeff Nyquist. I'd like to hear your opinion of what they have to say, and if you're real brave, please respond to a couple of their (and by extension, since I agree with them, my) objections to 9/11 conspiracy theories that say we did that to ourselves.

I've read some of the 9/11 Truther stuff, but to be honest, there are many other items on my reading list that get higher priority.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 12:54

RE: I agree with your last sentence; I said the same, in fact. And I agree with Lenin's quote; as "goal" and "end" are identical I said that too. This is all about definition; perhaps you are using "socialism" in an inclusive sense to include communism, whereas I am using it in an exclusive sense - EITHER socialism OR communism to reach the same goals.

I am using "socialism" in an inclusive sense and do not accept the "EITHER socialism OR communism" proposition since I believe that socialism is merely "communism lite." In general, I look upon the "EITHER/OR" proposition as delusional at best and disingenuous at worst. I see it as one "seamless collectivist statist garment"- differing perhaps in degree but ultimately not in kind.

***************************************************************

RE: Re: Gramsci, what you have done is back up your previously stated position with a reference. You haven't engaged with my comment that he differentiated himself from Freire and that Gramsci, in contrast, believed in solid traditional teaching methods as the best way to empower the working class, even in non-socialist/communist countries. I gave a reference to an essay by E.D. Hirsch which contains a sourced verbatim quote of Gramsci to that effect. How do you explain that, please?

I explain it by pointing out that Hirsch, who is for Common Core and is on the advisory board for the Common Core Standards, has argued incredibly enough that Antonio Gramsci, the Marxist revolutionary, would advocate for the Common Core standards in schools.

The following article roundly criticises Hirsch for making such a bizarre claim. Therefore, whether through ignorance or malice, if Hirsch is being untruthful about "Gramscian approval" of Common Core, why should I believe that he is being truthful in the article you posted - albeit, perhaps, unwittingly?

HIRSCH AND GRAMSCI: AN ODD COUPLE
Hirsch argues Antonio Gramsci, the Marxist revolutionary, would advocate for the Common Core standards in schools.


........E.D. Hirsch is a well known education academic. He is a former professor at the University of Virginia and is currently on the advisory board for the Common Core Standards. His books, What Your [insert grade] Needs to Know have promoted canonical approaches to learning. Curriculum theorist Michael Apple describes Hirsch in Educating the "Right" Way as arguing that "only by tightening control over curriculum and teaching (and students, of course), restoring our 'lost' traditions, making education more disciplined and competitive as they are certain it was in the past – only then can we have effective schools" (57). (For more on Hirsch and his views, read this synopsis of his views from The Guardian). Such views make Hirsch's recent blog post imagining Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci as a likely supporter of Common Core standards and "fact"-based education a little more than bizarre. Here is Hirsch, by all accounts a cultural (if not political) conservative, making a communist revolutionary the standard bearer for national standards in education? How is such a juxtaposition possible?

The short answer is that Hirsch’s representation of Gramsci is absurdly devoid of historical and political context. Don’t listen to him.


cont.

Susanna said...

cont.

The longer answer is that Hirsch is probably being disingenuous. Gramsci, as a Marxist and advocate for revolution against capitalism, would be diametrically opposed to something like Common Core standards. For Gramsci, Common Core would represent one element of a larger capitalist ideology designed to maintain unequal social and prevent communist revolution. This is because capitalism, for Gramsci, is not merely about exploitative economic relations, but is also about the production and sustaining of a false consciousness that convinces the working class to toil in exploitative relations with the capitalist. This includes the production of what gets to count as "facts" in schools...........

http://edreformanon.blogspot.com/2013/03/hirsch-and-gramsci-ed-odd-couple.html

___________________________________________________________________________________

Dialectically speaking, the bigger question is if Hirsch is really a capitalist, and not a covert socialist trying to "transform" Common Core, ( in which case Gramsci just MIGHT approve of Hirsch's Common Core) why would he even think of citing Gramsci to begin with? If Hirsch is not being delusional or disingenuous, then perhaps he is the one who needs to go back and study history!

It does not appear, moreover, that Gramsci disagrees with Friere.

In the Harvard Educational Review of the book entitled GRAMSCI, FRIERE, AND ADULT EDUCATION: Possibilities for Transformative Action ( (Global Perspectives on Adult Education and Training) By Peter Mayo London: Zed Books, 1999, Mayo is described as showing that their work is complementary.


http://www.amazon.com/Gramsci-Freire-Adult-Education-Transformative/dp/1856496147

http://hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-71-issue-2/herbooknote/gramsci,-freire,-and-adult-education_107

Anonymous said...

Dear Susanna

You replied to me: "I am using "socialism" in an inclusive sense and do not accept the "EITHER socialism OR communism" proposition since I believe that socialism is merely "communism lite." "

As we agree, they have the same goals. And, as we agree, those goals are deplorable. But I cannot agree that there is no significant difference between (a) seeking those goals via the democratic means of the ballot box and (b) seeking them by bloody revolution.

Re Gramsci etc, you concentrate your fire on Hirsch, but I quoted him because he quoted Gramsci, as follows: "The new concept of schooling is in its romantic phase, in which the replacement of "mechanical" by "natural" methods has become unhealthily exaggerated. ... Previously, pupils at least acquired a certain baggage of concrete facts. Now there will no longer be any baggage to put in order.... The most paradoxical aspect of it all is that this new type of school is advocated as being democratic, while, in fact, it is destined not merely to perpetuate social differences but crystalize them in Chinese complexities" (from "Education" by Gramsci).

I have not verified this quote, but supposing it is authentic then "your" Gramsci and "my" Gramsci are at odds. What then?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"Gramsci, as a Marxist and advocate for revolution against capitalism, would be diametrically opposed to something like Common Core standards. For Gramsci, Common Core would represent one element of a larger capitalist ideology designed to maintain unequal social and prevent communist revolution"

somebody in this is forgetting something. the worker in capitalism and communism
is educated for the same thing - industrial work sometimes agricultural work.

frankly all the bad I'm hearing about common core I don't think capitalists or communists in their right minds would support it.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

9:21 Just why should I share my research with one who insults me? Based on the insult it's probably you Christine posting anonymously.

I've had to face the fact that the blog serves posters here very well, those who want to go into detail on topics that may be connected with the New Age movement. My information isn't needed.

If there are so many other readers, there should be a huge amount of shared information. We are all very busy.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Constance Cumbey said...

I'm on the air live right now. Join us at TMERadio.com!

Thanks!
Constance

Anonymous said...

Commenting on the radio, about the letter - the "VII" means "Vatican II"

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

The great illusion and deception of 9/11....

Rebekah Roth is a former international flight attendant of nearly 30 years. On her days off, she had also worked as a fire fighter, emergency medical technician and instructor.

Based on her airline experience and training in hijacking situations alone, she knew that there were numerous FAA protocols that were not followed on 9/11. There were too many red flags (both action and behavior) that day that just did not add up, or even make sense. She began searching public records and government documents (many available under the Freedom of Information Act of 1967). In her thousands of hours of research down the rabbit hole, she stumbled across bombshell information... which slowly enabled her to separate fact from fiction.

She has written two books: "The Methodical Illusion" and "The Methodical Deception"... and names the players who took part in possibly the greatest illusion and deception ever perpetrated upon the American people!!! Isn't it time for all of us to finally wake up?

Watch and listen to these videos and decide for yourself.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=91rFpnQcqu4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdP95oSoOFk&feature=player_embedded
(Is this the smoking gun at about the 31 minute mark?)


Where did the planes go?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWYR1uXBPq4&feature=player_embedded

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Constance, what do you think of this?

http://www.ubm1.org/?page=savedfrom

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

looking farther, I think I see some problems with unleavened bread ministries

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

More to consider....

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/31/airline911/


http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?80910-Where-Did-the-Planes-Go--Rebekah-Roth-exposes-another-piece-of-the-9-11-puzzle-

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Marko @ 2:37 P.M.

I was just brave enough to check out your posted links concerning 9/11 truth. I was braced for a good correction, and that I would be humbled by what I found, having to rethink the whole 9/11 event! Well, much to my relief there was nothing earth shattering to be found. It was said basically, that the 9/11 Truther movement is made up of "useful idiots and agents of influence" who basically advance Socialist causes, and provide ammo for Russia to make the good old USA look bad! Is Russia evil, and the USA a good "Christian nation"? Does this reverse the physical evidence that 9/11 was an inside job??????

Please don't offer anything else from your reading list! I can get deeper intellectual insight from Monday Night Football. I'm not trying to be mean. I just can't figure you out sometimes?

Where Marko are you coming from? You rarely tell us what you think. You just raise questions? Do you ever think perhaps much of what goes on in 'this world' is illusion, as well as confusion? That the deepest level of truth is hard to know on a purely intellectual basis, and that we can only perceive what we can by the word of God, and the discernment the Holy Spirit provides? Are you a christian? Are you born again? If so good! What's your testimony? Mine is that I wasn't any good at all, and I'm still not very good at all, but I'm saved, and I love the Lord, and am eternally greatful.

Marko said...

4:01....

"What's your testimony? Mine is that I wasn't any good at all, and I'm still not very good at all, but I'm saved, and I love the Lord, and am eternally greatful."

Same here. I actually was raised in church my whole life, but only in my later adult years did I really understand what commitment to Christ entails. And I'm still learning. Shouldn't we all be? And the more I learn, the more I have to trust in the grace and power of the blood of Jesus that was shed for me. By myself, I'm no good at all.

I often fail to extend the grace and forgiveness that has been shown to me by my Father in heaven in my dealings with others. For example - they say it's hardest to be a Christian when driving... so true! LOL

I am a watchman at heart, one who loves truth, and who despises deception. So when I see someone believing something that I believe has been shown to be incorrect, I feel like I have to present what I think is the correct way of thinking about it. It gets me in trouble, and is actually prideful I guess. So how does a watchman of the Truth try to correct error: (1) without seeming prideful; (2) keeping an attitude of teachability, so if *I'm* the one who is wrong, I will take correction, gracefully; and (3) know when to keep quiet because it doesn't really matter if someone holds a different view on a particular topic, really, at the end of the day?

This is what I struggle with, and I know these faults of mine have been evident here.

How I came to believe politically what I believe, especially in regards to Russia? I guess that will be my next post.

My apologies to any that I have irritated and offended by seeming to be "Mr. Know-it-all".

I know that what goes on in the world is as much spiritual warfare as physical. I know that there are evil people in high places, and I am deeply saddened that the America I started out in ass a child is NOT the America we live in today (especially when considering what's happened in the past, say, 10 years or so). She is no longer a "Shining City on a Hill". But she's still the best country in this wicked, evil world, and unless God tells me differently, I'm staying right here up through to the end. Whether that's MY end, or the end of human history, or the end of Christian West as the last glimmers of what was good and right and just in our Western Civilization are snuffed out by the coming darkness, only God knows.

cont....

Marko said...

...cont

The major themes in "The Lord of the Rings" by Tolkien reflect well how I feel about the times we are in. A darkness looms, and all that is good is in danger of being wiped out by it. There are only a handful of unlikely heroes who are willing to fight against it. Not only are they unlikely, but they don't even see themselves as heroes, because they realize their inadequacy for the task. (Those kind of people make the best heroes - the ones who aren't trying to be one!) There are so many parallels between the story line of LOTR and the Christian walk - that's why it's one of my favorite books.

Someone once shared on a forum a while ago what was their favorite quote from that trilogy, and I close with what she posted:

In the shadow of Mount Doom, Sam and Frodo pass another perilous night in Mordor....

"'Now you go to sleep first, Mr. Frodo,' he said. 'It's getting dark again. I reckon this day is nearly over.' Frodo sighed and was asleep almost before the words were spoken. Sam struggled with his own weariness, and he took Frodo's hand; and there he sat silent till deep night fell. Then, at last to keep himself awake, he crawled from the hiding place and looked out. The land seemed full of creaking and cracking and sly noises, but there was no sound of foot or of voice. Far above the Ephel Duath in the West the night-sky was still dim and pale. There peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, and he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end, the Shadow was only a passing thing: there was light and high beauty forever beyond its reach."
--The Return of the King

Our "light and high beauty" became man to live and die, and live again. He is beyond the reach of the Shadow that looms over us-- but not beyond ours.

"Of those whom You gave Me, I have lost none." (John 18:9)

Susanna said...

Anonymous 5:26 P.M.

I concentrated my fire on Hirsch on account of his association with Common Core which American Thinker has dubbed "Nationalized State-Run Education."

COMMON CORE: NATIONALIZED STATE-RUN EDUCATION

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/04/common_core_nationalized_state-run_education.html
________________________________________________________

I am aware that you did not originate this, but using the title "Education" in the same sentence as the name "Gramsci" is an oxymoron. As a communist, Gramsci was not looking to "educate." He was looking to INDOCTRINATE by hijacking traditional cultural, religious, historical and other legitimate institutions of societies, emptying them of their traditional meaning and content and replacing said traditional meanings with new meanings that conformed with Marxist/communist ideology.

As I said before, Gramsci's ideas preceded the Frankfurt School. The main problem with both is their Marxist background.

CULTURAL MARXISM
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html
____________________________________________________________________

Re: But I cannot agree that there is no significant difference between (a) seeking those goals via the democratic means of the ballot box and (b) seeking them by bloody revolution.


I don't quite understand your disagreement since I have already said that Gramsci developed his theory of "cultural hegemony" after he realized that socialism/communism could not be successfully imposed on the West by means of bloody revolution. So of course Gramsci's means of imposing communism would have to be significantly different if he thought the other more violent means of imposing communism would result in failure.

The difference is with respect to the means but not the end. We do agree that they have the same goals. The Marxist background of those goals, moreover, makes them unacceptable regardless of the means employed to impose them.

Socialism "seeking its goals by means of the democratic ballot box" merely validates what Huxley said about people coming to "love" their slavery. Marxism is slavery. It is ultimately slavery to the state. And slaver is slavery - whether it is implemented by means of a mendacious indoctrination process in the schools with a view to persuading "students" to vote in favor of their own slavery as adults.....or whether it is implemented by means of bloody revolution.

RE: I have not verified this quote, but supposing it is authentic then "your" Gramsci and "my" Gramsci are at odds. What then?

It wouldn't make any difference at all in my opinion of Gramsci as a dedicated communist for whom "the ends justified the means" - whether those "means" happen to involve mendaciously tricking Marxism/communism out in "democratic" garb or violent revolution as in Russia and various other places.

Violent revolution is not a pleasant thing to be sure, but in my opinion, at least it is more honest than the "cultural hegemony" that has led certain governments such as certain sectors of the U.S. government to "call good evil and evil good."

Anonymous said...

Dear Susanna

The two things I would like clarified are:

1). In my quote, Gramsci believed in good education for the working class and that poor education merely perpetuated their status as an underclass; in your quote he advocated undermining the West by wrecking the education system. These two views cannot be reconciled in the mind of someone who held them at the same time, but it is possible that Gramsci changed from the first view to the second. It would be interesting to date the quotes.

2). If "the people" vote for socialism then do we respect their democratic will or do we rise up and enact an ANTI-communist revolution?

Anonymous said...

"Where did the planes go?"

Dear 12.41, everybody knows where the damn planes went. Several thousand people saw two of them go into the towers, quite a few people saw a third hit the Pentagon and a wheel matching either the nose wheel or the main landing gear of such a plane was picked out, while it is simply false that the hole in the Pentagon was smaller than the plane. As for the fourth jet, there was not much wreckage because it power-dived almost vertically into the earth while a fight was taking place in the cockpit. Very few aviation crashes involve an impact of that sort and it is almost totally destructive. When that PanAm flight came down on the village of Lockerbie in Scotland in 1988 in the same way, they were able to verify that the engines and wings had landed in the crater only by counting the jackscrews; that was all that was discernible.

Anonymous said...

"MOST blogs don't have commenters even though the capability to post comments exists. or only few remarks. some have many."

Yes Christine. Why do you think yours is in the former category?

Anonymous said...

NBC's Today Show Live broadcast on September 11, 2001.

Regular programming was interrupted at the 22 minute mark (on Part 1) - followed by Parts 2, 3, 4, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn9EVxueiyc&feature=player_detailpage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyhkp75muoA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueXyt79cOpw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3kWwykNIlI



Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 7:23 pm

It is amazing how so many can be wide awake when it comes to the exposure of all things regarding the New Age Movement, yet still sound asleep regarding 9/11.

Nearly 15 years later, so many people are finally waking up.

He who has eyes to see and ears to hear, etc.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

http://shoebat.com/2015/10/03/the-man-who-murdered-ten-people-in-oregon-was-a-pagan-devil-worshipper-who-reveals-that-there-are-many-people-in-america-who-want-to-murder-christians/

Susanna said...

Dear 7:14 P.M.

Clarifications:

1. Whatever Gramsci said - or is alleged to have said - I do not believe that what he was advocating was "education" as you and I understand it. I believe that history has borne this out.......at least it has here in the United States.

Gramsci’s analysis went much further than any previous Marxist theory to provide an understanding of why the European working class had on the whole failed to develop revolutionary consciousness after the First World War and had instead moved towards reformism ie tinkering with the system rather than working towards overthrowing it. It was a far more subtle theory of power than any of his contemporaries and went a long way to explain how the ruling class ruled.

Now, if Gramsci was correct that the ruling class maintained its domination by the consent of the mass of the people and only used its coercive apparatuses, the forces of law and order, as a last resort, what were the consequences for Marxists who wished to see the overthrow of that same ruling class? If the hegemony of the ruling capitalist class resulted from an ideological bond between the rulers and the ruled, what strategy needed to be employed? The answer to those questions was that those who wished to break that ideological bond had to build up a ‘counter hegemony’ to that of the ruling class. They had to see structural change and ideological change as part of the same struggle. The labour process was at the core of the class struggle but it was the ideological struggle that had to be addressed if the mass of the people were to come to a consciousness that allowed them to question their political and economic masters right to rule. It was popular consensus in civil society that had to be challenged and in this we can see a role for informal education.

Overcoming popular consensus, however, is not easy. Ideological hegemony meant that the majority of the population accepted what was happening in society as ‘common sense’ or as ‘the only way of running society’. There may have been complaints about the way things were run and people looked for improvements or reforms but the basic beliefs and value system underpinning society were seen as either neutral or of general applicability in relation to the class structure of society. Marxists would have seen people constantly asking for a bigger slice of the cake when the real issue was ownership of the bakery.
.....read more....

http://infed.org/mobi/antonio-gramsci-schooling-and-education/
_____________________________________________________


2. People often do not vote for socialism as socialism. They often vote for it unknowingly when it goes by other names that make it appear to be something other than socialism.....like here in the United States where it is referred to in terms like "progressivism" and members of the Socialist Party or CPUSA run for public office as "Democrats."

Susanna said...

P.S. Anonymous 7:14 P.M.


Cultural Marxism in Education: The Gathering Revolt

For decades now, American schools corrupted by cultural Marxism have been eroding the moral fiber and judgment skills of schoolchildren. Unless sensible parents and teachers put a stop to the indoctrination, today's free speech-crippling political correctness, tolerance of immorality, and lack of knowledge of our country's birth will continue to grow until America is no more. To stop the indoctrination, parents and teachers must understand how cultural Marxism came to permeate school curricula.

In the 1920s and 1930s Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, who argued that traditional values must be obliterated in order to free "oppressed" social groups, called for eliminating social decorum and glorifying perverse behavior in order to destroy the Western middle class and collapse society from within. Translated into today's terminology, the plan prescribed the commandeering of news and entertainment media, religious and financial institutions, organized labor, health care, and education.

Gramsci's cultural Marxism began to reach throughout society when Frankfurt University's Institute for Marxism -- renamed the Institute for Social Research and informally called the Frankfurt School -- fled Nazi Germany, took up temporary residence at Columbia University in 1933, and then, during World War II, began using Gramsci-derived "critical theory" to "deconstruct" American society. German-born philosopher-writer Herbert Marcuse and other Marxists carried cultural Marxism beyond Columbia, and progressives adopted the disease as a weapon of "change" to be deployed within the education system.

Education system, indeed. The Frankfurt School's specialty was political correctness. The goal was to control social discourse on culture, politics, and economics and hush debate over middle-class moral decay. A critical tactic dictated by political correctness -- demonizing people who question progressive wisdom -- is illustrated by today's Democrats and media calling tea-partiers racists and extremists for wanting to shrink government. The same kind of one-sided thought control renders schoolchildren captive to left-wing agendas....
read more...

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/04/cultural_marxism_in_education_1.html

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

If some of you would take the time to listen to what Rebekah Roth has to say on just one of her videos, you might learn something and also gain a fresh perspective regarding 9/11.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdP95oSoOFk&feature=player_embedded

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Christine:

As I understand it, 'core condition' may have something to do with person-centered therapy.

"It is that the individual has within himself or herself vast resources for self-understanding, for altering his or her self-concept, attitudes and self-directed behavior - and that these resources can be tapped if only a definable climate of facilitative psychological attitudes can be provided."

http://www.simplypsychology.org/client-centred-therapy.html

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 12:33,

thank you, the same name turns up as a nurse in Virginia if I recall right, might
not be the same person but she might have picked the term up in a psychotherapy
rather than hypercharismatic context.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1235 stealth jihad

Anonymous said...

Dear 10.30pm,

And if YOU would take the time and effort to summarize a 75-minute video which you are asking us here to watch about 9/11 then we who have already spent many hours reading and pondering the relative quality of information put out about the Islamic hijacker account and the controlled demolition account would be willing to engage with you.

Dear 7.43pm (supposing you are someone different),

For heaven's sake say something to back up your controlled-demolition view, rather than just grumbling that those who disagree with you are foolish.

Anonymous said...

Maybe, Susanna. I do feel that you are rather blanking the quote from Gramsci I found and simply expanding (albeit very well) on the Gramsci you are familiar with. There isn't necessarily a causal connection between him and Marcuse, while conversely I've read conspiracy theories that Moscow - which never fell for "modern" education methods - masterminded the takedown of our education system. I'll look further into the quote I provided. I also believe there was a change within the Left, from old-style materialist views to postmodern hippie views, and that this transition is relevant to our dialogue.

Anonymous said...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/02/obama-administration-and-un-announce-global-police-force-to-fight-extremism-in-u-s/

New Age = One World Government = One world police force

The camel puts his nose further into the tent. Here's the story for those who may have forgotten it.
The Camel's Nose In The Tent.
One cold night, as an Arab sat in his tent, a camel gently thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. "Master," he said, "let me put my nose in your tent. It's cold and stormy out here." "By all means," said the Arab, "and welcome" as he turned over and went to sleep.

A little later the Arab awoke to find that the camel had not only put his nose in the tent but his head and neck also. The camel, who had been turning his head from side to side, said, "I will take but little more room if I place my forelegs within the tent. It is difficult standing out here." "Yes, you may put your forelegs within," said the Arab, moving a little to make room, for the tent was small.

Finally, the camel said, "May I not stand wholly inside? I keep the tent open by standing as I do." "Yes, yes," said the Arab. "Come wholly inside. Perhaps it will be better for both of us." So the camel crowded in. The Arab with difficulty in the crowded quarters again went to sleep. When he woke up the next time, he was outside in the cold and the camel had the tent to himself.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 3:44am

No one is calling anyone foolish. Many sincere patriotic Americans remain in denial, possibly because it is too painful to consider the alternative - that maybe we have all been lied to about what really happened on that tragic day of infamy. Meanwhile, many other Americans are slowly waking up and are sharing information with others.

Rebekah herself spent thousands of hours doing her research over the past 14 years. As she takes us down the rabbit hole, there are far too many details to even begin to list them on this blog.

Given the fact that many of you do spend countless hours listening to information exposing the New Age, it is not unreasonable that you would take the time to listen to what Rebekah Roth has to say on at least one of her videos.

Rebekah is not the only one who is trying to wake people up. There are many others. For example:

Pilots speak out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Laaq44SDgg

Architects and engineers speak out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYUYya6bPGw

Susanna said...


Anonymous 4:00 A.M.

At 5:26, you posted what was presumably a quote from Gramcsi:

Regardless of whether or not there is a direct "causal" connection between Gramsci and Marcuse, the thing they have in common is their Marxist background in which the ends justifies the means and their hatred of Christianity....which probably explains why Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary were able to independently arrive the same conclusion about why a new "communist Europe" did not "inevitably" emerge out of World War I. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so "blinded" the working class to its true, Marxist class interests, that a Communist revolution was impossible in the West, until both could be destroyed. That objective, established as cultural Marxism’s goal right at the beginning, has never changed.

Hirsch quoting Gramsci simply tells me that both Gramsci and Lukacs have been embraced by the "progressives" ( new name for neo-Marxists/ communists ) here and elsewhere since Gramsci's Prison Notebooks were rediscovered in the 1960's

Palmiro Togliatti, Gramsci’s successor as leader of the Italian Communist Party organised the publication of Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks in Italy in 1948-51. The subsequent publication by the same firm of two volumes of Gramsci’s earlier writings in 1977-78 clearly revealed the younger Gramsci to have been a committed revolutionary.despite intermittent attempts by various British Trotskyist groups to challenge the dominant and utterly erroneous interpretation of Gramsci as a reformist peaceful-roader predominantly concerned with cultural questions rather than class-based political activism.

In his "notebooks," Gramsci famously laid out a strategy for destroying Christianity and Western culture, one that has proven all too successful. Instead of calling for a Communist revolution up front, as in Russia, he said Marxists in the West should take political power last, after a “long march through the institutions” – the schools, the media, even the churches, every institution that could influence the culture. That “long march through the institutions” is what America has experienced, especially since the 1960s.

Re: Gramsci etc, you concentrate your fire on Hirsch, but I quoted him because he quoted Gramsci, as follows: "The new concept of schooling is in its romantic phase, in which the replacement of "mechanical" by "natural" methods has become unhealthily exaggerated. ... Previously, pupils at least acquired a certain baggage of concrete facts. Now there will no longer be any baggage to put in order.... The most paradoxical aspect of it all is that this new type of school is advocated as being democratic, while, in fact, it is destined not merely to perpetuate social differences but crystalize them in Chinese complexities" (from "Education" by Gramsci).

It is precisely this new type of "schooling" which is merely indoctrination and not education.......regardless of which "class" of people it is being inflicted upon.

Since when are concrete facts "baggage"???????? Especially if they happen to be true??????

As for "democratic," since when is objective truth dependent on a majority vote or "consensus"??????

Since when do objective facts have to be taken "in context" instead of trusting what one actually sees and hears? I will tell you when........since Gramscian methods together with the Frankfurt School and its "cultural Marxism" came to dominate the education system here in the United States and elsewhere.

The Gramsci I am familiar with was a liar, who, after actually going to the Soviet Union ( as did people here like "journalist" Walter Duranty ), and not being content to remain there himself, nevertheless sought an alternative means to enslave the West.

Anonymous said...

"Rebekah herself spent thousands of hours doing her research over the past 14 years. As she takes us down the rabbit hole, there are far too many details to even begin to list them on this blog. Given the fact that many of you do spend countless hours listening to information exposing the New Age, it is not unreasonable that you would take the time to listen to what Rebekah Roth has to say on at least one of her videos."

Please do not tell me that I am uninformed if I have not listened to her videos. I have spent HUNDREDS of hours looking into 9/11, both the official and the conspiratorial views - I agree that there is no point in looking into just one - and and after 5 years of discussion finally persuaded the friend, who convinced a whole load of other friends of mine that 9/11 was a US job, that it was actually plotted from the al-Qod mosque in Hamburg by al-Qaeda. I have looked into the engineering, the timing, the theology, and plenty else. I refuse to be snowed or cowed by hints that others have looked into it more deeply and reach a different conclusion than me. If you are on top of your own understanding then you will be able to summarise the key points in favor of your position. If you do so then I will gladly engage in good faith. Kindly get specific or get quiet.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of going the way of the dinosaur. The US economy has no real way out of its current situation. Perhaps the best way to prepare physically for the inevitable collapse is to store a little food, a little silver, and most of all, learn to speak Russian.

Satan's favorite friends, Barack and Francis, along with the rest of the globalist coven will get their short lived global economic Beast system, after all the world's economies collapse.

Here is a very sobering assessment of the current situation from zerohedge.com

www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-04/how-bad-can-get-and-how-fast

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Dear 1.40pm

I made no rules; I asked, rather than demanded, that you get specific or desist. The rule I don't play by is that I have to watch a lengthy video otherwise I may not consider myself properly informed. If you aren't able to summarise the most important points of it then may I suppose that you are unable to?

"Obviously, for whatever reason, you have chosen NOT to learn the truth... because, if you did want to learn the truth, you wouldn't waste your time arguing with me."

O, so you know the truth do you?

Anonymous said...

Christine:

The videos do talk about Bush, Cheney, the bin Laden family, and so much more.

My point is that this is about filling in all of the missing pieces of the puzzle regarding exactly what went on the morning of 9/11 -- answering questions that so many people have been scratching their heads over for the past 14 years -- BUT, you won't know that until you listen to all that she has to say on the videos.

paul said...

What part of: "Building #7 came down in a controlled demolition at around noon of 9/11", is so hard to understand ?
It takes weeks to wire up a skyscraper for demolition.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 4:08pm

1) I am not going to desist.
2) The videos cover an incredible volume of information... far more than I could possibly outline or summarize in this short space.
3) Enjoy the rest of your life in stubborn denial.

Anonymous said...

Exactly, Paul. It's comforting to know that someone on this blog is wide 'awake.'

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

you don't have to watch an entire lengthy video, you can drag (on youtube at least) the line that moves as it progresses to a later point, you can fast forward and skip.

Anonymous said...

Dear 4.27

I am not going to desist either. I am going to carry on pointing out that with comments like "you have chosen NOT to learn the truth" you are implying that you know the truth with certainty - which you don't.

It takes no effort, no expertise merely to recommend a video, and you ask me to drop more than an hour of my time (having spent many hours of my time on this subject in the past), even though you who make this recommendation are apparently unable to summarize the key points.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I personally don't need to see yet more 9-11 stuff because I am already acquainted with the research, and I don't buy all the details of the standard story. yes
jihadis were involved, no that is not all there is to it, maybe there was atypical
physics stuff involved, there are some very weird things that point in that direction,
but as some military brass who reviewed Hutchinson's work said, it is better as a
force multiplier than as a thing in itself. Thermite? likely. Doesn't have
to be explosive just weaken the beams by softening them with heat without a full
melt.

the argument about when steel MELTS is silly, because MELT is not needed, only the
softened condition that is still solid, but will buckle under the stress of what
it is holding. If the jet fuel could do that in a couple of sections and start
a pancaking move down the rest might go down, but it seems to me it would need
some help, and especially help to go straight down and not take out buildings
next to it. MOLTEN STEEL WEEKS LATER? that's odd.

passing note about the more usual studies here: THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY PLAYED A
ROLE IN PUSHING FOR INDIAN INDEPENDENCE.

Anonymous said...

Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear will take the time to learn the truth. The rest, who are more comfortable remaining in denial, will continue to believe and accept the official narrative. So, stay in your comfort zone.

Anonymous said...

Dear Susanna

The quote from Gramsci is from a 1932 essay called "Education" in Gramsci's well-known "prison notebooks" of which a more recent English translation is here:

http://courses.justice.eku.edu/pls330_louis/docs/gramsci-prison-notebooks-vol1.pdf

The quote I gave and reproduce is from a 1971 edition, according to Hirsch, as follows:

"The new concept of schooling is in its romantic phase, in which the replacement of "mechanical" by "natural" methods has become unhealthily exaggerated. ... Previously, pupils at least acquired a certain baggage of concrete facts. Now there will no longer be any baggage to put in order.... The most paradoxical aspect of it all is that this new type of school is advocated as being democratic, while, in fact, it is destined not merely to perpetuate social differences but crystalize them in Chinese complexities".

In the slightly different online version you can see this quote assembled from passages on pages 175, 180, 186. I wouldn't necessarily take "baggage" to have negative connotations; remember that this is a translation.

Anonymous said...

"Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear will take the time to learn the truth. The rest, who are more comfortable remaining in denial, will continue to believe and accept the official narrative. So, stay in your comfort zone."

Ah, so you know the truth and I don't. Hardly a great basis for dialogue. So take me out of my comfort zone - give me a little hard information from this video to make clear why I should drop an hour of my time watching it. I've viewed plenty of 9/11 "truther" material and, despite what you are suggesting, I am willing to watch more if you can summarise what makes it special. The longer you fail to do this, the more it looks like you aren't on top of this material.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 6:24 P.M.

Just by virtue of the fact that he was a communist whose intention was to inflict communism on the West by stealth, I would take anything Gramsci said to have negative connotations. Moreover, what communists and their comrades mean by "democratic" is not what we understand the term to mean.

Susanna said...

P.S. Anonymous 6:24

The democracy that Marxists aim to achieve is a workers' democracy also known as the "dictatorship of the proletariat." "Proletarian democracy" - which is central to the Marxist scheme.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

proletarian democracy always adds up these people can't manage tings by constant plebescites themselves, so it has to be ruled by their self appointed representatives
who get to pocket a lot of cash and perquisites.

RayB said...

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12


Anonymous said...

Susanna, I grant Marx and Lenin one thing: the right to define communism. Communism involves a violent revolution. If it is done by stealth then it's still evil but it isn't communism.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 4:32

yes, and there is still more. fabian socialism and all the rest rarely have the
underlying ideological structure of Marxism Leninism. they may aim for a dictatorship
of the proletariat, but the reasons differ. Marxism argues from the Hegelian dialectic, which presents HISTORY as some sort of conscious force, evolving through
the humans it lives through. And it operates first a thesis, then an antithesis
grows up in opposition to the thesis, then the resulting turmoil produces the
synthesis, which goes on to become the thesis for the next cycle.

when Hegelian dialectic is used by conspiratologists here, the idea is that a
deliberate pincher movement game is done, but that is not what Hegel was talking
about. it is a mystical notion of evolution by this means. It just happens.

which brings us to the second point, EVOLUTION. societies go (so idiot and historically
ignorant Marx thought, perhaps with help from Hegel) through predictable invarying
stages. Hegel saw the state as the great I guess final creation of this process.
Marx thought that for instance the state arises from the more stable monarchism
which comes from feudalism ignoring that feudalism in fact tends to come from
warlike collapse situations, preceded by monarchy or state of one sort or another,
and the chaos after is dealt with by feudalism which is essentially a means of
ready military availability or they don't keep their land.

Marx also thought that the revolution would occur in Germany, not Russia but
contrary to Marx it happened in Russia. That makes Lenin a revisionist off the bat,
but he is linked with Marx with a hyphen so that makes it all okay. Especially
if most commies don't get to read everything Marx had to say about everything.

Socialism would be brought by revolution in the cities, not the countryside. Oops,
Mao did it in the countryside, erg, revisionist swine!

Socialism would result in the fading away of the state and you would have the
communism everything started with. (Why this wouldn't start the cycle all over
again is not explained.)

you don't find this kind of doctrinaire nonsense in the progressives, liberals,
and peaceful sneak commie types. This also means they are not intellectually
crippled by having to adhere to a perfect way of thinking, making them if anything
more dangerous because more flexible.

Anonymous said...

4:27 Thanks for keeping us up to date on what is happening in the development of the New Age movement and how it is affecting the United States.

Thanks also to Anonymous who posted 25 ways truth of suppression, particularly in discussions on the internet, which was enlightening. I thought I could always spot manipulation of a discussion, but there was new information in that list.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 4:32 A.M.

Re: Communism involves a violent revolution. If it is done by stealth then it's still evil but it isn't communism.

Says who?

Ordinarily, people who believe that are people who have been successfully duped by the communists!

Anonymous said...

"Thanks also to Anonymous who posted 25 ways truth of suppression, particularly in discussions on the internet"
Yes, thank you.
MCE routinely uses nearly every one of these tactics on this blog with all of us.
She believes she knows (and tells) the truth more than the rest of us put together!
I have no idea why she is allowed to get by with this behavior.

Susanna said...


Karl Marx,a 19th-century political philosopher and a father of communism, and Vladimir Lenin, who led the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, both saw communism as a "higher stage" of socialism.

Socialism, in this line of thinking, was the first step toward a new society after the inevitable collapse of capitalism. Eventually socialism, considered a first, necessary step, would develop into communism.

And here we see how the communists have glaringly contradicted themselves... because if the collapse of capitalism was "inevitable," as they assured their followers, then why has it been necessary to impose socialism and communism either by stealth or at gunpoint??? Why not simply allow what is "inevitable" to happen.......... "inevitably????"

Anonymous said...

"Re: Communism involves a violent revolution. If it is done by stealth then it's still evil but it isn't communism.

Says who?"

Marx and Lenin, Susanna. Since they invented communism in theory and practice respectively they have the right to define it, no matter how evil it is.

Marko said...

Anonymous 6:03 PM says:

"Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear will take the time to learn the truth. The rest, who are more comfortable remaining in denial, will continue to believe and accept the official narrative. So, stay in your comfort zone."

And what if it is you who are in denial, and have gone into your own "comfort zone" of conspiracy theory? Oh yes, the rabbit hole can be quite comfortable indeed.

"Take the time to learn the truth."

Can we start with this? The amount of time spent on something has little to do with the truth or non-truth of conclusions arrived at. I get tired of people saying "Well, I spent a lot of time researching this...." How nice. People throughout history have spent entire lifetimes believing lies and half-truths, and writing book after book of nonsense. The amount of time spent researching a topic guarantees nothing. It increases the chances of finding the truth, unless of course, you took a wrong turn in logic somewhere along your quest, in which case you have consigned yourself to go down a blind alley until you realize your mistake.

And that brings me to one of the most annoying things about many conspiracy theorists: They never get to a point where they would ever admit to a mistake. There is no proof, no matter how convincing, that they will accept of an error in their thinking. As Nyquist said in an essay entitled "Not All Conspiracy Theories Are Created Equal" (which isn't perfect, but it's good):

Most conspiracy theorists have yet to suggest what discovery might lead them to change their mind. It is my observation that whatever future event occurs, whatever fact is discovered, their notions can be flexibly fitted to the occasion. If a politician rises, it is proof there is a conspiracy. If that same politician falls, it is also proof. If a president is assassinated, we see the hand of the Satanic cabal. If he survives assassination, he has come over the cabal's side.

Similarly, Mark Steyn had this to say, when reviewing a book called "Debunking 9/11 Myths":

Debunking 9/11 Myths does a grand job of explaining such popular conspiracy-website mainstays as how a 125-foot-wide plane leaves a 16-foot hole in the Pentagon. Answer: it didn't. The 16-foot hole in the Pentagon's Ring C was made by the plane's landing gear. But the problem isn't scientific, it's psychological: if you're prepared to believe that government agents went to the trouble of researching, say, gay rugby player Mark Bingham's family background and vocal characteristics so they could fake cellphone calls back to his mom, then clearly you're not going to be deterred by mere facts. As James B. Meigs, the editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics, remarks toward the end of this book, the overwhelming nature of the evidence is, to the conspiratorially inclined, only further evidence of a cover-up: "One forum posting that has multiplied across the Internet includes a long list of the physical evidence linking the 19 hijackers to the crime: the rental car left behind at Boston's Logan airport, Mohammed Atta's suitcase, passports recovered at the crash sites, and so on. 'HOW CONVENIENT!' the author notes after each citation. In the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose logic of conspiracism, there is no piece of information that cannot be incorporated into one's pet theory."

What Mark Steyn hinted at above, and what I find particularly amusing at times with any talk of sinister plans of government bureaucracies, is that by and large, government bureaucracies are STUPID. (Ever hear of the Peter Principle?) That they could hatch a plan as elaborate as the 9/11 Truthers would have us believe in is beyond amusing, it's just plain silly.

Susanna said...

Anon. 6:35

Re: Marx and Lenin, Susanna. Since they invented communism in theory and practice respectively they have the right to define it, no matter how evil it is.

If so, then where exactly did either of them say that Communism necessarily involves a violent revolution and if it is done by stealth then it's still evil but it isn't Communism?

Actually, Marx, by way of deliberate strategy, never clearly defined Communism and is said to have frequently criticized those who did.

https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/vision_of_communism.php
__________________________________

Moreover, "revolution," as the means of imposing Communism, does not always entail violence and bloodshed as we have seen from the strategy of "cultural hegemony" laid out by Italian communist Antonio Gramsci who actually spent time in Russia and married a woman there who had connections to Lenin from whom he learned the principles of "hegemony" as a strategy for establishing communism in the West.

It is important here to clarify some, often ignored but crucial, points: Firstly, the concept which has become synonymous with Gramscian thought, ‘hegemony’, was not an original concept of Gramsci’s, but one that he learned from Lenin and was widely used by leading theorists of both the Second and Third International.

Gramsci’s use of the term is not a departure from, nor contradictory to, the Russian’s usage but is in fact a continuation and development of the same concept. Secondly, although it has been popular for decades to characterise Gramsci’s hegemony as an alternative strategy to the increasingly unfashionable concept of The Dictatorship of The Proletariat, Gramsci never intended it thus; in fact the two concepts were, in the Italian’s mind, very much complementary. In fact, Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks was an attempt to carry on Lenin’s legacy after his death.

Lenin and the West

As already mentioned, Lenin knew all too well that a different revolutionary strategy was required for the West. In 1921 he specifically outlined to the Russian communists the necessity of the theorisation of a strategy for Western workers which was suitable to their own conditions.

He specifically regrets that the program set out at the Third Congress was scarcely comprehensible to the non-Russian mind: “At the Third Congress, in 1921, we adopted a resolution on the organisational structure of the Communist parties and on the methods and content of their activities. The resolution is an excellent one, but it is almost entirely Russian, that is to say, everything in it is based on Russian conditions. This is its good point, but it is also its failing. It is its failing because I am sure that no foreigner can read it…Second, even if they read it, they will not understand it because it is too Russian. Not because it is written in Russian – it has been excellently translated into all languages – but because it is thoroughly imbued with the Russian spirit. And third, if by way of exception some foreigner does understand it, he cannot carry it out.” (Lenin; ‘Five Years of the Russian Revolution and the Prospects of the World Revolution: Report to the Fourth Congress of the Communist International’; Lenin’s Final Fight: 1922-23; p111)

The strength of the resolution was in its detail, specificity and ability to focus on the minutiae of organisational questions. Its weakness was that the specifics of the Russian social and economic conditions were exceptional and thus completely alien to the Western worker. Worse still is the fact that even after dedicated study of the Russian conditions leading to an understanding of the revolutionary organisation and practice of the Russian communists, this knowledge could become a fetter to the Western revolutionary if taken dogmatically since their own road to workers revolution would be so radically different to that of the Bolsheviks.


cont.

Susanna said...


cont.

This led Lenin to lament that “We have not learned how to present our Russian experience to foreigners.” In order to rectify the oversights from the previous congress, he stressed to his compatriots that, “We Russians must also find ways and means of explaining the principles of this resolution to the foreigners. Unless we do that, it will be absolutely impossible for them to carry it out.” The key task for the Communist International at this point was to ‘translate’ the Russian experience into the many vernaculars of the European workers. No two states have identical form or conditions, and certainly the Russian situation was particularly far removed from those of the more advanced capitalisms in Europe.

War of Manouvere & War of Position

One of Gramsci’s greatest contributions to revolutionary Marxism was his formulation of the dual strategies of War of Manouvere and War of Position. The former, as carried out by Lenin and the Bolsheviks in 1917, was conceived as an appropriate strategy for socialists operating within societies where capitalism was still underdeveloped. It involved an insurrectionary advance upon the state which is only possible when the ruling class within society maintain their superiority to the subaltern classes by sheer force, with little or no acceptance of their superiority from the masses. In such a situation, the subordinate classes do not consent to the class leadership of the bourgeoisie but are forced into acquiescence by the vast apparatuses of state violence, “special bodies of armed men, prisons, etc.” as Lenin outlined in The State and Revolution. The War of Position, on the other hand, is a more patient and protracted strategy. This involves not just an attack upon the bastions of state power, but a lengthy period building up to this moment in which class alliances are forged and ideological leadership amongst the subaltern classes is strived for. Gramsci explains the differing conditions that demand each respective strategy: “In the East, the state was everything, civil society was primordial and gelatinous; in the West, there was a proper relation between state and civil society, and when the state tottered, a sturdy structure of civil society was immediately revealed. The state was just a forward trench; behind it stood a succession of sturdy fortresses and emplacements. Needless to say, the configuration of the state varied from state to state, which is precisely why an accurate reconnaissance on a national scale was needed.” (Gramsci, Antonio; Prison Notebooks, Volume III; trans. Buttigieg; p169)...


http://internationalsocialist.org.uk/index.php/2012/06/gleninism/
________________________________________________________

Anonymous said...

I wrote: "Since they [Marx and Lenin] invented communism in theory and practice respectively they have the right to define it, no matter how evil it is... Communism involves a violent revolution."

You replied, Susanna, as follows: "If so, then where exactly did either of them say that Communism necessarily involves a violent revolution and if it is done by stealth then it's still evil but it isn't Communism?"

In the Communist Manifesto of 1848 written by Marx and Engels and a definitive document:

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat...

Hence, they [various writers whom Marx and Engels call "Critical-Utopian Socialists"] reject all political, and especially all revolutionary action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel...

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.


The first and third quotes clearly establish that Marx views communism as involving a violent revolution, and the second quote establish that he regards socialism as not doing. The quotes are pasted from this pdf of the Manifesto:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Susanna

you make excellent points. However, I was in my late twenties getting acquainted
the arguing going on and what was in the news. The parody movie Network shows well
how the CPA representative could denounce the Ecumenical Liberation Movement as
revisionist and nothing they dealt with, then run off to the leader addressing him
as one she was readily on familiar terms with.

ideological purity was an issue, however. Hegemony, by definition, is a kind of
imposition on the target element, normally near you geographically. Revolution is
also an imposition. So if we leave out "hegemony" and "revolution" in the violent
sense, and substitute "imposition" we see that these are two forms of the same
thing. If I understand correctly what you quote from Lenin, at some point a violent
uprising by the "subaltern classes" would happen. Sounds like "hegemony" was a
way of laying the groundwork for this more slowly.

The Russian mindset also has been shaped for centuries before Lenin, by their
history. Caspian Report on youtube analyzed this, showing me something I didn't
know. From experience dealing with foreign invaders like the Mongols and other
threats, they developed the idea that they needed to have what others might call
a frontier, that they controlled as part of their empire, to be a buffer zone to
protect the heartland (Moscow by that time, though they began in Kiev). This
in turn may have shaped some of the ideas Lenin presents.

That Marx was vague in his definitions is probably because his goal was not really
communism, that by definition would not happen in his lifetime, or even imposition
of socialism successfully throughout Europe. The real goal was his own supremacy
in the movement itself. Though the other socialist theorists current to him and
before were hardly theologically sound Christians, atheism wasn't typical. It was
Marx who got atheism as a plank in the party platform. From what I have read of
Marx and Hitler, I think they were both possessed.

Meanwhile, various kinds of cooperative operations, government intervention, and
public dole wayyy preceded all this by centuries and in some place by thousands
of years. it is really a totally separate issue. the Roman Catholic Church itself
was apparently the first to start considering what was a "just price" and what
was sinful profiteering and forbade usury meaning ANY interest. flat rate fees,
insurance against loss, and of course sale of produce from the property used for
farming taken as collateral until a debt was repaid, provided the alternative.
the pursuit of wealth and status (aka greed and ambition) were themselves considered
sinful, and with plenty of Bible passages to back that up. The original prohibition
on lending at interest in the OT was limited to lending to fellow Hebrews, and
the Churches meeting in synod figured that with the universal quality of Christianity it should be applied to lending to anyone.

communism is essentially a kind of post millennialist eschatology mimicking
religious kind of all encompassing theory and devotional kind of feeling. Someone
analyzed it once as a kind of atheistic heresy using Christian eschatological
concepts and replacing Christ with the Communist Party.

Susanna said...


Dear Constance,

I thought you might be interested in checking out the following.


Key Synod official sounds strong conservative theme at opening session

October 05, 2015

A key official of the Synod of Bishops set a strongly conservative tone, unambiguously supporting the traditional teachings of the Church on marriage and sexuality, in the opening session of the October meeting.

Cardinal Peter Erdo of Budapest—who, as relator general, was responsible for summarizing the main themes of the working document to be discussed by the bishops— tackled some of the most contentious issues directly during his Monday-morning address. The Hungarian cardinal stated that Catholics who are divorced and remarried cannot be admitted to Communion as long as they remain in a second conjugal union. He also rejected the idea that homosexual relationships can be treated as similar to marriages.

Cardinal Erdo’s lengthy opening speech set a surprising tone for the October meeting, in light of the widespread expectation that the Synod will endorse the “Kasper proposal,” offering a means of admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion; and will take a more positive attitude toward homosexual unions
.....read more...

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26318
_________________________________________

See also...

http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/10/05/on-day-one-of-synod-2015-conservatives-land-the-first-blow/

Anonymous said...

What does hegemony have to do with the New Age movement? I'm lost. New Age is one world government. The definition of hegemony is noun, plural hegemonies.
1.
leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation.
2.
leadership; predominance.
3.
(especially among smaller nations) aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.

Constance Cumbey said...

Dear Susanna,

Cardinal Erdo's words were encouraging. The Kasper threat still appears real from my perspective. One priest here I know in Detroit area said perhaps the Pope was "keeping his friends close AND HIS ENEMIES CLOSER" in Godfather style parlance. Hopefully this might be the case given the predominances of Danneels, Kasper & Co. On the other hand, listening carefully to the Pope's UN speech, I have to reluctantly conclude that there were heavy New Age influences showing -- including but not limited to what I called the "Ken Wilber" ones that the Pope's frequent use of the terminology "integral development" pointed to.

I received a 4 page EXCELLENT handwritten letter from one of our Kansas City area Catholic readers that pointed me to further concerns. I would love to bounce his thinking off your knowledge bank.

Constance

Anonymous said...

The term Cultural Marxism was new to me so I looked it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Conspiracy_theory
It appears that it is connected with the right, Tea Party for instance.

In chasing information down I came across http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/fabian-society/ I'm beginning to think individuals put together what they want to see put together.

"Selfism is the real force behind the undoing of our society. I sought for years for some sort of coherent theoretical explanation for our multifaceted cultural, social and moral revolution. I found Fabians hiding in the rhododendrons, Gramscians lurking in the pantry, Euro-Communists behind the curtains. I even chased the Frankfurt School though a long labyrinth of polysyllables, and discovered Wilhelm Reich, George Lukacs and Herbert Marcuse doing something naughty in the Orgone Box."

I see a big pattern called the New Age Movement. Why is no one talking about it.

"They’re all there, these people. They had or have influence, even power. They exist or existed. They all work (or worked) , night and day, for the overthrow of bourgeois capitalist morality, etc etc. And then there are the many female liberationists bashing away at the traditional family, and all the legions of equality merchants and open-borders enthusiasts, and of course the militant atheists, who hate God, claim he doesn’t exist, and want to stop us telling our children about Him, in case he does exist.

"But I don’t think they have a High Command. There’s no eye-patched villain in combat gear, in a hollowed-out mountain, directing their operations in sinister whispers as she strokes a white cat. Some of them understand what’s going on better than others. Some are mere instruments, too dim to have any idea what they are doing. Most have little idea of the significance of what they and do, beyond their immediate surroundings. They’re in all the political parties, including in dear old Dad’s Army. Only one invariable test exposes them for what they are. "

Constance Cumbey said...

To Christine, 2:14 a.m.

I'm retaining this recommended reading link that does have excellent discernment material of "proactivity" vs. "reactive" in sorting out mysticisms.

http://guardinghisflock.com/2015/09/26/was-paul-a-mystic/#more-2990

I'm deleting the balance of your post as too lengthy and not fully on topic.

Constance

Anonymous said...

Add this line to 12:50. I see a big pattern called the New Age movement and yet who is talking about it?

Anonymous said...

Marko @ 7:08 pm:

1) If you're going to attempt to 'debate' someone regarding information that you have never even bothered to listen to... it is important to note that NONE of those ridiculous myths debunked by Mark Steyn even remotely comes close to the research uncovered by Rebekah Roth (where she separates fact from fiction and brilliantly connects the dots). Out of the many links to her videos, this interview below has the most complete information...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XgJ1h-gbo8


2) Anyone who takes the time to listen to what Rebekah has to say will slowly begin to 'wake up' from their deep sleep and realize that the only 'conspiracy theories' are in the original SCRIPT, ILLUSION, and DECEPTION that has been perpetrated on the American people since September 11, 2001.


3) The only one who is STUPID here is the person who hasn't listened to what Rebekah has to say BEFORE dismissing her theories... and then (and only then) come back on the blog to list all of the 'mistakes' that YOU believe she has made... along with the reasons WHY.

Unknown said...

my sardonic comment on the Pope is that he talks of the poor and the environment, but when he visited the Philippines, he didn't say what the politicians etc. needed to hear: STOP STEALING AND TAKING BRIBES.

Corruption, not capitalism per se, is the problem....

Anonymous said...

Anon@5.18am,

What are Rebekah Roth's killer points, please?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

listening to it. so far nothing I haven't heard before one place or another.
right off the bat I don't like it that she used the chatty novel fiction approach
to tell the first book story. anyone who is going to deal with conversation and
emotion and illusion of fiction to tell a complicated long bunch of facts (or
whatever) not a short parable but book length, is categorically someone with a
problem. I wouldn't want to read that kind of garbage style.

that doesn't mean that the information itself is wrong.

now I hear she is getting into the planes were an illusion.

yeah, she's the one presenting methodical deception and illusion. I have had
email contact with at least one person who saw the planes with her own eyes hit,
and I saw it on live feed and of course the wings are going to disappear as they
mix disintegration with burying into the building wall.

her whole way of talking is like some kind of hypnotic and the program begins
with some long om chant and as for phones not working at 30,000 feet that is
false. THEY ARE TURNED OFF ON ORDERS WHEN THE PLANE STARTS. there is concern
that their broadcast can interfere with plane electronics.

everything she says like what can be heard on a cell phone call at the end
hot mic situation, I can't speak to except I have only her word for it and the
few recordings I heard doesn't show that and such a statement might even be from
a fellow passenger reassuring the freaked out phoner.

I think she is going to lay the blame on Israel more nonsense, and PNAC which
is so riddled with bad press by now that it has used up its usefulness and can
be thrown to the wolves. maybe she represents a rival power bloc within the
same conspiracy that hatched this thing.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

5:29

yes, corruption is the problem. decades ago a philipine officer said that the
corrupt people are the communists' best friend, the create and maintain conditions
that upset people who can then be recruited to communist revolution.

Anonymous said...

Christine,

Thanks for your summary of Roth; please keep it coming. Anybody who believes the Twin Towers planes were an illusion can safely be ignored. The jets were not only seen but heard - and recorded visually and audibly - by many persons. If you say that the planes were an illusion then you might as well say that Rebekah Roth is an illusion!

BTW the 9/11 planes were ordered to fly low and were well withing reception range of cellphone stations on the ground. The real problem that cellphone networks have with people in planes is that the cellphone can be seen by multiple ground stations at once and that the ground stations accessed are changing at a very high rate as the plane moves. The system is not designed to handle that.

Marko said...

5:18 am....

I don't really have the time to spend on the whole topic, and feel it would be a waste of time. I was just putting out there my initial thoughts on the matter, and if I were to start a debate, that's where I'd start.

If that leaves me stupid and ignorant, that's my choice. There are bigger fish to fry, as they say.

We all choose our battles. That one is waste of time and energy, in my apparently not-so-well-informed opinion.

And yes, thank you Christine for your summary.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

6:52 and Marko,

You're welcome.

Anonymous said...

What a lame excuse Marko!!!

You offer little proof to support your point of view.

It's just not worth your precious time? Why bother to engage in battle unprepared, and lightly armed?

Do you just like being a polemic to call attention to yourself?

Anonymous said...

If R Roth really believes that the planes were an illusion then she had better be able to explain the physics of that illusion - Physicist

Anonymous said...

Dear 8.54am, you just parrot that Roth has it all proven, without outlining her killer points. What you are doing takes no effort, no talent, no knowledge, no expertise and negligible time. Kindly show that you have some of these.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

meet the latest Libertarian Party candidate for federal senate from florida.

https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/05/libertarian-party-of-florida-chair-resig

Marko said...

Polemics, for me, is a way to draw attention to an argument that has been made that needs to be questioned, for reasons that I find compelling.

In this case, I find it compelling that at least some of the people and groups echoing the same things that 9/11 Truther's websites cover are anti-America and/or anti-Israel, or they pro-Russian, pro-Islamic radicals who want to see the US destroyed.

You find yourself in nefarious company, indeed, if you think the US/Mossad "pulled one over" on the American people via the 9/11 attacks.

That is why I even talk about it. I don't like seeing well-meaning people unwittingly helping the enemy, whether that enemy is spiritual or physical. That compels me to try to get those people to think about the ramifications of what they say and believe.

Marko said...

Re: Cultural Marxism, and the "attack from within" on our country from outside forces, this is a good film to watch:

http://tinyurl.com/nfmcmw3

It's called "Agenda: Grinding America Down". Try to ignore the subtitles....

Why must America be "ground down" or eliminated? It is one of the few powerful nations left that are still impediments to the "World Revolution" taking place. The grinding down is almost complete, and if/when America falls, it will not be good for the rest of the world (which is the opposite of what you might hear from RT, Al Jazeera, etc.)

Anonymous said...

The paragraphs at 12:50 were taken from Peter Hitchen's blog http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2012/08/on-being-pompous.html

Anonymous said...

Consider this....

We should all be searching for the truth. Our 'enemy' should not be any particular group, but rather any person(s) who have an agenda to cover up the truth.

The only thing that I 'believe' is that we were all lied to 14 years ago... and the question is WHY and for what reason?

What started Rebekah Roth on her search for the truth was when she did a search for the names of those 'Muslim terrorist hijackers with box cutters.' She was absolutely shocked and floored to discover that out of the 19... 10 were still alive and the other 9 were names that had been made up!!!

Now, Mohamed Atta was a real person. He was also well known to American Airlines employees as a 'platinum million miler" who frequently traveled on their flights. Therefore, he would not have aroused suspicion.

Also, Rebekah was able to obtain much of her information from the Freedom of Information Act... which has been available to all Americans since 1967.

Fact: A plane can not slice through a steel building like a hot knife through butter.

More than likely, it was a low flying missile that hit the Pentagon.

The passengers may have been told that they were taking part in some type of 'training exercise.' They may have had no choice, but they couldn't have possibly known what their final outcome was going to be on that tragic day.

Please note that Bill Ryan is only ONE of many individuals who have interviewed Rebekah Roth. That particular link seemed to have a lot of information packed into one interview. If you Google ALL of her interviews, you will learn so much more(too much to possibly list here).

Susanna said...

Anonymous 12:05

Have you ever heard of the so-called "Paradigm Shift" which is spoken of by the New Agers as if it were the "Second Coming of Christ?????????

Remember, socialism/communism is the sociopolitical arm of the New age Movement.

In order to achieve the Paradigm Shift ( a.k.a. the new cultural hegemony/way of thinking/view of reality) the old "cultural hegemony" ( a.k.a. the old dominating culture) has to be overthrown.

https://www.quora.com/What-essays-articles-have-caused-a-paradigm-shift-in-how-you-see-social-constructions-and-cultural-categories
___________________________________________________

http://www.growthintransition.eu/getting-to-postgrowth-the-transformative-power-of-mind-and-paradigm-shifts/
___________________________________________________

http://www.kosmosjournal.org/article/collective-presencing-embracing-a-new-paradigm/
___________________________________________________

http://www.eyeofhorus.biz/info/new-age/the-new-age-movement-a-paradigm-shift/
____________________________________________________

The old view of reality must be completely overthrown before the new view of reality.....the "Paradigm Shift" (to Divine Consciousness & a Universal Philosophy) can take its place and become the new "hegemon."

Eventually, the plan is for the new "hegemon" to be global.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Marko. I skimmed the video,but learned nothing new. It's pretty standard, the right exposing the left. While it is accurate, it is only part of the New Age movement's control of the culture. As Constance wrote many, many years ago, the New Age movement manipulates from both the right and the left. I was hoping that new information could be uncovered with the new term.

Anonymous said...

Susanna, if you could present some videos that told the role of the right/conservative movement in the New Age movement, it would be appreciated. General information about the New Age movement from both the pro and con sides is plentiful. Almost all of it deals with what we are allowed to know on the timetable we are experiencing. For them to succeed as they have, control must be total on both the right and the left of the political spectrum. We have been given good information here and from other sources on how religious groups have been infiltrated. Is it possible to move on from there?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

that some hijackers were still alive AND that identity papers that should have
been destroyed were conveniently found on the ground shows fraud was in play, it
does not validate anything Roth says. The only people who gained were those
who gained by the subsequent invasion of the Middle East. the military industrial
complex and of course Saudis who secretly fund jihadis.

Anonymous said...


Over the years, in various parts of the world, there have been many huge fires in steel buildings... NONE of which caused the buildings to collapse and dissolve into pulverized dust in their own footprints. Enough said...

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

establishing that explosive or anything else were used to back up the planes,
does not establish Israel as the cause of it all.

Marko said...

What we all must realize here among this little corner of the internet, is that we all come to the discussion with different ideas on who the enemy is, what groups are in power, and how they relate to the New Age Movement.

Most here, I would assume, come with a Biblical world view, believing that at some point in the future, as the Bible prophesies, there will be a tyrannical world leader who rejects the God of the Bible and tries to usurp that position as his own. A study of all things New Age - their philosophy, their early writings, their spokespersons - is enough to convince most that if they were in control of things, that is indeed what they would have happen. This tyrant also is opposed to Christianity, and "makes war on the saints". This, too, we find in New Age writings.

But New Age people are not the only group who would fit this Biblical pattern of "tyrant who opposes God and rules the world and kills off Christians". Islamic Fundamentalism also fits that bill. So does Communism. The film I linked to above is not "...only a part of the New Age movement's control of the culture..." It is the Communist/Marxist agenda to destroy what stands in their way to a new Internationale. (Look up "The Internationale" on Wikipedia, and read the lyrics, to see who this particular enemy is - anyone who would celebrate that song! It was the Soviet Union's national anthem for a long while, and is enjoying a comeback in Russia today. Funny thing, that....)

To see the events of the world as all being "run by" the New Age Movement, or by Communists, or by Islamic Fundamentalists, or by the Illuminati, or by "the Elite", or by the lizard faction of the aliens who have been visiting planet earth like some galactic drive-in since the dawn of time, or by six people named Bob sitting in a secret control center in the middle of a mountain somewhere, is to miss the big picture.

Nobody has the big picture, but God Himself.

I find that the more I know, the more I realize that there is still a LOT to learn yet.

Currently, I see the power struggles taking place as being between the older, warrior empires like China and Islam along with nations that have been infected with Coercive Utopianism (which includes Communists, Marxists, Socialists, Environmentalists, New Agers, etc,), and the remnants of the Christian West, which, as corrupt as it is, is still worth defending, because without it, the world would be plunged into utter darkness overnight.

Perhaps "Christian West" is not so easy to define using national boundaries - like Russia is bad, America is good. I get that. The battle to extinguish God's Truth on this planet is a war without borders. The enemy is anyone engaged on the wrong side of that battle. But history shows that certain nations have been more of a home to the enemy than others, and Russia is one of those. It may switch sides someday, and certainly there is some evidence for that. But for now, the "preponderance of the evidence", as a lawyer would say, is showing that both Russia and China have us in their sights.

To me, the New Agers are just one faction of the enemy against God. There are others. And none of them have complete control. Maybe the New Agers will have complete control someday, maybe not. There is only one earthly "Powers That Be" - the one who controls from the pit of hell as he gains control over men's minds and hearts. But his control is only temporary, and his time is short.

Susanna said...

Dear Constance, 12:24 A.M.

I know about Ken Wilbur. I believe I have posted some material about Wilbur on this blog. The word "integral" as used by Wilbur would likely indicate syncretism. Here is a link for those who may not be familiar with Wilbur.

INTEGRAL THEORY (Ken Wilbur)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_theory_(Ken_Wilber)
__________________________________________________________________

But "integral" as used in Catholic social teaching......simply indicates that faith involves the whole person - "The Great Commandment" lived out.

Matthew 22:36-40

36 Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind.

38 This is the greatest and the first commandment.

39 And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.


.........which is why I do not allow myself to get upset when I see the word "integral" used in a Catholic context. Moreover, as the following article indicates, Pope Francis is not peddling a new teaching. He is faithfully following in the footsteps of his predecessors.


Within the light of CST(Catholic Social Teaching), Integral Human Development is an expression based upon the truth that human development cannot be reduced or divorced into constituent parts. True progress does not and cannot happen, if only one aspect of the human person is being addressed to this end..........

..........THE GOAL OF INTEGRAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

In Centesimus Annus, Pope Saint John Paul II reminded us of the fundamental objective of human development. He implored us to address the spiritual, not merely the political and economic structures of society, because after all, the end goal is to seek and know God: "Finally, development must not be understood solely in economic terms, but in a way that is fully human. It is not only a question of raising all peoples to the level currently enjoyed by the richest countries, but rather of building up a more decent life through united labour, of concretely enhancing every individual's dignity and creativity, as well as his capacity to respond to his personal vocation, and thus to God's call. The apex of development is the exercise of the right and duty to seek God, to know him and to live in accordance with that knowledge." (CA, 29)
......read entire article.....

https://capp-usa.org/contemporary_issues/22
________________________________________________________________________________

Like the cultural Marxists, the New Agers have likewise tried to hijack the traditional language and imagery of Christianity ( Protestant as well as Catholic), change their meaning and deploy them in the service of their own anti-Christian agenda. As Christians, we need to expose the "thieves" and retrieve what has been stolen from us

cont.

Susanna said...

cont.

Re: One priest here I know in Detroit area said perhaps the Pope was "keeping his friends close AND HIS ENEMIES CLOSER" in Godfather style parlance. Hopefully this might be the case given the predominances of Danneels, Kasper & Co.

Based on what I know from reliable sources about Pope Francis, when he was "Father," "Bishop" and then "Cardinal" Jorge Bergoglio, it is my opinion that the priest you know in Detroit is spot on. Pope Francis is street smart. I also think that Pope Francis has a strategy and is playing his cards close to his vest. After dealing with the kind of dirtbags and "Judases" he dealt with in Argentina - both Marxists and members of the military junta - I think is capable of dealing with the dirtbags and "Judases" in Rome.

For example, did you read about the priest working for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who recently decided to stridently "come out" as gay just before the Synod on the Family? He has been summarily sacked!

CDF official dismissed after announcing homosexual relationship

https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=26311

See also....

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/15_ottobre_03/vatican-theologian-confesses-m-happy-to-be-gay-and-have-partner-53aef384-69b2-11e5-b67f-8dc132718e33.shtml?refresh_ce-cp

____________________________________________________________________


By the way, Pope Francis' reference to "Fundamentalists" was not an exclusive reference to Protestant Evangelicals. It was primarily a reference to Islamic extremism which he has been denouncing in those very same terms for some time now.


Pope Francis Denounces Religious Fundamentalism That Inspired France Attacks, Mideast Conflict

By NICOLE WINFIELD
Posted: 01/12/2015

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/pope-francis-religious-fundamentalism-terror-attacks_n_6454708.html

________________________________________________________________________________

Roman Catholicism is not exempted from this papal exhortation. It has its own pockets of religious fundamentalism......i.e. the Feeney-minded crowd which thinks all Protestants are going to hell in a hand basket just because they are Protestants and not Catholics.

Pope Francis: We Must Combat All Types Of Religious 'Fundamentalism'

In his speech before Congress on Thursday, Pope Francis call on the world to combat violence and extremism, noting that every religion is susceptible to pockets of fundamentalism.

"Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind," he said
......read more...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pope-francis-religious-fundamentalism
_____________________________________________________________________________

Re: I received a 4 page EXCELLENT handwritten letter from one of our Kansas City area Catholic readers that pointed me to further concerns. I would love to bounce his thinking off your knowledge bank.

I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I am more than willing to share whatever information/knowledge I do have. I believe you also have my e-mail address and are more than welcome to contact me any time.

Anonymous said...

Marko, I understand what how you see things. The reality is we are living under a New Age movement dictatorship. The Germans and others lived under National Socialism, or the Nazi movement. The Soviets and their satellites lived under communism. To deny that and to water down the definition of the system with an analysis as you presented it could have been done.

It's not a matter of how each individual sees their culture that tells us what the culture is. It is not the total of all of the possibilities that defines the political standard of a country.

The tragedy is that no one is talking about what the New Age movement is. There is no learning about it taking place. There is no one describing it in detail. There is a huge movement covering up what it is, allowing disinformation to come out and attacking anyone who even whispers the truth. Go back and think again about the attacks on Constance Cumbey in the early years when she began to expose the movement. We then think that when we peck away at the shell we are gaining knowledge. It is a 100 plus year old political system with a previous history that has hijacked not only ours but other systems. We are being destroyed by something worse than communism or socialism or the left or progressives or speaking in a way that most think it to be, Obama.

Marko said...

"The reality is we are living under a New Age movement dictatorship."

I don't know what country you live in, but here in America, we are still pretty much free to move about as we please, so we don't live under any dictatorship - New Age or any other kind. That might change sometime in the future, of course, but for now, we are still a free people.

Anonymous said...

Marko, you are a sweetie. We are a free people? Free maybe to go into a grocery store and choose between Kelloggs Corn Flakes, Lucky Charms or Quaker Oats. We are free to do what we want to do as long as it doesn't violate federal,state, county, city, village, township, or UN laws as they come through the government. We are free to elect people who lie to us and then do what they are told to do. We are free to choose where we want to go to school or have our children go to school, but don't look for freedom there. Oh you are free to post what you want to on the internet, but know you are being watched. Oh you are free to make decisions, but how those decisions are influenced by the government's New Age network will affect your freedom.

Oh, you are free to practice your religion, as long as the church or synagogue doesn't violate zoning laws or whatever laws the government has come up with. Bottom line you will have freedom to practice your religion in your home.

Bottom line is you will be free to do all of the things you are allowed to do. I could list much of what you are allowed to do, but it would take pages. You are trapped in your whole world of freedom.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 8:15 P.M.

Again, by way of deliberate strategy, Marx never clearly defined Communism and is said to have frequently criticized those who did.

https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/vision_of_communism.php
_______________________________________________________________

It would appear that Marx left his use of the word "forcible" ambiguous as well.

The ambiguity of the word "forcible" and the fact that Marx does not outright avow violent means of revolution have given rise to a variety of interpretations of the Marxist role of violence in carrying out revolution.....

An analysis of Marx's writings and a critical examination of the beliefs of (one of) the most famous followers of Marx, Vladimir Lenin, indicate that non-violent revolution may be the only viable option for communism........


.....To further his point , Marx references the inevitability of the "victory of the proletariat" in many of his writings (Marx, Engels, and Hobsbawm 30). If it is such a scientific certainty that "the bourgeoisie has sown the seeds of its own destruction," then it makes no sense that death and excessive casualties would be required to bring about this destruction. Rather, it makes sense that the ruling class would naturally act as its own grave digger, as Marx points out.

However, a fellow Communist, Vladimir Lenin disagrees and claims that those who advocate non-violent means are "distorting" the true aims of Marx and Engels (Lenin 4). In fact, according to Lenin, "The supersession of the bourgeoisie state by the proletariat state is impossible without violent revolution" (13). Lenin argues two main points in his essay The State and Revolution:


cont.

Anonymous said...

"Over the years, in various parts of the world, there have been many huge fires in steel buildings... NONE of which caused the buildings to collapse and dissolve into pulverized dust in their own footprints. Enough said..."

No - either too much said or not enough said. Further important factors were involved in the case of the towers that do not occur in regular skyscraper fires:

* Massive kinetic damage from the plane impact

* Massive boost to the fire from the jet fuel (coast-to-coast flights were hijacked, to maximise the fuel load)

* Extra weight of the plane lodged in the middle of the building

* In the case of WTC7, massive kinetic damage from falling masonry from one of the towers, and a unique design of the loadbearing members.

Susanna said...

cont.

First, he claims that violent revolution is the only means by which the bourgeois state can be overthrown, and second, he claims that a proletariat dictatorship will be a temporary necessity and an intermediate stage between bourgeois capitalism and classless society, before government ultimately withers away. However, for the purposes of this paper, only the first point will be examined. To support his claims that the founders of Communism advocated violent means of social revolution, Lenin quotes Frederick Engels:

"Society has split into irreconcilable opposites" (2). Lenin then argues that this irreconcilable split in society necessitates violence as a way of abolishing bourgeois oppression. However, this interpretation of Lenin is merely an inference, and it is important to note that Engels never explicitly claims that violence is necessary for revolution; some readers have simply inferred it.

Lenin’s next point lies in quoting Engels’ observation that the exploiting class in most societies gains full control of "a standing army and police, which are the chief instruments of force of the state power" (Lenin 4). Lenin then exclaims that this sort of power is unshakeable, and the only way to deprive the exploiting class of military control is to confront the military in the same way it would confront proletarian resistance—with violence. Once again there is an example of putting words in the mouth of Engels. Never does he say, or is he quoted as saying, that because of the powerful grip that the bourgeoisie has over the proletariat with its military control, the only way to counter them is through militaristic action

In The State and Revolution, Lenin cites Marx, saying "It is only with sighs and groans that he [Marx] admits the possibility that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of the economy based on exploitation" (12). This quote may seem to defeat my point—that Lenin makes a heavy claim about the beliefs of Marx and Engels without sufficient backing; however, the irony abounds in this point of Lenin because, although this is Marx’s most explicit avowal of violent revolution, it is only with sighs that he admits the possibility that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow. Lenin’s argument here is hardly very strong; instead, it appears that the evidence we have shows that not only do Marx and Engels seem to support a revolution based on education, the political arena, and proletariat consciousness of its advantage in numbers, but they are extremely hesitant even to mention violence in their writings—and if they do, it is accompanied by grief and sighs.

Now that it is established that non-violence is a viable option inherent within the Marxist doctrine, it is necessary to explore whether or not this principle would work in practice because, if violence would be a more practical means to revolution than peaceable overthrow, then whatever Marx has to say is irrelevant. To this end, we will dive into two novels that are based loosely on historical events.
...read more...

www.agorajournal.org/2013/Haggarty-Ethical-Ballast.pdf

Anonymous said...

Dear Susanna

You asked for evidence that Marx and/or Lenin saw a violent revolution as integral to the communist project. I gave you a quote from the Communist Manifesto that included the phrase, "The Communists... openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions". You insist that the word "forcible" might not refer to physical force and violence. I disagree, but it's not worth contending over because I gave another quote form the manifesto (sourced above) that is unambiguous:

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat

Do you count a "civil war" breaking out into "open revolution" with a "violent overthrow" of the bourgeoisie as establishing that Marx was explicit about violent revolution, and if not, why not?

Anonymous said...

Absolutely 6:23 PM.

We are "free" for now, but soon the globalist idea of freedom will be that you are free to give up all you believe in for someone else's worldview that is for your own good. These have the upper hand now because free people forgot what freedom really looks like.

paul said...

Anon 6:23
You're kidding, right?
Massive kinetic damage from what, did something happen that I missed, other than ash falling on WTC#7?
It wasn't even close.

Jet fuel is Kerosene, plain and simple. Yes that's right, Kerosene like people used to use in those stinky heaters.
It burns at way too low a temp to even weaken those girders.
You sound like someone who's making stuff up.
Why won't you listen to the very large group of engineers and architects who all say that the official story is bogus.

copy/paste and learn from experts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYUYya6bPGw

Cell phones did NOT WORK from airliners in 2001 yet.
No airliner parts were ever found in PA or at the Pentagon. None, nada.
No one , no scientists at all were allowed to examine the remains of Building 7.
All the debris was immediatly shipped off to China.

Cognitive dissonance..............

Anonymous said...

Paul,

You are factually wrong about the mass of debris that fell onto WTC7 from WTC1, about the importance of the jet fuel in promoting an intense fire in which various material burned rapidly at high enough temperatures to weaken steel, about people not making "goodbye" cellphone calls from the hijacked planes, and about plane debris not being found in the Pentagon. Apart from that you are spot-on.

Debris: p16 of

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

Goodbye cellphone calls:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/september-11-attacks/8754395/911-Voices-from-the-doomed-planes.html

Wreckage in Pentagon: a wheel from a 757 photographed here:

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html

but of course people are gong to be able to say that no bits of jet were fond and nobody is going to be able to deny it because the Pentagon is not going to let people wander in and out of it when top secret papers are wafting all round the place.

Yep, cognitive dissonance alright.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 6:32

I am not insisting on anything. I am simply going by my sources which do not happen to agree with your interpretation of Marx and Engels. You have not convinced me that your interpretation is the correct one.

Your interpretation is more in tune with Lenin's...and I have already quoted a source which states that Lenin not only disagreed with Marx on the necessity for violent revolution, but Lenin also "inferred things" or "put words into" Marx's and Engel's mouth.

I am not the only one who insists that the word "forcible" might not necessarily refer to physical force and violence.

"Forcible" can mean things other than physical violence. For example, a person might be "forced" to accept communism or face losing the job which he needs to support his family.

FORCIBLE (definition)

1. done or effected by force : forcible entry into a house.

2. producing a powerful effect; having force; effective.

3. convincing, as reasoning: a forcible theory.

4. characterized by the use of force or violence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forcible
_____________________________________________________________


Re: Do you count a "civil war" breaking out into "open revolution" with a "violent overthrow" of the bourgeoisie as establishing that Marx was explicit about violent revolution, and if not, why not?

If you are alluding to Russia, no. Because the circumstances in Russia were unique and lend credibility to those who observed Marx's ambiguity in his writings - especially since the Russian Revolution occurred around the same time as World War I.

Russia was one among many European countries where communists were operating underground. After the War, it was quickly realized that what seemed to work for communists in Russia would not necessarily work for communists in other countries when the "inevitable" uprising of the proletariat did not take place in Europe as expected during and after the War.

Russia was a poor and underdeveloped country. The country was a monarchy governed by the Tsar, who was the hereditary ruler of Russia. Most people were peasants, ruled over by a minority of noble families. Peasants were obligated by law to till the land for their noble masters. They had little or nothing to lose.

When all is said and done, I don't disagree that violent revolution has sometimes been the means of imposing communism. What I disagree with is the idea that violent revolution and communism always and necessarily go tandem.

Susanna said...

Dear Constance,

Here is an article that you might want to check out.

Gay Vatican official who 'came out' may influence Synod in a way he didn't expect--or want
By Phil Lawler Oct 05, 2015

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=1162

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

"but they are extremely hesitant even to mention violence in their writings—and if they do, it is accompanied by grief and sighs."

aren't we forgetting that the kind of controls that could get you thrown in prison
for advocating violent overthrow were in place back then?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 6:22

"Anonymous said...
Marko, you are a sweetie. We are a free people? Free maybe to go into a grocery store and choose between Kelloggs Corn Flakes, Lucky Charms or Quaker Oats. We are free to do what we want to do as long as it doesn't violate federal,state, county, city, village, township, or UN laws as they come through the government. We are free to elect people who lie to us and then do what they are told to do. We are free to choose where we want to go to school or have our children go to school, but don't look for freedom there. Oh you are free to post what you want to on the internet, but know you are being watched. Oh you are free to make decisions, but how those decisions are influenced by the government's New Age network will affect your freedom. "

this is what you find in any but total anarchism at which point you are free to do
whatever the local warlord or gang leader allows.

you are being watched? if you live in a real small town you are being watched by
everyone and you are likely watching them.

the EXACT CONTENT of the restrictions is the proper issue. the EXISTENCE of
restrictions is not a proper issue.

Anonymous said...

Thanks 7:13 PM.

How soon many forget......

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

the whole 9-11 truth thing has been hijacked to focus on HOW not WHO and WHY
and when the latter is brought up it is a veiled or overt effort to blame Israel.
or aliens. rarely is the attention thrown on the people who gained the most - the
neocons and the military industrial complex.

Anonymous said...

Paul @ 6:52 PM

Re: 'All the debris was immediatly shipped off to China.'


Yes, that was one of the biggest red flags of all. Ground Zero was a CRIME SCENE... and yet, they couldn't move that debris out of there fast enough!!!

'Cognitive dissonance' indeed!!!

Susanna said...

Anonymous 2:14 P.M.

You cannot really separate the political elements apart from the "religious" elements when researching the new Age Movement because the two go tandem.

That said, I am presenting the following for consideration.


Julius Evola - The World's Most Right-Wing Thinker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIPjJqbkjb4


Julius Evola - Ride the Tiger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go22wxBDvj0


Julius Evola - LOST INTERVIEW w/ subtitles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiCtdi5nCoA


MEN AMONG THE RUINS By Julius Evola ( Full audio book)

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBFD80DE22E61AA0D

___________________________________________________


Savitri Devi was called "Hitler's Priestess." She was a promoter of Esoteric Nazism and advocate of "Deep Ecology."


ESOTERIC NAZISM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_Nazism



Fascism And The New Age: The Life And Times Of Savitri Devi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSfP1XBrkIY


Jonathan Bowden on Savitri Devi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rEaw2pU59s


_________________________________________________________


Miguel Serrano ( Esoteric Hitlerism)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHBUSwIiOVA


Tradition and Perennialism in the Contemporary World

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20nuTITfhko

Anonymous said...

Susanna, what is your point. It is clear you wish to present sources you've visited that have led you to your conclusions, whatever they are. What is your bottom line. What is the view you are working to support with the works you've read and are working to get us to check out. There is a huge number of sources in libraries and on the internet, probably thousands dealing with the Nazi and Communist histories. You led off with a premise and then gave sources, not connecting the two.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Marko,

you said "The stage is set for the US to go the way of the dinosaur, and for a shift of power centers from West to East. This is the dynamic I see in play when I watch world events."

I agree, and I think we should start calculating how to survive in the results
assuming this occurs in our lifetimes and isn't a slowwww process, and assuming
we survive this process change over point.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

anon 10:17

what do you mean not connecting the premise and sources? the premise is clearly
states, and the sources are the SUPPORT FOR THE PREMISE obviously. what other
purpose could they serve? if you are not making a connection that failure is in
your mind not her presentation.

Anonymous said...

Christine, the question is what is in the sources that support the premise? A headline or a book title or a video title is just that. The reason for the list of sources may be in the mind of the poster, but it says nothing about what is in those links. To give a book title and a bibliography and tell the reader that's it is really not considered very good academic work.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

the titles are pretty self explanatory. they connect Nazism and related fascisms to
mystical notions. Perhaps you do not think religion or spirituality is relatable
to politics, perhaps you keep your religion in one pocket and "real life" in
another.

but others don't. as for not good academic work, this is how you get trained in
school in the old days, a lecture and a reading list for homework.

if you don't want to watch videos, which often pull together several books content,
then run the subjects in a search engine and get some quicker overviews.

Anonymous said...

Christine, you are playing word games with the wrong person. I familiar with all of the information in the videos and have been for decades. Go play in your sandbox with rest of the kiddies.



Anonymous said...

But she's ready to play the game some more.
You know the one.
The 25 ways to abuse the truth (and those who tell it).

Anonymous said...

Regarding 911 and the possibility it was a government planned action, keep in mind that it was probably a New Age political action because all government actions are connected with New Age goals. A government that promotes abortion, euthanasia, Planned Parenthood atrocities, covers its eyes while Christians are being brutally killed by the hundreds in the Middle East, as well as other things that have taken place could rationalize the deaths in the twin towers if the need was seen. I just watched a video which gave names and financial organizations that were destroyed by 911. Tell me again how the New Age movement is just occult paganism, blah blah blah.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

of course it is political as well as "spiritual" its both. the problem
is when someone sees it as only political or only "spiritual."

Anonymous said...

I am the Anon who has been discussing the definition of communism with Susanna and perhaps others. I see this dialogue largely as a matter of definition, for she and I both agree that the ends of communism and socialism are similar and are bad things. I also accept that the way that people who are committed to ends can seek to reach them may change over time. On top of that, some dedicated communist idealists might say that no State has ever yet attained communism, and concede that the Soviet Union was run to the benefit of a small number of people who were charge of a powerful enforcing network/hierarchy. (I'd tell such idealists that it will always work out like that, but the issue is outwith the present discussion.)

Originally, socialism and communism aimed to reach a utopia of the industrialised working class by different means: socialism via universal suffrage and the ballot box, since the working class outnumbered the bourgeoisie; communism via violent revolution. I have provided a quote from the foundational document of communism, namely the Communist Manifesto of 1848 co-authored by Marx, that distinguishes clearly between socialists who use non-violent means and communists who use violent revolution. Here is the most relevant quote:

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat...

Of course, prior to a revolution the would-be revolutionaries have to work by stealth, but to say that Marx was never clear about communism involving a violent revolution is, in light of this quote, simply untrue. Let's leave word redefinition to the communists!

Anonymous said...

The 9/11 debris was shipped out because it was laced with asbestos and they were willing to deal with it FAR cheaper than to Western standards.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I think the violence connected with the revolutionary movements of the time and
the fact Marx never condemned these as far as I know, pretty well settles the issue.

the only condemnation of violence I have ever heard of (granted I haven't read all
of Marx's stuff or even all of his magnum opus) was tactical, that in some conditions
the time wasn't right, because it would fail.

Anonymous said...

I would be interested in hearing everyone's opinion about what comes up on this video, beginning at about the 31 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdP95oSoOFk&feature=player_embedded







Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

correct about cheney just before 31 second. I see of course you are pushing the
anti Israel line with her.

first off, they couldn't have rigge4d the building from that one spot. secondly
so what if they are bomb experts and do you think that various countries intelligence
people don't spy on each other including friends? think again. there is nothing
unusual.

thirdly, Mossad was one of the several foreign agencies that WARNED us about this,
and the elements in our own government that wanted this to happen kept ignoring
it. on purpose. you can just before that hear the remarks about Cheney saying the
order still stands to not shoot the plane down as it gets closer and closer.

why wouldn't they have people on site to see what would happen?

neocon americans and equivalent in Israel are in each other's pockets and frankly
I think Israel is as much a puppet as a recipient of largesse a lot of the time.
LBJ was clearly calling the shots in the USS Liberty incident. not Israel.

you re really wasting everyone's time here. this blog except for a few antizionist
freaks on board is pro Israel. how you can stand that woman's voice is anyone's
guess. you must like new age hypnotic stuff.

Anonymous said...

There is no evidence that any plane went down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania on 9/11.
According to locals who live in that area, there was no noise, no plane parts, no bodies, no luggage. However, there was a large crater (which interestingly enough, had also been photographed back in 1994).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OumTBrSayqw

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

that is true. the reason being that the plane didn't crash because of the passengers
attacking the hijacker new pilots, though they did that, but because not knowing
the plane was not under hijacker control the fighter plane shot it down and this
had to be covered up.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

too embarrassing and too potentially traumatic in addition to the trauma already done
at the WTC. So a fake crash site was designated and the real crash after shoot down
site cleaned up quietly.

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

Richard at 10:16,

I don't think there's going to be an attack on Israel. http://www.bing.com/search?q=russia+israel&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IENTTR&conversationid= several articles
on Russia coordinating with Israel about Syria.

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/putins-visit-and-israeli-russian-relations
considerable analysis

Anonymous said...

On her videos, Rebekah Roth explains her theories about what may have happened with Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, Jeremy Glick and Tom Burnett of Flight 93 fame.

We may never know the whole truth about WHO was behind the planning of 9/11... but, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize one undeniable fact... that we have been lied to for the past 14 years. So, the question remains: WHY?

Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...

I think everyone knows or suspects we've been lied to. and the reason is obvious,
to promote the agenda that 9-11 facilitated to invade the Middle East and take
down various governments, on the list that Wesley Clark saw SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE
9-11. it was an inside job, as far as planning and support be preventing stopping
it and arranging timing to coincide with a NORAD drill to increase confusion, and
the ben laden family supplied the jihadi fliers, and they and Halliburton got a bit
more rich.

Anonymous said...

Happening next week in Salt Lake City Utah.

http://www.parliamentofreligions.org/

Anonymous said...

Recently, e-mails were obtained by the New York Times through an open-records request.

One particular e-mail was received on the morning of September 11, 2001 by Mary Matalin, the counselor to Vice President Dick Cheney at the time. The e-mail from her boss, Dick Cheney simply stated: 'Today is Pearl Harbor.'

(Now, IF this was truly a surprise attack on the United States, how would Dick Cheney have time to react so quickly, let alone know ANYTHING (regarding any 'who, what, how, why' factors)... before an investigation had even begun to take place???)

Last July, photos that were taken from inside the White House on 9/11, were released by the National Archives following a FOIA request.

One photo showed Dick Cheney, on the morning of 9/11, watching footage of the World Trade Center on fire... BEFORE the towers even fell down. The photo showed him sitting down, leaning back, with his feet stretched out in front of him... revealing surprisingly relaxed body language.

(I don't know about the rest of you... but, on that horrific morning, I was standing up, at full attention, as close to my television screen as I could get. If someone had taken a photo of me, it would have shown a person with eyes wide with shock and disbelief at what I was seeing in front of me on the screen.)

Source: Daily Mail article posted on September 11, 2015...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3230358/Inside-White-House-9-11-Never-seen-emails-capture-staff-reacted-horror-terror-attacks-weeks-pictures-Dick-Cheney-George-W-Bush-released.html#ixzz3ntwNPWOG

Anonymous said...

We, as a country, just thought we had lost our 'innocence' when JFK was assassinated. However, we lost so much more on 9/11... when you consider all of the complex repercussions since that day (with no end in sight).

Anonymous said...

A little strange there Anonymous, the way you keep pu shing Roth. There are many, many sites exposing the lies being told in connection with 9/11. If you are so curious about the topic, it would seem you would have gone to many of them and would have linked to those sites. On September 15 of this year she did an interview with Jeff Rense, a noted propagandist.It was put on Youtube by Raising Kundalini2. Now what makes Roth's presentation unique? Maybe her work in trying to tie 9/11 to Israel. All of it fits well into a New Age attack on Judaism.

When I see a story with labels such as British Episcopalean Brown was working with Methodist American Siller and they met with Lutheran German Muller to discuss how to bring about 9/11, I'll not be shocked if the writer mentions Jewish Israeli Steinberg. The New Age network has plants in all of those communities. No one has been born with a totally white teflon coated soul immune to all shades of evil. That includes you.

Anonymous said...

"We may never know the whole truth about WHO was behind the planning of 9/11... but, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize one undeniable fact... that we have been lied to for the past 14 years.

I deny it. My question to conspiratorialists is: If what you are asserting was wrong, how could you know?

There is no evidence that any plane went down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania on 9/11.
According to locals who live in that area, there was no noise, no plane parts, no bodies, no luggage. However, there was a large crater (which interestingly enough, had also been photographed back in 1994). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OumTBrSayqw


Nonsense. There was a scar on the ground in 1994, but no hole. The person who made that video showed pics stating "This is what REAL plane crashes look like" with lots of recognisable wreckage, and grumbled about the lack of bodies. That is enough to show that he or she is too ignorant to be taken seriously. Most plane crashes occur on takeoff or landing and there is plenty of recognisable debris. UA93 went in at 40 degrees and 500mph. That is similar to the PanAm Lockerbie, Scotland, crash of 1988 caused by a bomb in the cargo, and at Lockerbie they could not recognise any wing or body parts; in fact they knew the wings were in the crater only from the number of jackscrews found. What chance bodies? It is possible that the aircraft broke up under the stresses very near the moment of impact, releasing light debris that floated on the wind and explaining what else was found where. Although frankly I would not rule out that the US government shot it down and then denied it. That seems to me reasonable action in view of the other planes.

One photo showed Dick Cheney, on the morning of 9/11, watching footage of the World Trade Center on fire... BEFORE the towers even fell down.

What is the point of the capital letters? It took some time between the first impact and the first collapse.

The photo showed him sitting down, leaning back, with his feet stretched out in front of him... revealing surprisingly relaxed body language.

Which proves what? don't you know that yawning is a sign of stress? Perhaps exaggerated it's-OK body language is too.

One particular e-mail was received on the morning of September 11, 2001 by Mary Matalin, the counselor to Vice President Dick Cheney at the time. The e-mail from her boss, Dick Cheney simply stated: 'Today is Pearl Harbor.'

Please give a reliable reference for that claim, and please also show that it is not from a wargame that Cheney and the Pentagon were playing.

Anonymous said...

3:15 cute - however, we aren't dealing with amateur vs amateur in these discussions about 9/11. It's not a matter of which ice cream flavor was bought more last Sunday at Lou's Ice Cream Store. You're going to have to take down a lot of professionals who have analyzed the information. I have only a peripheral interest in the topic, so I'm not going to debate you. Those who have an interest in the topic might want to check out this video which was done just recently at a university in Canada. http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/09.15/decade.html

Anonymous said...

The reference for the claim that our then Vice President Dick Cheney sent an e-mail to his counselor, Mary Matalin on the morning of 9/11 stating, "Today is Pearl Harbor" came from an open-records request made by the New York Times.

If they were playing let's pretend 'war games' - why haven't we heard both Dick Cheney and Mary Matalin issuing statements of clarification or denial on Fox News, etc. (especially given the fact that the Daily Mail has become a very popular international website read by people all over the world, not just the U.S.)?

paul said...

Is there a statute of limitations on False Flag mass murder ?

Anonymous said...

No one is 'pushing' either Roth or any 'agenda'.

I just discovered her information recently... as many people believe that she has solved many of the 'missing pieces' of the puzzle that no one else has been able to solve over the past decade.

She appears on numerous internet talk shows, with various hosts. Those who insist on putting her in a political 'box' many need to examine their own motives for that.

Like everyone else, I am studying and learning every single day (information about both the new age and 9/11). Not one of us can claim that we have everything all figured out.

It's ironic that when it comes to exposing all things 'new age'- there are no boundaries. However, when someone brings up 9/11... there is venom in some of your responses and you start attacking the messenger. Like, how dare you! No... don't go there; don't disturb anyone's comfort zone. We might just learn something that we don't want to hear.

Anonymous said...

Amen, Paul.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 10:17,

My point was to show that you cannot separate the religious from the political when discussing the New Age Movement. Those were the best videos I could find that were representative of the neo-pagan radical right.

In addition to his fascist leanings, Evola had ties to the Traditionalist School and its syncretistic "Perennial Philosophy."

However, when discussing European fascism, it is good to remember that long before Germany had Hitler, we had the Klan.

With regard to the timetable we are currently experiencing, the control I see taking place is with regard to the traditionally right/conservastive Republican Party is that it appears to be continually moving in a leftward direction......and probably explains why David Duke was recently singing Donald Trump's praises.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/25/politics/david-duke-donald-trump-immigration/
______________________________________________________________________


Scott Walker Debated David Duke In 1992! Yep, And There's Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZnZjp3-87k
______________________________________________________________________

Woops! Looks like "The Donald" has too many Jewish friends for David Duke's liking. The following has been posted by Queeny Cameron:

DAVID DUKE on DONALD TRUMP 2016 CAMPAIGN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vw6-WcjwOY


To answer your earlier question, the role of the right/conservative movement - especially the radical right - in the New Age Movement might be to make the Left Wing look good by way of comparison.

Susanna said...

Anonymous 6:02

Re: Let's leave word redefinition to the communists!

Now there is something I can unequivocally agree with. :-)

Susanna said...

P.S. 6:02 A.M.

I have also been doing my homework - not because I have been looking to best you in an argument, but because I wanted to make sure I am understanding Marx correctly.

The opinions about Marx that I have been posting are not my own.

In any case, I found the following article about Marx which includes a quote by Marx published in an 1848 newspaper article. This quote along with Stephen Hick's article, agrees with what you have been saying about Marx NOT being ambiguous about the "necessity" for violent bloody revolution as the means for imposing communism on a people:

Marx’s philosophy and the *necessity* of violent politics

Posted on February 18, 2013 by Stephen Hicks

Here’s Marx in an 1848 newspaper article: “there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”

http://www.stephenhicks.org/2013/02/18/marxs-philosophy-and-the-necessity-of-violent-politics/
________________________________________________________

Ergo my sources were flawed and I cheerfully stand corrected.

Anonymous said...

"Take down professionals" who deny the al-Qaeda-did-it version of 9/11? I'll try it, provided that you summarise their claims in your own words.

Please give me a reference to the NYT for that claim re Cheney's Pearl Harbor quote.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Susanna!

Unohoo

paul said...

Niether Groucho Marx nor John Lennon have the answers.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 555   Newer› Newest»