Site
Commentary
By Richard Roberts
16 January 2005
The world is a republic of mediocrities.... - Carlyle |
Nothing is more durable than a hog's snout |
COMMUNIST
TALKING POINTS Cold War danger from Communism? Nyet! Network of
terrorists? Nyet! Jihad? Nyet! Exploring endlessly the reasons for their defeat in
2004, the Democrats gave three reasons.
1) The election was stolen again, particularly in Ohio. 2) They had
gone too far to the left. 3) Kerry moved too much to the right, not running on the true
principles of the party. Now there
seems to be a consensus among Democrats who are uniting behind a new
strategy which evidently believes they should have run much further left.
Indeed, last week we heard Ted Kennedy saying that the Party could
not win by moving more to the middle. And
even though Hillary Clinton did participate in the Senate’s dog-and-pony
show over the results of the Ohio election, her mouthpiece and former
White House Communications director Ann Lewis appeared on CNN’s
“Inside Politics” with Judy Woodruff to go public with the new
strategy. Woodruff asked her,
"Social Security, it's a huge topic, but in just a few words, is it
smart for the president to be pushing the kind of reform that we gather he
is pushing right now, Ann?" When the topic comes up of whether or not the media
has a liberal bias, one has to consider the incestuous relations of all
the lib commentators. Woodruff is the wife of CNN’s al Hunt. Barney
Frank is the brother of former White House Communications Director Ann
Lewis. Leftist journalist Steve Roberts is the first cousin of Barney and
Ann, whose wife is "Cokie" Roberts. Greta van Sustern is married
to lawyer John Coal who does business with Hugh Rodham, Hillary’s
brother. Certainly Hillary is looking forward to being the savior of
Social Security when she is elected, so she can’t have Bush pre-empting
her on this issue. So Lewis replied, “I'm going to tell you what, he's
wrong. There is no crisis. I repeat, the people who are telling us it's a
crisis now are the people who were telling us there were weapons of mass
destruction. George Bush wants to lower the Social Security benefits by
25%. That's wrong. The market goes down again today by a hundred points.
That's insecurity. It's a mistake. I don't think he'll do it.” Never mind that all the bigwigs of the Democrat party had in previous years warned that Social Security would go belly up if not fixed. When asked what to do with a government surplus, Bill Clinton said, “Fix Social Security.” The new talking point here is that just as Bush tried to scare us over WMDs, so now over Social Security. So, too, they say, Bush is scaring us over terrorism. In September of 1998, Dems gathered in Washington for a “fix SS” rally keynoted by Gore, who said, “Social Security faces a serious fiscal crisis. Then, echoing Clinton, Gephardt, Kennedy, and Boxer all said, “Fix Social Security first.” Either they were scaring us then, if they now say there is no crisis, or they are lying now; it has to be one or the other. Is it not appropriate then, that Ann Lewis, Communications Director for a Clinton administration characterized by prevarication, should now give us the NewsSpeak “truth” about Social Security. According to Orwell in 1984, “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. . . . Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc [English Socialism in 1984], since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality.... “The alteration of the past is necessary for two
reasons.... But by far the most important reason for the readjustment of
the past is the need to safeguard the infallibility of the Party. It is not merely that speeches, statistics, and records of every
kind must be constantly brought up to date in order to show that the
predictions of the Party were in all cases right.
It is also that no change of doctrine or in political alignment can
ever be admitted for to change one’s mind, or even one’s policy, is a
confession of weakness. . . . Thus history is constantly rewritten. This day-to-day falsification of the past, carried out by the
Ministry of Truth, is as necessary to the stability of the regime as the
work of repression and espionage carried out by the Ministry of Love.” Now for years you have heard me touting the Baran/Wallerstein
theory (B/W) which states that Communism is now using Muslim terrorism
(instead of the fat-cat “Workers of the World”) to destroy capitalism,
and America in particular. With
most of Western Europe already Socialist, it is but a small step to
getting the populists to accept Communism, but “unilateral” America
stands in the way. Once
brought to its knees by Islam, then the utopian Communist Revolution can
be implemented world wide. In
the final assault on America, Russian, Chinese and North Korean nukes may
be showered on us to finish the job. Of course, few if any Islamo-fascists have any idea
of the role they play in the Communist agenda, for by jihad, they have in
mind quite another revolution: Purging
the world of all those who will not convert to the radical Wahhabi faith.
No matter, the Communists believe their military might would easily
tame the Wahhabis. Previous
evidence that I have cited that this Baran/Wallerstein strategy is being
utilized already is the undeniable fact that France, Germany, Russia, and
China provided Saddam with all the weapons he needed, and the U.N.’s
Oil-for-Food scam provided the funds for him to buy these weapons (for
which many are still owed). Moreover,
we know that member nations of the U.N. Security Council had promised
Saddam that they would never approve a resolution to remove him by force.
So their stall game went on for years, but Bush took
“unilateral” action with the help of thirty other nations. The Democrats condemned Bush’s initiative, now saying we are in greater danger because of his preemptive action. Now they are saying to a man that terrorism, which previously was a nuisance that could be handled by domestic law enforcement, is now a quid-pro-quo reality, and growing greater every day that we stay in Iraq, because of Bush’s fear-mongering. But now at last I can provide documentary evidence
that my wild theory is true, by naming the source of the new Democrat
strategy, just as I named johnkerry.com as the source of the fabricated
General Killian letter about Bush’s Guard service used by Dan Rather. What you shall see is that this Democrat’s strategy utilizes the
Communist party line from the Cold War up to the present.
The Red Scare of the 1950s was just that, and Russia and China
never presented a danger to America. Their
arms buildup being merely a reaction to the arms race started by Reagan.
After the Nazis were defeated, there was a chance for this to be
the “Best of all possible worlds,” but the Republican scare-mongers
mucked it all up. Moreover, when 9/11 killed 3,000 Americans, Democrats
such as Cynthia McKinney, (D.-Ga) asked, “What did this Administration
know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New
York who were needlessly murdered? What
do they have to hide?” Then she answered her own question.
“What is undeniable is that corporations close to the
administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending
arising from the aftermath of September 11th.”
This “spending” for corporations in what the Left has called
the “military/industrial complex,” and for our intelligence services,
constitutes what I call their psychological hang-up that prevents them
from seeing any danger abroad, placing all the blame on America (per B/W),
because of their collective and individual “military/industrial
complexes.” Since the 1950s, however, this has also by no coincidence been the
Communist party line. Indeed, after the same party line appeared in the form of Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” a screening for the Democratic caucus at the Uptown Theater in D.C., brought them to their feet for a standing ovation. Need I point out that it is not necessary for anyone spouting the Communist Party line to have been a member of the CP, nor to have known any professed Communists. However, as Ann Coulter noted in Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terror, fellow- traveling has been the height of fashion chic for the American Left. Personally I cannot speak for the loyalty of the American Left today, except to hoist them on the petard of their own words. Except in the case of Robert Scheer, columnist for the Los Angeles Times, whom I knew in San Francisco when he was organizing demonstrations to block cargo for our troops leaving from the Oakland Army Base, and when he took his coterie of Communist adherents to North Korea to be wined and dined in a country he praised as heaven on earth. Scheer, incidentally, got his lofty position by marrying into a newspaper publishing family. Last week he did me and the nation a great favor, revealing the source of the new Democrat strategy, and thereby letting the Communist cat out of the bag of Democrat respectability. Scheer writes (Jan. 11), “Is it conceivable that Al Qaeda, as defined by President Bush as the center of a vast and well-organized international terrorist conspiracy, does not exist? “To even raise the question amid all the officially inspired hysteria is heretical, especially in the context of the U.S. media's supine acceptance of administration claims relating to national security. Yet a brilliant new BBC film produced by one of Britain's leading documentary filmmakers systematically challenges this and many other accepted articles of faith in the so-called war on terror. "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear," a three-hour historical film by Adam Curtis recently aired by the British Broadcasting Corp., argues coherently that much of what we have been told about the threat of international terrorism ‘is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services and the international media.’ ...” Quoting further from the BBC documentary, Scheer goes on to say, “Wherever one looks for this Al Qaeda organization, from the mountains of Afghanistan to the 'sleeper cells' in America, the British and Americans are chasing a phantom enemy." He adds, “Everything we know comes from two sides that both have a great stake in exaggerating the threat posed by Al Qaeda: the terrorists themselves and the military and intelligence agencies that have a vested interest in maintaining the facade of an overwhelmingly dangerous enemy. Such a state of national ignorance about an endless war is, as ‘The Power of Nightmares’ makes clear, simply unacceptable in a functioning democracy.” We need to ask ourselves, if the Left is not in bed with Islamo-fascism, why did the al-Jazeera network promote Fahrenheit 9/11? In Part II next week, I shall take you within the documentary to show you how film maker Adam Curtis invokes Communist party “truth” in discussing the Cold War and how and why Republican presidents utilized the Cold War for “profit and power.” Moreover, you will see how the accusation that the Bush administration is hyping fear is the best way to permit terrorism to flourish, as the Clinton administration did. But most startling of all, The Power of Nightmare trots out the old Blood Libel which attributed the world’s problems since the beginning of history to a conspiracy of the Jewish Illuminati, in this case, the “neocons” who have advised Republican presidents from Reagan to the present. Richard Roberts sends out a weekly email article, such as the one above, plus weekly bonus articles for $18 total a year. You may subscribe by sending a check for that amount made out to Richard Roberts, c/o Jeffrey Nyquist, P.O. Box 4931, Eureka, California, 95502. |