Transforming Society

The first prerequisite to transform society is to transform its culture; sap and destroy its belief structure, much as termites gnaw at the foundations of a house, until nothing but a shell is left which can then be collapsed into a pile of dusty rubble with a push. The procedure requires stealth and sleight of hand; any society openly and violently attacked will respond in kind, but when the enemies of the society infiltrate slowly and unobtrusively, their presence goes largely unnoticed. This was the principle l that led to the creation of the Fabian Society, in England, some 131 years ago, dedicated to the advancement of socialism through gradual and reformist means; the name was taken from Fabius Maximus, a Roman consul who, after disastrous Roman defeats during the Second Punic War at the hands of the Carthaginian general Hannibal, changed tactics to those of harassment, ambushes, delays and above all, avoidance of pitched, frontal battles. The following is from the Society’s first pamphlet:

“For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain, and fruitless.”

The Fabians and their offshoot, the Progressives along with the rest of the left-wing political spectrum, have done a great job of infiltration. They did not storm the citadels of power but instead targeted the media and academia, positions that allowed them to influence public opinion through the former and to mold the minds of students through the latter. This helps explain why a sexual preference that was considered a mental disorder not that many years ago has not only become mainstream but has evolved to the point where same-sex marriage is now equated with marriage between a man and a woman. This also explains why a violent, aggressive religious philosophy, dedicated to the eradication of all other religions, is presented as “the religion of peace” and any criticism of it is rejected as examples of “Islamophobia”, which together with its twin “homophobia”, when hurled at any person or institution, designate them as “haters”, “bigots” and as unworthy of any consideration.

The propaganda is subtle and low-keyed, but it is there; the Law and Order franchise, one of the best written and acted crime dramas, nevertheless, when analyzed, show the presence of certain stereotypes: homosexuals are invariably the victims of religious bigots; Muslims are attacked by people who fail to comprehend the “peaceful” nature of Islam; evangelical Christians and religious Jews are more often than not presented as narrow minded, fundamentalist bigots and what is a show involving a Catholic priest in which he is not presented as either a molester of children or at the very least suspected of it? All that is not shouted at the viewer but presented in a very low-keyed manner worked very skillfully into the plot. Are the writers conscious propagandists? Certainly not; it is just that their political and social views bleed through the scripts. Are there any writers with other views? Yes, but do they get hired? Not really, not when producers, directors and the Hollywood and TV establishments, which lean so far left, monopolize the industry.

The news media is no better; suffice as an example the prodigious effort at CNN to not characterize the Chattanooga shooter as a Muslim just because his first name was Muhammed. Remember when Bill O’Reilly was a guest at The View and both Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar walked out when he stated that Muslims attacked us on 9/11? What did they think? That we were attacked by either Hindus or Buddhists?

The two catch phrases of the left that permeate society and have made their way into the school curricula are the ubiquitous “don’t be judgemental “ and “don’t generalize” Well, any time you evaluate a situation, a person or an opinion, you are being “judgemental” and if you cannot generalize, you cannot think; you must have the ability to analyze individual events and draw a general conclusion from them, or “generalize” The Progressives use both expressions as sledgehammers against any dissenter; the former when they want to silence any criticism of behaviors endorsed by them and the latter when they want to exonerate any group suspected of violent tendencies.

Their ultimate objective is the complete control of society in order create a world run by the elites, much along the lines of medieval societies, where the lord of the manor controlled the lives of the peasants that supplied the labor. We are losing the old American egalitarianism; we now have a sort of aristocracy that boasts degrees from Ivy League universities; we talk of the Kennedys, the Bushes and now the Clintons. The Progressives have infiltrated both parties and when one of them finally screws things up enough, the voters have a knee-jerk reaction and say “Let’s vote for the other guy and throw the bums out!”, except the other guy is just another member of the club, who either slows down or accelerates the process. Has anyone noticed the visceral reaction against the Tea Party? And that the most antagonistic are the establishment wings of either party? The Tea Party has unwittingly stumbled upon the crux of the matter when they speak of “Republicats” and “Democrans” It is unfortunate that their leadership lacks the political sophistication to understand the reason behind the similarity; if they ever do, they could become a formidable political force. Nevertheless, the elites have decided they must be crushed before they really catch on.

To change society, barriers have to be destroyed and old ideas disposed of; one such barrier is Christianity, the pillar upon which Western Civilization rests. If you think that the sudden snowballing of the notion of same-sex marriage has anything to do with the “compassionate” concern for what probably amounts to no more than 5% of the population, think again. The beautiful slogans, the rainbow flag and the “love wins” stickers are props for the unsophisticated; their real target are Christians as the lawsuits against photographers, bakers and chapels who decline to cater same-sex weddings based on their religious principles and the recent suggestions to end the tax-exempt status of churches who would not officiate gay weddings clearly demonstrate. The case of the Christian bakery owners who refused to bake a cake for a lesbian couple that deliberately targeted their business, is a prime example. The state of Oregon not only fined them $135,000 but in a fascistic manner placed a gag order forbidding them to speak publicly on the matter. Calls for the legalization of polygamous marriage are already being heard and those for incestuous marriages are not far behind.

The claim is often made that religion is not under attack and they emphasize their continuous support for “freedom of worship” and they equate it with freedom of religion. It is a well thought out argument; however, freedom of worship is not the same as freedom of religion. Within the confines of your religious institutions, you are free to worship as you please be it Jesus, Allah, Vishna, Buddha, Satan or a cat, if you want, but that freedom ends as soon as you leave the building. The Soviet Union guaranteed “freedom of worship”. Freedom of religion, on the other hand, extends to the whole sphere of your life and it protects you against being compelled to act against your religious principles. It protected the conscientious objectors during WWI, WWII and Vietnam, who refused to bear arms but served instead as stretcher bearers, ambulance drivers and on medical evacuation teams. The Oregon bakers are free to worship at the church of their choice but they are not allowed to practice their religion outside of their church, especially when they were deliberately targeted by a lesbian couple who could have gone to any one of dozens of other bakeries, gay or otherwise. What about the Little Sisters of the Poor, who are being bullied into providing birth control and abortion coverage for their employees, something that goes against their Catholic principles and which, if compelled, they will refuse to do?

The Progressives have infiltrated the media, colleges and universities, the entertainment industry and both political parties; the only obstacle they have left is Christianity and since the Catholic Church is the largest and most unified of all religious institutions, they are targeted from all sides. If it falls, the others are so fragmented and in some cases already infiltrated, that they would be easy pickings. They will be confined to their religious buildings and their influence outside of them will be suppressed.

Under the principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” the Fabian socialists and their Progressive twins have allied themselves with the Islamic extremists and unleashed them against their adversaries, Christianity and Western Civilization, which they dream to replace with their version of an “orderly” and “controlled” society where everyone will be rewarded “according to their merits and according to their needs”. Only they will decide what the “merits” and the “needs” are and much like the lords of the manors, they will reward -or punish- the serfs. We will be serfs, albeit serfs with Iphones, laptops and Ipods, but serfs nevertheless.

The Progressives have never been as close to fulfilling their goals as they are now; their time has come and they will strike hard. We are very close to the tipping point, if we have not reached it already.


Did the Cat get their Tongues?

Unless you have been living under a rock these past days or are suffering from an overdose of Ariana Grande’s doughnut licking video, you cannot but be aware of the murder of Kate Steinle, a 32-year old American woman, who was fatally shot on July 2nd while strolling with her father along San Francisco’s famed Pier 14; likewise you also cannot but be aware that the accused shooter, Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez is an illegal alien who had been deported five previous times and has a record of seven felony convictions and who returned time after time to San Francisco because it is a sanctuary city, which by ordinance, prohibits cooperation with federal Immigration authorities. You should also be aware that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, had released Mr Lopez Sanchez to the city’s law enforcement agencies because of an existing warrant on him; ICE also put a detainer on Lopez Sanchez, asking they be notified prior to his release so he could be deported for the sixth time. Predictably, the city’s authorities ignored the detainer and released Mr Lopez Sanchez.

The blame game started almost immediately with accusations flying back and forth among ICE, the Mayor of San Francisco and the Sheriff. It should be obvious to anyone that had it not been for sanctuary cities, specifically San Francisco, chances are very good that Kathryn Steinle would still be alive; yet, in a rather convoluted press conference today, Mayor Ed Lee, while deploring Kate’s death, promptly shifted the blame to San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, who had, in turn, previously shifted the blame to ICE. In a heroic display of twisted pretzel logic, Mayor Lee, while denouncing Kate’s shooter as an individual who should not have been free, or even in this country, defended and vowed to continue the city’s sanctuary policy because it “helps keep the city safe”

The most interesting aspect of this tragedy is the reaction from the Progressive wing of the political spectrum; usually when a high profile crime involves a firearm, the gun control advocates go ballistic, but not this time. It turns out that the gun used in Ms Steinle’s murder belonged to an unnamed federal agent and that it had been stolen from a parked car in June; it was a personal .40 caliber pistol, not a government issue firearm. How it got into Mr Lopez Sanchez’s hands is still a rather murky story.

However, the strongest reaction, underlined by a deafening silence, comes from the White House and the administration. Kate Steinle was laid to rest on July 9th and today, July 16th will make it a full two weeks since the tragedy. President Obama, who has never been shy about interjecting himself into any controversy, real or imaginary, always with a plethora of platitudes, half-baked opinions and lots of finger wagging as he talks down to a nation still in the throes of “racism” and “bigotry”, has not, as of yet, seen fit to reach out to the family of Kathryn Steinle and neither has anyone in his administration. Mind you, this is a president who wasted no time stating that the Cambridge police “acted stupidly” while at the same time admitting that he did not have all the facts. He promptly said that Trayvon Martin “could have been my son” and had lots of opinions about the Ferguson and Baltimore police departments; all kinds of federal resources were made available, from numbers of DOJ agents swooping down on Ferguson, Florida and Baltimore, not to mention the FBI. He also telephoned the families of Treyvon Martin, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray. When Sandra Fluke, the young lady that made national news when she demanded that Georgetown University, a Catholic institution provide her with contraceptives and lost, Rush Limbaugh called her a “slut” on his radio show; President Obama rushed to place a telephone call to her to make sure “she was all right”. Obama just pardoned 46 felons who had been incarcerated for “outdated drug offenses” and found time to write personal letters to each one. To the family of Kate Steinle, nothing, not a word.

While testifying in Capital Hill on July 14th Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson was asked by Rep Steve Chabot (ROH) the following question: “Has the administration reached out to the Steinle family, to your knowledge?” The HS Secretary looked perplexed and responded: “To who?” After Rep Chabot explained the circumstances behind Kate Steinle’s murder, Johnson answered: “I’m sorry. I don’t know the answer to that question, sir”

In the convoluted world of dialectical materialism, truth and reality only exist as long as they serve the party’s ultimate objective. This explains the administration’s attitude. In their narrative, America is a racist, exploiting country built on the sweat and labor of oppressed minorities and as long as they can twist any incident they can work into that narrative, then Treyvon Martin, Freddie Gray, Michael Brown, the Cambridge professor and Sandra Fluke will stay front and center to become the icons of a struggle based on their version of a story that the cold hard facts of reality have already discredited. Keep repeating the same lie over and over until it becomes the truth in people’s minds and no one will question it. Sounds familiar?

Once in a while, though, events take place that do not fit into the dialectical world view and then a curious thing happens: the events are ignored. They do not help the party’s line, therefore, they do not exist. Kate Steinle was not a a minority, she was not shot by a cop or a deranged, psychotic, Confederate flag waving racist but, allegedly, by an illegal alien convicted felon who should not have been in this country at all except for the administration’s refusal to secure the border and San Francisco’s sanctuary policies. This explains Obama’s silence on the matter and Secretary Johnson’s ignorance of the events and San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Scott Wiener, who, when asked by a Fox News reporter about Kate’s death and sanctuary city policies, refused to answer saying “Fox is not real news. I only talk to real news” Kate’s death does not advance their agenda or help their narrative, so it is ignored, in the hope that it will eventually fade from view so they can concentrate on the real important issues of oppressed minorities being killed by “racist rogue” cops and the imperative need to have gun control.

It is up to us to keep Kate Steinle from being forgotten; it might be too late for her but perhaps we can keep other Americans from being murdered by a criminal element who should never been allowed to remain in the country. We already have a good number of native criminals; we do not need to import any. The Obama administration, Senators Boxer and Feinstein, the Mayor of San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors and the architects of sanctuary cities have blood on their hands; they are all complicit in Kate’s death.

And as a footnote to San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee, here is a little excerpt from Mexico’s Immigration Law:

Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.” (Article 118)

The Never Ending Blame Game

The Never Ending Blame Game

The funeral of Kate Steinle took place yesterday in a private ceremony; her body was laid to rest but the controversy generated by her murder shows no sign of subsiding and it should not subside. She was fatally shot -allegedly- by an illegal alien who had five previous deportations and seven prior felony convictions who had been transferred to the San Francisco authorities by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, which had placed a detainer on the alien, requesting that they be notified prior to his release. Because San Francisco is a sanctuary city for illegal aliens, and the authorities there refuse to cooperate with immigration officials, they released Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, an illegal Mexican national, ignoring the ICE detainer request. The paths of Mr Lopez Sanchez and Ms Steinle crossed on the walkway of Pier 14 when he, accidentally or otherwise, shot Ms Steinle in the torso as she and her father strolled on the famed pier. She collapsed, still alive, crying out to her father “Dad, help me”…”Dad, don’t let me die” words that no father should have to hear.

Kate Steinle’s murder has brought front and center the twin issues of illegal immigration and the existence of “sanctuary cities” With a speed that would make any person dizzy, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer tried to distance themselves from the consequences of the immigration policies they had advocated for decades. There was a flurry of finger pointing and blame shifting among ICE, the Mayor of San Francisco and the Sheriff, each trying very hard to justify the insane policies that resulted in the death of a very accomplished, generous and beautiful young lady who most certainly did not deserve to have her life cut short at its prime.

Tragically, Kate’s death is not unique; there is a whole litany of Americans who have been killed by illegal aliens, be it by shooting, robbery or as a consequence of being run down by drunk drivers. Just look it up in the Internet if you doubt it. Be aware, though, that the PC shock troops will immediately label as “racist” and “bigoted” anyone who brings up the question of illegal immigration, the usual way they deflect any criticism of their policies.

Kate’s death and the death of many other Americans are consequences of the policies that create sanctuary cities for those who cross our southern border illegally. Kate was killed not just by an illegal alien; the blame is thick enough to spread evenly on both parties, on those who see the illegals as a source of cheap labor and on those who see them as future votes for the party which will provide them with citizenship. But ultimately, there is a real culprit: the voters. Those people who enact the absurd ordinances that create sanctuary cities and release criminal aliens did not attain their positions by themselves; they were put there through the votes of an electorate either too brainwashed or too apathetic to care. Elections have consequences, whether they are regional or national. Kate and many other Americans are dead because we have elected government and city officials who want to “transform America” and they have these “feel good” policies and see the US as an instrument of exploitation of the poor and huddled masses; after all, according to them, are we not living in Texas, Arizona and California? Did we not “steal” them from Mexico?

It is important to understand that not all illegal aliens are criminals, not in the strictest sense of the word; most are people caught in the web of survival, the pawns of the corrupt Mexican government which will rather export their surplus populations to the northern nation willing to accept them. Unfortunately, the time has come for us to realize that we simply cannot continue to be Mexico’s safety valve which prevents a revolution there. It is also time to understand that the border has become a war zone controlled by the Mexican drug cartels on one side and opposed by an undermanned and unsupported Border Patrol on our side. Enough is enough and we have to take control of our borders; however, first we have to understand what it is that we want our politicians to do. Those open borders people are in power because we put them there; the loonies in the San Francisco City Council, the Mayor and the Sheriff are there because we put them there; Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer are there because we put them there, Barack Obama and his minions are there because we put them there and if we are to take back the country, we have to have an electorate that knows and understands what the real issues are: secure borders, realization of the damage that illegal immigration does to the country and the importance of getting our manufacturing jobs back.

Kate Steinle died as a result of a gunshot, but ultimately, we are all responsible for her death, by our choices and our lack of attention. Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez just pulled the trigger.

Rest in peace Kate. We failed you.