*SEE UPDATES BELOW that call into question Garrow’s credibility.*
Dr. Jim Garrow, a renowned author and humanitarian, made the shocking claim on his Facebook page, yesterday.
I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.” Those who will not are being removed.
Garrow noted in the comments that “the man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes,” prompting this relpy from one of his followers, “if this man is truly a military hero, he had better not be keeping this a secret. Military hero’s (sic) do what’s right, not what’s comfortable for themselves.”
Garrow responded, “have folks forgotten that the word is now out. I believe that the gentleman has done what he should and allowed all of us to sound the alarm.
He has personally made it his mission to help save little girls in China from certain death. He has rescued over 45,000 little lives and has committed to rescuing a million more over the next ten years. He was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 and continues to inspire the world with his dedication to giving. He is also the author of The Pink Pagoda.
The Examiner reported:
This comes on the heels of Sunday’s report in the Washington Free Beacon (WFB) that the head of Central Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis is being dismissed by Obama and will leave his post in March.
The WFB article states:
“Word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bum’s rush out of his job as commander of Central Command, and is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.”
Keep in mind that there are now two military “studies” being discussed in military circles that demonize the right.
The respected “Small Wars Journal” issued a report entitled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A Vision of the Future;
It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army’s University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.
The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that “once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.” They claim that “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment,” not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.
The center — part of the institution where men and women are molded into Army officers — posted the report Tuesday. It lumps limited government activists with three movements it identifies as “a racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”
The West Point center typically focuses reports on al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists attempting to gain power in Asia, the Middle East and Africa through violence.
But its latest study turns inward and paints a broad brush of people it considers “far right.”
Oleg Atbashian of the People’s Cube understands totalitarianism in a way most Americans do not, having lived through it in the Soviet Union.
In part 1 of his series about collectivist mind games, he described how the Soviets Demonized the Non-Compliant.
In Russia, the communists used to demonize their opponents long before the Revolution, which made it easier for them to physically eliminate the opposition later. As soon as they were in full control of the government, they began to demonize entire segments of the society, subcultures, and classes of people whom they deemed incapable of change.
Observe a visual example of communist demonization: an agitprop poster titled “Enemies of the 5-Year Plan,” more broadly interpreted as “enemies of socialism” and, by extension, “enemies of the people.”
A disparaging verse at the bottom describes who the enemies are:
The wealthy landowner
The kulak (a pejorative term for a wealthy farmer who “exploits” hired labor)
The clergy (a Russian Orthodox Priest)
The bourgeois press (a non-compliant, independent journalist)
The capitalist (a banker, industrialist, merchant)
The Menshevik (a political opponent from a different communist faction)
The surviving remnants of the pre-revolutionary law enforcement and the military
The wealthy farmers, being the most numerous group and the most likely to resist the collectivization of agriculture, were subjected to the most vicious dehumanization reminiscent of the anti-Semitic propaganda in Nazi Germany.
Note this Lenin quote on another dehumanizing poster: “The kulaks are the most bestial, brutal and savage exploiters, who in the history of other countries have time and again restored the power of the landlords, tsars, priests and capitalists.” (Full quote in Russian)
The demonization of the kulaks laid the groundwork for their subsequent annihilation. Facing a peasant rebellion, Lenin sent the following telegram to his henchmen: “Hang publicly (in full view of the people) no fewer than one hundred known kulaks, rich men, bloodsuckers. Make their names public. Take away all their grain. Make a list of the next group of hostages. Do it in such a fashion that for hundreds of miles around the people might see, tremble, realize, and scream: ‘they are strangling, and will strangle to death, the bloodsucking kulaks’.”
Other non-compliant citizens were dealt with in a similar fashion. “Statements from the few survivors, published in émigré newspapers the following year, describe Sevastopol, one of the towns that suffered most heavily under the repressions, as ‘the city of the hanged.’ ‘From Nakhimovsky, all one could see was the hanging bodies of officers, soldiers, and civilians arrested in the streets. The town was dead, and the only people left alive were hiding in lofts or basements. All the walls, shop fronts, and telegraph poles were covered with posters calling for ‘Death to the traitors.’ They were hanging people for fun.” — The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stephane Courtois et al, pg 107
These were not aberrations, but logical consequences of the Marxist theory. According to Karl Marx, “there is only one way to shorten and ease the convulsions of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new — revolutionary terror.”
Are tea party conservatives modern day Kulaks?
The Washington Times: Drones over U.S. get OK by Congress
February 7, 2012:
Look! Up in the sky! Is it a bird? Is it a plane? It’s … a drone, and it’s watching you. That’s what privacy advocates fear from a bill Congress passed this week to make it easier for the government to fly unmanned spy planes in U.S. airspace.
The FAA Reauthorization Act, which President Obama is expected to sign, also orders the Federal Aviation Administration to develop regulations for the testing and licensing of commercial drones by 2015.
Privacy advocates say the measure will lead to widespread use of drones for electronic surveillance by police agencies across the country and eventually by private companies as well.
“There are serious policy questions on the horizon about privacy and surveillance, by both government agencies and commercial entities,” said Steven Aftergood, who heads the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.
The provision in the legislation is the fruit of “a huge push by lawmakers and the defense sector to expand the use of drones” in American airspace, she added.
According to some estimates, the commercial drone market in the United States could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars once the FAA clears their use.
The agency projects that 30,000 drones could be in the nation’s skies by 2020.
Why is it that immigrants from totalitarian states turn out to our most conservative citizens: Tiananmen square activist turned American citizen demonstrates for the second amendment:
There do appear to be questions concerning some of the claims Dr Garrow made in The Pink Pagota.
SEE the review of Jim Garrow’s “The Pink Pagoda” by Research China.Org for details.
Thanks to Geoff for pointing that out.
For those of us paying attention, these are indeed harrowing times. I’ve no doubt anymore than I and others who blog daily about individual sovereignty and the rights of a free people to resist a tyrannical takeover of their country in what until now has been a soft coup, are on some sort of terrorist watch list — at least, if the West Point “study”, already eagerly adopted by progressive drivers of manufactured consent, is any indication.
Obama, by his own admission — and in what some breathless groupie journalists actually compared to the Gettysburg Address — is calling, almost transparently now, for a fundamental reformation of the relationship between citizen and government. Obama believes the government is the civil society; he believes the government, therefore, is the well-spring of our “collective salvation.” And he, therefore, is its Godhead.
He is a cult-like leader, and his band of true believers — and that’s whom he surrounds himself with, true believers and idolaters — are prepared to take any action to reinforce our shift from citizen to subject, and the government’s shift from ownership by the people to sovereign over them, that we allow, either through affirmation or cowed silence.
Not only can it happen here. It is happening here. And yet still many our own bien pensants on the right, lured in by the power politics of the Beltway Bubble, consider this nothing more than rugged street politics, nothing more — and find nothing “malicious” in the President’s agenda. They chide us for our “outrageous” comments while self-righteously donning the mantle of “loyal opposition,” bracketing the very real set of facts proving that today’s GOP is no real “opposition” at all.
– That, and forgetting that this president was suckled on the Communist teat of Frank Marshall Davis, moved on to Alinsky and Piven and the strategy meetings of Cooper Union communists looking for ways to make the Marxist message palatable to a country built on free market capitalists, befriended Palestinian terrorist enablers and apologists, and then emerged in politics as a protege of Bill Ayers, the man whose Weather Underground movement sought to overthrow the government — propelling into the ultimate seat of power the perfect Potemkin pragmatist, sold to us as a post-partisan, post-racial healer the would absolve us of our racist colonialist sins, with the actual means to do so.
I report – you decide…
There is a reason why some of us take every unsubstantiated claim made about this Regime seriously, dammit. If we had a free and open press, more people would be alarmed.