The Collectivist Mind Game, Part 1: Demonizing the Non-Compliant

The Collectivist Mind Game, Part 1: Demonizing the Non-Compliant

 

By Oleg Atbashian

FROM The American Thinker January 22, 2013 

 

In the libertarian sci-fi classic, "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress," Robert A. Heinlein describes a successful revolution of the individualistic, free-market-oriented residents of the Moon against the Earth's tyrannical big government. The ins and outs of agitating and organizing the masses to fight the oppressive Authority feel just as realistic as the finer points of everyday life in the underground Lunar cities of the future.

 

 

The proposed revolutionary scenario could even serve as a workable model for similar real-life endeavors, if only the renowned futurist author hadn't neglected to factor in the immanent function of any oppressive regime: systemic brainwashing of its subjects through the media, education, and entertainment channels.

 

 

If the tyrants on Earth were worth their salt, all the freedom-loving colonists would be subjected to an intense, manipulative indoctrination, which would shape their self-image as small and sinful "little guys" vis-à-vis the powerful, virtuous government that serves the powerless and protects them against all enemies, including themselves.

 

 

Thus, the government's propagandistic narrative would establish the illusion of a society divided into three major classes: the ruling government class, endowed with benevolent powers to guide or punish; the majority class of hapless losers, whose survival depended on the government's largesse and protection; and an unquantifiable class of demonized mysterious enemies of the government and, by extension, of the people, who would be the perceived culprits of all failures, hardships, and misery of the little guys' everyday existence.

 

 

The majority class would itself be divided into an assortment of narrow-interest groups, held together only by the glue of government's redistributive, pacifying and equalizing powers, as well as by their shared hostility towards the designated "enemies."

 

 

The prevailing feelings in such a society would be the collectivist fervor, envy of individual achievers, fear of chaos in the absence of the government's protection, hatred of anti-government elements, and hope for a better future once all the hidden enemies are unveiled and eliminated.

 

This makes Heinlein's scenario of a free-market revolution highly unlikely. No self-respecting oppressive regime would start a crackdown on the rebels without priming the population with a mass-media campaign that would show how big government benefits most of the people, and how the resistance is destroying the lives of the common folk. As a minimum, the government would parade a poor little girl crying on camera because she and her family suffered from the hands of the rebels. Even those who didn't hate the rebels before would hate them now.

 

In a society shaped by the government's mind games of manipulative illusions, a dissenter sticks out like a sore thumb. Once the resistance has been demonized, its members will be quickly identified and denounced by the compliant citizenry, labeled as the enemy, and be dealt with by law enforcement.

 

In the end, the self-preservation of modern-day totalitarianism is ensured, not so much by the secret police with its army of snitches and brutal enforcers, as by modern technologies of psychological manipulation through the media, education, and entertainment.

 

Perhaps, Heinlein's tyrannical regime came off so hapless because the author had had no experience of living in a totalitarian statist system. Writing The Moon in the early 1960s, he likely modeled the actions of the Lunar Authority on the methods used by the U.S. government against the Communists. And, as we now know, the U.S. government failed that mission, just like the Lunar Authority did in Heinlein's novel.

 

The FBI mostly relied on surveillance, infiltration, and recruiting of informants. Occasional amateur propaganda designed to immunize Americans against the seductive statist rhetoric turned out to be a flash in the pan. It was child's play compared to the vast arsenal deployed by the KGB and its affiliates in Communist countries.

 

The United States at the time didn't have an all-encompassing, totalitarian propaganda machine like its enemies did. State-enforced mind control, by definition, is incompatible with the principles of living in a free world. Statists, on the other hand, have no such limitations; playing mind games for them is a way of life. This makes it asymmetrical warfare.

 

Statists, of course, would like to have everything shared -- except their power. In free democracies they always demand their share of political power -- and always get what they want. However, once they are in power, they keep it to themselves and demonize the opposition.

 

The Marxist ideal of Communism is an altruistic collectivist society of the future, in which there will be no need for government, family, or private property. Freed from capitalist exploitation, people are expected to unleash their full potential and create unprecedented material abundance. The selfish notion of the pursuit of individual happiness will wither away. There will be no money, no greed, no deprivation, and, therefore, no crime.

 

 

However, since a society can't directly leap from capitalism into communism, Marx reasoned that a dictatorial socialist state would be a necessary transition in order to develop the required material base, help to spread the revolution around the world, and to condition the people's minds by uprooting greed and selfishness (or to eliminate those individuals who can't be conditioned).

Leaving the debunking of utopian follies for another time, let's just say that the totalitarian socialist state is where they always get bogged down. Despite their ideal of a stateless future, the leftists invariably become ruthless and uncompromising statists. It no longer matters whether it's a doctrinaire Marxist socialism or "corporate" fascism; if the end result is evil, original intentions don't count.

 

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 drunk

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."

Oleg Atbashian, a writer and graphic artist from the former USSR, is the author of Shakedown Socialism, of which David Horowitz said, "I hope everyone reads this book." In 1994 he moved to the U.S. with the hope of living in a country ruled by reason and common sense, appreciative of its freedoms and prosperity. To his dismay, he discovered a nation deeply infected by the leftist disease of "progressivism" that was arresting true societal progress. American movies, TV, and news media reminded him of his former occupation as a visual propaganda artist for the Communist Party -- a job he reluctantly held, as he knew that no intelligent person would take such art-by-numbers agitprop seriously. Oleg is the creator of a satirical website ThePeoplesCube.com, which Rush Limbaugh described on his show as "a Stalinist version of The Onion." His graphic work frequently appears in the American Thinker.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Gingrich and Romney: Obama Light, we don't need more of the same Nightmare!

Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are not the candidates the Republicans THINK THEY ARE, let's face it, the ELITE CLASS have sold us a bill of goods concerning Gingrich and Romney. When are we going to wake up and smell it FOR WHAT IT IS, SOCIALISM!?

He [Gingrich] voted YES can you believe this? To the creation of the Department of Education, which is unconstitutional to start with. This department has been a money wasting nightmare since its inception, which was its purpose and shows no amount of change to come. American education has gone down hill ever since this VOTE AND THAT IS A PROVABLE FACT!

It must be remembered here that all the schools in the Soviet Union were under the same kind of system and were eradicated slowly but surely of all remnants of religious vestige, can't you see that here, their trying to destroy our heritage by rewriting history?

It is amazing to me just how blind we as a people have become, we ignore the obvious because they have connected so much of a return for keeping quiet while they bankrupt us. Welfare seems humane but it breaks our backs economically every hour of every day! The Progressives of whom Gingrich and Romney are proud supporters take the legs out from under our economy by breaking banks, extending welfare, and

  Students were then taught the basis of Marxist materialism, inter nationalism and general ethics of the new Socialist Society and in some places these tenants are taught to American students in a 'totally good light' neglecting of course to tell them how BADLY SOCIALISM FAILS EVERY TIME!

Gingrich voted to designate a whopping 68 million acres of WE THE PEOPLES LAND as Federal protected wilderness, WHICH WE DID NOT THEN AND DO NOT NOW NEED! 

Our constitution doesn’t ALLOW nor call for ANY KIND OF land “control" by the Federal Government! But think about it, the Fed MUST CONTROL TWO THINGS IN ORDER TO CONTROL US, LAND AND GUNS!

 The communist manifesto states that the state must have an abolition of all property and land and application of all rents of land to public purposes, control is the name of the game. 

Federal Land grabs today are huge percentages of the 13 western states that are now federally owned.

HR 1505 is the greatest federal land grab in history




"Look at this: It's a map of how much land is owned in America by the federal government. They own nearly 650 million acres of land — almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States.

But look at how it's distributed: It's overwhelmingly in the West. Nevada is almost 90 percent federally owned land. Alaska is nearly three quarters federally owned. Compare that to the East. States are in the single digits. Even Texas is only 2 percent federally owned land.

Why isn't government rushing to "protect" land in, say, Connecticut or New Jersey? Let me show you this: our national resources in comparison to federally owned land. It seems the land we are protecting is also the most oil and natural resource rich land.

Here's another map: Shale oil is found around the world but the largest deposits by far are in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Last year, government went after 9 million acres of land in the West in the name of saving the wild horses and stopping any activities that "would destroy the area's special character."

Right.

If we tapped these areas, we could be closer to energy independence. You want to pay off the debt? The West is Fort Knox.

The house is on fire! Why wouldn't they drill there instead of crossing their fingers and hoping someone creates a car that runs on magic fairy dust? I'm not even saying for oil — natural gas! Natural gas.

We are going to go down in the world history books as a suicidal nation. When we lose everything, do you think Russia won't come over here and protect this land and resources better than we do? It's a suicide mission. We as citizens must stop hoping for change. We must pray for it and demand change. This course is unsustainable.

Here's the latest land grab and we only know this because of a memo that was leaked: The Obama administration is pursuing 13 million acres through 11 states in the West in the name of "national monuments." Maybe we'll get one of Chairman Mao? How about Stalin? He was good at controlling the lands, I hear. And they are doing this without telling anyone. It's executive order. They don't care about what you think about it.

Here's another one: Do you like to fish? Well, enjoy it while you can because it looks like special interests once again are trumping common sense and the voice of the people. A new report says it's a move to appease environmental groups and, just like before, without the consent of the people and by executive order.

We told you he would do this. Heck, The New York Times said he'd do it. The report claims that Obama will "no longer listen to the public" as he tries to prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing on some of the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes and even some inland waters. So, because a couple of environmentalists want to save the fish, people could lose rights."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,588789,00.html#ixzz1gHWYXeou

 The communist manifesto is a warning to Americans to VOTE out every progressive that's REGRESSING US TO NOTHING in the eyes of the world:

Land controls, Progressive Income Tax, Termination of Inheritance, Central Bank which is the Federal Reserve and

Control of the Education of our children, THESE ARE THE HALL MARKS OF A PROGRESSIVE IDEAL one that will destroy America if we don't act NOW!!

In 1994 old Newt voted for it right down the line without a flinch of conservative common sense:

Yes to the National Endowment for the Arts, now that's a great vote, don't you think? To allow a group to insult Christ by putting a cross in a jar of urine and calling it Art while defending Islam against similar insult, what's wrong with putting a Koran in a Toilet and calling it art?

He thought a YES vote for 1.2 billion for UN peacekeeping was a great idea, yeah; people without guns protecting us all, great Idea Newt! The U.N. was the biggest flop since the 'League of Nations' the brain child of non other than Woodrow Wilson!


He voted Yes for the 'presidential line item veto', which sounds good on the outside but never seems to used in the way they say it will, they can TAKE OUT the good stuff and stuff the pork in just as easily as take out the bad stuff which they never do!

Yes again for 13 billion in foreign aid instead of fixing America, most all aid other than for true allies like Israel is wasted money down the progressive RAT HOLE! We support stupid and useless things of no import to Americans, making our enemies stronger and our Alies weaker!

The aid is more or less supporting Foreign Banks, Dictators and funding militant Islamic groups who hate us and Israel.

He voted for 166 million more for the IRS, a group of unfeeling militant soldiers of the Federal Government, does that even sound conservative to you? It shouldn't, its progressive to the core!

Newt led Congress into GATT with fellow CFR member Bill Clinton and then stated that it was a very big transfer of power, no kidding! 

Why was it a BIG transfer of power?  Because it completely went against Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution of the United States, but what does Newt care about the Constitution anyway, he uses it only when its good for his agenda. 

What GATT does is to reduce the amount of money we can save for OUR OWN pensions. 

He TOLD THEN President Clinton in New Hampshire that he was a huge fan of FDR and Woodrow Wilson, two of the most despised early communist leaning presidents, this ALONE is enough to take him OFF THE VOTER ROLES FOR ME. 

Just Remember that bastard Woodrow Wilson gave us both the federal reserve and the 16th amendment, income tax without ratification. Why would a Republican Conservative EVER say that is a good thing? Why the hell have that in your BFF list?

He also voted for China to be the Most Favored Nation for trade WOW, OUR enemy voted Most Favored, how wonderful, NO WONDER THEY OWN US!

And can you imagine? He voted to allow federal funding loan guarantees for greater trade with Red China, a one sided trade deficit that we've never recovered from. Conservative my ass!

He voted to supply funds to subsidize trade with the Soviets, another enemy, he only made it easier to infiltrate us and make them richer in the process.


"A subsidy (also known as a subvention) is an assistance paid to a business or economic sector. Most subsidies are made by the government to producers or distributors in an industry to prevent the decline of that industry (e.g., as a result of continuous unprofitable operations) or an increase in the prices of its products or simply to encourage it to hire more labor (as in the case of a wage subsidy).

Examples are subsidies to encourage the sale of exports; subsidies on some foods to keep down the cost of living, especially in urban areas; and subsidies to encourage the expansion of farm production and achieve self-reliance in food production.

Subsidies can be regarded as a form of protectionism or trade barrier by making domestic goods and services artificially competitive against imports. Subsidies may distort markets, and can impose large economic costs. Financial assistance in the form of a subsidy may come from one's government, but the term subsidy may also refer to assistance granted by others, such as individuals or non-governmental institutions."

FROM HERE

Thanks to Newt 2.2 million acres in Idaho are no longer available for us to own privately its now Wilderness status. Newt is nothing but a greedy progressive Land grabber!

He actually voted for your taxpayer money to be be available to foreign governments through export/import banks, now that's insane. What true conservative would ever allow OUR money to stolen by overseas banks? Apparently Newt the progressive rat fink!

He is pro amnesty – Joe Galloway wrote in December 2010 that both Newt and Jeb Bush were both pro-amnesty. Amnesty is an excuse to make legal the Illegal, and making them our children to support. But just like Congress we can't claim them as dependants on our taxes. 

Gingrich stated, “We are not going to deport 11 million immigrants.”  Progressives have a bad habit of UNDERSTATING the problems they've caused, its closer to 40,000,000 ILLEGAL LAW BREAKERS who have no right to be here....period!


What they term Immigrants the Law terms a Criminal no matter how small or pitiful they seem. Those who fight to be legal the right way should be angry that so many do not do it the way they had to do it. I don't know about you but if I earn what's mine I feel so proud to have it!

He is pro foreign aid. In 1995 he voted for 31.8 billion in foreign aid, but wouldn’t vote to cut foreign aid by a measly 1%, a typical progressive. There is NOTHING about Newt that sounds in the least bit conservative, its a mask he wares to hide his agendas!

Now what about Mitt Romney? Is he any better? Suffice it to say he's just as much a progressive to the core! There are problems with every candidate out there but we cannot keep going back to the same garbage can for change, progressives WILL NEVER BE DIFFERENT they just wear different masks and do the same stupid things!

The Progressive, Sensitive, Rational Governor Romney

By John R. MacArthur

Mitt Romney, Liberal

In the Post/Bloomberg debate, Romney shows his liberal side.

By William Saletan

Mitt Romney: A Liberal's Liberal Republican

By Zbigniew Mazurak