CLOAKED AGENDAS AND PURE EVIL

This post at Ace caught my eye the other day because it has key information in it that supports a thesis I have written about several times on this blog: specifically that the socialist revival in the 21st century has four components:

-Terrorism (especially the rise of Islmaofascist terrorism) and the use of violence to achieve political objectives
-Multiculturalism
-Politically Correct Thought and Rhetoric
And, last but not least:
-Leftist Environmentalism

Here is the key quote from one of the founders of Greenpeace:

The collapse of world communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall during the 1980s added to the trend toward extremism. The Cold War was over and the peace movement was largely disbanded. The peace movement had been mainly Western-based and anti-American in its leanings. Many of its members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their neo-Marxist, far-left agendas. To a considerable extent the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than with science or ecology. I remember visiting our Toronto office in 1985 and being surprised at how many of the new recruits were sporting army fatigues and red berets in support of the Sandinistas.

Of course, the leftist environmental agenda is not the only way that the neo-Marxists hope to regain power. One of the most useful tactics that is used over and over again in all the above progressive neo-Marxist strategies is not only to cloak their real anti-capitalist, anti-globalization and anti-American agenda by hiding under "political correctness" , "multiculturalism" and "saving the planet"; but also to transfer their own motivations to their political opponents (we refer to this as psychological projection).

Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical in Chief, takes aim at this tried and true political ploy by focusing on its most recent incarnation in the media--specifically the attempt to portray violence as something encouraged by the right, even as they defend--of all people--France Fox Piven:

Peter Dreier is the latest entrant into the roiling controversy over conservative criticism of leftist strategist Frances Fox Piven....

As much as anyone, Dreier has made the case that community organizing is a quiet and slow-motion way to move America toward socialism. Dreier also adapted Frances Fox Piven’s targeted “crisis” theories to a wider political milieu. He was one of the first to float the idea that flirting with a general fiscal crisis through a steady but politically irreversible expansion of America’s entitlement system would be the smart path to socialism in the United States. Along with his colleague John Atlas, Dreier has positioned himself as a sympathetic academic outsider inclinded to defend ACORN from criticism by conservatives. In fact, as I show in Radical-in-Chief, Atlas and Dreier worked with ACORN behind the scenes to influence housing policy in the Clinton administration, so their outsider status is open to question. Obama may well have encountered Dreier at the Socialist Scholars Conferences he attended in the mid-eighties, but I argue in the book that regardless of that, Dreier’s theories have had a seminal influence on the world of socialist community organizing and, through that world, on Obama. That Obama chose Dreier as an advisor in 2008 only drives home the point.

Now that the left has decided to use the Tuscon shootings as a way to ban criticism from conservatives, Dreier is out with a piece at the Huffington Post following up on the strategy. The latest scheme is to use threats and hate mail directed at Dreier’s leftist colleague, Frances Fox Piven, to pull Glenn Beck’s show off the air and shut down Piven critics (and Dreier critics) like me and Ron Radosh. Dreier is clearly using the Piven controversy to try to discredit my book, with its many revelations about his own problematic activities....

Dreier’s defense of Piven is completely at odds with the upshot of her writings, which lovingly chronicle efforts by community organizers to intensify riots and violent protests. I explain Piven’s strategy on NRO’s homepage today in “Frances Fox Piven’s Violent Agenda.” Dreier’s efforts to turn Piven into a latter-day incarnation of Martin Luther King are absurd.

Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are the handy dandy targets of these socialists because (1) they are very visible and are key figures on the right; and (2) more importantly, they dare to expose the hidden socialist agendas of today's neo-fascist leftists.

Where was all the left's outrage at their own media darlings (e.g., Olbermann et al) who were much more overt, hateful and specific in their desire for violence toward those they disagreed with? You see they get a twofer: on the one hand they get to project their own motivations for violent upheaval and overthrow of America onto their opponents; and on the other hand they get to carry on about "hate speech" and cleverly suggest that such speech must be controlled and stopped at all costs--even personal liberty.

But hate speech codes are nothing more than an attempt to criminalize one's political opponents and those who truly support liberty, whether they are on the political right or left, should strongly oppose all such efforts. Sadly most on the left these days only give lip service to liberty because they are too busy trying to implement their hidden socialist agenda which is more important than freedom in their eyes.

Glenn Reynolds has more about the real kind of hate speech that deliberately encourages violence:

PROFESSOR ANN ALTHOUSE DELIVERS A SOUND THRASHING: “History tells us” something that history doesn’t tell us, say sociologists stumbling to protect Frances Fox Piven."

So vigorous debate about Piven’s ideas is really important, but it better be the right kind of debate by the right kind of people and most certainly not that terrible, terrible man Glenn Beck. She’s very lofty and serious, so, while she should be challenged, she must be challenged only by lofty and serious individuals, and of course, Glenn Beck is not one. . . .

Does lofty, serious, intellectual sociology involve looking at evidence and analyzing it rationally? Linking the Tucson massacre to hot political rhetoric was a rash mistake made by demagogues — you want to talk about demagogues?! — demagogues who were slavering over the prospect of a right-wing massacre that would prove politically useful. . .

So Piven should not have called for “something like” Greek-style riots, and it was good of Glenn Beck to point out that Piven crossed the line, right? I mean, we’re dedicating ourselves to serious, undistorted analysis here. That’s what you said you wanted, didn’t you?

At the center of all psychological denial is a hidden or cloaked agenda. Denial can take many forms, as I have noted previously many times; and one of the more immature and damaging forms is through psychological projection. In projection, the individual remains oblivious to the fact that he owns and is responsible for the emotions that he imagines are in the person or group into which he is projecting. In other words, ownership of the idea and/or affect is banished from the self. This is the source of much of the violence in the world and often mutates into outright paranoid and delusional thinking.

That is how, despite all evidence and facts to the contrary; despite however many times reality slaps them down and shows them how much misery, death, and human suffering their pathetic ideology causes; today's progressive, neo-Marxist/socialist leftists always remain pure and shining examples of "The Good"--in their own deluded minds anyway.

Needless to say, this is how Pure Evil manages to infiltrate its way into the real world.