Yuri Bezmenov - Soviet Defector - Explains the Occupy Wall Street "movement"

Yes, I know, Yuri died in 1993. Just watch the video. I'll see you in 15 minutes.

...

Back with me? See, now, when you know their tactics, you see right through them. They are transparent, aren't they?

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle - Sun Tzu (Chapter 3)

So how did "Occupy" begin? It didn't initially call itself "Occupy". When I initially started researching this, there were 38 pages on The Blaze listed under the key word of "Occupy". Now, there are 40. Depending on when you see this blog posting, what you will want to do is start at the end and work your way backward. The very last page doesn't have much of anything on it, but page 39 is where you first start seeing some significant things.

The "Days of Rage" is where it all began. Some of you may remember that. Why is this significant? They weren't originally 'occupiers', they were 'ragers'. That's not a term they ever used, I use it here now to differentiate. They were having 'Days of Rage' to occupy wall street. That is the genesis of their name. But their use of the phrase "Days of Rage" is significant, because America has seen it before. This is exactly what Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground called their riots.

I hope people will go through the archives of The Blaze, page by page. Who is at best in bed with them or supporting them, at worst the actual organizers and the actual head(s) of the snake? As you saw in the video, it's all the usual suspects, but with greater detail. Communists, Anarchists, Van Jones, DSA and the most particularly radical unions, revolutionaries, ACORN, progressives, George Soros, even Islamists and the Nazi Party have endorsed 'Occupy'.

While these details are important(Yes, I know, show me your friends and I'll show you you're future), those aren't what I want to focus in on. The details that stand out more to me are the symbolic things, the things that mean the most to them. The Days of Rage, for example. Or there's this: Donny Deutsch ‘Repulsed’ by the Tea Party, Hopes for a ‘Kent State’ Type Moment so the Occupy Wall Street Movement Can Really Resonate With the American People.

Who among those reading my words knows or remembers the Kent State Massacre? And this is what Occupy needs?!?!?

Well, yes. It is. In their minds. They're revolutionaries. I don't mean the average person who's disenchanted with any number of things and believes what the media sells them about Occupy, I'm talking about the actual leaders who know full well what they're doing. And they constantly tell us about their violent nature in their imagery. Take the November 17th protests for example. The image you see there is not about Tianenmen Square.

How many Occupy _________ posters, shirts, and other memorabilia can you find which use the clenched fist, a very well known piece of communist imagery? I don't mean the stuff built by individuals. I mean "official" stuff. In that link, I see Occupy Atlanta, Occupy Freedom Plaza, Occupy Red Bank, Occupy Boston, Occupy Toledo, Occupy Portland, but the one that really got my attention was Occupy Miami(this is an amateur image, so see this direct source). Occupy Miami states that "This revolution will not be televised".

When I tell you that they know their history, I'm not kidding. This goes back to Gil Scott Heron and his little poem under that very name. Or how about the upcoming Occupy May Day rallies? Yeah, May day is a well known communist holiday, and again you see the fist. But note the line there about "no chores". They are clearly targeting parents. This is where I can bring this right back to the beginning of the blog posting. See the left's war against the family. At about two minutes into the video I linked you to at the top of this post, you see Glenn Beck on, talking with Bill O'Reilly, and he mentions the book "The Coming Insurrection" while trying to warn people that the insurrection is coming. Well, that was some time ago. No longer is the insurrection coming. It's here. It's name is Occupy. Occupy knows of the Days of Rage, of N17, and yes, they know too about the book the Coming Insurrection. Don't believe me?

Occupy Movement Dumps Clenched Fist for New Logo to Represent the 99 Percent How is the new logo described?

calling the chosen design a "very expensive CIRCLE."

These people know their own history. This is no accident. It can't be. A circle? Where have I heard that term before? Oh yeah! In the book "The Coming Insurrection"! That little book does not have "Chapters", it has 'circles'. First circle, second circle, third circle, and on and on. I know, because I have a copy of it. I've read it. You can get a free copy in the above blog link of mine about the war on the family.

So it's as Sun Tzu said after all. Know your enemy and yourself and you need not fear the result of a hundred battles, because you can see them coming 20 miles away and be prepared way before they arrive.

http://tinyurl.com/7vwsnpo

"The Nation" magazine launders socialists and communists - And anarchists too!

This is truely interesting. The Nation magazine has two lists of influential 'progressives', but when you look at the lists, many of them are outright socialists and communists. List one, here, list two here. It's almost as if socialists are super progressives. That's what they were calling Victor Berger - because he was a socialist, that made him a super progressive. So what, does that mean that communists are super-ultra-mega progressives? Let's examine the first list:

1) Eugene Debs: The Nation doesn't try to hide that he was a socialist, but it still begs the question - does that make him a super progressive? And, I thought that progressives had nothing in common with socialists? That's what they'd have you believe, anyways.

5) John Dewey: He was a Fabian socialst, and also the father of modern education. You'll love this guy, search my archives for some of the things he's written.

7) W.E.B. Du Bois: Another socialist, which The Nation does make note of. A superprogressive.

8) Upton Sinclair: Another superprogressive.

10) Charlotte Perkins Gilman: Another member of the Fabian society here in the US. Or at least at a bare minimum, she contributed to the magazine "The American Fabian" here in the US.

11) Roger Baldwin: A communist. A super-ultra-mega progressive.

15) Norman Thomas: As The Nation states, he was a socialist(superprogressive).

16) A.J. Muste, 17) Sidney Hillman, 19)A. Philip Randolph, 20) Walter Reuther, and 21) Paul Robeson are all socialists

23) Woody Guthrie: A communist.

25) Ella Baker: Van Jones' favorite socialist.(or at least, he named one of his institutions after her)

26) I.F. Stone: A soviet spy!

30) Harry Hay: A communist(The Nation is honest about this) and the founder of the Mattachine Society. If you've ever wondered about the red roots of the pink(or is it rainbow?) movement, this is where you should start your research.

32) Bayard Rustin and 35) David Brower were socialists, 38) Betty Friedan was a communist.

39) Michael Harrington: not much question here. Look at the picture on the page; behind his head it clearly says "democratic socialist".

43) Gloria Steinem: Member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Note the Che picture in the background.

44) Tom Hayden: Founder of SDS, which is where we got Bill Ayers(a small "c" communist) and the Weather Underground. Nice people eh!

48) Bill Moyers: Now this is an interesting one. Bill Moyers has stated that he was "on his board for several years", referring to George Soros' Open Society Institute.

49) Barbara Ehrenreich: another socialist. Just don't wait for the Nation to tell you that.

And now for the second list of eleven, picked by the Nation's readers:

1) Howard Zinn: America's leading revisionist history and an ardent communist.

2) Dorothy Day: one of Jim Wallis' favorite socialist leaders.

5) John Muir: While I'm not aware of him being a socialist, he was a part of that conservationist/progressive/eugenicist axis of evil that existed right at the start of the progressive era. I couldn't let that pass without a comment.

7) Emma Goldman: See, anarchists are progressive too. Especially when they're out there burning things up and turning over cars. That's really progressive of them.

11) Studs Terkel: And ending the list, another communist.

I suspect that this is a part of the effort to mainstream socialist and communist thought. Is he a communist? No he's not. Yes he is. No he's not. It may not be long, before that changes into "Why does that matter?" - socialism is great! Centralized planning is the future! Bow before dear leader.

http://tinyurl.com/8y3cwzw

Fabianism: practical, constitutional, evolutionary Socialism

At the beginning of the year I wrote about revisionist history, and quoted an author's description which sounded to me strikingly like Fabian Socialists. According to a professor named Samuel Peter Orth - without going through and reading 3-5 books, I cannot determine who Orth was. His books are written for places like Cornell and Yale, so my gut tells me he was a fellow traveller of the progressives, but again, I cannot determine for sure. In any case, here is what he wrote quoting one of the founders of the British Fabian Society, Edward R Pease:(Page 248)

So we see Socialism and Liberalism united in accomplishing changes in legislation and ancient institutions - changes that are revolutionary in character and will be far-reaching in results. It is not the red revolutionary Socialism of Marx; it is the practical British Socialism of amelioration. "This practical, constitutional, evolutionary Socialism," a chronicler of the Fabians calls it. It would have to be practical to appeal to the British voter, constitutional to lure the British statesman, and evolutionary to satisfy the British philosopher

Now, while I cannot for sure determine Orth's position and where he is coming from, here is what Edward R Pease wrote by his own hand in "The History of the Fabian Society":

The revolt came from England in the person of Edward Bernstein, who, exiled by Bismarck, took refuge in London, and was for years intimately acquainted with the Fabian Society and its leaders. Soon after his return to Germany he published in 1899 a volume criticising Marxism,[45] and thence grew up the Revisionist movement for free thought in Socialism which has attracted all the younger men, and before the war had virtually, if not actually, obtained control over the Social Democratic Party.

Footnote 45 is the key here. After spending all those years with the Fabians, Bernstein then published "Evolutionary Socialism". So in this regard Orth's quoting of Pease is entirely in context. Here is footnote 45:

[45] Published in English by the Independent Labour Party in 1909 as "Evolutionary Socialism."

So then that's how it shall be. They are evolutionary socialists, not revolutionary socialists. This is an important distinction to make and knowledge to grasp. The first thing that pops into my head is the words of James Madison:

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

So then it's settled. Progressives and Fabians - the evolutionaries - are a greater threat to liberty than are communists - the revolutionaries. I know Madison has my complete trust. How about you?

http://tinyurl.com/7gzrx6w

Theodore Roosevelt thanks Grant for his racist, eugenic book

In Scribners' magazine, 1917, Theodore Roosevelt wrote the following about Madison Grant's book "The Passing of The Great Race":

"The book is a capital book; in purpose, in vision, in grasp of the facts our people most need to realize. It shows an extraordinary range of reading and a wide scholarship. It shows a habit of singular serious thought on the subject of most commanding importance. It shows a fine fearlessness in assailing the popular and mischievous sentimentalities and attractive and corroding falsehoods which few men dare assail. It is the work of an American scholar and gentleman; and all Americans should be sincerely grateful to you for writing it"

- Theodore Roosevelt

This is also the book that's widely rumored to be Hitler's "bible". What great company, eh? Roosevelt and Hitler, great nationalists of world history. (that's sarcasm, for those who missed it) Now, I can't source that quote, so I do take it with a grain of salt. But I know there's plenty out there which is not available online.

It's important to note that Grant was a huge conservationist. But as is with everything else that progressives engage in, their stated goal is only a means. The end is what makes them dangerous.

http://tinyurl.com/7v7m7ck

Theodore Roosevelt believed in pure democracy

From a book titled "Progressive Principles"; the following is a speech Roosevelt gave in Ohio: (page 47)

I will gladly send him a copy of the speeches I made in 1910 which I think cover most of the ground.

I believe in pure democracy. With Lincoln, I hold that "this country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it.. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it."

We Progressives believe that the people have the right, the power, and the duty to protect themselves and their own welfare; that human rights are supreme over all other rights; that wealth should be the servant, not the master, of the people.

We believe that unless representative government does absolutely represent the people it is not representative government at all.

This all sounds good on the surface, until reason rears it's ugly head and you begin to remember that democracy doesn't work. That's why the founders gave us a republic...... if we can keep it.

Furthermore, knowing Roosevelt's background helps us to understand what he is really saying here. As I recently noted, he plainly stated:

I have actively fought in favor of grafting on our social life, no less than our industrial life, many of the German ideals.

This was very common for the progressive central planners of Roosevelt's day. They didn't like all these American ideals with this nonsense of inalienable rights. It's no wonder that to the casual observer, Wilson largely implemented the plans as laid out by Roosevelt's progressive party.

http://tinyurl.com/7ml75e6

The STORM manifesto audiobook is finally complete

I think I've said all that I can or need to say about this in a prior posting (see notes here). To all of my friends in every tea party, 9/12, g000h, afp, and any other related liberty-based group you are involved in, please get a download copy of all of this and get it to your project leaders so that it can be used the way it needs to be used. At some point(probably sooner than later) someone from the left will notice that this has been created, and may want to scrub it from the internet. That's what the left does to all inconvenient things, and as a lone citizen I am powerless to stop it from happening. You can do a single-file download on the left hand side of the archive.org screen where it says "VBR ZIP". Or click here.(Warning: 200+MB file)

Maybe I'm biased because I did the recording, but I think if there's anybody out there who has read this work comes across the recording, they will know full well how useful a decent audio recording of this can be and will want to make sure it can't be erased.

This took a lot of my free time to do. Use it well, fellow patriots. Good citizenship requires informed citizens, and many of you just don't have time to read.(work, kids, etc)

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle - Sun Tzu (Chapter 3)

http://tinyurl.com/7h6rgy8

A fundamental of Progressivism: Capitalism is anarchic

In Friedrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" he quotes(Page 124, first page of Ch 7) Stuart Chase as saying "political democracy can remain if it confines itself to all but economic matters" - which is a remarkably telling statement as to the aims of both Fabians and Progressives alike. Remember, Stuart Chase was a Fabian Socialist, and a member of FDR's braintrust. It was Chase who coined the term "The New Deal".

In "Road", Hayek cites Lippmann for the quote from Chase, but I prefer original sources. Chase wrote this in his book titled "The Economy of Abundance" - on Page 313 - but note how this book was written 1934, this is right around the beginning of the New Deal. This is important to note, as another one of Chase's books "The Road we are Traveling"(1942) notes, free enterprise is being replaced by a centrally planned society.(Page 95) The point of highlighting the dates, is that Chase never changed his beliefs while he was a part of the brain trust.

In regard to the original quote at the top of the post, "political democracy can remain if it confines itself to all but economic matters", what I want to highlight is what comes just after that. So on page 313 of the book "The Economy of Abundance", you will see this:

Political democracy can remain if it confines itself to all but economic matters; democracy in consumption will make enormous strides as standards of living are leveled upward; industrial individualism - anarchy is a better term - in the sense of each businessman for himself, each corporation for itself, must be disallowed.

As I noted just the other day, John Dewey says this, and Woodrow Wilson says this. But looking beyond mere words is the key: How do all progressives act? They all centralize government. They all attack free enterprise.

I am convinced this is a fundamental of progressivism. They all look upon capitalism as anarchic. This is just my opinion, but the thing about having their words directly sourced, is that it means that we necessarily develop the correct interpretation of their actions, and not just some interpretation that we find to be convenient. I encourage all to go digging into my archives and pick apart their words and actions, I don't see many people disagreeing with this notion I've developed.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle - Sun Tzu

http://tinyurl.com/8ydfcej