New Eastern Outlook » Robert Smith

A New Strategy for China with Biden? Or is it Too Late?

Роберт Смит — Tue, 01 Dec 2020 09:30:09 +0000

During the Obama era, in which Biden served as Vice President, the US approached China quite differently. Will Biden be able to revert to a softer strategy?

Donald Trump’s trade war with China is now being hailed by voices of Neoliberalism as an accomplishment. An editorial in The Economist wrote: “The achievement of the Trump administration was to recognize the threat from China. The task of the Biden administration will be to work out what to do about it.” While many of Trump’s foreign policy moves were viewed as hysterical and erratic, as he leaves office it seems his anti-China pivot is being celebrated by even his detractors.

Trump has surrounded himself with a crew of anti-China fanatics, the most notorious of which is Peter Navarro. Navarro is an academic economist who has been beating the anti-Beijing drum for years. Just shortly before the November 3rd vote, the New York Times exposed Trump’s relationship with the Falun Gong religious cult and its publication, The Epoch Times.

Trump Digs Up “The China Lobby”

The anti-China element that Trump has linked himself to has deep roots in US politics. In the 1950s, Republicans castigated the Democrats with the repeated question: “Who lost China?” A group of conservative fanatics called the John Birch Society was formed, taking their name from a US spy executed in China, whom was deemed to be the first casualty of the Cold War. In the early 1960s, the “China Lobby” was identified by liberals as the most right-wing, militaristic element in Washington DC that threatened world peace.

When Richard Nixon met with Mao Zedong, the anti-China elements in his own party launched a billboard and bumper sticker campaign opposing his move. The image of a syringe accompanied with the words “Cut Off China” was plastered across the USA, along with the false allegations that China was responsible for importing heroin to the United States.

As Jimmy Carter met with Deng Xiaoping and moved to establish formal diplomatic relations, strange rumblings of opposition manifested themselves. Members of the Revolutionary Communist Party, a strange Maoist sect that opposed Deng were permitted to enter the White House grounds and confront Deng during his visit to Washington. Statements wrongly attributed by the press to Bob Avakian, the leader of the group, seemed to be sending a message to Jimmy Carter that a new Lee Harvey Oswald had been found. The Secret Service investigated the Revolutionary Communist Party on the grounds some kind of credible threat against Carter’s life had been leveled. It has since been revealed the organization was riddled with FBI informers amid its protests targeting Chinese diplomatic sites.

However, as the 1980s progressed, the Washington DC Foreign Policy seemed to accept US relations with China as a new fact of life. Zbiegnew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger had long pushed the idea of utilizing the Sino-Soviet split to divide the global Communist movement, and their strategy seemed to be working. The Hollywood film Red Dawn ended with the United States being rescued by China from Soviet and Nicaraguan invaders.

As American companies poured investment into China, US media insisted that China was communist in name only, and celebrated its economic achievements along with the Asian Tigers. Conservatives often celebrated the more authoritarian aspects of Chinese society while castigating the “sensitivity” and “softness” perceived in liberals.

However, the 1989 events in Tiananmen Square that coincided with the color revolutions across Eastern Europe indicated that the desire to topple the Chinese Communist Party was very well alive. US media demonized the Chinese state and highlighted the protesters ad naseum and continues to do so on each successive anniversary. On May 7th, 1999, Bill Clinton bombed Serbia and destroyed the Chinese embassy sparking massive international outcry.

The Obama Strategy & Labor Opposition

Part of the reason that US hostility toward the Chinese Communist Party has been muted is due to the fact that tremendous efforts from the US deep state have gone into building up US influence within China and with the party itself. The Ford Foundation, notorious for cooperating with American intelligence, long sponsored a massive think tank known as the Institute for Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. This think tank, along with other academic institutions sponsored by the US in China, lobbied the Communist Party to be more free market and pro-western in its orientation.

Knowing that there was an pro-American apparatus within China and within the government, Barack Obama went out of his way to give symbolic friendly gestures as US President. Obama praised China’s best-selling science fiction novel The Three Body Problem, and celebrated the cultural achievements of Confucius. The aim, of course, was to cultivate a larger constituency of US sympathizers within China and influence the country from within.

Joe Biden seemed to be following this orientation during the opening of his Presidential campaign, but swiftly changed his tone as the race continued. The Economist reports that “During the campaign Mr. Biden had to be reprogrammed on China, says an adviser. It seems to have worked. Mr. Biden has since called Xi a thug.”

Interestingly, Biden’s left-wing opponents within the Democratic Party, centered around Bernie Sanders, seemed to be far more hostile to China. The small circle of “Democratic Socialists” on Capitol Hill including Bernie Sanders and “the squad” of female freshman congressman, have called for harsher tariffs and echo Trump’s rhetoric about China hurting the US economy. The AFL-CIO, a primary sponsor of the “Berniecrat” voices which are often marginalized within the Democratic Party by the Democratic Leadership Council and more centrist voices, is very hostile to China.

The AFL-CIO’s relationship with American intelligence is longstanding. During the 1950s, the US labor federation cooperated with the Central Intelligence Agency to establish an international coalition of labor unions that worked to undermine Communists. Jay Lovestone, expelled from the US Communist Party for “American Exceptionalism” in 1928, became the director of the CIA’s labor efforts. His crowning achievements was the unrest fomented in Poland by the “Solidarity” dock workers organization. CIA’s links to certain labor activists in China highlighted in the Chinese press are not difficult to establish.

However, the rise of Xi Jinping and Trump’s trade war seems to have been a big game changer. Xi Jinping’s rise to power has signified a revival of Marxist-Leninist ideology and criticism of the west, along with celebration of China’s unique identity. In response, Trump seems to have cozied up the remnants of the paleo-conservative “China Lobby” and aimed to follow their advance and “cut off China” with tariffs and hysterical allegations about COVID19.

Biden’s backing seems to come from elements within the US power structure that favor a softer approach with Beijing. However, the escalated climate of the previous four years may make a big reversal in Sino-US relations impossible. Biden may simply follow Trump’s course as the geopolitical stage marches ahead post-COVID, completely reshuffled.

Robert Smith is an independent American researcher and analyst that specializes in social psychology and conflict resolution. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Female Prosecutor Politicians & Their Love For War

Роберт Смит — Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:14:07 +0000

“Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” wrote the playwright,William Congreve in 1697. Though Congreve is long forgotten, his quote has been immortalized, surfacing over and over as gender-related issues continuously pop up in US politics. The presidency of Donald Trump, known for his crude comments and surrounded by accusations of sexual assault and misconduct, gave birth to “Women’s Marches” and huge efforts to promote the role of women in politics.

Many of Trump’s critics viewed his attacks and ultimate defeat of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign as appealing to sexist tropes. A New York Times op-ed referred to Hillary Clinton as “The Bitch America Needs” and attempted to own the female-specific label often pinned on the former US Senator and First Lady.

As women become and more prominent in US politics, the public is becoming aware of the different personality types of politically-bent women. Elizabeth Warren’s path to fame involved a reputation as a financial regulator who stood up to corporate power. Sarah Palin’s following, now mostly eroded, centered on the image of tough “Hockey Mom” who was dedicated to her kids.

As more and more female political figures emerge, different images and personality types are being experimented with. One particular trope among female politicians and government officials that has emerged is clearly being embraced by certain forces. While other feminists may try to challenge stereotypes or break down misconceptions, what could be called a “wrecker” mentality that really doesn’t seek to avoid calling forth images Congreve’s words about a woman scorned seems to also be finding its place in the spotlight.

“That Little Girl Was Me!”

Kamala Harris is the daughter of a Jamaican-American Economics Professor and an Indian-American Cancer researcher. She grew up in Berkeley, California, a hotbed of left-wing activism in the 1960s. Her parents divorced when she was 7 years old.

Harris’ father remains a well-respected Marxist economist, and he has distanced himself from his daughter very significantly, saying she is “beholden to her donors.” While Harris has frequently praised her mother on social media and in speeches, she remains silent about her Marxist father who speaks critically of her.

Harris’ career as a prosecutor launched her into politics, however, the ugly details of what such a career entails ultimately ended her 2020 Presidential campaign. As a Prosecutor, Harris worked to keep innocent people on death row and withheld evidence that would have resulted in their exoneration. Harris broke the law, and engaged in prosecutorial misconduct.

Like many criminal prosecutors, Harris seemed very motivated by a desire to inflict suffering on people. This desire seems to have motivated Harris to go well beyond what was expected of her, and to violate California law. Tulsi Gabbards’s exposure of these facts at a Presidential debate and Harris’ inability to refute any of these charges ultimately resulted in her popularity decreasing.

One particular clip that circled the internet showed Harris describing how she had begun jailing the parents of children who did not attend school. Many found this policy particularly problematic, but the way Harris spoke of her policy also stood out. She said: “I would not be standing here if it was not for the education I received… I believe that a child going without an education is tantamount to a crime. So I decided to start prosecuting parents for truancy. Well, this was a little controversial in San Francisco.” She then broke into hysterical laughter, which her audience did not join in.

This odd invoking of her childhood experiences in order to justify her adult behavior was similar to when she confronted Joe Biden about his history of opposing school busing. She described being part of school integration in Berkeley, saying “That little girl was me!” ()It can be pretty clearly inferred that Harris’ sadistic and relentless prosecutorial efforts are rooted in some kind of desire for revenge. After her “that little girl was me!” comment, T-shirt portraying an elementary school-aged Kamala Harris were sold on her campaign website.

It should be noted that Kamala Harris, once the favored front-runner of the race, wasn’t the only female prosecutor politician to be a Presidential contender in 2020. Amy Klobuchar remains in the race, and she also has a career history of working hard to imprison low-income people in her home state of Minnesota. () Klobuchar is responsible for a number of questionable convictions, and often used an unreliable “Gang Expert” to convince juries of how potentially dangerous African-American defendants were.

Klobuchar, like Harris, is also the product of a broken home, with her parents divorcing when she was 15. She describes her father as an alcoholic and domestic abuser who she did not speak to until he finally became sober decades later. It is likely that her desire to damage the lives of people she does not know is also rooted in some kind of childhood trauma and pathological desire for revenge.

Meet “The Genocide Chick”

Much like Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar, Samantha Power, who served in Hillary Clinton’s State Department and became US Ambassador to the United Nations, also has a strong desire to destroy and punish. Furthermore, much like Harris and Klobuchar, she also displays signs of narcissism, recalling: “I came home from school every day, as my mother can attest, my dad can attest, and I sat in front of the mirrors for hours, straining to drop my brogue so that I, too, could quickly speak and be American.”Fitting the pattern, Power came from a broken home, leaving her native Ireland to live with her mother in Pennsylvania at the age of 9. Her father, an alcoholic, who rarely interacted with her after she left Ireland, died of an alcohol-related illness when she was 14.

Power came of age in the United States, and fell in love with the “human rights” foreign policy coverage in US media. She eventually became a war correspondent, and admitted that her journalism was done with the intent of promoting US military interventionism. She was essentially was a literal “war monger.” Just as a “fish monger” sells fish, Power’s journalism was intended to sell war. In her book, “Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide” she said that the US government: “needed help from American reporters, editorial boards, and advocacy groups” in order to convince the world about the need to ruthlessly bomb and destabilize former Yugoslavia.

Samantha Power is known to jokingly refer to herself as ‘the genocide chick.’ She worked hard to get “Responsibility to Protect” added to the UN Charter in order to legalize US-led regime change operations and meddle in the internal affairs of sovereign states deemed to violate human rights. Power, in line with US foreign policy, coddled the Saudi Monarchy and even eulogized the torturing, beheading Saudi King at the United Nations, while directing her “human rights” outrage selectively at Wall Street’s international competitors.

Much like Kamala Harris’ imprisonment of low income parents did not really help their truant children, the bombing campaign in the former Yugoslavia did not really help the people it claimed to be rescuing, but made their conditions worse. Samantha Power was a key supporter of the NATO bombing campaign and regime change operation in Libya, pushing within the Obama White House for the US to become increasingly more and more involved. The result for the people of Libya has been mass death and destruction of their country. Prior to 2011 Libya had the highest life expectancy on the African continent.

But Power is satisfied. She wanted to punish Milosevic, she wanted to punish Gadhafi, she wanted to see bombs explode and cities wrecked as “punishment” or “revenge.” It wasn’t about helping people, it was about releasing pent up rage at men she perceived as powerful. Most likely, the parts of Samantha Power’s narcissistic psyche that want wars so badly, are deeply longing to punish her absent, alcoholic father. The same desire to punish is likely at fault in Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar.

Destruction Serves Wall Street

In this age when Wall Street and London sit atop a global financial system, and dominate the global markets, their enemies are very easily defined. The enemies are any nation that emerges as a solid competitor. Russia emerged from the chaos of the 1990s as a huge oil and gas exporter, competing with the 4 supermajors. China is a huge manufacturing hub, producing half the world’s steel, and outdoing US corporations in smartphone technology. Venezuela and Iran are independent oil producing states that export in competition with western energy monopolies.

What is the goal in all of these countries? Reducing them to rubble and chaos, so they can become US client states rather than exporting competitors. Libya, once an oil rich exploiter, is now a mess of chaos and poverty. Iraq, which was a prosperous Arab socialist state in the 1980s, financing its economic growth with oil exports, has been equally reduced to chaos. Since the 2001 invasion, Afghanistan sits as a strategic epicenter of chaos, with drug gangs and terrorism spilling over into Iran, China and Russia.

Western capitalism seeks destruction and chaos in order to ensure its monopoly, and maintain unipolarity. The world must remain a poor, captive market for the western financial powers. Instability and destruction are essential for making it happen, and women with a pathological longing to unleash such suffering can be quite useful to serve these foreign policy objectives.

But who have been the major opponents of these efforts by western leaders? Strongmen. Populists. Figures like Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Nicolas Maduro, and Ali Seyyed Khamenei. Men who exude strength and kind of fatherly wisdom and authority. The countries targeted by the west, accused of “human rights violations’ ‘ and subject to destabilization tend to maintain more traditional family structures. Populist leaders are seens as the “Father of the Nation” mobilizing economic growth and beating back western destabilization.

Not surprisingly, Kamala Harris loves to rail against Putin from the Senate floor, and accuse Trump of being “soft on dictators.” Amy Klobuchar and Samantha Power also see fighting anti-imperialist leaders who preside over independent economies as one of their primary foreign policy goals. This makes perfect sense when looking into their personal histories. These are women scorned by abusive fathers, grow to prosecutors, politicians, “feminists” seeking to unleash hells fury against anti-imperialist leaders deemed to be “patriarchal.” They don’t care about the “collateral damage” that piles up as a result. The point isn’t to make the world a better place, but rather, to get the world to understand “that little girl was me” and make Amy, Samantha, and Kamala feel like their childhood trauma has been atoned for.

This psychological profile of a prosecutor politician, a narcissistic woman with a traumatic past, who seeks revenge and destruction; a liberal feminist war-monger with “daddy issues” seems to be very key in understanding a number of the women emerging in power and popularity among the US political elite.

Their underlying motivations are driven by deep inner pain and are quite useful for those who rule the world.

Robert Smith is an independent American researcher and analyst that specializes in social psychology and conflict resolution. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Brainwashing – A Silly Cold War Propaganda Concept

Роберт Смит — Wed, 15 Jan 2020 20:00:34 +0000

In the United States, one phrase you cannot avoiding hearing on a regular basis is “This is the greatest country in the world” or “America is the greatest country in the world.” This is repeated constantly on American TV, from American politicians, and from average Americans when giving their assessment of world events.

If one inquires of someone who utters the phrase, and asks for specifications about by what metrics or calculations the country was determined to be “greatest,” rather than getting a clear explanation, the inquirer will be met with shock.

If asked “Why is America the greatest country in the world?” is the average US citizen’s jaw will drop. “Do you mean, you DON’T think America is the greatest country in the world?” Inevitably, the response that follows will involve something to the effect of: “If you don’t believe America is the greatest country in the world, you must be brainwashed.”

This concept of “brainwashing,” which Americans understand to be like something portrayed in a science fiction movie, is not only outlandish, but it is central to how Americans understand the world. Each year, National Geographic magazine publishes statistics about how uninformed Americans are about the world. Most American youth cannot find the countries the USA is currently at war against on a world map. Furthermore, a significant percentage of the American high school and university students cannot find the USA itself on a world map.

Americans generally laugh at this. They find it to be a mildly embarrassing, and an almost endearing aspect of the US identity. However, when Americans look at photographs of Nashi summer camps in Russia, Young Pioneers in China, Bolivarian Youth in Venezuela, or Islamic Youth in Iran, they view these images with utter revulsion. Children in uniforms, saluting, and making ideological statements is something that the US public is deeply discomforted by.

A Central Concept in American Ideology

Why do Americans get deeply offended, and have such strong emotional reactions to photos of youth being taught ideology, being provided with an identity, wearing uniforms, being loyal to their community and developing a sense of purpose in their lives? If you ask them, this is because these young people are “being brainwashed.”

In the American liberal worldview, carefully constructed during the Cold War, it is far more problematic to see young people being inculcated with ideology or made to be part of a group, than to see them left utterly ignorant by a failing educational system. “We think for ourselves!” Americans insist. “We have our own ideas!” “No one tells us what to believe.”

The fact that the US Central Intelligence Agency coordinates with major TV networks, with CNN Anchor Anderson Cooper himself having started his career with a CIA internship, is unknown and unacknowledged. The history of Project Mockingbird, or the fact that even Hollywood movies are routinely sponsored by the Psy-ops and intelligence wings of the US Armed Forces, is simply glossed over.

The most loyal, true believing, unquestioning American will insist that no one has ever told him what to believe. Not the media, not the educational system, not advertising, not intelligence agencies, not twitter, not Facebook. The most conforming, true-believing, Pentagon loyal flag waving Americans always insist that they have come to all of their political and geopolitical beliefs based on their own independent research. The fact that so many other people have come to the exact same conclusions is merely a coincidence.

If “Brainwashing” actually existed, even as it is portrayed in American media, it would seem that those Americans who insist they are “free thinking” display the signs of being the most apparent victims of brainwashing. One might argue that they are so thoroughly brainwashed, they believe all who disagree with them to be brainwashed.

But brainwashing is not real. It is a Cold War fiction, as we shall see below.

“Coercive Persuasion” and “The Manchurian Candidate”

During the Korean War, a number of US military personnel were taken captive. A number of them appeared on TV and radio broadcasts to give political statements denouncing American imperialism and capitalism. How could this have happened? American media and intelligence agencies became desperate to figure this out. It could not be that facts and logic had convinced the US soldiers that killing millions of Koreans in the hopes of crushing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was mistaken. The US war that resulted in mass death and destruction had to be logical, ethical, and moral. So, how could wholesome American GIs who were taken prisoner have possibly been convinced otherwise? What sinister evil magic had the Asian Communists utilized to manipulate the minds of their captives?

It is worth noting that even a US Army General was captured during the Korean War, and even this General, William F. Dean, returned from captivity in a 1953 Prisoner exchange, filled with utter demoralization and confusion about the war. In his 1973 autobiography William F. Dean described Communist journalist Wilfred Burchett as his friend, and spoke very positively of his captors. He said he was unworthy of the Medal of Honor saying “I wouldn’t have awarded myself a wooden star for what I did as a commander.”

In the 1950s and 60s, the concept of brainwashing found its way into popular culture. The term itself is a translation, or mistranslation of a Chinese phrase used by Communist organizers. Films like “The Manchurian Candidate” popularized the concept. Americans were trained to believe that if someone espouses anti-capitalist or anti-imperialist ideas, this is because they have become the victim of some kind of magical communist mind control. Popular wisdom was that not only should Marxists and anti-war voices in US society be ignored, but it is best to avoid being around them. If one becomes to close to them, one could become a victim of “brainwashing” themselves, and soon have one’s mind programmed to believe in communist deceptions.

As the Mccarthyist hysteria faded, the concept of brainwashing seemed to fit the emerging Cold War liberalism like a glove. Fascism and Communism were “the same thing” to voices like Rod Sterling and Lester Crane. America was said to be superior because it did not ideologically train its population, and the state did not impose its beliefs on the population.

Science Fiction vs. Fact

The popularization of the concept accompanied decades of psychological research by intelligence agencies. A slew of published academic works like “The Mind Possessed” by William Sargant or “Coercive Persuasion” by Edgar Schein circulated, attempting to explain the phenomenon. Robert Jay Lifton became the academic guru of “mind control” and “brainwashing” studies.

While academics pushed the myth, the texts of their work don’t actually describe the stuff of science fiction and horror movies. What the books describe is basically the concept of “suggestibility,” arguing that people in groups tends to conform to what other people in the group are doing. Furthermore, practices that have been employed by religious groups since the beginning of time, such as chanting, singing, and repeating mantras can serve the purpose of imprinting concepts into people’s minds. The various studies of suggestibility point out that the most “brainwashable” people tend to be the most psychologically healthy, while the least “brainwashable” tend to be those who are mentally ill.

The picture that emerges from these works is not of a sinister, mystical method that reduces people to obedient zombies. It is rather one of social conformity, driven by heightened states of emotion. William Sargant wrote: “Suggestibility is in fact one of the essential characteristics of being normal. A normal person is responsive to other people around him, cares about what they think of him, and is reasonably open to their influence. If the great majority of people were not normally suggestible, we could not live together in society at all, we could not live together in society at all…. From the Stone Age to Hitler, to the Beatles and the modern ‘pop culture’, the brain of man has constantly been swayed by the same physiological techniques. Reason is dethroned, the normal brain computer is temporarily put out of action, and new ideas and beliefs are uncritically accepted.”

Trying to out-brainwash the brainwashers…

The work of Steve Hassan, a respected expert on “Cult Mind Control” who is a former follower of Korean anti-communist fanatic Rev. Sun Myung Moon, argues that during the Cold War era, tactics utilized by Chinese Communists to “reform the thoughts” of prisoners and dissidents were adopted by a variety of different forces. Hasan is an outspoken liberal pundit whose book describing “Cult Mind Control” was a best-seller in 1988. After quitting Moon’s organization, Hasan admits he was involved in kidnapping other members and forcibly “de-programming” them during the 1970s.

Hassan openly admits that his former leader, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, was most likely tied to American intelligence agencies. In his October 2019 interview with Jordan Harbringer he said: “Post World War Two, Korean war… South Korea was very unstable. North Korea is a version of what it is today… And some people in military intelligence in the United States decided, ‘Well, the North Koreans are brainwashing, we need to create a program in South Korea to stabilize the regime. They taught the South Korean President, ‘You need to set up a Korean CIA, we’ll help you’ and they set up a re-education program for dissidents in South Korea, and they decided to use a front person, so it was not looking like a government operation, and it was the Moonies that was chosen to do that… The Moonies had, nobody knows why or how, the patents for manufacturing M16 Rifles and other American military hardware. Why? Because America was leaving Vietnam. Still the height of the Cold War, we have to stop the Commies. And then somebody said ‘Let’s bring the Moonies to the United States and set up counter communist programs on college campuses’ and that’s where I got recruited… I was sent to fast for Nixon during Watergate, because God loves Nixon, God wants Nixon. The US government has never acknowledged the existence of these things. They don’t want to talk about it.”

The fact that the fanatical anti-Communists of the Unification Church received backing from Japanese, South Korean, and American intelligence is a matter of public record. This was revealed in 1977 in testimony before the Subcommittee on International Organizations of the Committee on International Relations of the US House of Representatives. It seems that in the hopes of defeating Communists, who they believed were brainwashing people, the US government and allies were themselves actively trying to brainwash people.

However, the Rev. Moon’s Unification Church deflects the allegations of ex-members and academics like Steven Hassan by pointing out that thousands of people have spent introductory weekends at Unification Church facilities and undergone their “thought reform” style rituals, but never joined the organization.

The same thing could be said for Mao Zedong’s Chinese Communist Party. While the Chinese Communist Party greatly expanded in membership, millions of Chinese people quit or resigned from the party during the 1920s and 30s when its supposed methods of “brainwashing” were being engineered. In fact, many factions that opposed Mao Zedong and the Communist Party’s general line emerged within the party itself. Internal turmoil and factionalism was a plague on organization, and continued to be even after the Communist Party took power in 1949. From the Hundred Flowers campaign, to the Cultural Revolution, to the arrest of the Gang of Four, the Chinese Communist Party has never been an organization of drones all adhering to the same beliefs and blindly following the leader. The Chinese Communist Party has been able to present a unified face to the world and mobilize the country to carry out great tasks, but this has always been extremely difficult. The notion that its power is rooted in some kind Hollywood “brainwashing” is downright laughable to anyone familiar with Chinese history.

In contemporary China, where the Communist Party is in power, it is very clear that it does not have a complete monopoly influencing the mind of the public. Dissident groups are widespread. Catholicism and other forms of Christianity, something the Communist Party opposes, have grown in China since the 1980s, driving China and the Holy See to reach an official agreement in 2018.

Nothing Worth Dying For?

The most interesting aspect of the evolving myth of “brainwashing” is that American political entities are now weaponizing it against each other. The most blatant example of this was in 2006, when the documentary film Jesus Camp circulated US television. The film was nominated for Best Documentary at the Oscars. The film portrayed “Kids on Fire School of Ministry,” a charismatic evangelical Christian facility in North Dakota, where children are trained to help “take back America for Christ.” The film leads viewers to the conclusion that George W. Bush and Christian right-wing are “brainwashing” children in order to achieve their political goals.

Now, in 2019, Steve Hassan announced he is working on a book utilizing his knowledge and studies of “brainwashing” to expose the “mind control” methods of US President Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Trump’s supporters largely believe that critics of the US President have been “brainwashed” by Fake News.

As US society becomes less stable and more chaotic, with a clear lack of any unifying vision, one wonders if the intentionally fomented paranoid opposition to “suggestibility” and the emphasis on “thinking for yourself” is not playing a role in the gradual decline of western society. After all, if one believes that it is better to have children who cannot find their country on a map, than to have children who can find it, and are raised to live life for a larger purpose, what is the point of fighting for one’s country? What is worth sacrificing for?

Is belief that there is no truth and upholding individualism above all else something that will elicit passion? Can post-modernism and supposed “free thinking” really function as the glue to hold a society together? The answer is: doubtful.

Robert Smith is an independent American researcher and analyst that specializes in social psychology and conflict resolution. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Ненависть к “промывке мозгов” – главная характеристика общественного сознания в США?

Роберт Смит — Wed, 15 Jan 2020 20:00:34 +0000

Как отмечает в своей статье независимый американский аналитик Роберт Смит, мысль о том, что Америка является самым лучшим государством на Земле, повторяется всеми средствами массовой информации в Соединенных Штатах по сто раз на дню.

При этом данные заявления всегда голословны и лишены какого-либо логического обоснования или упоминания объективных данных.

Однако если попробовать поинтересоваться у американца, чем же его страна так хороша, это, скорее всего, вызовет у него отвращение к человеку, задающему вопрос, поскольку в США принято сторониться тех, кому “промыли мозги”, а то не ровен час, можно ведь каким-нибудь образом это “опасное заболевание” и подхватить.

Любопытно, что такое понятие, как “промывание мозгов”, начало вводиться в общественное сознание в США в годы Корейской войны, чтобы затем укрепиться там в годы войны во Вьетнаме. В то время сотрудники ЦРУ находились в панике, потому что все больше и больше американских солдат заявляли, что они не желают больше поддерживать западный неоколониализм и империализм. А это ставило американскую пропаганду перед сложным вопросом: что говорить про этих людей всему остальному американскому населению?

После непродолжительных раздумий было решено заявить, что эти солдаты (и даже несколько генералов) пали жертвой “промывания мозгов” со стороны коммунистов противника, как если бы сотрудники ЦРУ и правда полагали, что северокорейские и вьетнамские партийные работники обладали какой-то магией, воздействующей на сознание людей.

Более того, пытаясь предотвратить стремительное распространение антиимпериалистических настроений в западном обществе в пятидесятые годы прошлого века, ЦРУ начало создавать различные религиозные секты в Южной Корее, чтобы затем экспортировать эту технологию в США.

Любопытно, что если американцу показать фотографию советских или китайских пионеров, то она вызовет у них отвращение, поскольку идеологическое образование и ощущения своей причастности к чему-то большему, чем ты сам – это, с точки зрения американца, проделки все той же страшной черной магии “промывания мозгов”.

При этом большинство молодых американцев, которые не могут не только найти на карте те страны, с которыми Вашингтон воюет, но и свою собственную, продолжают верить, что их убеждения – это результат их собственного выбора, несмотря на то, что работающие рука об руку c ЦРУ западные СМИ ни на секунду не снижают своего прессинга.

С полной версией статьи вы можете ознакомиться здесь.

The Science Behind Snowflakes & The Danger of Over-Socialization

Роберт Смит — Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:41:28 +0000

The millennial generation of Americans is often mocked for perceived emotional weakness and insecurity. What critics of liberal “safe space” culture often do not notice is that in addition to being less emotionally stable, younger Americans are also much more effectively manipulated and psychologically controlled.

“Every kid gets a trophy!” begins the favorite rant of many middle-American conservatives. It is a mantra echoed in Amy Chau’s best-selling book “Battle Hymn of a Tiger Mom.” It was repeated in a FOX news TV segment that alleged that children’s TV star Fred Rogers of “ruined a generation of kids” by telling them “you’re special just the way you are.”

Gripes about “Generation Snowflake” seem to everywhere in the western world these days. The term “snowflake” has been picked up to describe these attributes of the younger generation. Urban Dictionary defines this slang term as “a putdown for someone, usually on the political left, who are easily offended or felt they needed a “safe space” away from the harsh realities of the world, but now has morphed into a general putdown for anyone that complains about any subject.”

There is a strong feeling that the lack of harsh consequences and setbacks has made the next generation of Americans into a whiny group of insecure brats who can’t handle adversity and demand “safe spaces” when faced with too much hardship in the world.

The feeling that American children are not punished harshly enough is echoed around the world. An op-ed in China’s Global Times commented: “In American vernacular, the term “generation snowflake” describes millennials with “glass-like hearts” who feel overwhelmed by academic or professional stresses. I’m curious if this term would have ever been invented had the parents of these “snowflakes” simply put them over their knee every once and while for a good, hard caning.”

But perhaps something else is underlying this perceived character flaw of young Americans, other than merely a society-wide weariness with “tough love” and over-willingness to praise. Perhaps it is simply a more effective means of controlling people.

B.F. Skinner, the Harvard psychologist, became famous for developing the science of behaviorism. He studied how to manipulate and control the behavior of animals and people. One thing his research was very clear on is that reward is far more effective than punishment in controlling people.

Why? The reason is simple. A punished person can often feel like a victim, resent the punisher, and not modify or even examine their behavior.

Long before Skinner’s research, the famed self-help pioneer Dale Carnegie wrote about this in his text “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” He described how the prisons are full of violent criminals who honestly believe they have done nothing wrong, and that they are simply the victim of unfair circumstances.

However, very few people are reluctant to believe something good about themselves. Human beings naturally long for the approval and affection of others. So, praise and a reward of any type immediately affects a person’s behavior. However, beyond affecting their behavior, a reward also impacts their mind. A person being rewarded or praised tends to absorb readily the message of the person rewarding or praising them.

Meanwhile, a reward’s absence or withdrawn affection can often be arranged in a way that the person does not feel like a victim. Rather, the person will begin examining and adjusting their own behavior in the desperate hope of making the reward or praise return.

Over-Socialization

Human beings are social and tribal creatures and naturally long for the approval of others. Being rejected by others causes human beings emotional pain while being accepted fills them with joy.

However, defining one’s individuality, on whatever scale a given society expects, is part of the human experience as well. We all want to believe we are special in some way and celebrate some unique aspect of ourselves.

Social media, be it Facebook, Twitter or Instagram has effectively manipulated both of these seemingly contradictory aspects of the human mind and its relationship to others. On social media, people can post pictures of their personal achievements, everyday life events, and pour out their hearts about their own viewpoint on whatever issue they want to address.

However, every post is followed up with anticipation to see how many “likes” and “shares” it receives. While social media allows us to flaunt our individuality, it also makes us more vulnerable than ever to needing validation from others.

With the constant handing out of seemingly unearned stickers by Kindergarten teachers, in addition to the constant check to see how many “likes” they are receiving from their peers, the need for the validation of others has made American youth particularly afraid to step out of line.

In fact, the “call out culture” of internet Social Justice Warriors is the opposite of the kind of the left-wing activism glorified in the past. Rather than challenging social norms, the young internet activists select an attribute widely perceived to be bad (racism, sexism, homophobia) and then seek to get likes and praise from others by lambasting it in creative and over the top ways.

If anything, SJWism is a kind of “creative conformity” by young people accepting a list of rules assigned to them by their teachers and the mainstream media, and trying to show off how obedient they are in enforcing it or applying it against a widely unnoticed violator.

Curbing Heroism to Control The Mind

Those who attended schools that employed corporal punishment will often reminisce about how the practice sometimes had the opposite of its intended effect. The students who were bold enough to break the rules and face a paddling were often held in admiration by the other students for how “tough” and “brave” they were. In fact, some recall that among athletic young men, getting “licks” became almost a rite of passage, and teenage boys who never misbehaved enough to get a beating from their coach or principal were viewed as cowardly.

Beyond the schoolyard antics, however, admiration for those who were strong enough to willingly endure punishment or the disapproval of others seems to have been deeply important to the history of human civilization. Each nation has its celebrated martyrs who gave their lives for future generations. Saints like Joan of Arc are admired for their total non-conformity, wearing men’s clothes, saying they heard the voice of God, leading soldiers into battle and ultimately being burned at the stake.

The symbol of the Christian faith is the cross on which Christ was executed by authority figures who deemed him to be a dangerous non-conformist who disregarded religious orthodoxy of his time.

The great heroes of the past have not been those who merely enforced the rules and expectations of the society around them in creative, over the top ways that got celebrated. The heroes of the past have been non-conformists, who challenged widespread assumptions, broke existing social norms, enraged authorities figures, and society at large, all in order to bring a higher, but unknown truth into the wider consciousness.

The way a generation of Americans has been reduced to constantly seeking the approval of others has, in a way, deprived them of the ability to be heroic. Reducing the potential for heroism among the population is something that the leaders of any existing social order would most likely prefer. Why? One aspect of all of history’s greatest heroes has been their displacing of ineffective or hypocritical leaders and challenging of the status quo.

While the western world presents itself as honoring “human rights” and not repressing its opponents with violence, it seems to have pioneered a method for controlling not only the actions but the very thoughts of the population.

The Super-Hero Fantasy

The fact that younger Americans pile in to see re-make after re-make, telling of some masked nonconformist “superhero” with an unknown identity, who just doesn’t fit in with society, and uses their “superpowers” to help the innocent, is very telling.

The superheroes of the silver screen are doing something that younger Americans subconsciously long for the ability to do. The typical action superhero feels they do not fit in with society. They acquire some abnormal ability, and with it, they do bold things, violating the laws and social norms, taking great risks, in order to defeat forces of evil and carry out acts of great good.

It is worth noting that Superhero films tend to have strong principles and clear villains, not post-modern ambiguity. Increasingly, moral relativism has leaked into society, and even the concept of “good” and “evil” itself has been robbed from the younger generation. But yet, this popular genre of film celebrates a mindset that academia urges us to cast aside. In our world of moral relativism, the script of action, superhero flicks screams out “right and wrong DO exist!”

Within their conformity, political correctness, and emotional weakness, a deep conservatism seems to flow through young Americans. Beneath it all, they hold a deep desire to become heroic, an attribute, once far more common, that the current social order has deprived them of.

Their rallying in support political underdogs like Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard, and their willingness to embrace “conspiracy theories,” if only in private, shows that on some level, the “over-socialization” has not completely eroded a basic human desire to stand for some kind of truth.

Robert Smith is an independent American researcher and analyst that specializes in social psychology and conflict resolution. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Стоит ли издеваться над американским “поколением снежинок”?

Роберт Смит — Wed, 20 Mar 2019 20:41:28 +0000

Как отмечает в своей статье независимый американский аналитик Роберт Смит, подрастающее поколение миллениалов в США, которое насмешливо называют “снежинками” за их эмоциональную нестабильность и потребность в постоянной валидации, сегодня находится в центре политического дискурса в США.

Оно и понятно, попытки отпочковавшегося от миллениалов так называемого “Движения за социальную справделивость”, выступающего за увольнение представителей среднего класса с занимаемых должностей и последующую их замену лесбиянками, трансгендерами и геями всех оттенков кожи, вне зависимости от их компетенции, вызывает чувство сродни острой зубной боли у американских “работяг”. Обсуждение данной проблемы достигло таких пропорций, что её начали активно муссировать китайские СМИ, заявляя, что “надо было пороть сильнее испорченных американских гаденышей”.

И как бы странно это не звучало, какая-то доля правды в этом есть, отмечает автор. Только вот совсем не та, которую имеет в виду Пекин. Опытные психологи не раз отмечали, что любая форма наказания, тем более физического, может привести к непредсказуемой реакции со стороны наказуемого. С другой стороны, реакция человека, который регулярно слышит похвалу, хорошо планируема и предсказуема – так устроен человеческий мозг.

Однако сегодня западные социальные сети придали позитивной валидации количественное значение, которое выражается в форме лайков и репостов того или иного материала. Именно по этой причине, так называемые “борцы за социальную справедливость” ищут признаки дискриминации там, где их нет, чтобы вытащить их на свет людской и получить заветное “поощрение.”

Но подобная система полностью искореняет все предпосылки к появлению бунтарей, а именно они, если верить истории, всегда шли впереди научного и социального прогресса человеческой цивилизации. Только вот Вашингтону бунтари не нужны. Ему нужны “послушные овечки”, не способные на подвиг, чего он весьма успешно добивается с использованием современных средств связи.

С полной версией статьи вы можете ознакомиться здесь.

What’s Behind Hollywood & CIA’s Love for Black Power?

Роберт Смит — Sat, 02 Mar 2019 05:10:18 +0000

Anyone who watched the 2019 Academy Awards Ceremony could not help but notice a big emphasis on the African-American Community and its history. Meanwhile, as the Oscar Ceremony was taking place, the US Central Intelligence Agency began highlighting the film “Black Panther” on its twitter page. Back in 2016, the world saw a performance at the halftime show of the Superbowl that paid homage to the Black Panther Party. A naive leftist prefers to say “look, we have made so much progress” and “look what the movement has accomplished.”

However, those with more political depth realize that the major US TV networks, Hollywood, and the CIA have not simply awakened to become more racially conscious. In reality, a sinister manipulation of the Black Power movement and racial resentment is being carried out in order to serve the interests of certain sections of the US power structure.

Black Power in the Old & New Cold War

The year of 1955 is rather pivotal in the history of African-Americans in the United States. It is the year that Emitt Till, a young Black man, was brutally murdered for allegedly whistling at a white woman. It is also the year when the Montgomery Bus Boycott demanding equal access to public transportation began in Alabama, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. became a national figure.

1955, when talk of changing the treatment of African Americans and enacting civil rights legislation was finally allowed to permeate the national conversation, was also shortly after the death of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, but prior to the rise of Khrushchev at the 20th Party Congress in 1956.

The Soviet Union had utilized the image of Emitt Till’s mutilated body for propaganda purposes, showing the USA to be hypocritical in its critique of Communism. The Soviet-aligned Communist Party USA had long stood alone in championing African-Americans, and many prominent black activists including W.E.B. Dubois, Paul Robeson, Claudia Jones, and Bayard Rustin had been associated with it.

The northern wing of the Democratic Party began openly championing civil rights in the hopes of improving the image of the United States around the world, and securing the loyalty of Black Americans to the US power structure. There was intense fear that African Americans would side with the Communists in the event of a national emergency or invasion, and these fears intensified when Robert F. Williams “Radio Free Dixie” began broadcasting calls for Black revolution into the southern United States from Cuba.

The northern liberals clashed with the southern “dixiecrat” wing of their own party, as well as the Republicans. The power of television was key in swaying public opinion in opposition to Jim Crow system and in favor of the Federal Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws passed in the early 1960s.

However, after the Civil Rights laws were passed, Black activism escalated. Martin Luther King Jr. began advocating economic reforms and organized a “poor people’s campaign” prior to his assassination. Civil Rights activist Stokely Carmichael began openly championing the concept of “Black Power” and the political empowerment of African Americans. The Black Panther Party emerged as a Marxist-Leninist organization, putting the Black movement into the context of third world anti-colonial uprisings.

The “Post-Racial” Era

The Nixon administration enabled the FBI to crush the Black Panther Party and the more militant elements of the Black nationalist movement, whereas his predecessors under Kennedy and Johnson had favored a more conciliatory approach. However, Nixon also enacted affirmative action policies in federal hiring and beginning in the 1970s, and efforts to include Black Americans in TV programs, government jobs, and other previous un-penetrated areas took place.

Throughout the 1980s and 90s, the mantra of the US government became one of “getting over racial divisions” and “learning to be colorblind.” Both Democrats and Republicans echoed a mantra of anti-racism, though Republicans tended to use “dogwhistles” about “forced bussing” and “welfare mothers” in order to win the support of resentful whites.

Figures like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton operated on the margins of the Democratic Party as public figures championing their people within a broader, liberal coalition. Various Black conservatives also emerged, such as US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

The Obama Presidency seemed to be the climax of the mantra of “post-racialism.” Barrack Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign involved the widely hailed “More Perfect Union” speech that seemed to argue that racist whites and resentful Blacks both had legitimate grievances, but Obama would make “one America” where all would live in harmony and prosperity.

However, by the time Obama had left office, racial strife had reached levels unseen since the 1970s. The murder of Trayvon Martin, the rioting in Ferguson, Missouri, the slogan “Black Lives Matter” and the rioting in Baltimore, Maryland, showed that the Obama presidency failed overwhelmingly in its stated goal of creating “one America.”

Trump’s Presidential Campaign in 2016 specifically pandered to whites who feel that the Obama administration and the Black movement is a personal affront to them. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party ran TV ads linking Trump to the Ku Klux Klan and White Supremacists, and the allegation that Trump is fascist, Nazi, or white nationalists seems to be a prevalent theme among left-wing TV programming and media.

Spike Lee’s World View

The film “Blackkklansmen” directed by Spike Lee was widely celebrated at the 2019 Academy Awards, and Lee’s acceptance speech was seen as a pivotal moment in the ceremony. Lee’s film tells the story of a young Black police officer who works as an informer, spying on Black radicals in Denver, Colorado. The officer then begins infiltrating the KKK, and speaking with Grand Wizard David Duke over the phone,.

The only non-racist white person in the film is Jewish. At one point, he tells the Black officer that observing the Ku Klux Klan has forced him to truly reckon with his Jewish identity. The Black officer is able to move up in the police force through his work against the Klan, and is able to punish a particularly racist officer who had earlier mistreated him.

The message of the film is pretty simple. Black people face a huge threat from lumpen, impoverished white people who are inherently racist to their core. The answer is for Blacks to get jobs inside of the government, cooperate with federal agencies and Zionists, in order to fight off the imminent threat poised by impoverished whites.

The film is the height of anti-populism. The notion that the poor whites could be allies against the capitalist ruling class, a common theme in Marxist and Leftist rhetoric from times past, has been completely abandoned. The notion is that all victories for Black people come at the expense of poor whites and vice-versa. Black people should prove that they are more effective allies for the Federal government and Zionists than low-income whites are. The hope is that the federal government can be purged from a kind of racist conspiracy from within that has damaged it.

This worldview very much explains the thinking of certain factions of the American ruling class. They see Trump’s rallying of low-income whites and his opposition to globalist trade deals as a threat. They likewise see Trump’s support among Immigration officers, local cops, gun owners, and other sections of society as dangerous.

The hope of one section of the ruling elite, is to use the Black community as a battering ram, to beat down Trump’s right-wing populist movement, and secure the ruling of international corporations.

Just as Trump has used poor whites and their grievances and vehicle to push the agenda of his backers, Trump’s rivals see Black people as their own vehicle, to beat him back. As Hollywood and the CIA give voice the grievances of the Black community while demonizing poor whites as “fascists” seems to be fully on board with this project.

The War Against Black Nationalism

However, one key barrier in recruiting the Black movement as foot soldiers for a section of the American ruling elite has been Black Nationalism. While Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and other “civil rights” leaders have been accepted by US media, Minister Louis Farrakhan has always been scorned. He is deemed to be Anti-Semitic, “hateful” and “reverse racist.” The Nation of Islam, the New Black Panther Party, the All African People’s Socialist Party, the Uhuru Movement, and other Black Nationalists see the US Federal Government and capitalist system as their enemy.

So, at the same time that Hollywood, CIA, CNN, and other mainstream voices celebrate the very issues they have organized around for decades, they are simultaneously opening up an attack on these Black Nationalist leaders. Minister Louis Farrakhan was subject to an all-out attack following his “Savior’s Day” gathering in Detroit in 2017. Leaders of the anti-Trump women’s march were criticized by CNN and other outlets simply for attending the event and listening to Farrakhan’s words. Farrakhan’s recent visit to the Islamic Republic of Iran was also utilized to unleash scorn on him.

Black Lives Matter Inc., a non-profit linked to George Soros, has been established, it seems, almost for the purpose of pushing Black Nationalists and Communists out of the spotlight.

Let us not forget that the movie “Black Panther,” celebrated by the CIA’s tweets on Oscar Night 2019, featured heroes who team up with the CIA and fly drones. The villain in Black Panther is not a white racist, but a Black radical named “Killmonger” who seeks to unleash a global anti-colonial revolution.

Much like Spike Lee’s recent film, the message of Black Panther is that the hope of African-Americans lies in proving themselves to be effective tools within the US government apparatus.

Class Solidarity: The Missing Element

Low-income whites and Blacks in the United States have been effectively whipsawed against each other. The message from the establishment, both its left and right wings, is that they should compete for the affection of the ruling elite. Whites and Blacks should both prove that they are best cops, soldiers, and loyalists in order to win the affection of the ruling class, and be enabled to use the government to suppress the other.

Trump supporters tend to advocate policies that would crush African-Americans. Democrats increasingly tend to see low-income whites as “entitled” and “arrogant” people full of white privilege who deserve to be poorer.

To even use the phrase “white working class” is considered to be “fascist” by liberal activists. To acknowledge that racial discrimination or worse conditions exist among African-Americans is met with disgust among Trump supporters.

At one point in US history, the message of populist forces was not that whites and Blacks could only gain at the expense of the other. Rather, the message was that racism and the repression of African Americans was a tool of the ruling capitalist class. The message was that white workers would advance their own conditions by aligning with the Black workers.

This Marxist-Leninist interpretation of the Black question in America has largely been replaced with theories of “White Skin Privilege,” post-modernism, and identity politics. As a result, two big sections of US society seem to be being mobilized to be even more hostile to each other, both used as pawns in a fight among an elite, which gains from the expense of both.

Robert Smith is an independent American researcher and analyst that specializes in social psychology and conflict resolution. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Зачем ЦРУ готовит черное восстание в США?

Роберт Смит — Sat, 02 Mar 2019 05:10:18 +0000

Как отмечает в своей статье независимый американский аналитик Роберт Смит, в пятидесятых годах прошлого века бесчеловечное обращение с чернокожими в США стало оружием в руках советских журналистов, которые получили возможность доказать всему миру, что так называемые “демократические идеалы”, провозглашаемые Вашингтоном, ничего не стоят.

Чувствуя международную поддержку, представители зарождающегося в США черного движения начали продвигать в США коммунистические идеи, которые до этого отторгались американским обществом благодаря массированной антикоммунистической пропаганде в американских СМИ. Это привело к тому, что в конце пятидесятых годов американские спецслужбы начали всерьез рассуждать о возможности коммунистического восстания в США, либо же о массовой поддержке черным населением оккупационных сил в случае вторжения в Соединенные Штаты иностранного агрессора.

Следствием этого стали перемены в государственной политике Вашингтона, которая теперь должна была наглядно показать, что никакой расовой дискриминации в Америке нет и быть не может, а потому представителям всех рас якобы предоставляются равные права.

Своего апогея данная политика достигла после избрания Барака Обамы, когда первый черный президент США на протяжении двух сроков не делал ничего для улучшения реального положения дел афроамериканцев. Эта политика завершилась волной массовых восстаний в отдельных американских городах, на подавление которых у полиции ушла не одна неделя.

Как до этого уже писали авторы НВО, реальной политической силой в США обладают не партии, а спецслужбы, которые напрямую влияют на ход американской политической жизни. Только если ФБР пытается избавиться от Трампа путем расследования его сомнительных решений в бизнесе, то ЦРУ сегодня решила устроить в США черное восстание, направленное на подавление электоральной базы Трампа – представителей белой бедноты или так называемого “белого мусора”.

Проявилось это в спонсировании фильма “Чёрный клановец”, который данное разведывательное управление начало рекламировать в своем Твиттере сразу же после получения им Оскара, что, как можно себе представить, тоже не было случайно.

Не вдаваясь в подробности сюжета данной кинокартины, мы четко видим, какой месседж противники Трампа хотят донести до своей аудитории: тот, кто будет лучше всего “стучать” на своего врага, получит больше всего благ от американского правительства.

В итоге, отмечает автор, мы наблюдаем использование двух сегментов самого бедного слоя американского общества в борьбе американских политических элит, и насилие может начаться уже завтра.

Вот к чему приводит отсутствие солидарности трудящихся.

С полной версией статьи вы можете ознакомиться здесь.

American Liberalism vs. Scientology – A Strange Fight

Роберт Смит — Sat, 12 Jan 2019 11:32:12 +0000

The US media’s campaign to expose the Church of Scientology, while pointing to very ugly truths about the organization, also points toward the problematic outlook of the cynical liberal establishment.

Detractors of Marxism long accused it of being a secular religion. They pointed to its rites, holy books, and mission to save humanity and declared that it was merely an attempt recreate spiritual fervor around a secular doctrine. While the defenders of Marxism would respond to such accusations by insisting that Marxism is scientific and not an “opiate of the masses,” the Church of Scientology seems to be exactly what Marxism is accused of being. It is legally established as a church, and its followers openly describe it as a religion, despite the fact that it does not claim to worship any deity, and frames its teachings as scientific.

L. Ron Hubbard, the Science Fiction writer and former Naval Intelligence Officer started his religion in the aftermath of the Second World War. Hubbard presented his teachings as a form of psychotherapy or personal wellness training, but those who paid enough money and became more deeply involved, eventually learned a complex system of beliefs involving the souls of deceased extra-terrestrial beings, reincarnation, among other things.

The organization was started in California, and in the seven decades of its existence, it has made significant inroads into Hollywood. John Travolta, Tom Cruise, Will Smith, among other celebrities, openly stump for Scientology, claiming it has changed their lives for the better and has a noble mission in the world.

Too Much Power in Hollywood

It appears that Scientology has become too powerful and influential, and ruffled the feathers of powerful people. The actress Leah Remini has been given a platform to launch a media campaign against the organization. As an ex-scientologist herself, Remini has dedicated herself to highlighting the stories of ex-members and exposing the internal horrors and predatory nature of this powerful institution.

Remini’s work highlights some sinister practices. Scientologists are told to cut ties with their families. Child abuse appears to have taken place. Efforts to silence critics of the church have been extreme, allegedly evening crossing into criminal acts. Critics of the church point out that the organization’s activities appear to be centered around manipulating the psychological trauma of its practitioners in order to financially exploit them. The Church functions almost like a pyramid scheme, financially incentivizing members to recruit other members.

However, as the mainstream media takes aim at Scientology for its very obvious flaws, most of which were very apparent to those who have directly interacted with the group, American liberalism seems to be revealing its own ugly agenda.

For example, a great deal of the criticism of Scientology, such as the 2015 documentary “Going Clear” seems to focus on the personality of David Miscavige. Miscavige, who is the most powerful person in scientology following the death of L. Ron Hubbard holds the title of “Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology Center.” Books, films, and TV programs condemning Scientology seem to focus primarily on portraying Miscavige as a dangerous psychopath. The implication seems to be “this man has too much power,” not only over the members of his church, but among influential people in American media.

It should also be noted that the Church of Scientology has entered an alliance of sorts with the Black Nationalist organization known as the Nation of Islam. Minister Louis Farrakhan, who leads one of the largest Black activist groups in the USA, and was an outspoken critic of the US bombing of Libya, now openly defends the Church of Scientology. The Nation of Islam is vocally supportive of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Bolivarian governments of Latin America.

The alliance between Scientology and the Nation of Islam became public knowledge in 2012, though closed meetings and negotiations had taken place for some time. It should be noted that the attacks on Scientology seemed to escalate at approximately the same time its alliance with this important Black activist group was solified.

“It reminded me a lot of Communism!”

At this point, Scientology’s influence seems to be waning in the face of the public relations efforts, as the very real skeletons in its closest are presented before the public. But where does that leave us?

When American TV host Bill Maher interviewed Leah Remini he remarked: “It always sticks with me… you said when you go to a Scientology event, and you look in the parking lot, every one of the cars is a cheap, shitty old car, because Scientology sucks all the money out of all of them… It reminded me a lot of Communism! Because, in Communism, first of all, you’re poor, they take all your money, and the snitching on each other. Everybody is watching each other.”

It seems pretty clear that Bill Maher doesn’t understand Marxism. Prior to 1917, very few automobiles existed in Russia. It was only due to the leadership of the Communist Party that the USSR became a world industrial superpower, with paved roads full of automobiles. China had very few automobiles prior to 1949, and now today it the world’s largest car market. China imports a large number of luxury cars from the United States, and now leads the world in manufacturing New Energy Vehicles that run without fossil fuels. The outspoken “New Atheist” Bill Maher seems deeply offended that people would make sacrifices for a cause, live by a moral code, and place any principles or ideals above personal financial gain.

Much like the activists who tear down Confederate monuments in the US South, the opponents of Scientology have selected a very hate-able foe who none but a small, fanatical minority would defend.

However, much like those who tear down Confederate monuments, the main voices attacking Scientology seem to view all truths, all morals, and all causes as somehow being problematic, not simply the ones they are attacking. Post-modernism views all who burn with passion as easily manipulated suckers. It views all prophets and preachers as con-men, and all moral codes as fraudulent. It wants all statues torn down, all belief systems dismantled so the post-modern world of selfish individualism and cynicism can triumph.

It is the ascendency of this kind of thinking that leaves westerners in the state of confusion, feeling that their life has no purpose. It is widely understood that this post-modern hopelessness has spawned so much of the anti-social activity in our contemporary world. Yet, despite its real flaws, it is this cynical selfish American liberalism that seems to define the western world in our time.

Robert Smith is an independent American researcher and analyst that specializes in social psychology and conflict resolution. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Церковь саентологии против неолиберализма – нелицеприятное зрелище

Роберт Смит — Sat, 12 Jan 2019 11:32:12 +0000

Как отмечает в своей статье независимый американский аналитик Роберт Смит, после того как по окончанию Второй мировой войны один из её ветеранов по имени Лафайет Рональд Хаббард основал движение саентологии, он сам и его детище мало заботило американское правительство. Более того, изначально само движение более всего напоминало группу психологической самопомощи и лишь позже, тем его представителям, кто вложил в него большего всего денег, было открыто, что его основатель верил во внеземной разум и перерождение.

Так и зародилась церковь саентологии, которая, несмотря на то, что она имела все признаки религиозной секты, оставалась вне поля зрения американского правительства до наших дней, даже несмотря на тот факт, что многие влиятельные люди стали её адептами.

Лишь когда в 2012 году церковь саентологии вступила в союз с набирающим силу в США черным движением Нация ислама, которое выступает за прекращение военных похождений США по всему миру и, в особенности, на Ближнем Востоке. С этого момента церковь саентологии стала предметом бесконечных нападок со стороны западных СМИ, которые не столько фокусировались на тех недостатках, которые можно отметить в любой религиозной секте (таких как: обнищание её последователей и случаях сексуального насилия), сколько на мысли о “непозволительном количестве влияния”, которым обладает её нынешний лидер Дэвид Мискавидж.

Однако данное противостояние позволяет не только взглянуть на церковь саентологии под новым углом, но и подвергнуть критической оценке нападающий на неё западный неолиберализм.

Так, можно отметить, что неолибералисты нападают на любую группу людей, которая во что-то верит, высмеивая идеалы этой группы, её традиции, после чего неизбежно сравнивают её представителей с коммунистами, даже когда между ними нет ничего общего. Очевидно, что западные неолибералисты выступают против любых убеждений, верований или принципов, которые могут объединять людей, поскольку единственным идеалом для них является власть денег, которых, конечно же, у них значительно больше, чем у всех остальных.

С полной версией статьи вы можете ознакомиться здесь.