The 10 People Who Destroyed America

11/16/15

1  Saul Alinsky

During WWII, an Italian Marxist named Antonio Gramsci informed Benito Mussolini that he believed violence would not sustain a lasting revolution. He believed in a “quiet” revolution that would transform a culture from within by changing the worldview of every institution within that society.

In 1971, an obscure neo-Marxist distilled Gramsci’s ideas into a book, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. The author was Saul Alinsky, who died a year later, and the impact of this tract has been deep and far-ranging. The tactics and strategies outline there have been embraced and implemented by community organizers such as Barack H. Obama and others.

Is this an exaggeration?

Phyllis Schlafly didn’t think so. In an article she wrote for Investor’s Business Daily back in 2009 entitled, “Alinsky’s Rules: Must Reading in Obama Era”, she noted that:

“Alinsky’s worldview was that mankind is divided into three parts: ‘the haves, the have-nots and have a little, want mores.’ His purpose was to reach the have-nots on how to take power and money away from the haves by creating mass organizations to seize power, and he admitted ‘this means revolution.’”

He wanted to move the U.S. from capitalism to socialism, where the means of production would be owned by all the people (i.e., the government). A believer in economic determinism, he viewed unemployment, disease, crime and bigotry as byproducts of capitalism. “Change” was Alinsky’s favorite word, used on page after page. “I will argue,” he wrote, “that man’s hopes lie in the acceptance of the great law of change.”

Sound familiar? Maybe this will help: (from Wikipedia) “2008 US presidential campaign slogan of Barack Obama during the Democratic primaries: “Change We Need.” and “Change.”

And when one reads through Alinsky’s screed it becomes evident that his style of change involves class envy, race-baiting, anti-Christian bigotry and redistribution of wealth. Now that certainly sounds familiar. And Schlafly isn’t the only conservative working to expose Americans to the divisive and destructive ideals of Alinsky’s work.

In a 2014 interview with Glenn Beck, now-presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson actively encouraged Americans – especially conservatives – to read and familiarize themselves with Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:

“The Alinsky-ites say, ‘never have a conversation with your adversary because that humanizes them, and your job is to demonize them,’” Carson said. “In order to solve that problem, we must not allow ourselves to be manipulated. We must go out. We must talk, even to people with whom we disagree, and we must ask them, ‘What kind of America do you want to have? What do you want to pass on to your children?’”

Dr. Carson went on to say that many Americans are not familiar with the principles laid out in “Rules for Radicals,” and because they have not yet educated themselves, they “blindly follow, like the pied piper over the cliff.” And they certainly have no idea the book was dedicated to Lucifer.

2 Margaret Sanger

During World War II, over 60 million people were killed, which was about 3 percent of the world’s population at that time. Communism had purportedly been responsible for the deaths of almost 100 million people according to the research of a team of French scholars in their book The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. These are tragic figures and while many of the deaths were civilians, many were combatants, as well.

But in the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave – the United States of America – we have managed to kill almost 58 million unborn babies legally and with impunity. Worldwide, the human family has managed to kill roughly 1 to 2 billion – billion, with a “B” – unborn children in the last 50 years.

Margaret Sanger, who died in 1966, holds the unenviable distinction of being the most influential architect of our ongoing American Genocide. Who was this woman anyway?

Sanger, a Socialist who divorced her first husband, became the publisher of The Woman Rebel, a liberal newspaper with the slogan “No Gods! No Masters!” In the inaugural issue, she denounced marriage, capitalism, and sexual modesty. In subsequent issues she promoted sexual liberation, social revolution, and advocated political assassinations.

In order to avoid prosecution for charges of publishing lewd and indecent articles, she went to England and soon became involved with the burgeoning eugenics movement taking place there. The idea of ridding society of the unfit and undesirable through eugenic methods such as abortion fit well with Sanger. A year later she returned to the United States to fight the charges against her and to open her first clinic.

Margaret Sanger’s clinic was located in Brownsville, New York which, in 1916, was populated largely with Slavic, Latino, Italian and Jewish immigrants. In Sanger’s worldview, these ethnic groups were “dysgenic and diseased races” whose “reckless breeding” needed help in curbing. Despite the fact that the clinic was promptly shut down after two weeks, Sanger continued her work with eugenics and in 1922 published a book that promoted racism and selective breeding.

In response to the revelations of the Nazi “race purification” horrors during WWII, Sanger felt the need to reinvent herself once again. In 1942 she renamed her organization “Planned Parenthood.” Despite the friendly, family-sounding name, it has become tragically obvious that the clinics are nothing more than abortion mills catering to an “abortion on demand” culture.

So where is Sanger’s life work and philosophy taking us in this country? In 1997, John Hardwig, Professor and Head of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Tennessee published a short, but terrifying piece entitled Is There a Duty to Die? in which he states there is, indeed, a duty to die under conditions such as:

“…when continuing to live will impose significant burdens – emotional burdens, extensive care giving, destruction of life plans, and, yes, financial hardship – on your family and loved ones. This is the fundamental insight underlying a duty to die.”

3 John Maynard Keynes

According to the running numbers at www.usdebtclock.org on November 9, 2015 the U.S. National Debt was $18,560,871,000 and counting. And it was increasing about $100,000 every 8 seconds or so. The recent federal budget that was passed will only increase that amount – and drastically.

The new budget agreement between the Occupier-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, and the obliging Congress will suspend the nation’s debt limit and allow the Treasury to borrow another $1.5 trillion or so by the end of 2017. When added to the current total national debt of more than $18 trillion, the total indebtedness will approach the $20 trillion mark right around the time Mr. Obama leaves the White House. When he first became president in January 2009, the total national debt stood at $10.6 trillion. This means the national debt will have almost doubled during his eight years in office.

A fiscal outrage? A budgetary disaster of apocalyptic proportions? Not according to prevailing Keynesian economic theory.

John Maynard Keynes may be the world’s best-known economist, but he is also the author of what may well be the most destructive economic prescription ever foisted on an uninformed society.

This is because Keynes believed that during an economic downturn, or recession, government should borrow or inflate the currency and dump large sums of cash into the economy by being the primary source of spending and employment.

The current administration seems to be excelling on all counts.

John Maynard Keynes was a socialist and a member of the British Fabian Society, as was John Dewey whom we met earlier. Fabian Socialism began in London in 1883 and can be described as “desiring Socialism through evolution instead of revolution.” However, the true goal of Fabian Socialism was not just socialism, but globalism. Interestingly, a number of both Democrats and Republicans are committed to Keynesian economics. Many are also Fabians.

The insidious aspect of Keynesian economics is what is called “interventionism” where the government plays an active role in redistributing wealth created in a partially free market. Interventionism does not call for “nationalizing” industries or businesses, but simply exerting control. And all a government needs to gain control is a financial crisis that allows it to change laws, inflate the currency, and buy stock in corporations. Did anyone say Quantitative Easing?

This level of intervention, of gradually gaining financial control, is masked as simply necessary regulation and “corrections” in the market. But Keynes himself pointed out that by:

“…a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose.”

So who was this guy whose economic policies dominate the current federal landscape? A Marxist economist who worked with Keynes, Joan Robinson, noted that, “The differences between Marx and Keynes are only verbal.” What is frightening is that many elected officials at both the state and federal level are committed to bringing about a social revolution in America by deliberately creating an environment where chaos and crisis can flourish and bring about an ever bigger government and – eventually – globalism.

4 Christopher Columbus Langdell

Constitutional and legal scholar John Eidsmoe wrote that, “Twentieth-century jurisprudence is based on a Darwinian worldview. Life evolves, men evolve, society evolves, and therefore laws and the constitution’s meaning evolves and changes with time.” This statement embodies the modern legal formulation known as “legal positivism.”

Legal positivism is simply moral relativism for jurisprudence. It is the belief that there is no such thing as moral absolutes as applied to the law. There is no fixed standard of right or wrong for all people in all places at all times. The problem is that when it comes to law and the dispensing of justice, right and wrong can be determined by individuals instead of society or, better yet, an external authority such as the Ten Commandments.

And we can follow the trail of legal positivism back to a man named Christopher Columbus Langdell, Harvard Law School Dean from 1870 until 1895. According to historian David Barton, “The philosophy of ‘positivism’ was introduced in the 1870s when Harvard Law School Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell (1826-1906) applied Darwin’s premise of evolution to jurisprudence.”

Because of this influential misapplication of Darwinism, Secular Humanism and moral relativism have become the de facto foundation of postmodern America’s courts and law schools. Dean Langdell’s thinking was taken up and furthered by none other than Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Holmes had been a student of Langdell’s and also argued against a fixed moral foundation for law.

Holmes famously wrote that, “The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories… have a good deal more to do with syllogism [legal reasoning] in determine the rules by which men should be governed.” In other words, justice and right and wrong in legal matters should be established by “felt necessities of the time” and the “prevalent moral and political theories” of the moment.

Professor Langdell and his protégé Holmes laid the foundation for judges who now allow just about anything to be legal based on arbitrary or politically motivated “felt needs” and “theories”.

Directed by this philosophy of legal thought, we have witnessed millions of abortions in America, including brutal partial-birth procedures, and the destruction of the institution of marriage.

In addition to the moral issues at stake under the law, there are economic concerns as judges gradually erode the rights of citizens in favor of more and more welfare state legislation. The Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding the constitutionality of the ObamaCare requirement to purchase health insurance is a sobering example.

On a state level, vast numbers of new laws are passed each year that continue to erode our freedoms in exchange for whatever social activist cause has captured the attention of activist judges and legislators in that state. California is a prime example with recent bills signed into law that will put draconian measures in place to achieve reductions in so-called greenhouse gases and further a radical, special interest agenda over the property rights of citizens.

5 BF Skinner

While the public school curriculum has been re-engineered by people like Benjamin Bloom, the role and function of the teacher is currently being transformed based on the work of B.F. Skinner. In fact, there are many experts who are already proclaiming the end of the teacher in American school rooms.

Skinner was a Harvard University professor, author and behavioral psychologist. He was an avowed atheist and one of the early advocates for using machines to aid in programmed learning, or corrective thought control. In fact, in a letter written to then President Carter by Professor Kenneth Goodman, he exposed the real purpose of educational programs based on the philosophies of B.F. Skinner, many of which were funded by the U.S. Department of Education.

Professor Goodman pointed out that, “In behavior management, outcomes are assumed or arbitrarily determined and the behavior of human learners is shaped, conditioned, reinforced, extinguished, rewarded or punished until the learners achieve the target behavior.”

This is disturbingly similar to the protocols of OBE where teachers are expected to track, record, and correct improper attitudes, values, feelings, and emotions of the students. This is, of course, quite difficult to do without help. And with the advent of computers, the “machines” of Skinner’s vision are available with specialized programs that can track and correct students who exhibit “politically incorrect” responses, even without the aid or presence of a teacher.

America’s social engineers, armed with the methodologies of people like B. F. Skinner, are hell-bent on reprogramming the young people of our country. And the public educational apparatus has been systematically collecting data on students since the 1970s in an effort to accelerate this process. According to a 1994 report by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), abuses had already been documented that included:

1. The collecting of psychological, medical, and sociological data on students and their families without their knowledge or consent.
2. The introduction in 1989 of the Elementary and Secondary Integrated Data System – an education supercomputer – that links the U.S. Department of Education with all 50 state education departments.
3. Promoting these two actions under the concept of “educational restructuring” and calling it Outcome-Based Education while withholding the nature and extent of the data collection from the public.

And how will all this data that’s been collected – and continues to be collected on an exponential scale – expected to be used?

In an article from 1970, then-U.S. Commissioner of Education James Allen was said to be encouraging local school systems to set up a central diagnostic center:

“…to find out everything possible about the child and his background… (The Center) would know just about everything there is to know about the child – his home and family background, his cultural and language deficiencies, his health and nutrition needs and his general potential as an individual.”

Allen went to suggest that professionals could then write a “prescription” for the child “and if necessary, for his home and family, as well.”

Your school tax dollars at work!

6 Benjamin Bloom

As far back as the early 1990s the introduction of so-called Outcome-Based Education, or OBE, began to make inroads into the American public education sphere. And it was met with mixed reactions and eventually became an approach that had to be camouflaged by insistent educators and administrators. But what do OBE and Benjamin Bloom have in common, and why should you care?

In 1993 a Phyllis Schlafly Report was issued that began with this paragraph:

“Outcome-Based Education (OBE) is sweeping the country in the name of school ‘restructuring.’ OBE calls for a complete change in the way children are taught, graded, and graduated, kindergarten through 12th grade. Since the American people seem ready to accept drastic surgery on our failed public schools, state departments of education are seizing this opportunity to force acceptance of OBE as the cure. But OBE has parents even more agitated than they are about explicit sex education. Crowds of a thousand or more parents are known to have gathered in Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Ohio. “

This was the atmosphere in the early 90s and there was good reason for it. Schlafly’s report went on to detail major objections that parents had raised against OBE. Here are a few of them from her report:

“OBE advocates continually use double-entendre expressions that parents assume mean one thing but really mean something different in the OBE context. When they talk about ‘new basics,’ for example, they are not talking about academics such as reading, writing and arithmetic, but OBE attitudes and outcomes. When they talk about ‘higher order thinking skills’ or ‘critical thinking,’ they mean a relativistic process of questioning traditional moral values.”

“Parents who are trying to rear their children with strong religious values are concerned that willingness to go along with the crowd is taught by OBE as a positive rather than a negative attitude. Since ‘tolerance’ is a major attitudinal outcome demanded by OBE, parents are concerned that this includes ‘tolerance’ for extra-marital lifestyles of all kinds.”

If you were wondering why young adults today are so accepting of so-called “same-sex marriage,” look no further than OBE.

Schlafly goes on to say:

“OBE raises the fundamental question of who should decide what values, attitudes, and beliefs a child should be taught. Should it be the parents or the U.S. Department of Education, which funded OBE? Should the public schools be allowed to teach values that may be controversial and sometimes even contradictory to values taught to children by their parents?”

Though many OBE advocates continue to deny it, OBE is essentially just another name for “Mastery Learning” which is the name Benjamin Bloom and his colleague John B. Carroll gave to their teaching strategies. In his 1981 book, All Our Children Learning, Bloom reveals his belief of the ultimate goal of education:

“The curriculum may be thought of as a plan for changing student’s behavior and as the actual set of learning experiences in which students, teachers, and materials interact to product the change in students.”

What does that look like? Corrective thought control by encouraging students to question everything they were taught and to remove moral absolutes from the foundation of their thinking. In other words, teaching based on feelings, not facts, and undermining loyalty to family, church and traditional beliefs.

7 William James

Who was William James and why should you care? The man died in 1910 and your average American has probably never heard of him. But you’ve seen and heard plenty of examples inspired by his legacy.

William James was a professor of physiology, psychology, philosophy and anatomy at Harvard University until he retired in 1907. He was a prolific author and continued to write extensively after his retirement, but his most influential essay was titled “The Moral Equivalent of War” which laid the groundwork for the concept of organized national service.

This idea came to fruition during the Great Depression as FDR’s CCC, or Civilian Conservation Corps. While it appears to be a beneficial approach to dealing with social problems or issues, “national service” is really a principle for undermining other social institutions including the family and the church.

Like Alice Bailey (you’ll come across her later), James was a proponent of Spiritualism and his own views were heavily influenced by the concept that truth is relative and situational. He believed that all the ideas and values that make up our worldview and everything these ideals support such as family, parental authority, and private property ownership, should be surrendered to the State.

Author Christopher Chantrill wrote in the American Thinker:

“Ever since philosopher invented the concept of the ‘moral equivalent of war’ our liberal friends have wanted to regard almost all conflicts between nations as misunderstandings that ought to be resolved by negotiation and diplomacy. Writing in 1906 William James worried about what to do if pacific socialists like him ever got to stop war and militarism. He wanted to conscript young men to battle social evils, not foreign foes.

What James neglects to realize is that when you conduct domestic politics using the moral equivalent of war metaphor you do not just conduct a War on Poverty or a War for Energy Independence. Wars are not conducted against an idea but against people. You end up making your fellow Americans into a hated enemy. You declare, in other words, a “moral equivalent of civil war” against people who disagree with your call to fight wars on poverty or who fail to grasp the Inconvenient Truth of the need to save the planet.”

We have seen this idea promulgated over and again in the last few decades by Margaret Mead hoping that national service could replace marriage for many young women, by President Jimmy Carter in reference to the energy crisis, and by President Bill Clinton for a type of domestic “Peace Corps.” And it hasn’t gone away yet.

Communists and Marxists have always understood that two things are needed for a successful revolution: some kind of crisis and the youth of the middle class. The “national service” strategy now being pushed by President Obama aligns with the goal of former Assistant U.N. Secretary General Robert Muller whose World Core Curriculum calls for:

“Assisting the child in becoming an integrated individual who can deal with personal experience while seeing himself as part of ‘the greater whole.’ In other words, promote growth of the group idea, so that group good, group understanding, group interrelations and group goodwill replace all limited, self-centered objectives, leading to group consciousness.”

8 John Dewey

John Dewey became known as “the father of modern American education” and was the most influential education thinker in American history. He lived from 1859 until his death in 1952. Many people who know of him think of him in relation to modern American education.

John Dewey was also a Fabian Socialist, a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a signer of the Humanist Manifesto I. In addition, he was president of the American version of the British Fabian Society known as the League for Industrial Democracy. In 1928 Dewey traveled to Russia to help implement their education system.

According to historian Paul Kengor, “Dewey’s first six books were rapidly translated into Russian. They told John Dewey his books were perfect for what they were trying to do in the USSR.” Speaking at the America’s Survival conference on October 21, 2010 Kengor noted that, “The Bolsheviks wasted no time getting John Dewey’s works into Russian,”

Only three years after it was published in the United States in 1918, Dewey’s Schools of Tomorrow was published in Moscow. What is amazing is what was happening in Russia at the time. Despite the fact that the Soviets were broke and were fighting a bloody civil war, they saw this move as critical to their cause.

Kengor, who did much of his research in the archives of the Communist International, relates that, “Dewey’s ideas were apparently judged as crucial to the revolution as any weapon in the arsenal of the Red Army.”

“Only a year after Schools of Tomorrow was published came a Russian translation of Dewey’s How We Think (1919) and then, in 1920, The School and Society,” Kengor relates. “These, too, came during the misery of the Russian Civil War (1918-21), which, according to historian W. Bruce Lincoln, snuffed out the lives of seven million men, women and children.”

All of this isn’t surprising when one considers that Dewey’s primary goal for education was not academic achievement, but rather, shaping the student’s attitudes, values, feelings and beliefs to conform to that of the state. In his book, My Pedagogic Creed, Dewey states:

“I believe the true center of correlation on the school subjects is not science, nor literature, nor history, nor geography, but the child’s social activities… I believe that the school is primarily a social institution… The teacher’s business is simply to determine, on the basis of the larger experience and riper wisdom, how the discipline of life shall come to the child… All these question of the grading of the child and promotion should be determined by reference to the same standard. Examinations are of use only so far as they test the child’s fitness for social life.”

Add to this the fact that Dewey was staunchly postmodern, anti-Christian, and a liberal progressive, and there you have the current philosophy of American public education. Dewey clarifies this himself with this quote:

“There is not God and no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law, or permanent moral absolutes.”

9 Friedrich Nietzsche

For most Americans, “postmodernism” is a vaguely familiar term that describes our current era. But the meaning and the origins of postmodernism is probably not at all familiar to most Americans. And the name Friedrich Nietzsche is only slightly more familiar.

However, postmodernism can be dated back to the writings of Nietzsche, who died in 1900.

Nietzsche is probably best known for his statement that, “God is dead.” What few understand is that his declaration was an indictment of Christianity, which he hated. He embraced instead, the the concept of the survival of the fittest. By combining this philosophy with the logical result of a conscience-free approach to life, Nietzsche championed the elimination of the weak and undesirable.

Hitler was a devoted disciple of Nietzsche and implemented his philosophy in what he viewed as a pragmatic strategy for ridding German society of the weak, lame, and undesirable elements of humanity. We know it as the Holocaust and Hitler was a rabid proponent of the beliefs of Friedrich Nietzsche and what has become known today as postmodernism.

Fast forward a half-century to the Obama administration. An entire generation of college and university graduates have come into places of power and influence in the United States. And these individuals went to school at a time when Nietzsche was (and is) one of the most widely read authors on college campuses. And despite the fact that a vast majority of Americans identify themselves as “Christian” and the fact that a large majority of these still attend churches on a regular basis, America is functionally a “postmodern” society.

This reality shows its cruel face most readily in our new approach to healthcare. America’s sick, handicapped, and elderly are now at risk because their value is now measured only by what they can do for the State. Compassion and mercy – intrinsically “Christian” concepts and values – are absent in postmodern thought. Pragmatism, such as that of Nazi Germany, threatens to dictate who will receive care and for how long.

The brother of Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel was appointed to two important government boards to assist in drafting and passing socialized healthcare. Dr. Emanuel stated that healthcare should be saved for people the State deems are productive human resources. He went on to say that healthcare should be denied those:

“…who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens… An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

Charges of “death panels” plagued the initial launch of ObamaCare, but what many people do not realize is that the framework and stipulations have not been removed from the current legislation.

Each state that legalizes “physician-assisted euthanasia” pushes the threat of State intervention that much further. What a radical philosopher espoused 150 years ago is being institutionalized in America today.

10 Alice Bailey

Alice Bailey founded the Lucifer Publishing Company and its sister New Age-type organization in 1922. She is considered one of the founding leaders of what has now become known as the New Age Movement. Her 24 books have influenced hundreds of thousands of people worldwide over the last 90 years, including most of the people in our list.

She claimed that her books were written under the direction of a spirit guide she referred to as Djwhal Khul, or the Tibetan. In her books she speaks of a group of Ascended Masters she claimed were reincarnated and highly evolved individuals. Bailey pointed out that these Ascended Masters, “each have a special contribution to make towards human progress in one of the seven major fields of world work: political, religious, educational, scientific, philosophical, psychological or economic.”

So why do all these questionable beliefs and writings concern Americans today? Bailey’s writings were taken quite seriously by a number of powerful and influential people who have long since incorporated these ideas and principles into their own work and writings. One of the foundational concepts carried forward is that of a “New Group of World Servers” or a New World Order.

Sound familiar?

The worldview of Alice Bailey found a significant disciple in Robert Muller who entered and won an essay contest, in 1948, on “how to govern the world.” The prize he was awarded was an internship at the new United Nations. Muller eventually spent over 40 years in the United Nations becoming the assistant secretary-general and setting up 11 different UN agencies.

More important, in addition to his books The Birth of Global Civilization and New Genesis: Shaping a Global Spirituality, he helped create the global education program called The World Core Curriculum which the U.S. and other countries have adopted into their own educational systems. He also established his own school in the U.S. based on the teachings of Alice Bailey. In an address to a group of Canadian school children:

“You are not children of Canada, you are really living units of the cosmos because the Earth is a cosmic phenomenon… we are all cosmic units. This is why religions tell you, you are divine. We are divine energy… it is in your hands whether evolution on this planet continues or not.”

Alice Bailey’s teachings and influence, through people such as Robert Muller, have been embraced by numbers of world politicians and leaders including Mikhail Gorbachev, Nicolas Sarkozy, Tony Blair, and Henry Kissinger. Shortly before Barack Obama was first sworn in as President of the United States, Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State and Nobel Peace Prize winner, said in an interview on CNBC:

“His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity; it isn’t just a crisis.”

http://conservativeamerica-online.com/the-10-people-who-destroyed-america-saul-alinsky-1-of-10/