By ALEX DOSS
In order for a communist takeover in the United States to be successful, its architects understood that it would have to appear as something unrelated and beneficial. Like a product or service in the marketplace. It would have to be “sold.” In this case, it is sold through propaganda, not by truthful advertising or campaigning. Making a successful sale means that there must first be a problem- imagined or real, then a plausible ‘solution.’ Both must be presented in such a way as to convince society that the country and/or world would be better off in the end, even though “sacrifices” might have to be made to reach the goals. By design, the salesman- the politician- usually does not articulate these needed sacrifices to the customer- the American public.
In the attempt to torpedo the nation by weakening fundamental industry, devaluing the currency with deficit spending, the damages have to be softened or masked, so as not to awaken the sleeping giant. Giving the downfall of a nation a soft landing is done in part by child tax credits and tax credits for businesses to make it appear that the government has seen the harm of inflation and is taking measures to “alleviate suffering families and businesses.”
A second means is an introduction of “clutter” to areas of the country in which it is neither asked for nor needed in order to create spurious “economic growth.” This is harmful to the environment. This is done with the cooperation of chambers of commerce, home builders, and county commissioners, who feel that they are obliged to present an equally extreme opposite to the problems found in other areas of the country. Thus, they are instruments of the scheme. This scheme is driven and perpetuated by crime in the big cities, which is turned into a weapon to drive people “from the cities to the countryside, and from the countryside to the cities,” thus draining the cities of their culture and industrial power, while flooding suburban and rural areas with fearful, uprooted citizens. This robs these areas of their safety, privacy, beauty and freedom while simultaneously making them more expensive. This is a large part of how they attempt to harm and transform the states and cities that they do not directly control.
Marxist-Leninists do not see “business only” Republicans such as the Hernando BOCC, the Chamber of Commerce or many homebuilders as a serious threat because they know that they are short-sighted and largely unpatriotic and will simply view such crises as an opportunity. “Never let a crisis go to waste” is their overriding principle and the statement of both Rahm Emmanuel and Saul Alinsky. Marxist-Leninism is not completely anti-business. Instead, they use certain business- semblances of capitalism- as an aid in accomplishing their overall objectives. Because of this, these complicit entities often secretly see law and justice and true, free-market capitalism as a hindrance and a threat to business.
J. Edgar Hoover, the original director of the FBI and often referred to as “America’s Cop,” identified and understood the many different ways communism can operate within the United States to advance their cause, and these have been shown in riveting clarity in his book, written in 1958, entitled Masters of Deceit.
Here is a summary of two of these methods:
1. Marxists/communists are very patient. They know that their objectives could never be reached in weeks or months. It would take years and usually generations of work.
Although there is right now the possibility of getting into a large-scale military war, many who have suspected a possible Third World War have generally been looking for it in the wrong places. The first two guiding principles in winning a war is to 1. Know your enemy, and 2. When your enemy tells you what they plan to do and how they plan to do it, take them seriously!
To that end, consider the following direct quote from a Marxist-Leninist ideologue of Charles University in Prague:
“In the capitalist world, the so-called free people fear the eruption of World War III. They believe it will be an atomic war. They do not know that the Third World War has been in process in every continent, every country, in every street of every town and village. And who do you think is winning this war? Who is adopting whose image? Are we, Communists, adopting the Western multi-party political system, or are the so-called free people around the world adopting the one party political system? Are we, Communists, embracing the free-enterprise economic system, or are the so-called free people in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere adopting the state-run economic system? Are we, Communists, acquiring faith in God and belief in an eternal life, or are the so-called free people becoming more cynical about the human soul? Tell me, who is adopting whose image? Who is winning the Third World War?”
Communist and Marxist operatives know that they could not win in a direct military conflict against the United States, and they also know that the vast majority of the public would immediately reject their plans if they are shown in plain reality, with all of its destructive implications. This means that their war is masked and often clandestine. The number of people in a given country, such as the United States, who are true, dedicated Communists is not a large number. They actually do not want or need a large number. Their system generally works best with a small group of dedicated, vigilant disciples who are willing to go to any length and sacrifice virtually anything of value pertaining to normal, healthy life in order to further the cause. These core disciples then organize extensive outreach efforts to the public, using all possible, useful venues to address any important issue of life. The goal, if not that of making another convert, is to at least make another cooperator. In either instance, the person is being pointed to the ‘true answer.’
They want, and need, to recruit as many non-communist figures as possible from many different walks of life to advance and lend weight to their cause. Thus, many different recruitment efforts are used. Yet, in all of these efforts, there is almost never an honest disclosure to the recruits as to what exactly they are signing up for. No mention is generally made to “outsiders” of Marxist theory, subversion of the economy or civil society. Instead, the battle is linked to something relatable and practical:
– Health care or cost of medicine.
– Civil rights or race relations
– Occupational safety
– Personal identity or lifestyle
– The justice system or prison “reform”
– The environment
It has become increasingly clear that the federal environmental agenda of the last 30 years, with its corresponding government agencies, is an example of using a practical, important subject, such as the ones listed, as a means to incrementally undermine American freedom, industry and sovereignty. It has done very little to help the environment in a meaningful and beneficial way. While there should be limits to the levels of pollution from automobiles for the sake of people’s health, carbon dioxide and monoxide do not harm the rest of the environment and in fact, are vital to the growth and vitality of all forms of plants, trees and vegetation. Yet carbon dioxide and CO2 are the very two designated “pollutants” that the Green New Deal vilifies the most as being harmful to the environment. Legitimate “Clean Air Act” legislation in the 1960s and the call to end leaded gas, which began in 1970, did important, positive work in reducing unnecessary and harmful levels of auto emissions, which represented a detriment to public health, and created a visible smog over dense or low-lying cities. Other positive legislation concerning trains, oil refineries and steel factories was introduced for similar reasons.
At this same time, however, there was a larger, general rebellion against all forms of established authority, law and morality, patriotism and American capitalism. With this multi-front rebellion came the attempt on the part of early environmentalists to oppose virtually all aspects of the American way and industry by setting themselves up as the unrivaled experts that would determine the threats- imagined or real- that the American way posed to the environment. It was from this backdrop and by these people that the first “Earth Day” summit was held on April 22, 1970.
Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin had long been concerned about the deteriorating environment in the United States, and in January 1969, he and many others witnessed the ravages of the oil spill in Santa Barbara, California. He rightfully wanted to raise public consciousness about air and water pollution, but to this end, he sought to harness the student anti-war rebellion as the means- the engine to affect change. He announced to the national media the idea for a teach-in on college campuses and persuaded Pete McCloskey, a conservation-minded Republican Congressman, to serve as his co-chair. He recruited Denis Hayes to organize the campus teach-ins and to scale the idea to a broader public. They chose April 22 because it was a weekday between Spring Break and Final Exams, with the aim of maximizing student participation. In the quest to expand their movement’s scope and influence to a nationwide scale, Denis Hayes built a nationwide staff to promote events across the country. They successfully broadened their effort by enlisting a wide range of organizations, including faith groups, to join their cause. It was at this time that April 22 was officially renamed “Earth Day” in order to designate it as a continuing, yearly event. It would represent an annual protest against industry as much as it was a defense of the environment.
Further, specific history regarding the characters and associations behind the formation of Earth Day and the environmental movement, as well as their subsequent influence, can be found in the book “The Holes In The Ozone Scare.” This book was one of the four books recommended for reading in the previous article.
Meaningful, positive legislation that protects people’s health and the environment was introduced prior to 1970 and Earth Day and would have continued to be introduced on both federal and state levels without the errant influences of the environmentalists who both started and perpetuate Earth Day.
However, false but noble-sounding rhetoric with regard to “helping the environment” by this movement is what has allowed totalitarianism to gain a grip on the U.S government and economy, with the ratcheting C.A.F.E standards and many other laws and regulations specific to the auto industry.
The following is the complete list of the federal environmental laws passed after 1970. Aspects of some of these laws are valid and worthwhile and do not represent an overstep of the Constitution; others are not. This list is included in no particular order so that you can study and consider for yourself their meaning and implications. This list does not include the federal agencies and departments that are involved in administering these laws, nor the many regulations and mandates issued by these agencies that do not involve Congress.
-National Environmental Education Act
-Occupational Safety and Health Act
-Endangered Species Act
-Marine Mammal Protection Act
-Superfund
-Toxic Substances Control Act
-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
-Clean Air Act
-Clean Water Act
-C.A.F.E (Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency) Standards;
Introduced in 1975 by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
Alex Doss is a musician and involved in piano technology in the Hernando county area, especially prior to 2020, and also has other areas of interest and knowledge.
