Church and State–Are They REALLY Seperate? Communism and Catholicism


Several years ago I read a book entitled “AA 1025, The Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle”, written by Marie Carre. It dealt with a man who had been severely injured in a car wreck in France; Mrs. Carre was his nurse. The man carried no identification and was comatose. Upon his death, she opened his briefcase and there was a manuscript of sorts. After much soul-searching and many discussions with her Bishop, she decided to publish the manuscript. She gave the man the name “Michael” and her reason for publishing the manuscript was “…for the world to know why the Catholic church has been undergoing destructive changes to the lament of its faithful”. I believe this man died in 1968.

An excellent synopsis of the book and background of “Michael” can be found here at “The End Days” under an article entitled “The Confessions of a Communist Agent on the Attempt to Destroy the Roman Catholic Church from Within”.

Before I start hearing the conspiracy theories and WAY out there theories of the New World Order, etc., let me first clarify while I AM indeed Catholic, while I have indeed CHOSEN to revert to the Traditional Latin Mass over NOEL, while I am very well versed in my faith and have lived through the majority of the changes implemented since Vatican II and have observed first hand the destruction of the Church from within and am very familiar with the Book of Revelations, I don’t walk around with a tin foil hat waiting for the sky to fall, nor do I walk around with a sandwich board which proclaims “Repent–The End is Near”. I tend to believe there is always hope and have also CHOSEN to live my life fully, as God intended me to live, not constantly looking over my shoulder, waiting for the next disaster. That is NOT how God intended us to live our lives.

That being said, with Snooper’s article below, which he has published a few times before, there are certain things in the Communist Manifesto and in this book that correlate, similar things on the “lists”–and I don’t believe in coincidence.

At the time of Vatican II (which opened under Pope John XXIII in 1962 and closed under Pope Paul VI in 1965), this country was going through major upheaval–our first Catholic president, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam, the Space Race–not to mention the assassinations starting with JFK–the self-same first Catholic president.

As a country, we were losing our innocence and losing it quickly. The Vatican itself was–and is– a concentration of a huge amount of wealth, both in monetary terms and influence over a large segment of the world’s population. Even forgetting the Catholic faithful, the wealth alone was a worthy target for a country needing funds–the USSR. If the Church itself could be infiltrated, it would be a bold coup and could be accomplished without bloodshed (for the most part–there WAS that “pesky” Pope John Paul I who had decided to “roll-back” many of the disastrous changes Vatican II had wrought). It would net access to the enormous wealth and influence over the faithful.

That influence, over a populace who (for the most part) did not question their spiritual leaders, was priceless. Those that did question their spiritual leaders (such as Americans were learning to do) could be dealt with by implementing leaders “hand picked” to continue the infiltration.

From the website referenced above, we see some of the manuscript which was eventually published. Keeping in mind “Michael” died in approximately 1968, these passages can be chilling. All emphasis is mine.

The Uncle gave further instructions to Michael: “The ten persons who will be directly under your orders will never know you. To reach you, they will have to pass through me. Thus you will never be denounced. We already have in our service numerous priests in all countries where Catholicism is implanted, but you will never know one another. One is a bishop. Maybe you will enter into contact with him, it will depend upon the rank that you reach. We have spies everywhere and particularly old ones who follow the press of the whole world. A compendium will be sent to you regularly. We will easily know when your own ideas have made their way into peoples’ minds. See, an idea is good when some idiot writer presents it as one of his own. Nobody is more conceited than a writer. We rely much on such writers and we do not have to train them. They work for us without knowing it or rather without wanting to.”

Michael proposed to the Uncle: “As soon as I entered the seminary, I was supposed to try to discover how to destroy all that was taught to me. But to do so, I should have to study attentively and intelligently, that is without passion, the History of the Church. I would particularly never lose sight of the fact that persecutions only make martyrs of whom Catholics have had reason to say that they are seeds of Christianity. Therefore, no martyrs. I must never forget that all religions are based on fear, the ancestral fear, all religions are born from this fear. Therefore. if you suppress fear, you suppress religions….You must drive it to the head of men, and particularly in the head of Churchmen to search for, at any price, a universal religion into which all churches would be melted together. So that this idea could take form and life, we must inculcate in pious people, especially Roman Catholics, a feeling of guilt concerning the unique truth in which they pretend to live…. I was Catholic, and very Catholic, I mean, very pious and zealous until my fourteenth year, and I believe it to be rather easy to show Catholics that there are other holy persons among the Protestants, the Moslems and the Jews, etc… So that all men could enter it (this Universal Church), it could retain a vague idea of a God more or less Creator, more or less Good, according to times. Moreover this God will be useful only in periods of calamity. Then the ancestral fear will fill these temples, but in other times they will be rather empty.”

and:

Michael replied: “By numerous and subtle means. I look at the Catholic Church as if it were a sphere. To destroy it, you must attack it in numerous small points until it loses all resemblance to what it was before. We will have to be very patient. I have many ideas that might seem at first sight to be petty and childish, but I maintain that the entirety of those petty childishnesses will become an invisible weapon of great efficacity.”

“Michael’s” “plan” for Vatican II followed several steps (I will emphasize those that have come to pass; all emphasis is mine and is in red; blue and green emphasis is from the website); all quotes taken from the above website (I don’t have my copy of the book handy at the moment):

1). The whole ceremony should represent only a common meal, as among Protestants. He even assured me that it should never have been otherwise. He also worked at the elaboration of a new Ordinary the Mass and advised me to do the same also, because it appeared to him to be altogether desirable to present to people a large number of diversified masses.”

2). “It would do some good that a prophecy be sent throughout the world that would be the following : ‘Some day, you will see married priests and mass said in vernacular tongues.’ I remember with joy that I was the first one to say these things in 1938. That same year, I urged women to ask for the priesthood. And I advocated a mass, not parochial, but a family mass that would be said at home, by the father and mother, before each meal. “

3). “In Rome, I had very interesting conversations with a professor who would be mine, when I would have received the priesthood. He was a member of our network. He was very optimistic. He had specialized in Holy Scripture and was working at a new translation of the Bible in English. The most astounding was that he had chosen a Lutheran pastor as his only collaborator. The said pastor, besides, was no more in accord with his own church which seemed old-fashioned to him.”

“This collaboration, of course, remained secret. The aim of these two men was to rid humanity of all the systems which it had given itself through the Bible, and especially the New Testament had given itself through the Bible, and especially the New Testament. Thus, the virginity of Mary, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and His Resurrection, according to them were to be put in parenthesis and finally were to end up in a simple suppression. The dignity of modern man, in their eyes, was worth such a price.”


“The modernization of God’s Word often allowed to diminish the Church’s obstinacy. And that was done in a very natural way. These new translations, besides, facilitated the Biblical dialogues upon which we laid great hopes…. One of my preferred dialogues concerned the Pope, because this personage is really an obstacle to me. When I say ‘this personage’, I mean also the texts upon which his title is based. Those texts are also as embarrassing for me as they are for the Separated Christians (as they say). I am very grateful to the one who thought that the word ‘prevail’ has become incomprehensible to the modern man and has replaced it by ‘be able’. Instead of ‘the gates of Hell will never prevail against it (the Church)’, he has written : ‘The gates of Hell will never be able to do anything against it.’ This makes my meetings Biblical dialogues much easier, at least in French speaking countries. Each one notices very quickly that this prophecy, which pretends that hell can do nothing against the Church, is absolutely false, and every one breathes at ease, because thus withers away this secular belief in a divine protection which, definitely, would always favor the efforts of Catholics (to be understood: never those of Heretics!).”

4). “About the time I was playing with confession, I was particularly sensitive to one point of doctrine, I mean to say ‘the holy virtue of obedience’ (as they say.) This obedience especially concerns the Pope. I was turning this problem over and at all its angles, without being able to understand …. I was therefore obliged to ask our services to see to it that the confidence shown to the Pope by Catholics be ridiculed discreetly on every possible occasion. I did not ignore that I was asking them something very difficult. But, all in all, it seemed primordial to me to incite Catholics to criticize the Pope.”

“Someone was charged to watch attentively all the Vatican writings, in order to detect even very small details capable of displeasing one category of individuals. The quality of those who criticize the Pope does not matter, the only important thing is that he be criticized. The ideal thing, of course, would be that he displeased everybody, that is, reactionaries as well as modernists.”

5). “It was during those days that I launched on the market (we could almost say) the programme that would allow Catholics to be accepted by Protestants …. Catholics had hoped too much for the return of Protestantism to the fold of the Mother Church. It was time that they should lose their arrogance. Charity made it a duty for them. When charity is at stake, I pretended, laughing up my sleeve, nothing wrong can happen.”

“I prophesied with assurance, so that this would be repeated in the same tones, the suppression of Latin, of priestly ornaments, of statues and images, of candles and prie-dieu (so that they could kneel no more) …. And I also started a very active campaign for the suppression of the Sign of the Cross.”

“I also prophesied, and we were then in 1940, the disappearance of altars, replaced by a table completely bare, and also of all the crucifixes, in order that Christ be considered as a man, not as a God. I insisted that Mass be only a community meal to which all would be invited, even unbelievers. And came to the following prophecy: Baptism, for the modern man has become ridiculously magical. Whether given by immersion or not Baptism must be abandoned in favor of an Adult Religion.”


“Moreover, all that is permitted among Protestants, even if only in one sect, must be authorized among Catholics, that is the remarriage of divorcees, polygamy, contraception and euthanasia.”


6). Michael encouraged Protestants to go to Catholic Mass and receive Holy Communion. This is because: “When Catholics will see Protestants receive Communion at their masses, without having been converted, they will longer have confidence in their antique ‘Real Presence.’ It will be explained to them that this Presence only exists in so far as it is believed. Thus they will feel themselves to be creators of all their religion and the most intelligent all them will know how to draw the required conclusions.”


“To weaken more the notion of ‘Real Presence’ of Christ, all decorum will have to be set aside. No more costly embroidered vestments, no more music called sacred, especially no more Gregorian chant, but a music in jazz style, no more sign of the Cross, no more genuflections, but only dignified stern attitudes …. Moreover the faithful will have to break themselves the habit of kneeling, and this will be absolutely forbidden when receiving Communion …. Very soon, the Host will be laid in the hand in order that all notion of the Sacred be erased.”


“In order to destroy all sacredness in the cult, the priest will be invited to say the whole Mass in vernacular and especially to recite the words of the Consecration as a narration, which they are in reality. He must not, above all, pronounce the following words: ‘This is my Body, this is my Blood,’ as if he really took the place of Christ Who pronounced them.”

“Let everyone feel that the priest is reading a narration. Furthermore, there must never be question of a Sacrifice, that is, a Mass-Sacrifice, a non-bloody renovation of the Sacrifice of the Cross. No Protestant accepts this formula. Mass must only be a community meal for the greatest welfare of human fraternity.”


7). “At that time, I showed great energy to destroy the Marian cult. I insisted greatly upon the grief that Catholics and Orthodoxes caused to Protestants by keeping up their numerous devotions to the Virgin Mary. I pointed out that the dear separated brethren were more logical and wiser. This human creature about whom we know almost nothing becomes, in our Church, in some way, more powerful than God (or, at least, more gentle )…. I stressed upon the fact that many Protestants believe that Mary had other children after Jesus… Human oddness has no limit. All this strengthens my conviction, that to deny the virginity of Mary is the safest way to transform Christians into disciples of a man who would not at all be God. Who does not see how useful it is to kill Jesus of Nazareth before killing God?”


“I therefore advocated the suppression of the Rosary and of the numerous feast days reserved to Mary… As for all other things, it will be necessary to make a those who keep on reciting the Rosary feel guilty.”

“Afterwards, to bluntly suppress the cult of the Saints. The Saints must disappear before God, although it is much easier to kill God than His Saints… Then, we will proceed to suppress Judgement, Heaven, Purgatory and Hell. This is all very easy… Many are well disposed to believe that the Goodness of God surpasses all crimes. All we have to do is to insist on this Goodness. A God Whom no one fears, quickly becomes a God about whom no one thinks. Such was the end to be reached. “


“Such is the compendium of the orders which I sent throughout the world.

8). “Afterwards, come the Seven Sacraments, which are all to be revised, all the more so that Protestants only have two. All Christians, of all denominations, have kept Baptism, but, for my part, it is the Sacrament that I would like to see disappear first. This seems relatively easy. It is too childish a Sacrament. Almost as childish as the Sign of the Cross and Holy Water.”

“Of course, the Sacrament of Confirmation, which pretends to give the Holy Spirit and can be administered only by a bishop, must be suppressed with energy. This attitude will allow to denounce the dogma of the Holy Trinity as offensive to Jews and Moslems, as well as to certain new Protestant Sects.”


“As for the Sacrament called Penance, it would be replaced by a community ceremony, which will only be an examination of conscience directed by a well trained priest, all of which would be followed by a general absolution, as in some Protestant Churches.”


“As for the Sacrament of Extreme-Unction, we will have to find another word for it…. I would willingly choose the expression ‘Sacrament of the Sick,’ and to avoid the idea of Eternal Life, it would be allowed to offer this Sacrament, even in case of a light illness.”


“As to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which confers the power to exercise clerical functions, we will evidently have to keep it. In our Universal Church we will need priests who will be teachers of some Socialist doctrine…. And, of course, marriage will not be refused to the priests who ask for it, not any more than the Sacrament of Holy Orders will be refused to women.”

“No, civil marriage only would be allowed. Thus, this Church, basely authoritative, could not forbid any more divorce and the remarriage of divorcees…. I know well that Jesus of Nazareth has spoken in opposition to this opinion. But I have already said elsewhere that we must know what to choose in his teachings that is suitable to modern man.”

9). “First, to replace the word ‘Catholic’ by ‘Universal’, which means the same thing. But it is very important that word ‘Catholic’ should not hurt Protestant ears and would not incite the faithful of the Roman Rite to believe themselves Super-Christians …. It is very important that Christians become conscious of the scandal that is caused by the division of the Church. For, there are three kinds of Christianities: the Catholic, many Orthodox and some three hundred Protestant Sects.”

“To emphasize the last prayer of Jesus of Nazareth, prayer that was never heard : ‘Be one as my Father and I are One.’ To cultivate a growing remorse particularly, among Catholics.”

“To stress that Catholics are responsible for the division among Christians, because, by their refusal to compromise, they caused schisms and heresies. To come to a point that every Catholic will feel so guilty that he will wish to atone at any price. To suggest to him that he must himself endeavor to find all the means capable of bringing Catholics closer to Protestants (and also to others) without harming the Credo. To keep only the Credo. And again . . . attention. The Credo must undergo a very slight modification. The Catholics say: ‘I believe in the Catholic Church.’ The Protestants say: ‘I believe in the Universal Church.’ It is the same thing. The word Catholic means: Universal.”


“Always drive minds towards a greater charity, a larger fraternity. Never talk about God, but about the greatness of man. Bit by bit, transform the language and the mentalities. Man must occupy the first place. Cultivate confidence in man who will prove his own greatness by founding the Universal Church in which all good wills shall melt together. To bring out that the good will of man, his sincerity, his dignity are worth more than a God always invisible. To show that the luxury and art found in Catholic and Orthodox Churches are intensely disliked by Protestants, Jews and Moslems. To suggest that this useless show must be suppressed for a greater welfare. To excite an iconoclastic zeal. Youngsters must destroy all this hodgepodge : statues, pictures, reliquaries, priestly ornaments, organs, candles and votive lamps, stained glasses and Cathedrals, etc . . . etc…”

That’s an awful lot of red. Further, what isn’t red (meaning it has yet to happen) has at least been attempted in the near past; in some cases (such as marriage of priests; ordination of women; birth control, abortion and euthanasia) it is still being advocated.

If you look closely and carefully, you will see the emphasis put on the secular “Man” as divine, rather than than the Triune God. We see this on the left, in agencies such as the ACLU, in faux civil rights agencies such as CAIR…it is happening, just as this man and others like him have planned. Policies are designed to lull the gullible into acceptance of anything and everything as “normal and healthy”, with no consequences–and to our danger. We are no longer taught to discern (to discern means to think, evaluate and take appropriate action rather than blindly follow).

In the NOEL Mass (“Novus Ordum”), Holy Communion is distributed in the hand, the Mass is said entirely in the vernacular while facing the congregation, lay people and women are on the altar, you do not kneel for Communion, dress is remarkably casual, no emphasis is put on Confession–in fact, 46% of the Mass was changed. Until that time, from the time of the Last Supper until Vatican II, only EIGHT WORDS had changed. The prayers at the end of Mass were eliminated, there are no more Gregorian Chants or organ music. Priests became your “friend” rather than your spiritual leader; nuns no longer wear their habits or even their rings signifying their marriage to Christ. There is no censure for publicly breaking away from doctrine (Kennedy? Kerry? Pelosi?). Everything is explained away; God is no longer a “Just” God, He forgives anything and basically there is no accountability for your actions. There is no more emphasis on morality, right or wrong. There aren’t a lot of people left who even know what the Triduum is. Again, emphasis is put on the wishes and desires of “Man” and the “secular” rather than Doctrine. This negates the need for any relevant soul-searching and no one feels guilty about anything–they have no moral compass with which to feel guilt or remorse because none is taught.

It’s not “popular” to preach right and wrong, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory or Judgment. It’s acceptable to sit in judgment of others (I KNOW where I’m going when I die–I KNOW you’re going to hell; that kind of thing). It’s not “popular” to preach about how our political leaders are leading us. In fact, it could be downright dangerous and the Church could lose tax status for that (Pelosi). It’s extremely unpopular, extremely dangerous and might “offend” someone to tell the truth about our current political leaders and how they are leading us into moral danger. The Church has bought–lock, stock and barrel–the political correctness agenda. No longer is it the Church not only of love, but of Jesus’ righteous anger in the temple.

As the current “vernacular” states: “It’s all good”.

Unless–UNLESS–you attend a Tridentine Mass.

Those are difficult to find as they are not offered in all diocese. Fortunately, Pope Benedict XVI has issued a proclamation wherein the Bishop of any diocese no longer has to wait years for permission to perform the Tridentine Mass–they are now able to offer it without waiting for permission to be granted. I happen to live in an area where there is an entire parish dedicated to the Tridentine Mass. The “old” strictures apply–no reception of Holy Communion without first receiving Confession and Absolution, reception of Communion at the KNEELERS at the altar rails (some Churchs have reinstalled the altar rails and kneelers), altar boys only (no boy and girl “altar servers”), a Gregorian choir, organ music, no lay people or women on the altar, dress codes enforced, women have their heads covered. There are also a very limited number of priests trained to properly pray the Tridentine Mass.

However, those priests are gold. They are, as they say, “old school”; they tell it like it is, regardless of the personal cost to them. They turn excuses back onto the excuse maker and hold up the mirror–excuses are not acceptable if you have been raised in a Tridentine atmosphere. These priests preach the old way and are not afraid to speak out about the political abominations we have in office or the policies being forced down our throats.

Wait a minute–women have their heads covered??? Isn’t that a muslim thing? No. Even in ancient times women covered their heads in the presence of the Divine. It is a sign of respect, at least in the Catholic church. I don’t know the meaning of it in islam. Further, the first time my son showed up in shorts and tennis shoes (he just WOULDN’T listen and he had been a MASTER altar boy in the NOEL Mass), he was not allowed in the Mass as his dress didn’t show proper respect. That was the only time–since that time (and after being publicly humiliated for his lack of respect) he has dressed as he did as an altar boy–button down shirt, slacks, dress shoes, often a tie. My daughter, who wanted to dress in a similarly casual manner, saw her brother humiliated and decided she would listen. She wears a dress (hemline to the knees), tights, dress shoes and her head covering (her coverings are lace and match her dresses). All of this shows respect for what the Mass MEANS–the Bloodless Sacrifice of Our Lord, the worship of God.

It’s also had an amazing side effect–by learning their Latin, they have an easier time in their Spanish classes. The languages are remarkably similar.

By growing up in a transitional time of the Church, I’ve had a first hand glimpse of how easily it can be infiltrated from the INSIDE. However, the people, those who refuse to study and learn, follow along like sheep, losing their sense of the Divine along the way, and giving in–knowingly or not–to a plan similar to the plan being implemented upon the people of this country.

Vatican II did amazing damage to the Church–seminary applications dropped significantly, leading to the closing of many seminaries. Convents suffered the same fates. Many of the older generation refused to attend the NOEL Mass (my mother was one of them). It wasn’t “their” Church anymore; they didn’t recognize it. Therefore, church attendance dropped like a stone.

However. Through the renewal of the Tridentine Masses, through my generation being information junkies and learning everything we can on anything we wish, the Tridentine Mass is experiencing a renewal. I don’t attend a NOEL Mass if I can help it; however, when it’s unavoidable, I have noticed the attendance continues to be dismal. The Tridentine Masses are packed. The “old ways” are being re-learned, the “old prayers” are once again loved. The old “values” are being re-learned and practiced (said values being dad goes to work, mom stays home with the kids, marriage is forever, birth control is forbidden–one family I know has 11 children right now and I believe mom is pregnant again; a lot of Catholic families home school because even the Catholic schools have fallen victim to the Vatican II/secularist ideology)

The suppression is failing. Ultimately, as with all other attempts at Communism, it is failing within the Church itself. It cannot fulfill the need of the human, the TRUE human, for the touch of the Divine, of something greater than ourselves and outside of ourselves. I see true hope in that.

As the Church has stumbled and fallen, She has also picked Herself up, dusted Herself off and appears to be making a strong comeback. But only through the determined effort of a generation who lived through the original transition. We didn’t like the changes made–and we are refusing those changes now. We want the Church back, in all Her glory, with all Her meaning. Not the pablum foisted upon us by Vatican II.

So too with America. As the Church went, so the politicians have tried–and continue to try–to take the country. As the Church goes, so also goes the country–with the conservative upswing and the conservatives coming out of their stupor, refusing to continue in their role as the “silent majority”.

As the Church goes, so goes the country. The country would be well advised to look at the damage done to the Church by the infiltrators and take its cue from the Church, Her stumble and Her ultimate refusal of the infiltration. In that regard, study “Michael’s” “plan”–compare it to the Communist Manifesto. They are not separate issues. One serves as warning to the other.

As the Church goes, so goes the country. God help us all, because that being the case, we are in for a literal hell on earth–unless people stand up NOW, come out of their stupors and say, loud and clear, WE WILL NOT TOLERATE Communism here on our shores. Unless WE THE PEOPLE stop it dead in its tracks and stop it now.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell here and Real Clear Politics here.

Join the
Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA

Church and State–Are They REALLY Seperate? Communism and Catholicism


Several years ago I read a book entitled “AA 1025, The Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle”, written by Marie Carre. It dealt with a man who had been severely injured in a car wreck in France; Mrs. Carre was his nurse. The man carried no identification and was comatose. Upon his death, she opened his briefcase and there was a manuscript of sorts. After much soul-searching and many discussions with her Bishop, she decided to publish the manuscript. She gave the man the name “Michael” and her reason for publishing the manuscript was “…for the world to know why the Catholic church has been undergoing destructive changes to the lament of its faithful”. I believe this man died in 1968.

An excellent synopsis of the book and background of “Michael” can be found here at “The End Days” under an article entitled “The Confessions of a Communist Agent on the Attempt to Destroy the Roman Catholic Church from Within”.

Before I start hearing the conspiracy theories and WAY out there theories of the New World Order, etc., let me first clarify while I AM indeed Catholic, while I have indeed CHOSEN to revert to the Traditional Latin Mass over NOEL, while I am very well versed in my faith and have lived through the majority of the changes implemented since Vatican II and have observed first hand the destruction of the Church from within and am very familiar with the Book of Revelations, I don’t walk around with a tin foil hat waiting for the sky to fall, nor do I walk around with a sandwich board which proclaims “Repent–The End is Near”. I tend to believe there is always hope and have also CHOSEN to live my life fully, as God intended me to live, not constantly looking over my shoulder, waiting for the next disaster. That is NOT how God intended us to live our lives.

That being said, with Snooper’s article below, which he has published a few times before, there are certain things in the Communist Manifesto and in this book that correlate, similar things on the “lists”–and I don’t believe in coincidence.

At the time of Vatican II (which opened under Pope John XXIII in 1962 and closed under Pope Paul VI in 1965), this country was going through major upheaval–our first Catholic president, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam, the Space Race–not to mention the assassinations starting with JFK–the self-same first Catholic president.

As a country, we were losing our innocence and losing it quickly. The Vatican itself was–and is– a concentration of a huge amount of wealth, both in monetary terms and influence over a large segment of the world’s population. Even forgetting the Catholic faithful, the wealth alone was a worthy target for a country needing funds–the USSR. If the Church itself could be infiltrated, it would be a bold coup and could be accomplished without bloodshed (for the most part–there WAS that “pesky” Pope John Paul I who had decided to “roll-back” many of the disastrous changes Vatican II had wrought). It would net access to the enormous wealth and influence over the faithful.

That influence, over a populace who (for the most part) did not question their spiritual leaders, was priceless. Those that did question their spiritual leaders (such as Americans were learning to do) could be dealt with by implementing leaders “hand picked” to continue the infiltration.

From the website referenced above, we see some of the manuscript which was eventually published. Keeping in mind “Michael” died in approximately 1968, these passages can be chilling. All emphasis is mine.

The Uncle gave further instructions to Michael: “The ten persons who will be directly under your orders will never know you. To reach you, they will have to pass through me. Thus you will never be denounced. We already have in our service numerous priests in all countries where Catholicism is implanted, but you will never know one another. One is a bishop. Maybe you will enter into contact with him, it will depend upon the rank that you reach. We have spies everywhere and particularly old ones who follow the press of the whole world. A compendium will be sent to you regularly. We will easily know when your own ideas have made their way into peoples’ minds. See, an idea is good when some idiot writer presents it as one of his own. Nobody is more conceited than a writer. We rely much on such writers and we do not have to train them. They work for us without knowing it or rather without wanting to.”

Michael proposed to the Uncle: “As soon as I entered the seminary, I was supposed to try to discover how to destroy all that was taught to me. But to do so, I should have to study attentively and intelligently, that is without passion, the History of the Church. I would particularly never lose sight of the fact that persecutions only make martyrs of whom Catholics have had reason to say that they are seeds of Christianity. Therefore, no martyrs. I must never forget that all religions are based on fear, the ancestral fear, all religions are born from this fear. Therefore. if you suppress fear, you suppress religions….You must drive it to the head of men, and particularly in the head of Churchmen to search for, at any price, a universal religion into which all churches would be melted together. So that this idea could take form and life, we must inculcate in pious people, especially Roman Catholics, a feeling of guilt concerning the unique truth in which they pretend to live…. I was Catholic, and very Catholic, I mean, very pious and zealous until my fourteenth year, and I believe it to be rather easy to show Catholics that there are other holy persons among the Protestants, the Moslems and the Jews, etc… So that all men could enter it (this Universal Church), it could retain a vague idea of a God more or less Creator, more or less Good, according to times. Moreover this God will be useful only in periods of calamity. Then the ancestral fear will fill these temples, but in other times they will be rather empty.”

and:

Michael replied: “By numerous and subtle means. I look at the Catholic Church as if it were a sphere. To destroy it, you must attack it in numerous small points until it loses all resemblance to what it was before. We will have to be very patient. I have many ideas that might seem at first sight to be petty and childish, but I maintain that the entirety of those petty childishnesses will become an invisible weapon of great efficacity.”

“Michael’s” “plan” for Vatican II followed several steps (I will emphasize those that have come to pass; all emphasis is mine and is in red; blue and green emphasis is from the website); all quotes taken from the above website (I don’t have my copy of the book handy at the moment):

1). The whole ceremony should represent only a common meal, as among Protestants. He even assured me that it should never have been otherwise. He also worked at the elaboration of a new Ordinary the Mass and advised me to do the same also, because it appeared to him to be altogether desirable to present to people a large number of diversified masses.”

2). “It would do some good that a prophecy be sent throughout the world that would be the following : ‘Some day, you will see married priests and mass said in vernacular tongues.’ I remember with joy that I was the first one to say these things in 1938. That same year, I urged women to ask for the priesthood. And I advocated a mass, not parochial, but a family mass that would be said at home, by the father and mother, before each meal. “

3). “In Rome, I had very interesting conversations with a professor who would be mine, when I would have received the priesthood. He was a member of our network. He was very optimistic. He had specialized in Holy Scripture and was working at a new translation of the Bible in English. The most astounding was that he had chosen a Lutheran pastor as his only collaborator. The said pastor, besides, was no more in accord with his own church which seemed old-fashioned to him.”

“This collaboration, of course, remained secret. The aim of these two men was to rid humanity of all the systems which it had given itself through the Bible, and especially the New Testament had given itself through the Bible, and especially the New Testament. Thus, the virginity of Mary, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and His Resurrection, according to them were to be put in parenthesis and finally were to end up in a simple suppression. The dignity of modern man, in their eyes, was worth such a price.”


“The modernization of God’s Word often allowed to diminish the Church’s obstinacy. And that was done in a very natural way. These new translations, besides, facilitated the Biblical dialogues upon which we laid great hopes…. One of my preferred dialogues concerned the Pope, because this personage is really an obstacle to me. When I say ‘this personage’, I mean also the texts upon which his title is based. Those texts are also as embarrassing for me as they are for the Separated Christians (as they say). I am very grateful to the one who thought that the word ‘prevail’ has become incomprehensible to the modern man and has replaced it by ‘be able’. Instead of ‘the gates of Hell will never prevail against it (the Church)’, he has written : ‘The gates of Hell will never be able to do anything against it.’ This makes my meetings Biblical dialogues much easier, at least in French speaking countries. Each one notices very quickly that this prophecy, which pretends that hell can do nothing against the Church, is absolutely false, and every one breathes at ease, because thus withers away this secular belief in a divine protection which, definitely, would always favor the efforts of Catholics (to be understood: never those of Heretics!).”

4). “About the time I was playing with confession, I was particularly sensitive to one point of doctrine, I mean to say ‘the holy virtue of obedience’ (as they say.) This obedience especially concerns the Pope. I was turning this problem over and at all its angles, without being able to understand …. I was therefore obliged to ask our services to see to it that the confidence shown to the Pope by Catholics be ridiculed discreetly on every possible occasion. I did not ignore that I was asking them something very difficult. But, all in all, it seemed primordial to me to incite Catholics to criticize the Pope.”

“Someone was charged to watch attentively all the Vatican writings, in order to detect even very small details capable of displeasing one category of individuals. The quality of those who criticize the Pope does not matter, the only important thing is that he be criticized. The ideal thing, of course, would be that he displeased everybody, that is, reactionaries as well as modernists.”

5). “It was during those days that I launched on the market (we could almost say) the programme that would allow Catholics to be accepted by Protestants …. Catholics had hoped too much for the return of Protestantism to the fold of the Mother Church. It was time that they should lose their arrogance. Charity made it a duty for them. When charity is at stake, I pretended, laughing up my sleeve, nothing wrong can happen.”

“I prophesied with assurance, so that this would be repeated in the same tones, the suppression of Latin, of priestly ornaments, of statues and images, of candles and prie-dieu (so that they could kneel no more) …. And I also started a very active campaign for the suppression of the Sign of the Cross.”

“I also prophesied, and we were then in 1940, the disappearance of altars, replaced by a table completely bare, and also of all the crucifixes, in order that Christ be considered as a man, not as a God. I insisted that Mass be only a community meal to which all would be invited, even unbelievers. And came to the following prophecy: Baptism, for the modern man has become ridiculously magical. Whether given by immersion or not Baptism must be abandoned in favor of an Adult Religion.”


“Moreover, all that is permitted among Protestants, even if only in one sect, must be authorized among Catholics, that is the remarriage of divorcees, polygamy, contraception and euthanasia.”


6). Michael encouraged Protestants to go to Catholic Mass and receive Holy Communion. This is because: “When Catholics will see Protestants receive Communion at their masses, without having been converted, they will longer have confidence in their antique ‘Real Presence.’ It will be explained to them that this Presence only exists in so far as it is believed. Thus they will feel themselves to be creators of all their religion and the most intelligent all them will know how to draw the required conclusions.”


“To weaken more the notion of ‘Real Presence’ of Christ, all decorum will have to be set aside. No more costly embroidered vestments, no more music called sacred, especially no more Gregorian chant, but a music in jazz style, no more sign of the Cross, no more genuflections, but only dignified stern attitudes …. Moreover the faithful will have to break themselves the habit of kneeling, and this will be absolutely forbidden when receiving Communion …. Very soon, the Host will be laid in the hand in order that all notion of the Sacred be erased.”


“In order to destroy all sacredness in the cult, the priest will be invited to say the whole Mass in vernacular and especially to recite the words of the Consecration as a narration, which they are in reality. He must not, above all, pronounce the following words: ‘This is my Body, this is my Blood,’ as if he really took the place of Christ Who pronounced them.”

“Let everyone feel that the priest is reading a narration. Furthermore, there must never be question of a Sacrifice, that is, a Mass-Sacrifice, a non-bloody renovation of the Sacrifice of the Cross. No Protestant accepts this formula. Mass must only be a community meal for the greatest welfare of human fraternity.”


7). “At that time, I showed great energy to destroy the Marian cult. I insisted greatly upon the grief that Catholics and Orthodoxes caused to Protestants by keeping up their numerous devotions to the Virgin Mary. I pointed out that the dear separated brethren were more logical and wiser. This human creature about whom we know almost nothing becomes, in our Church, in some way, more powerful than God (or, at least, more gentle )…. I stressed upon the fact that many Protestants believe that Mary had other children after Jesus… Human oddness has no limit. All this strengthens my conviction, that to deny the virginity of Mary is the safest way to transform Christians into disciples of a man who would not at all be God. Who does not see how useful it is to kill Jesus of Nazareth before killing God?”


“I therefore advocated the suppression of the Rosary and of the numerous feast days reserved to Mary… As for all other things, it will be necessary to make a those who keep on reciting the Rosary feel guilty.”

“Afterwards, to bluntly suppress the cult of the Saints. The Saints must disappear before God, although it is much easier to kill God than His Saints… Then, we will proceed to suppress Judgement, Heaven, Purgatory and Hell. This is all very easy… Many are well disposed to believe that the Goodness of God surpasses all crimes. All we have to do is to insist on this Goodness. A God Whom no one fears, quickly becomes a God about whom no one thinks. Such was the end to be reached. “


“Such is the compendium of the orders which I sent throughout the world.

8). “Afterwards, come the Seven Sacraments, which are all to be revised, all the more so that Protestants only have two. All Christians, of all denominations, have kept Baptism, but, for my part, it is the Sacrament that I would like to see disappear first. This seems relatively easy. It is too childish a Sacrament. Almost as childish as the Sign of the Cross and Holy Water.”

“Of course, the Sacrament of Confirmation, which pretends to give the Holy Spirit and can be administered only by a bishop, must be suppressed with energy. This attitude will allow to denounce the dogma of the Holy Trinity as offensive to Jews and Moslems, as well as to certain new Protestant Sects.”


“As for the Sacrament called Penance, it would be replaced by a community ceremony, which will only be an examination of conscience directed by a well trained priest, all of which would be followed by a general absolution, as in some Protestant Churches.”


“As for the Sacrament of Extreme-Unction, we will have to find another word for it…. I would willingly choose the expression ‘Sacrament of the Sick,’ and to avoid the idea of Eternal Life, it would be allowed to offer this Sacrament, even in case of a light illness.”


“As to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which confers the power to exercise clerical functions, we will evidently have to keep it. In our Universal Church we will need priests who will be teachers of some Socialist doctrine…. And, of course, marriage will not be refused to the priests who ask for it, not any more than the Sacrament of Holy Orders will be refused to women.”

“No, civil marriage only would be allowed. Thus, this Church, basely authoritative, could not forbid any more divorce and the remarriage of divorcees…. I know well that Jesus of Nazareth has spoken in opposition to this opinion. But I have already said elsewhere that we must know what to choose in his teachings that is suitable to modern man.”

9). “First, to replace the word ‘Catholic’ by ‘Universal’, which means the same thing. But it is very important that word ‘Catholic’ should not hurt Protestant ears and would not incite the faithful of the Roman Rite to believe themselves Super-Christians …. It is very important that Christians become conscious of the scandal that is caused by the division of the Church. For, there are three kinds of Christianities: the Catholic, many Orthodox and some three hundred Protestant Sects.”

“To emphasize the last prayer of Jesus of Nazareth, prayer that was never heard : ‘Be one as my Father and I are One.’ To cultivate a growing remorse particularly, among Catholics.”

“To stress that Catholics are responsible for the division among Christians, because, by their refusal to compromise, they caused schisms and heresies. To come to a point that every Catholic will feel so guilty that he will wish to atone at any price. To suggest to him that he must himself endeavor to find all the means capable of bringing Catholics closer to Protestants (and also to others) without harming the Credo. To keep only the Credo. And again . . . attention. The Credo must undergo a very slight modification. The Catholics say: ‘I believe in the Catholic Church.’ The Protestants say: ‘I believe in the Universal Church.’ It is the same thing. The word Catholic means: Universal.”


“Always drive minds towards a greater charity, a larger fraternity. Never talk about God, but about the greatness of man. Bit by bit, transform the language and the mentalities. Man must occupy the first place. Cultivate confidence in man who will prove his own greatness by founding the Universal Church in which all good wills shall melt together. To bring out that the good will of man, his sincerity, his dignity are worth more than a God always invisible. To show that the luxury and art found in Catholic and Orthodox Churches are intensely disliked by Protestants, Jews and Moslems. To suggest that this useless show must be suppressed for a greater welfare. To excite an iconoclastic zeal. Youngsters must destroy all this hodgepodge : statues, pictures, reliquaries, priestly ornaments, organs, candles and votive lamps, stained glasses and Cathedrals, etc . . . etc…”

That’s an awful lot of red. Further, what isn’t red (meaning it has yet to happen) has at least been attempted in the near past; in some cases (such as marriage of priests; ordination of women; birth control, abortion and euthanasia) it is still being advocated.

If you look closely and carefully, you will see the emphasis put on the secular “Man” as divine, rather than than the Triune God. We see this on the left, in agencies such as the ACLU, in faux civil rights agencies such as CAIR…it is happening, just as this man and others like him have planned. Policies are designed to lull the gullible into acceptance of anything and everything as “normal and healthy”, with no consequences–and to our danger. We are no longer taught to discern (to discern means to think, evaluate and take appropriate action rather than blindly follow).

In the NOEL Mass (“Novus Ordum”), Holy Communion is distributed in the hand, the Mass is said entirely in the vernacular while facing the congregation, lay people and women are on the altar, you do not kneel for Communion, dress is remarkably casual, no emphasis is put on Confession–in fact, 46% of the Mass was changed. Until that time, from the time of the Last Supper until Vatican II, only EIGHT WORDS had changed. The prayers at the end of Mass were eliminated, there are no more Gregorian Chants or organ music. Priests became your “friend” rather than your spiritual leader; nuns no longer wear their habits or even their rings signifying their marriage to Christ. There is no censure for publicly breaking away from doctrine (Kennedy? Kerry? Pelosi?). Everything is explained away; God is no longer a “Just” God, He forgives anything and basically there is no accountability for your actions. There is no more emphasis on morality, right or wrong. There aren’t a lot of people left who even know what the Triduum is. Again, emphasis is put on the wishes and desires of “Man” and the “secular” rather than Doctrine. This negates the need for any relevant soul-searching and no one feels guilty about anything–they have no moral compass with which to feel guilt or remorse because none is taught.

It’s not “popular” to preach right and wrong, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory or Judgment. It’s acceptable to sit in judgment of others (I KNOW where I’m going when I die–I KNOW you’re going to hell; that kind of thing). It’s not “popular” to preach about how our political leaders are leading us. In fact, it could be downright dangerous and the Church could lose tax status for that (Pelosi). It’s extremely unpopular, extremely dangerous and might “offend” someone to tell the truth about our current political leaders and how they are leading us into moral danger. The Church has bought–lock, stock and barrel–the political correctness agenda. No longer is it the Church not only of love, but of Jesus’ righteous anger in the temple.

As the current “vernacular” states: “It’s all good”.

Unless–UNLESS–you attend a Tridentine Mass.

Those are difficult to find as they are not offered in all diocese. Fortunately, Pope Benedict XVI has issued a proclamation wherein the Bishop of any diocese no longer has to wait years for permission to perform the Tridentine Mass–they are now able to offer it without waiting for permission to be granted. I happen to live in an area where there is an entire parish dedicated to the Tridentine Mass. The “old” strictures apply–no reception of Holy Communion without first receiving Confession and Absolution, reception of Communion at the KNEELERS at the altar rails (some Churchs have reinstalled the altar rails and kneelers), altar boys only (no boy and girl “altar servers”), a Gregorian choir, organ music, no lay people or women on the altar, dress codes enforced, women have their heads covered. There are also a very limited number of priests trained to properly pray the Tridentine Mass.

However, those priests are gold. They are, as they say, “old school”; they tell it like it is, regardless of the personal cost to them. They turn excuses back onto the excuse maker and hold up the mirror–excuses are not acceptable if you have been raised in a Tridentine atmosphere. These priests preach the old way and are not afraid to speak out about the political abominations we have in office or the policies being forced down our throats.

Wait a minute–women have their heads covered??? Isn’t that a muslim thing? No. Even in ancient times women covered their heads in the presence of the Divine. It is a sign of respect, at least in the Catholic church. I don’t know the meaning of it in islam. Further, the first time my son showed up in shorts and tennis shoes (he just WOULDN’T listen and he had been a MASTER altar boy in the NOEL Mass), he was not allowed in the Mass as his dress didn’t show proper respect. That was the only time–since that time (and after being publicly humiliated for his lack of respect) he has dressed as he did as an altar boy–button down shirt, slacks, dress shoes, often a tie. My daughter, who wanted to dress in a similarly casual manner, saw her brother humiliated and decided she would listen. She wears a dress (hemline to the knees), tights, dress shoes and her head covering (her coverings are lace and match her dresses). All of this shows respect for what the Mass MEANS–the Bloodless Sacrifice of Our Lord, the worship of God.

It’s also had an amazing side effect–by learning their Latin, they have an easier time in their Spanish classes. The languages are remarkably similar.

By growing up in a transitional time of the Church, I’ve had a first hand glimpse of how easily it can be infiltrated from the INSIDE. However, the people, those who refuse to study and learn, follow along like sheep, losing their sense of the Divine along the way, and giving in–knowingly or not–to a plan similar to the plan being implemented upon the people of this country.

Vatican II did amazing damage to the Church–seminary applications dropped significantly, leading to the closing of many seminaries. Convents suffered the same fates. Many of the older generation refused to attend the NOEL Mass (my mother was one of them). It wasn’t “their” Church anymore; they didn’t recognize it. Therefore, church attendance dropped like a stone.

However. Through the renewal of the Tridentine Masses, through my generation being information junkies and learning everything we can on anything we wish, the Tridentine Mass is experiencing a renewal. I don’t attend a NOEL Mass if I can help it; however, when it’s unavoidable, I have noticed the attendance continues to be dismal. The Tridentine Masses are packed. The “old ways” are being re-learned, the “old prayers” are once again loved. The old “values” are being re-learned and practiced (said values being dad goes to work, mom stays home with the kids, marriage is forever, birth control is forbidden–one family I know has 11 children right now and I believe mom is pregnant again; a lot of Catholic families home school because even the Catholic schools have fallen victim to the Vatican II/secularist ideology)

The suppression is failing. Ultimately, as with all other attempts at Communism, it is failing within the Church itself. It cannot fulfill the need of the human, the TRUE human, for the touch of the Divine, of something greater than ourselves and outside of ourselves. I see true hope in that.

As the Church has stumbled and fallen, She has also picked Herself up, dusted Herself off and appears to be making a strong comeback. But only through the determined effort of a generation who lived through the original transition. We didn’t like the changes made–and we are refusing those changes now. We want the Church back, in all Her glory, with all Her meaning. Not the pablum foisted upon us by Vatican II.

So too with America. As the Church went, so the politicians have tried–and continue to try–to take the country. As the Church goes, so also goes the country–with the conservative upswing and the conservatives coming out of their stupor, refusing to continue in their role as the “silent majority”.

As the Church goes, so goes the country. The country would be well advised to look at the damage done to the Church by the infiltrators and take its cue from the Church, Her stumble and Her ultimate refusal of the infiltration. In that regard, study “Michael’s” “plan”–compare it to the Communist Manifesto. They are not separate issues. One serves as warning to the other.

As the Church goes, so goes the country. God help us all, because that being the case, we are in for a literal hell on earth–unless people stand up NOW, come out of their stupors and say, loud and clear, WE WILL NOT TOLERATE Communism here on our shores. Unless WE THE PEOPLE stop it dead in its tracks and stop it now.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell here and Real Clear Politics here.

Join the
Christians Against Leftist Heresy blogroll sponsored by Faultline USA

Communist Reality in America


If the leftists get their way, the flag pictured above could very well replace our beloved stars and bars.

This article was posted at Patriots for Conservative Values today. Thanks Len!

This article presents an eloquent example of how communism has done its damndest to reduce this great nation of ours to rubble, one way or another. They finally realized the best way was from the inside.

Unfortunately, their plans have been frighteningly effective–and the American left has relentlessly pushed to keep the plan going.

These words aren’t written by a current American politician with a personal power agenda..they are written by someone who’s been there, done that–from the inside out. His personal recollections validate the Venona project, the project the military carried out in intercepting and decoding the allegedly unbreakable Soviet code. When the Venona results were published, I believe in 1995 (imagine that, during the Clintonsky years), it put “paid” to the ongoing rumors about the guilt or innocence of Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs and others of their ilk, forever ending the debate over their guilt or innocence, forever infuriating the left in their denunciations of McCarthyism and shown to be the rantings of fellow communists trying to protect their own from a true patriot, Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

Other bloggers (Snooper and Spree “spring” to mind–say that 3 times fast!) have blogged about the communist manifesto. Len contributed this. When, I ask, are the sheeple of America going to WAKE THE HELL UP????

Here is the article in its entirety: [ALL EMPHASIS MINE]

********************
AT WAR

Propaganda Redux

Take it from this old KGB hand: The left is abetting America’s enemies with its intemperate attacks on President Bush.

BY ION MIHAI PACEPA

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

During last week’s two-day summit, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown thanked President Bush for leading the global war on terror. Mr. Brown acknowledged “the debt the world owes to the U.S. for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism” and vowed to follow Winston Churchill’s lead and make Britain’s ties with America even stronger.

Mr. Brown’s statements elicited anger from many of Mr. Bush’s domestic detractors, who claim the president concocted the war on terror for personal gain. But as someone who escaped from communist Romania–with two death sentences on his head–in order to become a citizen of this great country, I have a hard time understanding why some of our top political leaders can dare in a time of war to call our commander in chief a “liar,” a “deceiver” and a “fraud.”

I spent decades scrutinizing the U.S. from Europe, and I learned that international respect for America is directly proportional to America’s own respect for its president.

My father spent most of his life working for General Motors in Romania and had a picture of President Truman in our house in Bucharest. While “America” was a vague place somewhere thousands of miles away, he was her tangible symbol. For us, it was he who had helped save civilization from the Nazi barbarians, and it was he who helped restore our freedom after the war–if only for a brief while. We learned that America loved Truman, and we loved America. It was as simple as that.

Later, when I headed Romania’s intelligence station in West Germany, everyone there admired America too. People would often tell me that the “Amis” meant the difference between night and day in their lives. By “night” they meant East Germany, where their former compatriots were scraping along under economic privation and Stasi brutality. That was then.

But in September 2002, a German cabinet minister, Herta Dauebler-Gmelin, had the nerve to compare Mr. Bush to Hitler. In one post-Iraq-war poll 40% of Canada’s teenagers called the U.S. “evil,” and even before the fall of Saddam 57% of Greeks answered “neither” when asked which country was more democratic, the U.S. or Iraq.

Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point out the Soviet parallels. For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler–as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink.

The communist effort to generate hatred for the American president began soon after President Truman set up NATO and propelled the three Western occupation forces to unite their zones to form a new West German nation. We were tasked to take advantage of the reawakened patriotic feelings stirring in the European countries that had been subjugated by the Nazis, in order to shift their hatred for Hitler over into hatred for Truman–the leader of the new “occupation power.” Western Europe was still grateful to the U.S. for having restored its freedom, but it had strong leftist movements that we secretly financed. They were like putty in our hands.

The European leftists, like any totalitarians, needed a tangible enemy, and we gave them one. In no time they began beating their drums decrying President Truman as the “butcher of Hiroshima.” We went on to spend many years and many billions of dollars disparaging subsequent presidents: Eisenhower as a war-mongering “shark” run by the military-industrial complex, Johnson as a mafia boss who had bumped off his predecessor, Nixon as a petty tyrant, Ford as a dimwitted football player and Jimmy Carter as a bumbling peanut farmer. In 1978, when I left Romania for good, the bloc intelligence community had already collected 700 million signatures on a “Yankees-Go-Home” petition, at the same time launching the slogan “Europe for the Europeans.”

During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America’s presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren’t facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness.

The final goal of our anti-American offensive was to discourage the U.S. from protecting the world against communist terrorism and expansion. Sadly, we succeeded. After U.S. forces precipitously pulled out of Vietnam, the victorious communists massacred some two million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Another million tried to escape, but many died in the attempt. This tragedy also created a credibility gap between America and the rest of the world, damaged the cohesion of American foreign policy, and poisoned domestic debate in the U.S.

Unfortunately, partisans today have taken a page from the old Soviet playbook. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, for example, Bush critics continued our mud-slinging at America’s commander in chief. One speaker, Martin O’Malley, now governor of Maryland, had earlier in the summer stated he was more worried about the actions of the Bush administration than about al Qaeda. On another occasion, retired four-star general Wesley Clark gave Michael Moore a platform to denounce the American commander in chief as a “deserter.” And visitors to the national chairman of the Democratic Party had to step across a doormat depicting the American president surrounded by the words, “Give Bush the Boot.”

Competition is indeed the engine that has driven the American dream forward, but unity in time of war has made America the leader of the world. During World War II, 405,399 Americans died to defeat Nazism, but their country of immigrants remained sturdily united. The U.S. held national elections during the war, but those running for office entertained no thought of damaging America’s international prestige in their quest for personal victory. Republican challenger Thomas Dewey declined to criticize President Roosevelt’s war policy. At the end of that war, a united America rebuilt its vanquished enemies. It took seven years to turn Nazi Germany and imperial Japan into democracies, but that effort generated an unprecedented technological explosion and 50 years of unmatched prosperity for us all.

Now we are again at war. It is not the president’s war. It is America’s war, authorized by 296 House members and 76 senators. I do not intend to join the armchair experts on the Iraq war. I do not know how we should handle this war, and they don’t know either. But I do know that if America’s political leaders, Democrat and Republican, join together as they did during World War II, America will win. Otherwise, terrorism will win. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi predicted just before being killed: “We fight today in Iraq, tomorrow in the land of the Holy Places, and after there in the West.”

On July 28, I celebrated 29 years since President Carter signed off on my request for political asylum, and I am still tremendously proud that the leader of the Free World granted me my freedom. During these years I have lived here under five presidents–some better than others–but I have always felt that I was living in paradise. My American citizenship has given me a feeling of pride, hope and security that is surpassed only by the joy of simply being alive. There are millions of other immigrants who are equally proud that they restarted their lives from scratch in order to be in this magnanimous country. I appeal to them to help keep our beloved America united and honorable. We may not be able to change the habits of our current political representatives, but we may be able to introduce healthy new blood into the U.S. Congress.

For once, the communists got it right. It is America’s leader that counts. Let’s return to the traditions of presidents who accepted nothing short of unconditional surrender from our deadly enemies. Let’s vote next year for people who believe in America’s future, not for the ones who live in the Cold War past.

Lt. Gen. Pacepa is the highest-ranking intelligence official ever to have defected from the Soviet bloc. His new book, “Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination” (Ivan R. Dee) will be published in November.

********************
Remember, this comes from someone who KNOWS, has been there, done that, part of his JOB was to actively participate in this endeavor–and yet, he STILL thought then and thinks now AMERICA IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

Why, then, don’t our own citizens?

Communist Reality in America


If the leftists get their way, the flag pictured above could very well replace our beloved stars and bars.

This article was posted at Patriots for Conservative Values today. Thanks Len!

This article presents an eloquent example of how communism has done its damndest to reduce this great nation of ours to rubble, one way or another. They finally realized the best way was from the inside.

Unfortunately, their plans have been frighteningly effective–and the American left has relentlessly pushed to keep the plan going.

These words aren’t written by a current American politician with a personal power agenda..they are written by someone who’s been there, done that–from the inside out. His personal recollections validate the Venona project, the project the military carried out in intercepting and decoding the allegedly unbreakable Soviet code. When the Venona results were published, I believe in 1995 (imagine that, during the Clintonsky years), it put “paid” to the ongoing rumors about the guilt or innocence of Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs and others of their ilk, forever ending the debate over their guilt or innocence, forever infuriating the left in their denunciations of McCarthyism and shown to be the rantings of fellow communists trying to protect their own from a true patriot, Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

Other bloggers (Snooper and Spree “spring” to mind–say that 3 times fast!) have blogged about the communist manifesto. Len contributed this. When, I ask, are the sheeple of America going to WAKE THE HELL UP????

Here is the article in its entirety: [ALL EMPHASIS MINE]

********************
AT WAR

Propaganda Redux

Take it from this old KGB hand: The left is abetting America’s enemies with its intemperate attacks on President Bush.

BY ION MIHAI PACEPA

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

During last week’s two-day summit, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown thanked President Bush for leading the global war on terror. Mr. Brown acknowledged “the debt the world owes to the U.S. for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism” and vowed to follow Winston Churchill’s lead and make Britain’s ties with America even stronger.

Mr. Brown’s statements elicited anger from many of Mr. Bush’s domestic detractors, who claim the president concocted the war on terror for personal gain. But as someone who escaped from communist Romania–with two death sentences on his head–in order to become a citizen of this great country, I have a hard time understanding why some of our top political leaders can dare in a time of war to call our commander in chief a “liar,” a “deceiver” and a “fraud.”

I spent decades scrutinizing the U.S. from Europe, and I learned that international respect for America is directly proportional to America’s own respect for its president.

My father spent most of his life working for General Motors in Romania and had a picture of President Truman in our house in Bucharest. While “America” was a vague place somewhere thousands of miles away, he was her tangible symbol. For us, it was he who had helped save civilization from the Nazi barbarians, and it was he who helped restore our freedom after the war–if only for a brief while. We learned that America loved Truman, and we loved America. It was as simple as that.

Later, when I headed Romania’s intelligence station in West Germany, everyone there admired America too. People would often tell me that the “Amis” meant the difference between night and day in their lives. By “night” they meant East Germany, where their former compatriots were scraping along under economic privation and Stasi brutality. That was then.

But in September 2002, a German cabinet minister, Herta Dauebler-Gmelin, had the nerve to compare Mr. Bush to Hitler. In one post-Iraq-war poll 40% of Canada’s teenagers called the U.S. “evil,” and even before the fall of Saddam 57% of Greeks answered “neither” when asked which country was more democratic, the U.S. or Iraq.

Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point out the Soviet parallels. For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler–as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink.

The communist effort to generate hatred for the American president began soon after President Truman set up NATO and propelled the three Western occupation forces to unite their zones to form a new West German nation. We were tasked to take advantage of the reawakened patriotic feelings stirring in the European countries that had been subjugated by the Nazis, in order to shift their hatred for Hitler over into hatred for Truman–the leader of the new “occupation power.” Western Europe was still grateful to the U.S. for having restored its freedom, but it had strong leftist movements that we secretly financed. They were like putty in our hands.

The European leftists, like any totalitarians, needed a tangible enemy, and we gave them one. In no time they began beating their drums decrying President Truman as the “butcher of Hiroshima.” We went on to spend many years and many billions of dollars disparaging subsequent presidents: Eisenhower as a war-mongering “shark” run by the military-industrial complex, Johnson as a mafia boss who had bumped off his predecessor, Nixon as a petty tyrant, Ford as a dimwitted football player and Jimmy Carter as a bumbling peanut farmer. In 1978, when I left Romania for good, the bloc intelligence community had already collected 700 million signatures on a “Yankees-Go-Home” petition, at the same time launching the slogan “Europe for the Europeans.”

During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America’s presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren’t facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness.

The final goal of our anti-American offensive was to discourage the U.S. from protecting the world against communist terrorism and expansion. Sadly, we succeeded. After U.S. forces precipitously pulled out of Vietnam, the victorious communists massacred some two million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Another million tried to escape, but many died in the attempt. This tragedy also created a credibility gap between America and the rest of the world, damaged the cohesion of American foreign policy, and poisoned domestic debate in the U.S.

Unfortunately, partisans today have taken a page from the old Soviet playbook. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, for example, Bush critics continued our mud-slinging at America’s commander in chief. One speaker, Martin O’Malley, now governor of Maryland, had earlier in the summer stated he was more worried about the actions of the Bush administration than about al Qaeda. On another occasion, retired four-star general Wesley Clark gave Michael Moore a platform to denounce the American commander in chief as a “deserter.” And visitors to the national chairman of the Democratic Party had to step across a doormat depicting the American president surrounded by the words, “Give Bush the Boot.”

Competition is indeed the engine that has driven the American dream forward, but unity in time of war has made America the leader of the world. During World War II, 405,399 Americans died to defeat Nazism, but their country of immigrants remained sturdily united. The U.S. held national elections during the war, but those running for office entertained no thought of damaging America’s international prestige in their quest for personal victory. Republican challenger Thomas Dewey declined to criticize President Roosevelt’s war policy. At the end of that war, a united America rebuilt its vanquished enemies. It took seven years to turn Nazi Germany and imperial Japan into democracies, but that effort generated an unprecedented technological explosion and 50 years of unmatched prosperity for us all.

Now we are again at war. It is not the president’s war. It is America’s war, authorized by 296 House members and 76 senators. I do not intend to join the armchair experts on the Iraq war. I do not know how we should handle this war, and they don’t know either. But I do know that if America’s political leaders, Democrat and Republican, join together as they did during World War II, America will win. Otherwise, terrorism will win. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi predicted just before being killed: “We fight today in Iraq, tomorrow in the land of the Holy Places, and after there in the West.”

On July 28, I celebrated 29 years since President Carter signed off on my request for political asylum, and I am still tremendously proud that the leader of the Free World granted me my freedom. During these years I have lived here under five presidents–some better than others–but I have always felt that I was living in paradise. My American citizenship has given me a feeling of pride, hope and security that is surpassed only by the joy of simply being alive. There are millions of other immigrants who are equally proud that they restarted their lives from scratch in order to be in this magnanimous country. I appeal to them to help keep our beloved America united and honorable. We may not be able to change the habits of our current political representatives, but we may be able to introduce healthy new blood into the U.S. Congress.

For once, the communists got it right. It is America’s leader that counts. Let’s return to the traditions of presidents who accepted nothing short of unconditional surrender from our deadly enemies. Let’s vote next year for people who believe in America’s future, not for the ones who live in the Cold War past.

Lt. Gen. Pacepa is the highest-ranking intelligence official ever to have defected from the Soviet bloc. His new book, “Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination” (Ivan R. Dee) will be published in November.

********************
Remember, this comes from someone who KNOWS, has been there, done that, part of his JOB was to actively participate in this endeavor–and yet, he STILL thought then and thinks now AMERICA IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

Why, then, don’t our own citizens?

A Communism for the 21st Century


The Brussels Journal, the essential European blog

From the desk of Fjordman

I’ve received some criticism for trying to figure out the ideological and historical roots of Multiculturalism. Critics claim that it’s all about hate, about a desire to break down the Established Order at any cost. Many of the proponents don’t believe in the doctrine of Multiculturalism themselves, so we shouldn’t waste any time analyzing the logic behind it, because there is none. A desire to break down Western society is certainly there, but I do believe there are some ideas about the desired end result articulated as well.

On one hand, we’re supposed to “celebrate” our differences at the same time as it is racist and taboo to recognize that any differences between groups of people exist at all. This is hardly logically coherent, which is why Multiculturalism can only be enforced by totalitarian means. Perhaps it boils down to the fact there are no major differences, just minor quirks, all cute, which should be celebrated at the same time as we gradually eradicate them.

We are told to treat cultural and historical identities as fashion accessories, shirts we can wear and change at will. The Multicultural society is “colorful,” an adjective normally attached to furniture or curtains. Cultures are window decorations of little or no consequence, and one might as well have one as the other. In fact, it is good to change it every now and then. Don’t you get tired of that old sofa sometimes? What about exchanging it for the new sharia model? Sure, it’s slightly less comfortable than the old one, but it’s very much in vogue these days and sets you apart from the neighbors, at least until they get one, too. Do you want a sample of the latest Calvin Klein perfume to go with that sharia?

We should remember that this view of culture as largely unimportant is essentially a Marxist view of the world, which has now even been adopted by segments of the political Right, united with Leftists in the belief that man is homo economicus, the economic man, the sum of his functions as worker and consumer, nothing more. Marxism doesn’t say that cultures or ideas are of absolutely no consequence, but that they are of minor or secondary importance next to structural and economic conditions.

I have heard individuals state point blank that even if Muslims become the majority in our countries in the future, this doesn’t matter because all people are equal and all cultures are just a mix of everything else, anyway. And since religions are just fairy-tales, replacing one fairy-tale, Christianity, with another fairy-tale, Islam, won’t make a big difference. All religions basically say that the same things in different ways. However, not one of them would ever dream of saying that all political ideologies “basically mean the same thing.” They simply don’t view religious or cultural ideas as significant, and thus won’t spend time on studying the largely unimportant details of each specific creed. This is Marxist materialism.

The unstated premise behind this is that the age of distinct cultures is over. All peoples around the world will gradually blend into one another. Ethnic, religious and racial tensions will disappear, because mankind will be one and equal. It’s cultural and genetic Communism. Nation states who create their own laws and uphold their own borders constitute “discrimination” and an obstacle to this new Utopia, and will gradually have to be dismantled, starting with Western nations of course, replaced by a world where everybody has the right to move wherever they want to and where international legislation and human rights resolutions define the law, upheld by an elite of — supposedly well-meaning — transnational bureaucrats managing our lives.

What the proponents of this ideology don’t say is that even if it were possible to melt all human beings into one people, which is in my view neither possible nor desirable, this project would take generations or centuries, and in the intervening time there would be numerous wars and enormous suffering caused by the fact that not everybody would quietly allow themselves to be eradicated.

All aspects of your person, from language via culture to skin color and religion, are treated as imaginary social constructs. We are told that “all cultures are hybrids and borrow from each other,” that we were “all immigrants” at one point in time and hence nobody has a right to claim any specific piece of land as “theirs.”

Since “we” are socially constructed, we can presumably also be socially deconstructed. The Marxist “counter-cultureof the 1960s and 70s has been remarkably effective at attacking the pillars of Western civilization. It is, frankly, scary to notice how much damage just one single generation can inflict upon a society. Maybe it’s true that no chain is stronger than its weakest link. Our education system is now used to dismantle our culture, not to uphold it, and has moved from the Age of Reason to the Age of Deconstruction. Socialism has destroyed the very fabric of society. Our countries have become so damaged that people feel there is nothing left fighting for, which no doubt was the intention. Our children leave school as disoriented wrecks and ideological cripples with no sense of identity, and are met with a roar of outrage if they demonstrate the slightest inkling of a spine.

Codie Stott, a white English teenage schoolgirl, was arrested on suspicion of committing a section five racial public order offense after refusing to sit with a group of South Asian students because some of them did not speak English. She was taken to Swinton police station, had her fingerprints taken and was thrown into a cell before being released. Robert Whelan of the Civitas think-tank said: “A lot of these arrests don’t result in prosecutions – the aim is to frighten us into self-censorship until we watch everything we say.”

Bryan Cork of Carlisle, Cumbria in the Lake District, was sentenced to six months in jail for standing outside a mosque shouting, “Proud to be British,” and “Go back to where you came from.” This happened while Muslims were instituting sharia laws in British cities and got state sponsorship for having several wives.

Antifascistisk Aktion in Sweden, a group that supposedly fights against “racists,” openly brag about numerous physical attacks against persons with their full name and address published on their website. According to AFA, this is done in order to fight against global capitalism and for a classless society. They subscribe to an ideology that killed one hundred million people during a few generations, and they are the good guys. Those who object to being turned into a minority in their own country through mass immigration are the bad guys.

The extreme Left didn’t succeed in staging a violent revolution in the West, so they decided to go for a permanent, structural revolution instead. They now hope that immigrants can provide raw material for a violent rebellion, especially since many of them are Muslims who have displayed such a wonderful talent for violence and destruction. The Western Left are importing a new proletariat, since the previous one disappointed them.

A poll carried out on behalf of the Organization for Information on Communism found that 90 percent of Swedes between the ages of 15 and 20 had never heard of the Gulag, although 95 percent knew of Auschwitz. “Unfortunately we were not at all surprised by the findings,” Ander Hjemdahl, the founder of UOK, told website The Local. In the nationwide poll, 43 percent believed that Communist regimes had claimed less than one million lives. The actual figure is estimated at 100 million. 40 percent believed that Communism had contributed to increased prosperity in the world. Mr. Hjemdahl states several reasons for this massive ignorance, among them that “a large majority of Swedish journalists are left-wingers, many of them quite far left.”

I have personally read statements by leading media figures not just in Sweden, but all over Western Europe, who openly brag about censoring coverage of issues related to mass immigration and the Multicultural society.

The Muslim writer Abdelwahab Meddeb believes that as a result of French influence, the whole of the Mediterranean region “is suited to becoming a laboratory for European thought.” First of all, I don’t think Islam can be reformed, and even if it could, France currently lacks the cultural confidence to lead such an effort. Behind their false pride, they are a nation deeply unsure about themselves, and still carry psychological wounds from their great Revolution of 1789. And second: A bridge can be crossed two ways. Will France be a bridge for European thought into the Islamic world or for Islamic thought into Europe? Right now, the latter seems more likely. And finally: I greatly resent seeing tens of millions of human beings described as a “laboratory.” Unfortunately, Mr. Meddeb is not alone in entertaining such ideas.

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has said: “Belgium is the laboratory of European unification.” What kind of confidence does it inspire in citizens that their supposed leader talks about their country as a laboratory? Are their children guinea pigs? Apparently, yes.

In 1960, 7.3% of the population of Belgian capital Brussels was foreign. Today the figure is 56.5%. Jan Hertogen, a Marxist sociologist, can hardly hide his excitement over this great experiment in social engineering, and believes this population replacement “is an impressive and unique development from a European, or even a world perspective.” Yes, it is probably the first time in human history that a nation demographically has handed over its capital city to outsiders without firing a single shot, but judging from trends in the rest of Europe, it won’t be the last. The European Union and the local, Multicultural elites will see to that.

The Dutch writer Margriet de Moor provides another example of why Multiculturalism is a massive experiment in social engineering, every bit as radical and dangerous as Communism. Ms. de Moor lives in some kind of alternate reality where “Europe’s affluence and free speech” will create an Islamic Reformation. But Muslim immigration constitutes a massive drain on the former, and is slowly, but surely destroying the latter:

“When I’m feeling optimistic I sometimes see the Netherlands, a small laconic country not inclined towards the large-scale or the theatrical, as a kind of laboratory on the edge of Europe. Now and then the mixture of dangerous, easily inflammable substances results in a little explosion, but basically the process of ordinary chemical reactions just continues.”

What kind of person refers to her own country as a laboratory? Ms. de Moor sounds like a scientist, dispassionately studying an interesting specimen in her microscope. I’m sure Theo van Gogh would be pleased to hear that he was basically a lab rat when he ended up with a knife in his chest for having “insulted” Islam, along with that of the “racist” Pim Fortuyn the first political murder in Holland for centuries. What was once one of the most tolerant nations in the world is now being ruined by Muslim immigration. But hey, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, right? These murders were an unfortunate business, no doubt, but one mustn’t call off the entire Multicultural experiment because of a few minor setbacks.

We are all told that Arabs triggered the Renaissance in Europe. Michelangelo was commissioned by the Pope to paint the ceiling of The Sistine Chapel within the Vatican. He painted God creating Adam. Did any of the Caliphs or Sultans ever commission an artist to pant the image of Allah in Mecca? Why not, if all cultures are one and the same? Likewise, the political works of the ancient Greeks were never translated to Arabic, as they presented systems such as democracy where men ruled themselves according to their own laws. This was considered blasphemous to Muslims. The same texts were later studied with great interest in the West.

Far from being irrelevant, culture is a massively important factor in shaping a society. Islam’s hostility to free speech is why Muslims never had any Scientific or Industrial Revolution, for instance. If you believe in evolution, isn’t it then also likely that some cultures are more evolved than others? That kind of blows Multiculturalism away, doesn’t it?
British PM Tony Blair is stepping down after having ruined his country more in one decade than arguably any other leader has done before him. He ran on the platform of New Labour, but as it turned out, his party was still wed to the same old ideas of international Socialism.

According to the writer Melanie Phillips, “He is driven by a universalist world view which minimises the profound nature of the conflicts that divide people. He thinks that such divisions belong essentially to a primitive past. (…) Hence his closely-related obsession with ‘universal’ human rights law. Hence also his belief that national borders no longer matter, that mass immigration is a good thing and that Britain’s unique identity must give way to multiculturalism. This is the way, he thinks, to eradicate conflict, prejudice and war, and create a global utopia. What a profound misjudgment. It is, instead, the way to destroy democracy and the independent nations that create and sustain it.”

Marie Simonsen, the political editor of the Norwegian left-wing newspaper Dagbladet, wrote in March 2007 that it should be considered a universal human right for all people everywhere to migrate wherever they want to. This statement came just after a UN report had predicted a global population growth of several billion people to 2050.

It doesn’t take much skill to calculate that unlimited migration will spell certain death for a tiny Scandinavian nation — not in a matter of generations, but theoretically even within a few weeks. Ms. Simonsen is thus endorsing the eradication of her own people, and she does so almost as an afterthought. Her comments received no opposition from anyone in the media establishment, which could indicate that most of them share her views, or at least have resigned themselves to the fact that our death as a people is already inevitable.

Karl Marx has defined the essence of Socialism as abolishing private property. Let’s assume for a moment that a country can be treated as the “property” of its citizens. Its inhabitants are responsible for creating its infrastructure. They have built its roads and communications, its schools, universities and medical facilities. They have created its political institutions and instilled in its people the mental capacities needed for upholding them. Is it then wrong for the citizens of this country to want to enjoy the benefits of what they have themselves created?

According to Marxist logic, yes.

Imagine you have two such houses next to each other. In House A, the inhabitants have over a period of generations created a tidy and functioning household. They have limited their number of children because they wanted to give all of them a proper education. In House B, the inhabitants live in a dysfunctional household with too many children who have received little higher education. One day they decide to move to their neighbors’. Many of the inhabitants of House A are protesting, but some of them think this might be a good idea. There is room for more people in House A, they say. In addition to this, Amnesty International, the United Nations and others claim that it is “racist” and “against international law” for the inhabitants of House A to expel the intruders. Pretty soon, House A has been turned into an overpopulated and dysfunctional household just like House B.

This is what is happening to the West today. Europe itself could become a failed continent by importing the problems of Africa and the Islamic world. The notion that everybody should be free to move anywhere they want to, and that preventing them from moving into your country is “racism, xenophobia and bigotry,” is the Communism of the 21st century. And it will probably lead to immense human suffering.

One of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was now dead, and thus no longer anything to worry about. Here we are, nearly a generation later, discovering that Marxist thinking has penetrated every single stratum of our society, from the universities to the media. While the “hard” Marxism of the Soviet Union may have collapsed, at least for now, the “soft” Marxism of the Western Left has actually grown stronger, in part because we mistakenly deemed it to be less threatening.

Ideas about Multiculturalism and de-facto open borders have achieved a virtual hegemony in public discourse. By hiding behind labels such as “anti-racism” and “tolerance,” Leftists have achieved a degree of censorship they could never have achieved had they openly stated that their intention was to radically transform Western civilization and destroy its foundations.

According to the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, “the lofty idea of ‘the war on racism’ is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology. And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what Communism was for the 20th century: A source of violence.”

Alexander Boot, a Russian by birth, left for the West in the 1970s, only to discover that the West he was seeking was no longer there. This led him to write the book How the West Was Lost. Boot believes that democracy, or in the words of Abraham Lincoln, the government of the people, by the people and for the people, has been replaced by glossocracy, the government of the word, by the word and for the word.

In a culture where language is power and words are used as weapons, those who control the most fearsome of these weapons control society. In the West, where equality in all walks of life is the highest virtue and “discrimination” is a mortal sin, the “racist” is the worst of creatures. Those who control the definition of “racist,” the nuclear bomb of glossocracy, have a powerful weapon they can utilize to intimidate opponents. The mere utterance of the word can destroy careers and ruin lives, with no trial and no possibility of appeal.

Currently, the power of definition largely rests in the hands of a cartel of anti-racist organizations dominated by the extreme Left, often in cooperation with Muslims. By silencing all opposition to mass immigration as “racism,” they can stage a transformation of society every bit as massive as that of Communism, yet virtually shut down debate about it.

Boot totally rejects the claim that Marxism has been misunderstood:

“Any serious study will demonstrate that Marx based his theories on industrial conditions that either were already obsolete at the time or had never existed in the first place. That is no wonder, for Marx never saw the inside of a factory, farm or manufactory. […] Whatever else he was, Marx was not a scientist. […] Marx ideals are unachievable precisely because they are so monstrous that even Bolsheviks never quite managed to realize them fully, and not for any lack of trying. For example, the [Communist] Manifesto (along with other writings by both Marx and Engels) prescribes the nationalization of all private property without exception. Even Stalin’s Russia of the 1930s fell short of that ideal. In fact, a good chunk of the Soviet economy was then in private hands […] Really, compared with Marx, Stalin begins to look like a humanitarian. Marx also insisted that family should be done away with, with women becoming communal property. Again, for all their efforts, Lenin and Stalin never quite managed to achieve this ideal either. So where the Bolsheviks and Nazis perverted Marxism, they generally did so in the direction of softening it.”

The former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy, who has warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union, thinks that while the West won the Cold War in a military sense, we lost it in the context of ideas: “Communism might have been dead, but the communists remained in power in most of the former Warsaw bloc countries, while their Western collaborators came to power all over the world (in Europe in particular). This is nothing short of a miracle: the defeat of the Nazis in 1945 quite logically brought a shift to the Left in world politics, while a defeat of communism in 1991 brought again a shift to the Left, this time quite illogically.”

Bukovksy is right: We never had a thorough de-Marxification process after the Cold War, similar to the de-Nazification after WW2, and we are now paying the price for this. Many Marxist ideas have been allowed to endure and mutate, such as the notion that culture is unimportant or that it is OK to stage massive social experiments on hundreds of millions of people. The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm has stated that had the Soviet Union managed to create a functioning Socialist society, tens of millions of deaths would have been a worthwhile price to pay. But Marxist ideals of forced equality can only be enforced by a government with totalitarian powers, and will thus inevitably lead to a totalitarian society. There is no “enlightened Marxism,” and the idea that there is has ruined more lives than probably and other ideology in modern history.

Marxism is an organized crime against humanity.

The Australian writer Keith Windschuttle warns that the consequence of cultural relativism is that if there can be no absolute truths, there can be no absolute falsehoods, either, which explains Western weakness when confronted with Islamic Jihad. Our sense of right and wrong has been deeply damaged by Marxist thinking. Windschuttle praises Greek historian Thucydides’ writings about The History of the Peloponnesian War from the 5th century BC:
“Rather than being impelled by great impersonal forces, political history reveals the world is made by men and, instead of being ‘absolved of blame’, men are responsible for the consequences of their actions. This was the very point that informed Thucydides’ study of the Peloponnesian War: the fate of Athens had been determined not by prophets, oracles or the gods, but by human actions and social organisation.”

Ideas matter. Individuals matter. Cultures matter. Truth matters, and truth exists. We used to know that. It’s time we get to know it again, and reject false ideas about the irrelevance of culture. We are not racists for desiring to pass on our heritage to future generations, nor are we evil for resisting to be treated as lab rats in social experiments on a horrific scale. We must nip the ideology of transnational Multiculturalism and unlimited mass migration in the bud by exposing it for what it is: A Communism for the 21st century.

Dean

A Communism for the 21st Century


The Brussels Journal, the essential European blog

From the desk of Fjordman

I’ve received some criticism for trying to figure out the ideological and historical roots of Multiculturalism. Critics claim that it’s all about hate, about a desire to break down the Established Order at any cost. Many of the proponents don’t believe in the doctrine of Multiculturalism themselves, so we shouldn’t waste any time analyzing the logic behind it, because there is none. A desire to break down Western society is certainly there, but I do believe there are some ideas about the desired end result articulated as well.

On one hand, we’re supposed to “celebrate” our differences at the same time as it is racist and taboo to recognize that any differences between groups of people exist at all. This is hardly logically coherent, which is why Multiculturalism can only be enforced by totalitarian means. Perhaps it boils down to the fact there are no major differences, just minor quirks, all cute, which should be celebrated at the same time as we gradually eradicate them.

We are told to treat cultural and historical identities as fashion accessories, shirts we can wear and change at will. The Multicultural society is “colorful,” an adjective normally attached to furniture or curtains. Cultures are window decorations of little or no consequence, and one might as well have one as the other. In fact, it is good to change it every now and then. Don’t you get tired of that old sofa sometimes? What about exchanging it for the new sharia model? Sure, it’s slightly less comfortable than the old one, but it’s very much in vogue these days and sets you apart from the neighbors, at least until they get one, too. Do you want a sample of the latest Calvin Klein perfume to go with that sharia?

We should remember that this view of culture as largely unimportant is essentially a Marxist view of the world, which has now even been adopted by segments of the political Right, united with Leftists in the belief that man is homo economicus, the economic man, the sum of his functions as worker and consumer, nothing more. Marxism doesn’t say that cultures or ideas are of absolutely no consequence, but that they are of minor or secondary importance next to structural and economic conditions.

I have heard individuals state point blank that even if Muslims become the majority in our countries in the future, this doesn’t matter because all people are equal and all cultures are just a mix of everything else, anyway. And since religions are just fairy-tales, replacing one fairy-tale, Christianity, with another fairy-tale, Islam, won’t make a big difference. All religions basically say that the same things in different ways. However, not one of them would ever dream of saying that all political ideologies “basically mean the same thing.” They simply don’t view religious or cultural ideas as significant, and thus won’t spend time on studying the largely unimportant details of each specific creed. This is Marxist materialism.

The unstated premise behind this is that the age of distinct cultures is over. All peoples around the world will gradually blend into one another. Ethnic, religious and racial tensions will disappear, because mankind will be one and equal. It’s cultural and genetic Communism. Nation states who create their own laws and uphold their own borders constitute “discrimination” and an obstacle to this new Utopia, and will gradually have to be dismantled, starting with Western nations of course, replaced by a world where everybody has the right to move wherever they want to and where international legislation and human rights resolutions define the law, upheld by an elite of — supposedly well-meaning — transnational bureaucrats managing our lives.

What the proponents of this ideology don’t say is that even if it were possible to melt all human beings into one people, which is in my view neither possible nor desirable, this project would take generations or centuries, and in the intervening time there would be numerous wars and enormous suffering caused by the fact that not everybody would quietly allow themselves to be eradicated.

All aspects of your person, from language via culture to skin color and religion, are treated as imaginary social constructs. We are told that “all cultures are hybrids and borrow from each other,” that we were “all immigrants” at one point in time and hence nobody has a right to claim any specific piece of land as “theirs.”

Since “we” are socially constructed, we can presumably also be socially deconstructed. The Marxist “counter-cultureof the 1960s and 70s has been remarkably effective at attacking the pillars of Western civilization. It is, frankly, scary to notice how much damage just one single generation can inflict upon a society. Maybe it’s true that no chain is stronger than its weakest link. Our education system is now used to dismantle our culture, not to uphold it, and has moved from the Age of Reason to the Age of Deconstruction. Socialism has destroyed the very fabric of society. Our countries have become so damaged that people feel there is nothing left fighting for, which no doubt was the intention. Our children leave school as disoriented wrecks and ideological cripples with no sense of identity, and are met with a roar of outrage if they demonstrate the slightest inkling of a spine.

Codie Stott, a white English teenage schoolgirl, was arrested on suspicion of committing a section five racial public order offense after refusing to sit with a group of South Asian students because some of them did not speak English. She was taken to Swinton police station, had her fingerprints taken and was thrown into a cell before being released. Robert Whelan of the Civitas think-tank said: “A lot of these arrests don’t result in prosecutions – the aim is to frighten us into self-censorship until we watch everything we say.”

Bryan Cork of Carlisle, Cumbria in the Lake District, was sentenced to six months in jail for standing outside a mosque shouting, “Proud to be British,” and “Go back to where you came from.” This happened while Muslims were instituting sharia laws in British cities and got state sponsorship for having several wives.

Antifascistisk Aktion in Sweden, a group that supposedly fights against “racists,” openly brag about numerous physical attacks against persons with their full name and address published on their website. According to AFA, this is done in order to fight against global capitalism and for a classless society. They subscribe to an ideology that killed one hundred million people during a few generations, and they are the good guys. Those who object to being turned into a minority in their own country through mass immigration are the bad guys.

The extreme Left didn’t succeed in staging a violent revolution in the West, so they decided to go for a permanent, structural revolution instead. They now hope that immigrants can provide raw material for a violent rebellion, especially since many of them are Muslims who have displayed such a wonderful talent for violence and destruction. The Western Left are importing a new proletariat, since the previous one disappointed them.

A poll carried out on behalf of the Organization for Information on Communism found that 90 percent of Swedes between the ages of 15 and 20 had never heard of the Gulag, although 95 percent knew of Auschwitz. “Unfortunately we were not at all surprised by the findings,” Ander Hjemdahl, the founder of UOK, told website The Local. In the nationwide poll, 43 percent believed that Communist regimes had claimed less than one million lives. The actual figure is estimated at 100 million. 40 percent believed that Communism had contributed to increased prosperity in the world. Mr. Hjemdahl states several reasons for this massive ignorance, among them that “a large majority of Swedish journalists are left-wingers, many of them quite far left.”

I have personally read statements by leading media figures not just in Sweden, but all over Western Europe, who openly brag about censoring coverage of issues related to mass immigration and the Multicultural society.

The Muslim writer Abdelwahab Meddeb believes that as a result of French influence, the whole of the Mediterranean region “is suited to becoming a laboratory for European thought.” First of all, I don’t think Islam can be reformed, and even if it could, France currently lacks the cultural confidence to lead such an effort. Behind their false pride, they are a nation deeply unsure about themselves, and still carry psychological wounds from their great Revolution of 1789. And second: A bridge can be crossed two ways. Will France be a bridge for European thought into the Islamic world or for Islamic thought into Europe? Right now, the latter seems more likely. And finally: I greatly resent seeing tens of millions of human beings described as a “laboratory.” Unfortunately, Mr. Meddeb is not alone in entertaining such ideas.

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has said: “Belgium is the laboratory of European unification.” What kind of confidence does it inspire in citizens that their supposed leader talks about their country as a laboratory? Are their children guinea pigs? Apparently, yes.

In 1960, 7.3% of the population of Belgian capital Brussels was foreign. Today the figure is 56.5%. Jan Hertogen, a Marxist sociologist, can hardly hide his excitement over this great experiment in social engineering, and believes this population replacement “is an impressive and unique development from a European, or even a world perspective.” Yes, it is probably the first time in human history that a nation demographically has handed over its capital city to outsiders without firing a single shot, but judging from trends in the rest of Europe, it won’t be the last. The European Union and the local, Multicultural elites will see to that.

The Dutch writer Margriet de Moor provides another example of why Multiculturalism is a massive experiment in social engineering, every bit as radical and dangerous as Communism. Ms. de Moor lives in some kind of alternate reality where “Europe’s affluence and free speech” will create an Islamic Reformation. But Muslim immigration constitutes a massive drain on the former, and is slowly, but surely destroying the latter:

“When I’m feeling optimistic I sometimes see the Netherlands, a small laconic country not inclined towards the large-scale or the theatrical, as a kind of laboratory on the edge of Europe. Now and then the mixture of dangerous, easily inflammable substances results in a little explosion, but basically the process of ordinary chemical reactions just continues.”

What kind of person refers to her own country as a laboratory? Ms. de Moor sounds like a scientist, dispassionately studying an interesting specimen in her microscope. I’m sure Theo van Gogh would be pleased to hear that he was basically a lab rat when he ended up with a knife in his chest for having “insulted” Islam, along with that of the “racist” Pim Fortuyn the first political murder in Holland for centuries. What was once one of the most tolerant nations in the world is now being ruined by Muslim immigration. But hey, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, right? These murders were an unfortunate business, no doubt, but one mustn’t call off the entire Multicultural experiment because of a few minor setbacks.

We are all told that Arabs triggered the Renaissance in Europe. Michelangelo was commissioned by the Pope to paint the ceiling of The Sistine Chapel within the Vatican. He painted God creating Adam. Did any of the Caliphs or Sultans ever commission an artist to pant the image of Allah in Mecca? Why not, if all cultures are one and the same? Likewise, the political works of the ancient Greeks were never translated to Arabic, as they presented systems such as democracy where men ruled themselves according to their own laws. This was considered blasphemous to Muslims. The same texts were later studied with great interest in the West.

Far from being irrelevant, culture is a massively important factor in shaping a society. Islam’s hostility to free speech is why Muslims never had any Scientific or Industrial Revolution, for instance. If you believe in evolution, isn’t it then also likely that some cultures are more evolved than others? That kind of blows Multiculturalism away, doesn’t it?
British PM Tony Blair is stepping down after having ruined his country more in one decade than arguably any other leader has done before him. He ran on the platform of New Labour, but as it turned out, his party was still wed to the same old ideas of international Socialism.

According to the writer Melanie Phillips, “He is driven by a universalist world view which minimises the profound nature of the conflicts that divide people. He thinks that such divisions belong essentially to a primitive past. (…) Hence his closely-related obsession with ‘universal’ human rights law. Hence also his belief that national borders no longer matter, that mass immigration is a good thing and that Britain’s unique identity must give way to multiculturalism. This is the way, he thinks, to eradicate conflict, prejudice and war, and create a global utopia. What a profound misjudgment. It is, instead, the way to destroy democracy and the independent nations that create and sustain it.”

Marie Simonsen, the political editor of the Norwegian left-wing newspaper Dagbladet, wrote in March 2007 that it should be considered a universal human right for all people everywhere to migrate wherever they want to. This statement came just after a UN report had predicted a global population growth of several billion people to 2050.

It doesn’t take much skill to calculate that unlimited migration will spell certain death for a tiny Scandinavian nation — not in a matter of generations, but theoretically even within a few weeks. Ms. Simonsen is thus endorsing the eradication of her own people, and she does so almost as an afterthought. Her comments received no opposition from anyone in the media establishment, which could indicate that most of them share her views, or at least have resigned themselves to the fact that our death as a people is already inevitable.

Karl Marx has defined the essence of Socialism as abolishing private property. Let’s assume for a moment that a country can be treated as the “property” of its citizens. Its inhabitants are responsible for creating its infrastructure. They have built its roads and communications, its schools, universities and medical facilities. They have created its political institutions and instilled in its people the mental capacities needed for upholding them. Is it then wrong for the citizens of this country to want to enjoy the benefits of what they have themselves created?

According to Marxist logic, yes.

Imagine you have two such houses next to each other. In House A, the inhabitants have over a period of generations created a tidy and functioning household. They have limited their number of children because they wanted to give all of them a proper education. In House B, the inhabitants live in a dysfunctional household with too many children who have received little higher education. One day they decide to move to their neighbors’. Many of the inhabitants of House A are protesting, but some of them think this might be a good idea. There is room for more people in House A, they say. In addition to this, Amnesty International, the United Nations and others claim that it is “racist” and “against international law” for the inhabitants of House A to expel the intruders. Pretty soon, House A has been turned into an overpopulated and dysfunctional household just like House B.

This is what is happening to the West today. Europe itself could become a failed continent by importing the problems of Africa and the Islamic world. The notion that everybody should be free to move anywhere they want to, and that preventing them from moving into your country is “racism, xenophobia and bigotry,” is the Communism of the 21st century. And it will probably lead to immense human suffering.

One of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was now dead, and thus no longer anything to worry about. Here we are, nearly a generation later, discovering that Marxist thinking has penetrated every single stratum of our society, from the universities to the media. While the “hard” Marxism of the Soviet Union may have collapsed, at least for now, the “soft” Marxism of the Western Left has actually grown stronger, in part because we mistakenly deemed it to be less threatening.

Ideas about Multiculturalism and de-facto open borders have achieved a virtual hegemony in public discourse. By hiding behind labels such as “anti-racism” and “tolerance,” Leftists have achieved a degree of censorship they could never have achieved had they openly stated that their intention was to radically transform Western civilization and destroy its foundations.

According to the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, “the lofty idea of ‘the war on racism’ is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology. And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what Communism was for the 20th century: A source of violence.”

Alexander Boot, a Russian by birth, left for the West in the 1970s, only to discover that the West he was seeking was no longer there. This led him to write the book How the West Was Lost. Boot believes that democracy, or in the words of Abraham Lincoln, the government of the people, by the people and for the people, has been replaced by glossocracy, the government of the word, by the word and for the word.

In a culture where language is power and words are used as weapons, those who control the most fearsome of these weapons control society. In the West, where equality in all walks of life is the highest virtue and “discrimination” is a mortal sin, the “racist” is the worst of creatures. Those who control the definition of “racist,” the nuclear bomb of glossocracy, have a powerful weapon they can utilize to intimidate opponents. The mere utterance of the word can destroy careers and ruin lives, with no trial and no possibility of appeal.

Currently, the power of definition largely rests in the hands of a cartel of anti-racist organizations dominated by the extreme Left, often in cooperation with Muslims. By silencing all opposition to mass immigration as “racism,” they can stage a transformation of society every bit as massive as that of Communism, yet virtually shut down debate about it.

Boot totally rejects the claim that Marxism has been misunderstood:

“Any serious study will demonstrate that Marx based his theories on industrial conditions that either were already obsolete at the time or had never existed in the first place. That is no wonder, for Marx never saw the inside of a factory, farm or manufactory. […] Whatever else he was, Marx was not a scientist. […] Marx ideals are unachievable precisely because they are so monstrous that even Bolsheviks never quite managed to realize them fully, and not for any lack of trying. For example, the [Communist] Manifesto (along with other writings by both Marx and Engels) prescribes the nationalization of all private property without exception. Even Stalin’s Russia of the 1930s fell short of that ideal. In fact, a good chunk of the Soviet economy was then in private hands […] Really, compared with Marx, Stalin begins to look like a humanitarian. Marx also insisted that family should be done away with, with women becoming communal property. Again, for all their efforts, Lenin and Stalin never quite managed to achieve this ideal either. So where the Bolsheviks and Nazis perverted Marxism, they generally did so in the direction of softening it.”

The former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy, who has warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union, thinks that while the West won the Cold War in a military sense, we lost it in the context of ideas: “Communism might have been dead, but the communists remained in power in most of the former Warsaw bloc countries, while their Western collaborators came to power all over the world (in Europe in particular). This is nothing short of a miracle: the defeat of the Nazis in 1945 quite logically brought a shift to the Left in world politics, while a defeat of communism in 1991 brought again a shift to the Left, this time quite illogically.”

Bukovksy is right: We never had a thorough de-Marxification process after the Cold War, similar to the de-Nazification after WW2, and we are now paying the price for this. Many Marxist ideas have been allowed to endure and mutate, such as the notion that culture is unimportant or that it is OK to stage massive social experiments on hundreds of millions of people. The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm has stated that had the Soviet Union managed to create a functioning Socialist society, tens of millions of deaths would have been a worthwhile price to pay. But Marxist ideals of forced equality can only be enforced by a government with totalitarian powers, and will thus inevitably lead to a totalitarian society. There is no “enlightened Marxism,” and the idea that there is has ruined more lives than probably and other ideology in modern history.

Marxism is an organized crime against humanity.

The Australian writer Keith Windschuttle warns that the consequence of cultural relativism is that if there can be no absolute truths, there can be no absolute falsehoods, either, which explains Western weakness when confronted with Islamic Jihad. Our sense of right and wrong has been deeply damaged by Marxist thinking. Windschuttle praises Greek historian Thucydides’ writings about The History of the Peloponnesian War from the 5th century BC:
“Rather than being impelled by great impersonal forces, political history reveals the world is made by men and, instead of being ‘absolved of blame’, men are responsible for the consequences of their actions. This was the very point that informed Thucydides’ study of the Peloponnesian War: the fate of Athens had been determined not by prophets, oracles or the gods, but by human actions and social organisation.”

Ideas matter. Individuals matter. Cultures matter. Truth matters, and truth exists. We used to know that. It’s time we get to know it again, and reject false ideas about the irrelevance of culture. We are not racists for desiring to pass on our heritage to future generations, nor are we evil for resisting to be treated as lab rats in social experiments on a horrific scale. We must nip the ideology of transnational Multiculturalism and unlimited mass migration in the bud by exposing it for what it is: A Communism for the 21st century.

Dean

A LAUGH AT NANCY’S EXPENSE

I found this article on Pelosi at Snopes.com:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pelosi.asp

While the original premise of Nancy calling for 100% tax on stock profits is false, the entire article is worth reading. Keep in mind, it could also apply to Billary and her statements about taking the oil profits and redistributing the wealth to the “poor and downtrodden”.

It would be laughable if it weren’t so plausible for these lunatic nutters!