From Communists to Progressives, the Left's Takedown of Family and Marriage

americanthinker

By Paul Kengor

As the Supreme Court considers rendering unto itself the right to redefine marriage -- that is, to arrogate to itself something heretofore reserved to the laws of nature and nature’s God -- it’s a good time to have something that liberals always insist we have: a conversation. And given liberals’ constant calls for “tolerance” and “diversity,” they ought to be willing to sit back and join us in a civil, healthy dialogue.

To that end, I invite them to consider something so crucial and yet so neglected that I wrote a full book on it, released just in time for this national conversation on marriage. It’s titled, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, and I sincerely wish liberals would lend it their professed toleration and open-mindedness.

Before I share my thesis, I should clarify my own stance.

I support the natural-traditional-biblical definition of marriage that has been Western civilization’s standard for multiple millennia. My position echoes my Roman Catholic faith. Basically, in a nutshell, my position is Pope Francis’ position (properly understood). Though Piers Morgan marvels at my position as “extraordinary,” it’s merely the one held by your grandparents, great grandparents, great-great grandparents… great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents and the ongoing long line of ancestors who preceded them. Even the ancient Greeks and Romans, long viewed as the models of perversity, never broached the unthinkable prospect of same-gender people marrying. That simply has never been marriage. What millions of Americans are rushing to do right now is completely unprecedented.

Today’s leftists should understand that they are the new One Percenters. They stand against the literal 99%-plus of humans who ever bestrode the planet, who never conceived of marriage as anything beyond man and woman.

As for those who disagree with me, and no longer support marriage as reserved to one man and one woman – a redefinition which will ultimately open the door to numerous new configurations -- I’d like to address you politely with a point I’m sure you haven’t considered. Do I expect to change your mind or those of Elena Kagan or Ruth Bader Ginsburg or the wider culture? No, I don’t. America has entered a protracted phase of post-Judeo-Christian thinking, where individualism and relativism reign supreme, fostered by a steady stream of incredibly naïve parents who marched their children in wide-eyed cadence through the educational system at giant costs both financial and moral. Nothing short of a major religious revival will save it. This culture and country will redefine marriage, either this month or in the months and years ahead.

That said, I would like to inform gay-marriage supporters of something they haven’t considered. Here it goes, a brief summary of what I detail over a couple hundred pages in Takedown:

Efforts to fundamentally transform family and marriage have been long at work, but never (until now) accepted and pushed by the mainstream. In the past, these efforts were spearheaded by the most dangerous leftists. For two centuries, leftist extremists made their arguments, from the 1800s to the 1960s, beginning with the Communist Manifesto, where Marx and Engels wrote of the “abolition of the family!” Efforts to revolutionize family and marriage continued from socialist utopians like Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and Albert Brisbane, to cultural Marxists in the Frankfurt School such as Herbert Marcuse and Freudian-Marxist Wilhelm Reich, to 20th-century leftists and progressives ranging from the Bolsheviks -- Lenin, Trotsky, Alexandra Kollontai -- to Margaret Sanger, Betty Friedan, Kate Millett, and ‘60s radicals like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Mark Rudd. When Tom Hayden and Robert Scheer ran a “Red Family” colony in near Berkeley in the 1960s, they were merely following the footsteps of socialist-utopian colonies in the 1800s in places like Oneida, New York and New Harmony, Indiana.

Were these “ideological colonists” (to borrow an apt description by Pope Francis) supporting gay marriage? Of course, not. No group of radicals, no matter how unhinged, ever contemplated that. The mere fleeting contemplation, the mere momentary notion, the slightest passing fancy of a man legally marrying another man in the 1850s or 1950s would have been scoffed at as incomprehensible. Such proponents would have been deemed certifiably insane. Public authorities might well have hauled them away as menaces to society.

These fundamental transformers did, however, seek to break down natural-traditional-biblical boundaries for family and marriage. They sought every means to reshape and redefine. They did so to the point that now, today, the Communist Party USA, the People’s World, and even Castro’s Cuba, not to mention leftist groups like the Beyond Marriage campaign, have picked up their mantle and embraced gay marriage as the vehicle to achieve what their leftist forbears were unable to achieve.

For the far left, gay marriage is the Trojan horse to secure the takedown of marriage it has long wanted, and countless everyday Americans are oblivious to the older, deeper forces at work. And even more delicious for the left, gay marriage is serving as a stunningly effective tool in attacking what the far left has always hated most: religion.

In a telling moment about a year ago, I received an email from a reader who once had been part of the “gay left.” He told me that even most gay people, who are either not political or nowhere near as political as the extreme left, have no idea how their gay-marriage advocacy fits and fuels the far left’s anti-family agenda, and specifically its longtime take-down strategy aimed at the nuclear family. The emailer is exactly right (and inspired me to begin collecting the material that led to this book).

Indeed, most of the gay people I have known are Republicans. Generally, I have had no problem easily dialoguing with them, though it is getting more difficult, as liberals have done their usual excellent job convincing an entire group that I as a conservative hate them. Even when socially liberal -- and, even then, mainly on matters like gay rights -- the gay people I’ve met have been economic conservatives, not to mention pro-life on abortion. But in signing on the dotted line for gay marriage, they have also, whether they realize it or not, enlisted in the radical left’s unyielding centuries-old attempt to undermine the family. The same is true, ironically, for “conservatives” who support gay marriage, for libertarians who worship a golden calf of “freedom” that is fully separated from faith, and for the “moderates” swimming (as they usually do) with the cultural tide.

Unlike the communists who ripped marriage as “bourgeois claptrap,” as a form of “slavery” and “vile patriarchy,” as a system of “captive housewives,” and who forcibly collectivized children into full-time nurseries in order to deliberately undermine the traditional family, the vast majority of today’s proponents of same-sex marriage have friendly motives. Their goal is not to tear down but to “expand” marriage to a new form of spousal partner. They do this with the intent of providing a new “freedom” and “right” to a new group of people. I get that. Unfortunately, there’s so much that they are not getting.

Today’s advocates of same-sex marriage need to be aware of the quite insidious deeper historical-ideological forces they are unwittingly serving. Sure, that knowledge still will likely not change their minds, but it’s something that a well-informed, thoughtful person should at least be willing to learn before urging the unprecedented action that our culture and court may be about to take.

A World Conspiracy

Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog »

By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet

There probably is not a more loaded word these days than “conspiracy.” So often I hear people who may believe something nefarious might be going on anxiously qualify their position by insisting they are not a “conspiracy theorist.” And I completely understand the sentiment. Let’s face it, there are a lot of crackpot theories going around on numerous issues these days. So much so, the word conspiracy evokes an almost Pavlovian reaction in many people.

But just what is a conspiracy? It’s simply the act of two or more people agreeing to commit an illegal or immoral act. Conspiracies happen all the time—both big and small. The trick is to determine if it really is a conspiracy or not. And often times, the bigger the conspiracy, the harder it is to prove.

One of the greatest conspiracies of all time, in my opinion, is communism itself. Oh, and that’s not just my opinion. Conspiracy is one of the essential parts of communism, as I hope to point out in this article. Once again, this is not just my opinion, it comes straight from the communists themselves.

In my own experience, quite a few people I have encountered really have no idea what communism is all about. They might know the history of communism, but they often times don’t understand or grasp the ideology behind it. And let’s face it, the mere mention of the word communism is enough to make some people look at their watch and say, “Well, I better get going now.” The reaction is similar to when one uses the word “conspiracy.”

Another reason I believe a number of people glaze over when the subject of communism is brought is up is due to the dangerously misguided belief communism was defeated when the Berlin Wall came down. But the fact of the matter is one out of every five people on earth still lives under an oppressive communist regime. The countries that are still communist are:

• China
• Laos
• Cuba
• Vietnam
• North Korea

Of course, I would still consider the regime in Russia as communist. Furthermore, the above list only includes regimes openly identifying themselves as communist. Most of South America and Africa are ruled by leftist regimes who embrace some form of socialism. (Brazil just elected a former communist terrorist for president.) And the ideological foundation of the European Union has been called Eurocommunism. Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has described the EU as a “pale version of the Soviet Union.”

Communist regimes have killed more than 100 million people worldwide in the 20th Century alone. And I would venture to say, that is a conservative estimate. So how can one think communism does not still pose a grave and ominous threat to all of humanity? It seems one must suspend all logic and reason to come to such a conclusion. This is why I feel so strongly that it is of paramount importance freedom-loving people understand the ideology and political goals behind communism and its implementation.

Naturally, it is not easy to boil a massive subject like communism down to a nutshell. But I have been studying the subject matter for several years know, and I’m going to attempt to do just that—boil some things down to a nutshell.

Most communist leaders rarely invoke the term communism. Instead, they talk of socialism. Remember, the USSR stood for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Stalin almost always referred to communism as socialism, as have many other communist leaders.

Granted, there is a fair amount of debate between scholars and historians on how socialism and communism differ. But many of these perceived differences are merely academic. In practice, there is very little difference between socialism and communism. But there are some things worth mentioning concerning the differences between socialism and communism.

One of the more concise definitions on the differences between socialism and communism, that I have heard is “a communist is a socialist in a hurry.” Others have stated, “A communist is someone who is not afraid to pull the trigger.” Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin) is quoted as saying, “Socialism is the road to communism.”

Of course, there would be no communism without Marxism. The economic, social and cultural theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels form the ideological foundation of communism, i.e. socialism. But Marx was a theoretician, not a practitioner of socialism, per se. It was Vladimir Ilyich Lenin who first put the theories of Marx & Engels into practice—referred to as Marxism-Leninism.

Interestingly, about ninety-percent of what Karl Marx wrote solely concerned economics, as evidenced by his seminal work Das Kapital—which coined the term “capitalism.” (From the best I can gather, the term capitalism was not used in the United States until the latter part of the 19th Century.) But it was Marx’s call for “revolutionary struggle,” as outlined in the Communist Manifesto (published in 1848), that so captured the imaginations of many radicals at the time—and to the present day.

The entire premise of the Communist Manifesto rests upon the notion of “class struggle.” This is immediately evident when one reads the introductory lines of the Manifesto:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another…

The concept of oppressor-oppressed lies at the heart of Marxian socialism—us versus them. The oppressor-oppressed model is prevalent in today’s political landscape, as is the notion of “class struggle”—rich vs. poor (see 1% vs. 99%), the haves vs. the have nots, the capitalist vs. the worker, the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat, and so on. Most Americans have been subjected to class rhetoric all of their lives—lower-class, middle-class, upper-class … blue collar vs. white collar, etc.

Some modern-day Marxists and their fellow travelers (sympathizers) have expanded upon the oppressor-oppressed dynamic. A good example would be the godfather of “community organizing,” Saul Alinsky. Alinsky added yet another division to the mix: “the have some, want mores.” So now we have the haves (rich) vs. the have some, want mores (middle-class) vs. the have nots (poor), according to Alinsky.

It is important to note, that in the eyes of a Marxian socialist, the middle-class and upper-class represent the “petty bourgeoisie,” as Dr. Carroll Quigly disparagingly refers to the them in his mammoth work Tragedy and Hope.

The middle and upper classes are the economic engine of the United States. But socialism-communism wishes to control the means of production and distribution. In order to control production, one must control the producer–meaning, the individual. Individualism must be wiped out in order to create a true socialistic system, whereby the state will provide the individual with all of their emotional, spiritual and physical needs.

If I were to boil the Communist Manifesto down to its essence, it would be the abolition of private property. And if I were to reduce Marxism down to just one word, it would be sameness. We all will think alike, earn alike, live alike, work alike, dress alike … there will be no flavor for our fare, only sameness … a gray, dreary sameness. And all of this is sold to “the masses“ with lovable slogans like “unity in diversity” and “equality and fairness” and “progress and change.” Sound familiar? Once again, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

(Screencap credit: Yuri Maltsev)

There is another important point to consider regarding Marx’s theory of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” as outlined in the Communist Manifesto. Communism is a utopia. It does not exist. The theory is the state will eventually “wither away” to nothing. And this will bring in the long awaited “workers’ paradise.” But this is all to occur sometime in the distant future. Soviet defector Yuri Maltsev has explained these concepts in greater depth in some videos I’ve posted here at the blog (see here and here).

(Screencap credit: Yuri Maltsev)

But before the long hoped for communist utopia can be realized (where every whim and need will be realized for all the “workers”), nations must be wiped out. This is what is referred to as the “transitional stage.” Many scholars have commented that this part of the Manifesto is not very well thought out. It is analogous to a person who does not like their house, so they decide to burn it down with themselves still in it. It is almost a juvenile belief that from the ashes will arise some great, new utopia the embodies perfect fairness and equality. Joseph Stalin said the Communist Party must originally be destructive. – See more at: http://www.therightplanet.com/2014/12/a-world-conspiracy/#sthash.ESixsPSO.dpuf

(Screencap credit: Yuri Maltsev)

So, at this point, I would like to start breaking down how communism is organized and implemented. I am going to refer to the lessons and experiences of ex-communists. Two of the sources I will be drawing from are Dr. Bella V. Dodd (19o4 – 1969) and Mike Vanderboegh (who claims he was the one who first broke the Fast and Furious story). Both are ex-communists who turned vocal anti-communists.

Bella Dodd points out there are three terms that are important to differentiate concerning communism—meaning: the Communist Conspiracy (world conspiracy), the Communist Party and the Communist Movement. These are three different concepts, and each one must be dealt with differently.

The Communist Conspiracy

The communist conspiracy should really not have the word communist before it, for it is a conspiracy for world control, according to Dr. Bella Dodd.

What is it that the world conspiracy hopes to accomplish?

The world conspiracy compromises a small group of elites located in New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Paris, London, Moscow, Hong Kong, etc. Dodd points out that they are a determined group who wish to control the resources of the world. They wish to control all of the world’s natural resources—oil, iron, steel, tin, uranium, timber, and the land itself. (Dodd mentions the late Freddie Fields of Vanderbilt Steel, a card-carrying communist.) In order to control all the natural resources of the world, one must control all the people of the world—all seven billion of them.

Dodd points out that this leads to a rather strange phenomenon—one that confuses many Americans, since they believe that those who would be interested in business and industry would stand staunchly against communism. But the world conspiracy is compromised of many different and disparate groups and individuals.

The world conspiracy operates under different labels at different times: communism, socialism, humanism, goodwill, global governance, internationalism, globalism, economic democracy, industrial democracy, social democracy, and so on—whatever it takes to move people to mass action.

Mike Vanderboegh, a former card-carrying communist, explains it is all just collectivism at the end of the day. Whether one wishes to call it nazism, communism, socialism, fascism, progressivism, liberalism, nativism, tribalism, racism—ism, ism, ism—everything is in service to the collective.

One of the main goals of communism is to divide the people. When people are busy fighting amongst themselves, they are unable to organize and form an effective opposition. This is where all the class struggle and oppressed-oppressor rhetoric comes into play. And, unfortunately, the tactic has proved wildly successful. So much so, that even communists themselves have been astonished at how effective the tactic of pitting one group against the other has proven to be.

The communist conspiracy has a secret and a public face. Communists are taught to lie; they are masters of the “language of the lie.” Shrouding their true intentions in lovable labels and slogans (semantic manipulation, as the KGB/FSB calls it) is what communists do best. Examples include phrases like “sustainability,” “economic justice,” “environmental justice,” “global citizenship,” “assault weapons,” “gun control,” “white privilege,” “diversity,” “climate change,” “agents of change,” “progress,” “progressive,” etc.

“If you’ve got the language up front, you’ve already won the debate … They suck you into their worldview,” says Mike Vanderboegh.

The party teaches to never use an outright lie. Instead, communists employ disinformation (Soviet term) to agitate honest grievances. In a similar vein, Saul Alinsky taught, “Rub raw the resentments of the people.”

Mike Vanderboegh explains, “They [the party] take a kernel of truth and wrap it in a lie … packaged so credulous people will pass it on to other credulous people to influence their behavior to go in a certain way.”

There were less than 20,000 Bolsheviks in Russia during the 1917 October revolution who managed to wrest hegemony and control over 200 million Russian citizens, adding credence to the adage that “the organized minority will beat out the unorganized mob every time.”

The communist conspiracy has many different channels of offerings, but it all works toward the same goal: world control.

The Communist Party

The original Communist Party was founded in 1912 by the Bolsheviks, the majority faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party—a group of revolutionaries led by Vladimir I. Lenin. (Bolshevik means “majority” in Russian.)

In 1919, the Communist International (Comintern for short), also known as the Third International, was initiated in Moscow. In the same year, the Communist Party USA was founded in the United States. The Comintern was an international communist organization whose goal was to fight “by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State.”

The Communist Party was established as a blueprint and framework for a future world government. Communist parties (sometimes referred to as the Labor Party or Socialist Labor Party) were established in every nation of the world. Communist parties established internationally were, in effect, skeletons for a future government, not a political party.

The party focuses on politics, economics, social issues—and is particularly interested in the educational systems, and in the cultural life of the people. The party concerns itself with the “morality of the people,” but only for the sake of expediency. The party makes it a point to be out front on any social ill or injustice. But strictly for the purpose of gaining control, and for the ear of the people.

Within the party, members are judged on their “ideological purity.” Mike Vanderboegh describes the levels of “purity” as follows:

“There are radishes, tomatoes and killer tomatoes. A radish (negative term) is a party member who is red on the outside but white on the inside. A tomato is a party member who is red through and through. But a killer tomato is a communist who is willing to pull the trigger.”

There really isn’t a lot of difference between a radical revolutionary and a religious zealot. (Note: I’m not disparaging religion, per se, but rather fanaticism.) A true revolutionary devotes themselves to the struggle much like a religious zealot devotes themselves to their religion. Marxian socialism is a religion in its own right—a faith, albeit one marked by fanatical, atheistic fervor. Nothing comes before the cause, i.e. “the struggle.” Nothing. The precepts of the Marxian faith are well spelled out in Cleon Skousen’s book The Naked Communist.

The Communist Movement

The purpose of the communist movement is to establish a social and ideological attitude that is pro-left. It comes to the people through very pleasing devices.

Communism in the U.S dates back to before and after the Civil War when Karl Marx visited the States. Marx lectured in New York City, Philadelphia and Boston. He even corresponded with the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. The First International (First Comintern) was disbanded at the Philadelphia Conference in July 1876.

The Communist Movement on a worldwide basis does different things at different times. Communists will do everything they can to unleash confusion, chaos, depravity, perversion, conflict—parent vs. child, black vs. white, gay vs. straight, one religion vs. the other, man vs. woman, etc., etc.

Promising members within the Communist Party were often sent to Lenin’s Institute for Higher Learning, where they were taught such things as racial agitation, trade union building, every facet of Russian history (apparently the Russian communists are rather “patriotic,” cf. irony), small arms training and guerrilla tactics.

Inflaming minds on a racial and ethnic basis has proved to be one of the most effective tactics for the communists to divide people and create conflict. (Sound familiar?)

Gaining complete dominance over media, entertainment and educational systems (see Common Core) is of intense importance to the communists, for these institutions and power centers have proven to be the most effective way to divide the people and forward the party agenda.

Dr. Bella Dodd believed there weren’t but a dozen universities that deserved the name “university.” All the others were simply institutions of indoctrination, moving people in a direction the elites wanted them to go. The purpose of these indoctrination centers is to demoralize students, creating within them a feeling of alienation with everything and everyone around them, particularly with their biological families.

Communists strive to make people ashamed, dissatisfied and unhappy with their country, for they eschew the very notion of national sovereignty and patriotism, since communism employs “radical social change” to move the world toward a “classless, borderless” society. This is why communists often refer to themselves as “citizens of the world,” and not proud citizens of their respective countries. (By the way, Barack Obama considers himself a “citizen of the world.”)

While the press is willing to expose the horrific crimes of Adolf Hitler (and rightly so), they have steadfastly refused to report on the monstrous crimes committed by communist regimes, such as the former Soviet Union and Red China, where mass killings occurred on an industrial scale. The astonishing brutality and barbarism employed by communist regimes is unlike anything that has ever been seen in the history of humanity.

For example, according to Bella Dodd, in North Korea, a million men were transported to Inner Mongolia because the “Korean type” was not a “type” the communists wanted to procreate. The communists decided they were the ones who will decide which nation shall exist, and which “racial stock” should be promoted.

Dodd claims the same forces that moved Communist development also moved fascist development. Communism enthrones the proletariat, the common man. Fascism enthroned the state.

The communist movement is not one monolithic block, but operates under many labels, i.e. organizations. The communist theory of change revolves around creating conflict. This is born out of the theory of dialectical materialism that states all progress is brought about by conflict. They will often create an organization for the sole purpose of creating conflict. If there is no conflict, they engender conflict in order to move public opinion to the left, in the direction of communism. They will create a right in order have people oppose it so they will be pulled toward the left. This is the notion of “controlled opposition.” Vladimir Lenin once said, “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”

From my own research into the origins of communist ideology, I have run up against some rather astonishing and incredibly disturbing claims and allegations. There is a real “heart of darkness” that lies at the center of all this. I can’t fully explain it at this point. I just don’t have enough verifiable and concrete information. But I have been coming to the rather startling conclusion that is something quite sinister that seems to be above communism itself.

In Cleon Skousen’s book The Naked Capitalist (1970), which is a critique of Dr. Carroll Quigly’s book Tragedy and Hope, Chapter One includes a rather sobering quote from Dr. Bella Dodd. When I first read the quote, I about fell out of my chair, because it corroborates a lot of related research I have done over the years. But I just didn’t want to believe it was true. It just seemed too incredible … like a bunch of crackpot nonsense. But I’m not so sure now. So, I’ll leave the reader with this excerpt from Chapter One of Skousen’s book, and the reader can make up their own mind.

“I think the Communist conspiracy is merely a branch of a much bigger conspiracy!”
The above statement was made to this reviewer [Cleon Skousen] several years ago by Dr. Bella Dodd, a former member of the National Committee of the U.S. Communist Party.
Perhaps this is an appropriate introduction to a review of Dr. Carroll Quigley’s book,
Tragedy And Hope.
Dr. Dodd said she first became aware of some mysterious super-leadership right after World War II when the U.S. Communist Party had difficulty getting instructions from Moscow on several vital matters requiring immediate attention. The American Communist hierarchy was told that any time they had an emergency of this kind they should contact any one of three designated persons at the Waldorf Towers. Dr. Dodd noted that whenever the Party obtained instructions from any of these three men, Moscow always ratified them.
What puzzled Dr. Dodd was the fact that not one of these three contacts was a Russian. Nor were any of them Communists. In fact, all three were extremely wealthy American capitalists!
Dr. Dodd said, “I would certainly like to find out who is really running things.”

Top Ten Left-Wing Goals of the Obama Administration in Its Remaining Two Years

Breitbart

By Virgil

Now that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have launched their new friendship initiative with Cuba, progressives are thinking more optimistically about what else might be possible in the remainder of the president’s term. After all, since the November 2014 elections, Obama has moved sharply left on immigration, climate change, and net neutrality. So why shouldn’t the Left hope for more?

What might be next on the Obama agenda? Breitbart News has obtained one such to-do list:

10. Marijuana to be completely decriminalized under the ever-expanding doctrine of “prosecutorial discretion.” In the meantime, the administration will push for a complete ban on all tobacco products and e-cigarettes.

9. The Federal Communications Commission to reimpose the “Fairness Doctrine” on radio; the FCC to further study whether the same Doctrine can be applied to cable TV news.

8. Jane Fonda to be named Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Ted Turner to be named Ambassador to the United Nations.

7. Wind-energy turbines to be made mandatory across the country, except for Cape Cod, The Hamptons, Malibu, and other coastal enclaves, where such turbines are forever forbidden.

6. The FDA and EPA to team up and decide that coal is a carcinogen. Meanwhile, solar panels are to be included in school lunches.

5. The Presidential Medal of Freedom to be awarded to Alec Baldwin, Michael Bloomberg, David Brock, Wendy Davis, Sandra Fluke, Arianna Huffington, Bill Maher. Michael Moore, and Rosie O’Donnell.

4. Posthumous presidential pardons for Joe Hill, Sacco & Vanzetti, the Rosenbergs, and also a pardon for a living prison inmate, Willie Horton.

3. Al Sharpton to be named White House Police Brutality Czar.

2. President Obama to commit to the complete eradication of both homophobia and Islamophobia.

1. The Obama administration to propose a new Constitutional Amendment allowing individuals born in Africa or Asia to serve as President of the United States; also, the administration to propose the repeal of the 22nd Amendment.

Note: The makers of this list are confident that if President Obama follows through on all ten of these items, he will be awarded a second Nobel Peace Prize.

Del totalitarismo marxista al autoritarismo gramsciano

Neo Club Press

Armando de Armas

En los tiempos de Marx y de la brusca y agitada liberalización política y económica del diecinueve, la sociedad civil, concebida como sujeto material y concreto, adquiere una supuesta capacidad de acción y movimiento que no sería otra cosa que mortandad y estancamiento. Y de la sociedad civil marxista pasamos a la sociedad civil gramsciana, antinaturales ambas.

Gramsci funde en una sola cosa lo civil y lo estatal y, como los católicos en versión aristotélico-tomista, pero sin lo sacro, apuesta por la sociedad perfecta, y piensa que cuando el Estado lo es todo la sociedad civil recupera con ello su concreción ideal y consolida su hegemonía ética, política y cultural. Gramsci vaticinó que el poder político sobre la sociedad había que tomarlo desde los sistemas escolares y académicos, los centros culturales y los medios de prensa. Contrario al marxismo, el gramscismo no tiene nada de obrerismo revolucionario, sino mucho de intelectualismo revolucionario. Justo lo que sucede al presente en el mundo occidental, empezando por Estados Unidos.

Si Estados Unidos había encarnado la libertad durante dos siglos al menos, es probable que ahora, gracias al gramscismo, eso estaría dejando de ser cierto.

Así, el olvido de la tradición y la herencia, el alejamiento de los mitos fundacionales y la caída bajo el influjo de los mitos disfuncionales llevarían al actual presidente estadounidense, Barack Obama, a cometer uno de los más grandes tropiezos durante su reñida campaña por la Casa Blanca en 2008. El tropiezo ocurrió antes de las elecciones primarias en Pensilvania, al decir el entonces senador que muchos vecinos de pequeñas poblaciones obreras de ese estado estaban amargados y que, en consecuencia, se aferraban a las armas y a la religión para compensar sus frustraciones y problemas económicos.

Unas declaraciones que indicarían desconocimiento de la nación que al presente gobierna, pues dos de las insoslayables bases sobre las que se ha erigido la nación estadounidense serían, precisamente, el derecho ciudadano a la tenencia, porte y ejercicio de las armas, por un lado, y el derecho a la libertad de religión por el otro.

Olvidaba Obama que ambos derechos aparecen ya en The Bill of Rights o la Lista de los Derechos del Ciudadano, esa que, firmada el 15 de diciembre de 1791, define realmente a Estados Unidos, y sin la cual la Constitución nunca hubiera llegado a ser la Ley Suprema de la Nación. Olvidaba Obama que relacionar los problemas económicos con la fe, la fe como consecuencia de los problemas económicos, tiene más que ver con el apotegma leninista de que la religión es el opio de los pueblos (mito disfuncional clave) que con la realidad de un pueblo que ha hecho imprimir en su moneda In God We Trust.

Olvidaba Obama que la mayoría de los grandes monumentos arquitectónicos y artísticos de la humanidad, todos aquellos que nos definirían frente a una hipotética colonización extraterrestre, se los adeudamos más a la religión y a la opulencia que a los problemas económicos.

Obama, su generación en suma, no sería otra cosa que el producto final de una sociedad antinatural al estilo gramsciano. La sociedad civil puede en verdad ser saludable para la libertad, pero obviamente no aquella que se comporte como la serie de compartimentos estancos, cada cual en su bandería (obrerismo, sindicalismo, nacionalismo, etcétera), de que hablara Ortega y Gasset al analizar los prolegómenos que darían lugar a la Guerra Civil española de 1936.

La democracia puede degenerar en demagogia. La demagogia deviene en dictadura cuando los políticos están obligados a contentar a toda costa, para arribar al poder, a las mayorías dominadas no por la mente, sino por el estómago o la entrepierna.

En la posmodernidad, los estrategas antisistema han declarado abiertamente, entre ellos el subcomandante Marcos de la guerrilla zapatista, que una sociedad civil reivindicativa sería la manera de minar las democracias burguesas. Y así se apoyan, crean o exacerban ciertos derechos a reclamar por grupos de activismo homosexual, ambientalista, pacifista, pro marihuana, pro emigración ilegal, relativista, multiculturalista y, sorpresa, en esa guerra asimétrica sirven hasta pedófilos y zoofilicos. Créanme, ya existen grupos de pedófilos y zoofílicos declarando que ellos sienten un genuino amor por los niños y los animales y que, por lo mismo, han de tener derecho a matrimoniarse con el objeto de su amor. No es un disparate, recordemos que en Estados Unidos existe la Asociación Norteamericana por el Amor entre Hombres y Niños

La lucha de clases del marxismo ha sido sustituida por la fragmentación social del gramscismo.

La sociedad gramsciana requiere, como en el mundo de Orwell, una neo lengua que pervierta no ya la palabra sino el pensamiento, y no ya el pensamiento sino la realidad. Así, aunados el mundo de Orwell y el de Huxley, el hombre deviene en esclavo que se piensa perfectamente feliz.

Sociedad civil, sí, pero cuál. Una pregunta que deberían hacerse las persona preocupadas por la libertad, especialmente los cubanos pues, no escapa al observador atento, el régimen de la isla hace rato que se prepara para dar el salto del totalitarismo marxista al autoritarismo gramsciano.

Dos muertos "importantes"; otro, bueno ...

¡¡¡ A TRANCA LIMPIA !!!

Por Andrés Pascual

Murió García Márquez, que se comportó como una concubina-cuentera del tirano; Castro le regaló la escuelita de cine que construyó en San Antonio de Los Baños, porque para él la autorizó y nadie lo comenta, para que le diera curso a su sueño TRASNOCHADO de cineasta, después no se ha vuelto a relacionar al novelista con la Academia Frunze tropical del pésimo cine regional más dependiente de la historia, ajeno al estalinista del “realismo socialista”:

Al novelista lo atrajo el criminal, mejor cautivó, por la gandinga de los intelectuales vacíos de valor y de coraje, que envidian ciertos rasgos de la personalidad de estos tiranos-dictadores y los convierten en sus “héroes”, especie de amantes idílicos; sin embargo, con la Hiena de Birán se equivocó, porque Castro ha sido un cobarde de ralea en igual medida que un abusador, pese a las historias inventadas por el comunismo capitalista, de base europeo-americana, fuera del alcance de la imaginación del autor.

Dos elementos detestables del llamado “boom” latinoamericano por quienes no guardo ningún respeto: el panameño Carlos Fuentes (fallecido hace algún tiempo), víbora detrás de Aura que odiaba a Cuba a través de su odio contra Estados Unidos y nunca se cansó de su letanía calamitosa, deshonesta e irrespetuosa de que “la Isla era un prostíbulo de los gringos”, un tremendo H de P... y Gabo (AMBOS DEBAJO CON CARLOS MONSIVAIS EXTREMA DERECHA), que era pasivo, consentidor al máximo con su “fijación platónica”, capaz de bajarse los pantalones y dárselo a un negro “bien dotado”, si tamaño gesto era suficiente para entretener o calmar a Castro en medio de sus borracheras antiamericanas.

 

 

¿Cómo dicen por ahí? ¿Una pérdida? No para mi, me interesa un pito que tanto Gabo como Fuentes se hayan muerto, lo que lamento es que todavía queden algunos vivos que nunca debieron nacer.

La literatura, la grandeza autoral, la entiendo y trato a mi manera, por lo que considero a Lezama, a Vargas Llosa (que se desmarcó del grupo de Julio Cortázar, García Márquez, Goystisolo, Fuentes o Monsivais para abrirle espacio al reclamo de la dignidad del genio a tiempo) o a Cabrera Infante, más interesantes que estas alimañas, bendecidas por el Diablo con el talento para “hilvanar, para imaginar y narrar con maestría argumentos grandiosos artísticamente”, que la realidad de sus vidas y proyecciones socio-políticas no alcanzaron a cubrir, ni decentemente, el espacio del pupitre de un alumno con diferencia de conocimientos en una escuelita de montaña en África, que nunca tuvieron ideología sino la inclinación amoral de ponerse al servicio de tiranías y dictaduras, especie de intercambio de mutuo beneficio degenerado; porque les faltó el valor para ser independientes y soberanos. Estos dos muertos fueron un par de “hetairas”, así de sencillo, solo hay que analizar sus brillantes obras contra sus deleznables, serviles y prostituidas existencias, debajo Regis Debray, Garcia Marquez y Fuentes:

 

 

No creo en el Nóbel del colombiano, porque no creo en el tipo ni en Obama, beneficiado con el galardón sin ningún mérito. Si mira atrás, verá que ni Borges ni Joyce ni Proust lo consiguieron y, aunque se ha entregado con justicia a veces, esa Academia parece que puede comprarse o que le teme a algo, o, como me dijo en Miami GCAÍN (foto con Marlon Brando durante los 50's en La Habana), la vez en que me lo presentó nuestro amigo común Arnaldo Ramos Yaniz, qepd ambos: “tal vez le teman al discurso de algunos...a cosas desagradables por comprometedoras ajenas al arte puro”:

 

 

En el canal 41 América Tevé Luis Fernández, vocero venezolano a cargo de las noticias de su país, se arriesgó tanto por García Márquez que lo consideró “creador del realismo mágico”, cuando, en realidad, como Asturias, es un exponente del fenómeno en la literatura:

“El término fue inicialmente usado por un crítico de arte, el alemán Franz Roh, para describir una pintura que demostraba una realidad alterada y llegó al idioma español con la traducción en 1925 del libro Realismo mágico (Revista de Occidente, 1925), fue en gran medida influenciado por las obras surrealistas de la escritora chilena María Luisa Bombal[1] pero más tarde en 1947, fue introducido a la literatura hispanoamericana por Arturo Úslar Pietri en su ensayo El cuento venezolano.[2] Señala Úslar:

Lo que vino a predominar en el cuento y a marcar su huella de una manera perdurable fue la consideración del hombre como misterio en medio de datos realistas. Una adivinación poética o una negación poética de la realidad. Lo que a falta de otra palabra podrá llamarse un realismo mágico.[3]

El crítico venezolano Víctor Bravo señala que la noción de 'realismo mágico' nació casi de manera simultánea con la de 'real maravilloso': "La formulación inicial de una y otra noción --como referencia a un modo de producción literaria latinoamericana-- se hace casi de manera simultánea. En 1947, Arturo Úslar Pietri introduce el término "realismo mágico" para referirse a la cuentística venezolana; en 1949 Alejo Carpentier habla de "lo real maravilloso" para introducir la novela El reino de este mundo".[4] y algunos la consideran que es la novela iniciadora de esta corriente literaria”.

Lo anterior lo tomé de Wikipedia en español, suficiente para abrir entendederas atrofiadas.

También se mató en un accidente de tránsito Cheo Feliciano (4to de izq a derecha sentado, al lado de Celia, con Fania All Stars), que estuvo en Tropicana y no miró a los lados, que se prestó para ofender a Cuba; porque, ofender, agredir a Celia Cruz es un acto anticubano imperdonable, sucedido cuando el liliputiense Andy Montañez decidió orquestar un rechazo envidioso y revanchista contra la Guarachera Nacional, porque esta le cuestionó su abierto encantamiento por Silvio y la juntera con este reptil.

 

Celia es más grande que todos los cantantes boricuas juntos y la música cubana es lo único autóctono de su tipo en la historia, ni salsa ni queso ni ningún invento producto del castrismo, porque lo propició el tirano, como parte del complot castro-comunista contra nuestra identidad cultural.

 

Dos cosas, Anacaona me gustó y el Ratón también, pero solo estas, porque prefiero a Pacho Alonso, creador del estilo que Cheo copió y nunca pudo igualar; por lo demás, Feliciano fue sino un vulgar imitador con menos clase, mucho menos, que el cubano que hizo éxitos un par de números grandes de Bobby Capó: JUGUETE Y LLORAR ES DE HOMBRES.

The New Liberal Racism

americanthinker

By E.W. Jackson Sr. 

Last week we witnessed repeated efforts by Democrats to polarize the country along racial lines. Eric Holder, speaking at Al Sharpton's conference, implied that he and the President are being treated harshly because they are black. Then Nancy Pelosi claimed that Republicans are refusing to support an immigration bill because they don't like Hispanics. She actually said, "I've heard them [Republicans] say to the Irish, if this were just you, it would be easy." The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair, Rep. Steve Israel, was asked on CNN whether his Republican colleagues are racist. He answered, "Not all of them, no…But to a significant extent the Republican base does have elements that are animated by racism, and that's unfortunate."

This is more than election year politics. It is worse than a crass attempt to manipulate black voters with fear of Republicans. It is the insidious new racism of liberal elites who masquerade as champions of racial justice. The old racism is obvious and unacceptable. However, the new liberal racism is camouflaged as a cure when it is in fact a far more deadly strain of the disease. It is time to expose and denounce it.

The Republican base that Steve Israel says is animated by racism, nominated me -- an American of African descent and a great grandson of slaves -- for Lt. Governor of Virginia. They embraced me warmly, treated me respectfully and supported me enthusiastically. The liberal media on the other hand set out to destroy me. My white Democrat opponent was even caught on camera refusing to shake my hand. The new racism is very different in style from the old, but the same in substance. The old racists liked blacks who knew their place and stayed in it. The new racists behave exactly the same, but define our “place” as the Democrat liberal camp.

When I won the Republican nomination for Lt. Governor of Virginia, the Washington Post and the Richmond Times Dispatch dedicated themselves to discrediting me. As a child, I lived in a foster home which had no indoor bathroom. Liberal reporters said that since they could not prove there was no indoor bathroom, I must have lied. I served as a Chaplain for the Boston Red Sox, but they said I must have made up that story because nearly twenty-five years later the Red Sox had no record of it. The press was not interested in Benghazi or the IRS scandal, but they combed through the minutiae of my life looking for something to diminish my achievements.

Today’s liberal elites are the new virulent racists. When you agree with them, they honor you as an African-American. When you contradict their orthodoxy, they abuse you like a dog. Even liberal Juan Williams felt their wrath when he went off message.

Yet, neither Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, nor the liberal elites who prop them up represent the true values of the black community. Most black folks oppose abortion, support traditional marriage and favor school choice. Black leaders ignore these facts and dance to the tune of their liberal benefactors. My convictions come from my proud black father who took me out of foster care, raised me as a single Dad and never took a dime of government assistance.  They come from my church upbringing which taught me to trust God, not government. Black conservatives want to break the cycle of poverty in the black community, not use it to perpetuate the grievance industry. Who are the real sell-outs? Who are the real racists?"

After seventy percent of black voters supported California’s Proposition 8, defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, they were called homophobes, bigots and ingrates. The black community’s support of Proposition 8 was characterized as a “betrayal” of those who claimed a right to their loyalty -- the liberal establishment.

One hundred and fifty years after slavery, a new generation now claims ownership of the thoughts and behavior of Americans of African descent. These ersatz masters believe they deserve absolute fealty. Slave owners usually think themselves beneficent, but those who thirst for freedom have a different perspective.

We have largely rid ourselves of the old racism. It is time to rid ourselves of the new form. The burden is on the liberal elites in the Democrat Party and the media to end the paternalism and condescension with which they treat the black community, and renounce the hateful attempts to destroy black conservatives. They need to stop pointing the finger of racism at others and take a hard look at themselves. They are not the racial conscience of the country, but the cause of racial regression.

I have been calling for unity across racial and cultural lines for decades, reminding audiences of the last line of our Pledge of Allegiance - "one nation under God invisible with liberty and justice for all." It is time for Democrat elites to stop dividing us and start bringing us together in fulfillment of that pledge.

----------------------

*E.W. Jackson is the former Republican Nominee for Lt. Governor of Virginia. He is a Marine Corps Veteran, graduate of Harvard Law School, President of STAND, Bishop of The Called Church and Senior Fellow of the Family Research Council.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright's daughter found guilty of money laundering

Chicago Tribune

Jeri Wright (right) joins Rev. Al Sharpton
patdollard.com

SPRINGFIELD—The daughter of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, President Barack Obama’s former minister, was convicted by a federal jury Friday of laundering thousands of dollars from a $1.25 million state grant for a Chicago-based job-training program.
Jeri Wright said she would "definitely" appeal the verdict in U.S. District Court, which found her guilty of 11 counts that included money laundering, lying to federal agents and lying to a grand jury.

"I didn't do anything," Wright, 48, of Hazel Crest, said as she left the Springfield courtroom. Her father, whose preaching became a lightning rod during Obama's first presidential campaign, was not part of the case.

Her attorney described Wright as a victim of a web spun by longtime friend Regina Evans, the former Country Club Hills police chief who has pleaded guilty to corruption in the case. Evans

www.businessinsider.com

had secured the state loan for the job-training program but allegedly diverted the money rather than use it for the purpose she proposed.

Prosecutor Timothy Bass contended Wright took as much as $11,000 in cash from more than $30,000 in checks in a scheme where she also sent money back to Evans. Bass maintained Wright lied “over and over” when quizzed about the case.

Bass maintained in closing arguments that Wright was “given an opportunity” and took it in a state that has a “well-earned” reputation for corruption.

Evans applied for the grant in February 2009 for a group called We Are Our Brother's Keepers.The proposal called for 40 people to get training in bricklaying and electrician skills, but the money allegedly was diverted.

Within months, Evans began tapping the funds for what Bass had called a "spending spree," including a trip to Las Vegas, a basement remodeling and the purchase of vehicles for a security business with her husband.

rlong@tribune.com

Lo que tampoco conocian los venezolanos y estan aprendiendo

CNN iReport

hernandez01 

Por Andrés Pascual

Obama, la OEA y medio mundo están “dándole tiempo” a las protestas para que se desgasten, para que LOS ESTUDIANTES se frustren un poco más, cada vez que enciendan la televisión y escuchen al TIPANGO, aparentemente más decidido y fuerte, amenazando y ejecutando contra el derecho civil.

El no consenso de la hermana del asesino de Miraflores por el lado “podrido”, la OEA, le ha dado la posibilidad al energúmeno de considerarlo una victoria y hasta dio las gracias.

Aparentemente, solo el pueblo de Venezuela, por lo menos una parte importante, quiere al tipo fuera del poder; como ha sido tradicional desde “Rise of Castro”, el interés no está basado en ayudar a un pueblo que matan y encarcelan, sino al que comete los asesinatos ¿Por qué?

A pesar de las amenazas, de los cruces de frases ricas en contenido “putesco” entre Obama y el “Colacho de allá”, los americanos saben que, posiblemente, con el petróleo venezolano en manos de verdaderos representantes del pueblo no podrían “cogerlo casi a precio de suelo”, ni la cantidad que deseen.

Lo sabe Maduro, que juega, como Chávez, “a amagar y no dar”; pero, sobre todo, lo sabe la tiranía castrista, que legisla y casi ejecuta todos los acuerdos de la dictadura que oprime a la tierra de Bolívar.

Por eso cada vez que hemos escuchado a un venezolano denunciar que los han abandonado nos irrita, porque debían saber que a Cuba la dejaron sola primero y que, gracias a ese abandono por todo el mundo, llevan 55 años asolando al país, debiendo agregarse que su propia tragedia se originó en aquel crimen; porque, mientras hoy muchos en el mundo protestan contra Maduro, a pesar de todo, durante 50 años han marchado apoyando a la tiranía castrista por los patriotas que fusiló, que encarceló o que desapareció.

En cuanto a crimen y represión nada se fabricó fuera del marco castrista, porque los tan promovidos asesinatos dejando caer a comunistas desde el aire durante la Operación Cóndor, tuvieron su “trade mark” en Guantánamo, período 1961-1965, desde helicópteros y en un lugar conocido como la División 50, que por aquí andan algunos que presenciaron aquellas ejecusiones horrendas.

Por lo menos Venezuela ha tenido al exilio cubano de su parte en Estados Unidos, una vez que la Raza, con Janet Murguía al frente, ni sabe que existe el Mar Caribe, ni que en un país llamado Venezuela están masacrando a la población en las calles.

Eso, aparentemente, no es problema de la Raza, sino imponerle a todos los latinos en EUA la inmoralidad encubierta en exigencia de reforma migratoria, en función de vigilantes del abuso contra los derechos humanos de... ¿Quién?

¿Dónde está el poder de convocatoria de la Raza para que sus legisladores comunistas en el Congreso, incluso en el Senado, obliguen a que se tome la decisión correcta contra la represión en Venezuela, que debe ser lograr la invasión, más que justificada, que deponga a ese títere de los Castro? No aparece ni nunca será posible, porque el bando aliado de esta pandilla es el que encabeza Castro en América Latina, que tiene como uno de sus tenientes a Maduro y amplio desplazamiento en la “alta política comunista americana llamada liberal...”

La solidaridad es poca con la juventud venezolana, desde hace rato todos los pueblos de América deberían estar en la calle apoyando a esos jóvenes, empezando por Argentina, México, Puerto Rico, Peru, Brasil, Bolivia, Ecuador...sin embargo, la apatía, la militancia o el conformismo con la ideología de los asesinos se ha impuesto.

¿Dónde está la Iglesia venezolana? ¿Acaso quieren mantener, como la cubana que se vendió, el poco espacio que han logrado y que cualquier día pueden perder? ¿Cómo no le han brindado el templo como refugio a ningún perseguido, para obligar a la fuerza represora a profanarlo, a que se decida públicamente, por encima del fraude de una foto de Pancho en buena armonía con Maduro?

Los industriales que queden, los empresarios que queden, los comerciantes que queden ¿Por qué no tienen parado al país por la huelga general?

Incluso en Miami tienen que crear su equivalente de Vigilia Mambisa y asumir su papel de “intransigentes” para enfrentar a los bocones infiltrados que utilizan la tribuna pública protegida que el castro-obamismo les ha habilitado; aunque les ocasione otra crítica peor nacida en el partido demócrata y en el seno castrocomunista: “nueva mafia”.

O emplean las armas que puedan, todas, incluso el disturbio violento con graves consecuencias materiales como incendiar o atentar contra las vidas de los asesinos, o lo pierden todo.

En días, el poco mundo que los apoya se va a cansar y Maduro no se irá, sino se acostumbrará a la situación y logrará revertirla a favor de las mil formas que acostumbran, con ayuda del exterior sobre todo, como ha hecho la tiranía castrista durante 55 años.

No permitan que sus prometedores grupos opositores degeneren en una nueva e ineficaz “facción” aliada, ghandista, vividora y oportunista de la disidencia de los Castro. El tiempo puede desactivar los motores de la solidaridad y eso es lo que espera Obama para seguir haciendo lo que tienen planeado: NADA.

Si no pasan a actividades mayores, aunque más peligrosas, el problema solo cumplirá el efecto del golpe, que “hoy se hincha y duele, mañana se baja, se alivia y a otra cosa...”

Yo creo que la referencia de las huelgas, del progromo, de las detenciones de poco tiempo... de toda esa mierda ineficiente que aplican tanto la dictadura como el “exterior” para entretenerse y vivir de ellas en Cuba, no puede ser la opción de ustedes... ¡Piénsenlo”

Por Andrés Pascual

Obama, la OEA y medio mundo están “dándole tiempo” a las protestas para que se desgasten, para que LOS ESTUDIANTES se frustren un poco más, cada vez que enciendan la televisión y escuchen al TIPANGO, aparentemente más decidido y fuerte, amenazando y ejecutando contra el derecho civil.

El no consenso de la hermana del asesino de Miraflores por el lado “podrido”, la OEA, le ha dado la posibilidad al energúmeno de considerarlo una victoria y hasta dio las gracias.

Aparentemente, solo el pueblo de Venezuela, por lo menos una parte importante, quiere al tipo fuera del poder; como ha sido tradicional desde “Rise of Castro”, el interés no está basado en ayudar a un pueblo que matan y encarcelan, sino al que comete los asesinatos ¿Por qué?

A pesar de las amenazas, de los cruces de frases ricas en contenido “putesco” entre Obama y el “Colacho de allá”, los americanos saben que, posiblemente, con el petróleo venezolano en manos de verdaderos representantes del pueblo no podrían “cogerlo casi a precio de suelo”, ni la cantidad que deseen.

Lo sabe Maduro, que juega, como Chávez, “a amagar y no dar”; pero, sobre todo, lo sabe la tiranía castrista, que legisla y casi ejecuta todos los acuerdos de la dictadura que oprime a la tierra de Bolívar.

Por eso cada vez que hemos escuchado a un venezolano denunciar que los han abandonado nos irrita, porque debían saber que a Cuba la dejaron sola primero y que, gracias a ese abandono por todo el mundo, llevan 55 años asolando al país, debiendo agregarse que su propia tragedia se originó en aquel crimen; porque, mientras hoy muchos en el mundo protestan contra Maduro, a pesar de todo, durante 50 años han marchado apoyando a la tiranía castrista por los patriotas que fusiló, que encarceló o que desapareció.

En cuanto a crimen y represión nada se fabricó fuera del marco castrista, porque los tan promovidos asesinatos dejando caer a comunistas desde el aire durante la Operación Cóndor, tuvieron su “trade mark” en Guantánamo, período 1961-1965, desde helicópteros y en un lugar conocido como la División 50, que por aquí andan algunos que presenciaron aquellas ejecusiones horrendas.

Por lo menos Venezuela ha tenido al exilio cubano de su parte en Estados Unidos, una vez que la Raza, con Janet Murguía al frente, ni sabe que existe el Mar Caribe, ni que en un país llamado Venezuela están masacrando a la población en las calles.

Eso, aparentemente, no es problema de la Raza, sino imponerle a todos los latinos en EUA la inmoralidad encubierta en exigencia de reforma migratoria, en función de vigilantes del abuso contra los derechos humanos de... ¿Quién?

¿Dónde está el poder de convocatoria de la Raza para que sus legisladores comunistas en el Congreso, incluso en el Senado, obliguen a que se tome la decisión correcta contra la represión en Venezuela, que debe ser lograr la invasión, más que justificada, que deponga a ese títere de los Castro? No aparece ni nunca será posible, porque el bando aliado de esta pandilla es el que encabeza Castro en América Latina, que tiene como uno de sus tenientes a Maduro y amplio desplazamiento en la “alta política comunista americana llamada liberal...”

La solidaridad es poca con la juventud venezolana, desde hace rato todos los pueblos de América deberían estar en la calle apoyando a esos jóvenes, empezando por Argentina, México, Puerto Rico, Peru, Brasil, Bolivia, Ecuador...sin embargo, la apatía, la militancia o el conformismo con la ideología de los asesinos se ha impuesto.

¿Dónde está la Iglesia venezolana? ¿Acaso quieren mantener, como la cubana que se vendió, el poco espacio que han logrado y que cualquier día pueden perder? ¿Cómo no le han brindado el templo como refugio a ningún perseguido, para obligar a la fuerza represora a profanarlo, a que se decida públicamente, por encima del fraude de una foto de Pancho en buena armonía con Maduro?

Los industriales que queden, los empresarios que queden, los comerciantes que queden ¿Por qué no tienen parado al país por la huelga general?

Incluso en Miami tienen que crear su equivalente de Vigilia Mambisa y asumir su papel de “intransigentes” para enfrentar a los bocones infiltrados que utilizan la tribuna pública protegida que el castro-obamismo les ha habilitado; aunque les ocasione otra crítica peor nacida en el partido demócrata y en el seno castrocomunista: “nueva mafia”.

O emplean las armas que puedan, todas, incluso el disturbio violento con graves consecuencias materiales como incendiar o atentar contra las vidas de los asesinos, o lo pierden todo.

En días, el poco mundo que los apoya se va a cansar y Maduro no se irá, sino se acostumbrará a la situación y logrará revertirla a favor de las mil formas que acostumbran, con ayuda del exterior sobre todo, como ha hecho la tiranía castrista durante 55 años.

No permitan que sus prometedores grupos opositores degeneren en una nueva e ineficaz “facción” aliada, ghandista, vividora y oportunista de la disidencia de los Castro. El tiempo puede desactivar los motores de la solidaridad y eso es lo que espera Obama para seguir haciendo lo que tienen planeado: NADA.

Si no pasan a actividades mayores, aunque más peligrosas, el problema solo cumplirá el efecto del golpe, que “hoy se hincha y duele, mañana se baja, se alivia y a otra cosa...”

Yo creo que la referencia de las huelgas, del progromo, de las detenciones de poco tiempo... de toda esa mierda ineficiente que aplican tanto la dictadura como el “exterior” para entretenerse y vivir de ellas en Cuba, no puede ser la opción de ustedes... ¡Piénsenlo”