Sunday, August 7, 2016

"Democracy" Is a Breeding Incubator for Marxism - The American People Are Not Cognizant of the "Subtle Hand" of Saul Alinsky - Democracy Creates Untalented Clowns for Politicians - The Criminals Are Running the System - U.S. Military Pushing Partison Politics - The Inertia of Mass Is a Very Dangerous Thing - Russia Left Marxism Behind; America Adores Marxism - As a Religion Democracy Works Extremely Well - What Mythology Are You Living? - Hillary Clinton Moving Closer to Her Coronation as Queen of the Kleptocratic Corporate Oligarchy

Source: Katehon

by Alexander Azadgan

August 7, 2016

Washington regards itself as the most advanced democracy in the world. It has waged dozens of utterly criminal wars to supposedly spread democracy far and wide. However, Washington's rhetoric fails to meet the standard of reality. Not only does Washington wage wars that destroy entire nations in the name of "democracy", but its electoral system is the antithesis of democracy as well. The 2016 elections placed the undemocratic character of Washington on full display when the Democratic Party apparatus anointed Hillary Clinton the "presumptive" nominee just one day before the California primary!

According to the Associated Press, Hillary Clinton won all the delegates necessary for the nomination. However, Clinton's lead has mainly relied on the support of this undemocratic monster called, "the super delegates". Even after her victory in California, Clinton possesses 1,926 pledged delegates as opposed to 1,615 held by Senator Bernie Sanders. This meant that neither candidate had the required 2,383 delegates needed to clinch the nomination. The Democratic National Convention would have thus been a contested one – or so we thought. However, this fact has been kept in the dark by the controlled, mainstream, US corporate media.

CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, the Associated Press, etc., they all made claims the day before the California Primary that Clinton was the "presumptive" nominee. Each branch of the monopoly corporate media counted these so-called "super delegates" along with pledged delegates. However, super delegates often select preferred candidates months before the last state primary. They can change their mind at any point before the convention or during it. Although Sen. Bernie Sanders lost California and will go into the convention trailing Clinton by a significant margin, he can technically still contest the legitimacy of the super delegates, albeit now highly unlikely since for all practical purposes, he has more-or-less endorsed Hillary Clinton.

Despite these possibilities, the latest turn in the 2016 elections blatantly exposes how US Presidents are selected, not elected. The centuries long narrative that the US was founded on the basis of democracy was always a lie. The American society has always been a democracy for capital and a dictatorship for the working class and the socio-economically oppressed. African-Americans built the initial infrastructure of the American society as the enslaved property of the rich and the affluent. Indigenous people were mercilessly murdered and terrorized to clear the path for early American capitalism. Capital is far more consolidated now that it was then, and its control of the US electoral system more apparent than ever.

Hillary Clinton is the quintessential candidate of consolidated capital. She first served as a director in Wal-Mart's corporate board. Throughout the rest of her political career, Clinton has received millions in support from Wall Street. The Clinton Foundation relies solely on the patronage of corporations such as Wal-Mart, GE, and the infamous Goldman Sachs. Her ties to Wall Street and monopoly corporations have led to numerous speaking engagements with these institutions; a point Sen. Bernie Sanders has touched on throughout his campaign. Hillary Clinton's career as a politician has thus exemplified what it means for US politicians to be bought by the rich and then sold back to the public as "representatives" of the American people.

Many may be tempted to view the 2016 elections as a profoundly negative experience. The attempt by the predatory capitalist ruling class to undermine the Sanders campaign had the potential to discourage many who still erroneously believe the US is a democratic society. Furthermore, as Clinton gets closer to an anointed coronation, the prospect of a Donald Trump Presidency becomes greater. In conjunction to supporting Clinton, the mainstream corporate media has fear-mongered viewers about the dangers of a Trump Presidency. To many on the liberal spectrum of US politics, Trump represents the evil of all evils whose presidency would surely ruin what is left of the American democracy – if there was ever one to begin with!

What this election cycle will hopefully accomplish is a more conscious working class; more equipped to question and fight the legitimacy of the American democracy. The popularity of Trump and Sanders is a sign of popular discontent with the prevailing conditions of the American society. Workers are realizing that there is no democracy when 80% of the population is near poor, and yet Washington continues to slash funding for food assistance and public education.

There is no democracy [AD note: Please read "Hitler's Prophetic Warnings About Democracy" below.] in a society that imprisons the most people in the world and murders at least one African-American per day. Nor does democracy exist for the millions of people who have been terrorized by an immigration system that has deported nearly two million people since 2008, with more to come.

Despite growing popular discontent with social conditions in the US, Washington continues to spend trillions of dollars on endless wars around the world. Nations such as Venezuela have been saddled with debilitating sanctions for supposed "human rights" abuses. Most of the nations that Washington targets place the needs of the people over profit and possess secular, democratic governments. China has called out Washington with a human rights report of its own detailing the numerous instances where the US fails its own standards. The reality is that Washington views democracy as an impediment to the global rule of predatory capitalist profit. Everything else is window dressing. Period!

The 2016 elections is the first election cycle of the 21st century that truly shakes the notion of the American democracy to its core and allows voters to realize this country is in fact a kleptocratic corporate oligarchy. Sen. Sanders more-or-less threw in the towel following a meeting with President Obama on June 9th.

However, such a move would only embolden his supporters. Both corporate parties have nothing to show for themselves but undesirable candidates and a system that is rapidly corroding. The future of the corrupt two-party American political system is in jeopardy and what comes after it remains unclear. Hide

Source: tomatobubble


"Sooner will a camel pass through a needle's eye than a great man be 'discovered' by an election." - Adolf Hitler

By Adolf Hitler

The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs can spread. In its most extreme form, parliamentarianism created a 'monstrosity of excrement and fire,' in which, however, sad to say, the 'fire' seems to me at the moment to be burned out. . . .

Democracy breeds Marxism

What gave me most food for thought was the obvious absence of any responsibility in a single person. The parliament arrives at some decision whose consequences may be ever so ruinous - nobody bears any responsibility for this, no one can be taken to account. For can it be called an acceptance of responsibility if, after an unparalleled catastrophe, the guilty government resigns? Or if the coalition changes, or even if parliament is itself dissolved?

Can a fluctuating majority of people ever be made responsible in any case? Isn't the very idea of responsibility bound up with the individual? But can an individual directing a government be made practically responsible for actions whose preparation and execution must be set exclusively to the account of the will and inclination of a multitude of men?

Or will not the task of a leading statesman be seen, not in the birth of a creative idea or plan as such, but rather in the art of making the brilliance of his projects intelligible to a herd of sheep and blockheads, and subsequently begging for their kind approval?


Is it the criterion of the statesman that he should possess the art of persuasion in as high degree as that of political intelligence in formulating great policies or decisions? Is the incapacity of a leader shown by the fact that he does not succeed in winning for a certain idea the majority of a mob thrown together by more or less savory accidents?

Indeed, has this mob ever understood an idea before success proclaimed its greatness?

Isn't every deed of genius in this world a visible protest of genius against the inertia of the mass?

And what should the statesman do, who does not succeed in gaining the favor of this mob for his plans by flattery?

Should he buy it?

Or, in view of the stupidity of his fellow citizens, should he renounce the execution of the tasks which he has recognized to be vital necessities? Should he resign or should he remain at his post?

In such a case, doesn't a man of true character find himself in a hopeless conflict between knowledge and decency, or rather honest conviction?

Where is the dividing line between his duty toward the general public and his duty toward his personal honor?

Mustn't every true leader refuse to be thus degraded to the level of a political gangster?

Political gangsters: Clinton and Zionist Senators Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Levin

And, conversely, mustn't every gangster feel that he is cut out for politics, since it is never he, but some intangible mob, which has to bear the ultimate responsibility?

Mustn't the principle of parliamentary majorities lead to the demolition of any idea of leadership?

Does anyone believe that the progress of this world springs from the mind of majorities and not from the brains of individuals?

Or does anyone expect that the future will be able to dispense with this premise of human culture?

Does it not, on the contrary, today seem more indispensable than ever?

By rejecting the authority of the individual and replacing it by the numbers of some momentary mob, the parliamentary principle of majority rule sins against the basic aristocratic principle of Nature, though it must be said that this view is not necessarily embodied in the present-day decadence of our upper ten thousand.

The devastation caused by this institution of modern parliamentary rule is hard for the reader of Jewish newspapers to imagine, unless he has learned to think and examine independently. It is, first and foremost, the cause of the incredible inundation of all political life with the most inferior, and I mean the most inferior, characters of our time.

The Best American "democracy" has to offer? The 5 living Presidents are all fools and criminals.

Just as the true leader will withdraw from all political activity which does not consist primarily in creative achievement and work, but in bargaining and haggling for the favor of the majority, in the same measure this activity will suit the small mind and consequently attract it.

The more dwarfish one of these present-day leather merchants is in spirit and ability, the more clearly his own insight makes him aware of the lamentable figure he actually cuts - that much more will he sing the praises of a system which does not demand of him the power and genius of a giant, but is satisfied with the craftiness of a village mayor, preferring in fact this kind of wisdom to that of a Pericles.

And this kind doesn't have to torment himself with responsibility for his actions. He is entirely removed from such worry, for he well knows that, regardless what the result of his 'statesmanlike' bungling may be, his end has long been written in the stars: one day he will have to cede his place to another equally great mind, for it is one of the characteristics of this decadent system that the number of 'great statesmen' increases in proportion as the stature of the individual decreases. With increasing dependence on parliamentary majorities it will inevitably continue to shrink, since on the one hand great minds will refuse to be the stooges of idiotic incompetents and bigmouths, and on the other, conversely, the representatives of the majority, hence of stupidity, hate nothing more passionately than a superior mind.

For such an assembly of wise men of Gotham, it is always a consolation to know that they are headed by a leader whose intelligence is at the level of those present: this will give each one the pleasure of shining from time to time-and, above all, if Tom can be master, what is to prevent Dick and Harry from having their turn too?

Democracy in action: untalented clowns doing their clown act.

This invention of democracy is most intimately related to a quality which in recent times has grown to be a real disgrace, to wit, the cowardice of a great part of our so-called 'leadership. What luck to be able to hide behind the skirts of a so-called majority in all decisions of any real importance!

Take a look at one of these political bandits. How anxiously he begs the approval of the majority for every measure, to assure himself of the necessary accomplices, so he can unload the responsibility at any time. And this is one of the main reasons why this type of political activity is always repulsive and hateful to any man who is decent at heart and hence courageous, while it attracts all low characters-and anyone who is unwilling to take personal responsibility for his acts, but seeks a shield, is a cowardly scoundrel. When the leaders of a nation consist of such vile creatures, the results will soon be deplorable. Such a nation will be unable to muster the courage for any determined act; it will prefer to accept any dishonor, even the most shameful, rather than rise to a decision; for there is no one who is prepared of his own accord to pledge his person and his head for the execution of a dauntless resolve.

For there is one thing which we must never forget: in this, too, the majority can never replace the man. It is not only a representative of stupidity, but of cowardice as well. And no more than a hundred empty heads make one wise man will an heroic decision arise from a hundred cowards.

Cowards and weaklings too afraid too oppose the Marxists, so they join them.

Source: WND

Communist Party unites behind Hillary

Rave 'coverage' of Democrat convention puts MSNBC to shame 

August 7, 2016

WASHINGTON – The Communist Party USA may not control many actual votes, but what they lack in support is made up for in enthusiasm.

That passion was in full display with a seven-person team of "reporters" covering their national political convention last month. And their convention was the Democratic National Convention that nominated Hillary Rodham Clinton as their undisputed candidate for president of the United States.

Exaggeration? Judge for yourself.

Here are excerpts from the editorial produced as part of that coverage by the team credentialed to cover the convention by the Democratic Party.

"Donald Trump steals wages. He'd pick your pocket in a New York minute. He lies and spreads hate. He's a racist and a bully."

"Do not underestimate Trump and the Republicans. While the establishment GOP was surprised by the successful insurgency of so-called outsider Trump, they are united in purpose: delivering more inequality, more misery, more instability and violence against working-class people of all races, genders, religions and sexual orientations. They are united with giant corporations and the billionaire class in their drive to lower wages and living conditions and increase their profits and power."

"With Senator Bernie Sanders endorsing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the message was loud and clear, "We're stronger together." That is what it will take to win in November."

"The union movement, communities of color, students, women, progressives and the newborn "political revolution" can help generate voter enthusiasm by talking and tweeting about Clinton and the issues. Challenging sexism is a must as well as racism, which has been a coded (and overt) staple of presidential elections for decades."

"Winning in a landslide" is needed now more than ever, and that landslide for Clinton could swing control of the Senate to Democrats, and other potential positive effects could be felt on the ‘down ballot' congressional and state races."

If you're not afraid of Hillary Clinton's plans for the U.S. before you read this book, you will be afterward. Get "Hillary's America" by bestselling author Dinesh D'Souza

The Communists, who for decades ran their own candidates for president and vice president but supported Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, don't just like Hillary and Bernie. The party also gave a big thumbs-up to Clinton's running mate, Tim Kaine.

"He's a great choice," wrote staffer Larry Rubin on the first day of the convention. "Kaine pushed the political envelope of Virginia, an erstwhile red southern state, in a progressive direction – and won! He was elected mayor of Richmond, then governor of the state and then senator. Everyone agrees: he's a sincere, nice guy."

Joseph Farah, the founder of and a former revolutionary communist himself in his youth, said the CPUSA's coverage was so effusive in its enthusiasm it put MSNBC to shame.

"Back in the day when Stalinists Gus Hall and Angela Davis were regularly nominated by the party as presidential and vice presidential candidates every four years, the U.S. Communists actually had beefs with the Democrats," he said. "But, in recent years, the party ceased those efforts in favor of a united front with the Democrats, with whom they have very few differences, if any."

"Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage" exposes how once-fringe concepts have become accepted by mainstream thought and are today welcomed by many legislators and judges.

You can read for yourself the rest of the Communist Party's coverage of the Democratic convention at People's World, but suffice it to say the U.S. Communists have been leaning Democratic for a while now.

The Communist Party was so eager to endorse Obama for re-election, it couldn't wait until 2012. It did so a year before the campaign officially got under way.

The party was jubilant in 2008, when Obama won his first race for the presidency.

Hailing Barack Obama's win as a victory for the "working class," the Communist Party USA called on the president-elect to carry out his promises, including his noted commitment to "spread the wealth." An editorial by the People's Weekly World, the official newspaper of the party, said the victory was for "workers of all job titles, professions, shapes, colors, sizes, hairstyles and languages."

In 2009, President Obama’s leadership was "one of the best opportunities that Americans have had in decades," declared a civil-rights activist addressing an overflow crowd at a gathering sponsored by the official newspaper of the Community Party USA.

The party was never disappointed by Obama. Here's how it critiqued Obama's final State of the Union Address earlier this year:

"In his final SOTU address, President Obama projected a bold vision for a more socially and economically just nation while appealing to the hopes of the American people. … President Obama pointedly rejected rightwing-Republican policy solutions including repeal of Obamacare, aggressive military buildup and action, tax cuts to the wealthy, blocking common-sense gun control … He also rejected efforts to exploit the fears of the American people using hate, anti-Muslim bigotry, racism and division.

"The challenges facing the nation and planet are immense: climate crisis, massive concentration and inequality of wealth, growing poverty and declining wages, joblessness, including skyrocketing unemployment in the African-American community, over $1 trillion in student debt, a crumbling infrastructure, underfunded schools and social services, lack of affordable housing, a frayed retirement security system, etc."

David Kupelian, managing editor of, had this to say earlier this year in a commentary on the shrinking divide between the two parties: "Amazing as it may seem, Barack Obama has dragged the entire Democratic Party so far leftward over the past seven-plus years that today's Democratic Party has become almost indistinguishable from the Communist Party.

"If that sounds hyperbolic to you, just stop reading right now and pull up the CPUSA's website," he added. "Spend some time reading and digesting it. Try to discern any major differences between the Communist Party's concerns, sensibilities and solutions – on issues from 'gay' rights, to unfettered immigration, to renewable energy, to wealth redistribution, to condemning cops as racist, to universal health care – and those of today's Democratic Party."

The interest has been largely fueled by Clinton's suppressed and later released 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College offering an extensive, largely positive critique of Alinsky and his work.

Hillary Clinton's association with radical thought dates back to at least 1969, when Obama was just 8 years old, himself a protégé early on of Frank Marshall Davis, a loyal Communist Party activist.

Clinton's 1969 Wellesley College senior thesis was titled "There Is Only the Fight … : An Analysis of the Alinsky Model." The thesis received attention when it was released after the Bill Clinton presidency. According to reports, in early 1993, the White House requested that Wellesley keep the thesis on "Rules for Radicals" author Saul Alinsky confidential and not release any copies.

Prepare for the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency by reading Saul Alinksy's "Rules for Radicals" – the book actually dedicated to Lucifer.

Clinton was said to have met with Alinsky several times in 1968, when she was writing her thesis. In her most recent memoir, Clinton wrote that she rejected a job offer from Alinsky to instead attend law school.

Last year, WND found that long after Alinsky's death in June 1972, a group Clinton co-chaired maintained a working relationship with Alinsky's main community organizing outfit, the Industrial Areas Foundation, or IAF. The partnership extended into the 1990s and yielded influence over the education policy of the Bill Clinton presidency, it can now be disclosed. Founded by Alinsky in 1940 and run by him until his death, the IAF is a national community-organizing network established to implement Alinsky’s expansive organizing agenda. After Alinsky's death, the IAF was taken over by his longtime associate and designated successor, Ed Chambers, who became the group’s executive director.

Dick Morris, a former top political adviser to Bill Clinton both as governor of Arkansas and as president, noted to WND that education reform "is the key issue Hillary Clinton used to propel herself independently to the forefront of Arkansas politics during Bill's governorship."

"The revelation of how closely linked her efforts were back in the 80s – and have been since – to an Alinsky radical front group is deeply disturbing and expands our understanding of Hillary's fundamental radicalism and commitment to the new left of Saul Alinsky," Morris said.

David Horowitz, whose parents were members of the Communist Party and who himself became a leader in the new left movement of the 1960s and 1970s before rejecting it, said the revelation is significant though not surprising.

"When radicals set out to fundamentally transform a society, the first institution they attack is the educational system which under their influence becomes a system of indoctrination in radical ideas," he told WND.

Interestingly, the Communist Party USA has not changed its stripes in any significant way. It hasn't walked back its 100 percent commitment to Communism. What has changed is the Democratic Party.

The drift leftward hit warp speed beginning in the 1990s, according to Farah. That's the year Bernie Sanders was first elected to Congress and founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

"One of his first actions in Congress was to found the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which was partnered with the Democratic Socialists of America," recounts Farah. "No surprise there, because most Americans have no idea of what the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Democratic Socialists of America are really all about."

Farah reported on the antics of the caucus in 1998.

"Back then the Congressional Progressive Caucus shared a website with the DSA," he wrote. "In other words, these two organizations, one government-funded and the other a tax-exempt nonprofit, were of like mind and on the same page politically. What I found back then was astonishing – even for me. On this shared website, that was quickly scrubbed after I exposed it, was a collection of songs I can almost hear Bernie, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus singing in harmony. One of my favorites back then – was "Red Revolution" sung to the tune of "Red, Red Robbin."

Here are the lyrics as they still appear on the Congressional Progressive Caucus website as captured by the Wayback Machine: (The original site was scrubbed within hours after it was exposed by WND:

When the Red Revolution
brings its solution
along, along

There'll be no more lootin'
when we start shootin'
that Wall Street throng

Wake up you proletarians
Don’t act like seminarians
Expropriate barbarians
Build a workers' republic

Exploitation and degradation
you won't find here
Surplus value and capital will disappear

I'm just a Red again,
saying what I've said again,
When the Red Revolution … da, da, da, da
brings its solution … da, da, da, da, da

"How do these people get away with denying they are redder than a robin's breast while singing songs like this – and printing them on the Internet?" asked Farah incredulously.

The song list also included lyrics to "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie," sung to the tune of “Frere Jacques."

Are you sleeping, are you sleeping,
Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie,
And when the revolution comes,
We'll kill you all with knives and guns,
Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie

"For those not trained in the lingo of communism, the dictionary definition of 'bourgeoisie', is, and I quote: '(in Marxist theory) the class that, in contrast to the proletariat or wage-earning class, is primarily concerned with property values,'" wrote Farah. "If you've got property, if you're part of the middle class, these people not only want to raise your taxes, they want to kill you with knives and guns!"

Meanwhile, an email sent out by the Communist Party USA over the weekend had this to say: "The 2016 elections are in full swing. Many of our districts and clubs and members are actively participating in the campaign to strike a blow to the extreme right and defeat Donald Trump and other down ballot GOP extremists. If you're not yet involved, there are many ways to get connected with labor and our allies, especially in the key battleground states and in targeted congressional and state legislative races. But no matter where you live you can be part of this exciting election. We can defeat Trump, oust right-wing majorities in Congress and statehouses while also building powerful labor-led people's movements, advancing a progressive agenda and political independence at the grassroots. We have some great tools, beginning with People's World daily (sic) Marxist analysis." If you'd like to join a teleconference on the CPUSA's overall election strategy, you can do so Thursday, Aug. 18 at 8 p.m. Eastern at this number, according to the email: 605-475-4850; Access code: 1053538#

General Allen's Insane Democracy War Cry

"Hillary's America" Trailer | Official Teaser Trailer HD 

3. Democracy v. Communism: Alexander Dugin on the Interpretation of Russian History

Fissioncoin - The Nuclear Coin Networks

No comments:

Post a Comment

Who's visiting Abel Danger
view a larger version of the map below at