Interesting book?

Below is a blurb about  “The Origin of Our Left-Wing Species” by John Hayberry. I haven't had time to look at it so would be glad to get comments about it.  The blurb does not say so but I gather that the book has a Christian orientation -- JR

Political madness has overwhelmed the United States of America, thanks to the politics of liberal psychopathology. That’s the claim of this new book by John Hayberry, released by Dog Ear Publishing. He writes with a dash of humor about a new theory that helps explain what he calls the “anthropo-psychiatric reasons” for society’s left-wing metamorphosis and how it’s destroying the nation he loves.

“The Origin of Our Left-Wing Species” covers Hayberry’s theory of human (D) evolution, clarifying things about liberals and what happens when they serve government; fantasy addiction disorder, which explains liberal thought; and the PETS hypothesis, about people enabled to survive, which explains liberals’ origin and behavior. He explores the Darwinian origins of liberalism and discovers what makes liberal socialist Democrats (known as L.S.Ders in the book) tick.

In addition, rampant drug use, legal abortion, a weakened economy and other factors connected to liberals are all related to the downfall of the United States, which faces a staggering debt of nearly $18 trillion, Hayberry writes. The issue is serious enough that the author notes that he has published the book in the interest of national security, calling for nothing less than a radical change of thought to bring the United States of America back to the standards it once held dear.

Author John Hayberry describes himself as a comedic human zoologist. For additional information, please visit here

*************************

The Democrats stoke class warfare

By Meredith Warren

DONALD TRUMP’S detractors love to characterize his brash and mouthy comments about the state of our union as “divisive.”

“Not Donald Trump, not anyone else will be successful in dividing us based on race or our country of origin,” declared Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders to a gathering of Hispanic voters recently.

But Sanders should take a long look in the mirror. Both he and many of his Democratic cohort, including Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, are fiercely pushing a campaign message specifically intended to divide America along different lines — economic ones.

For years, Democrats have used an economic inequality argument to attract voters to their cause and pit certain groups of Americans against others. But they go beyond just making intellectual policy points. It’s a call to arms in a class war they are trying to incite for their own political gain.

And they’re not shy about calling it a “war.” In June, Sanders wrote an op-ed for the Globe in which he decried the “war against the American middle class.” Warren is famous for saying the middle class is “getting hammered.”

The enemy? It’s the wealthy and successful. “Millionaires and billionaires,” as President Obama likes to call them. According to Democrats, you’re not making it because Wall Street tycoons and greedy CEOs are holding you back.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton claims it in her 2016 campaign announcement video: “The deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top,” she says. Warren says it on the stump: “The system is rigged.” Sanders heralds it on his website: “The reality is that for the past 40 years, Wall Street and the billionaire class has rigged the rules to redistribute wealth and income to the wealthiest and most powerful people of this country.”

In a country still experiencing vast underemployment and the lasting effects of the 2008 recession, their campaign rhetoric resonates. A recent Gallup poll found that 45 percent of Americans think of the United States as being divided into groups of “haves” and “have-nots.”

Once the message has gained traction, it doesn’t take much for it to spill onto the streets. From Occupy Wall Street to rioting in Baltimore and Ferguson, images of America at war with itself have become part of our daily headlines. And, rather than trying to cool tensions, Democrats use civil unrest as talking points in their campaign to further divide the country into haves and have-nots.

Obama has tied rioting to unemployment and a lack of investment, which he calls “opportunity gaps.” “That sense of unfairness, of powerlessness . . . that’s helped fuel some of the protests we’ve seen in places like Baltimore, and Ferguson, and right here in New York,” he said in a speech in West Bronx last May.

Four years earlier, Occupy Wall Street set up camp in New York City’s Zuccotti Park to protest economic inequality at the hands of big banks. Warren would later say in an interview with The Daily Beast that she supported their efforts and claimed she “created much of the intellectual foundation” for what the group — whose website tagline is “We kick the [expletive] of the ruling class” — does.

It’s a tried and true political strategy – divide and conquer. If you split the electorate and capture a majority with your message, you win.  But America loses.

When the dust settles from the election and the candidates have all gone home, Americans will be left to pick up the pieces. And in 2016, the fault lines they’ll be forced to bridge will be that much deeper.

SOURCE

*************************

From Lenin to Obama

by ALEXANDER G. MARKOVSKY, a Russian émigré

Much has happened since and the spate of violence has begun just as I predicted. How did I know this? I have been inside this monster and I know him well.

In the world of Marxist dialectical materialism, change is the product of a constant conflict between opposites, arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all events, ideas, and movements. Therefore, any significant change in a society, according to Marxism, must be accompanied by a period of upheaval.

"Our task," wrote Lenin in 1902 in What Is to Be Done, "is to utilize every manifestation of discontent, and to collect and utilize every grain of rudimentary protest." Indeed, if you want to change a society, here is Lenin's script: cause the problem. Spread the misery. Send a cadre of professional community organizers to unite all of the angry and disinherited spirits to fuel an organized revolt. Entice chaos and violence. Exploit chaos for larger political objectives. Blame your political opponents, demonize and criminalize them. Move decisively to request a temporary suspension of civil liberties in exchange for the restoration of law and order. Usurp power before the deceived masses realize that there is nothing more permanent in politics than something temporary.

From Lenin to Obama the political landscape has changed, but the scheme remains assertively consistent.

As an ardent student of Marxism, Obama is acting in a predictable ethical and moral fashion, consistent with Marxist dialectical materialism. First it was the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. Unlike Lenin, who had proletariat-organized masses of working people who, according to Marx, had "nothing to lose but their chains," to be used as a revolutionary force to make fundamental changes in the society, Obama had to settle for non-working people who had "nothing to lose" to stoke street violence and resurrect an appearance of proletarians. Predictably, this premeditated unrest imitating Mao's Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution failed miserably.

Instead of storming the bulwarks of bourgeois institutions of power such as banks and corporations, as real revolutionaries would be expected to do, they were more interested in drugs and easy sex than presidential politics. After urinating on the streets of American cities and creating riots accompanied by vandalism and confrontations with police, the militant movement became an embarrassment for the Liberals. Subsequently, after spending a great deal of money on police overtime, cleaning the streets, and restoring damaged property, this organized banditry had to be quietly shut down.

The failure of the movement to create a virtuous dynamic that would lead to the socialist revolution in the United Sates became a source of contention among Marxists and socialists. Since 2011 a sizeable body of socialist and communist literature has been published to explore and analyze the failure of the movement from a Marxist-Leninist perspective. The most notable books are those of prominent Marxist Paul Mason, Why It's Still Kicking Off Everywhere: The New Global Revolution (Verso, 2013), and radical socialists Luke Cooper and Simon Hardy, Beyond Capitalism? The Future of Capitalist Politics (Zero Books, 2012) pinpointed the failure of the movement to the organizers' disregard of Lenin's conception of the vanguard party as the inspiration for and organizer of the proletarian revolution. The following excerpt from the book is indicative of the left's perception of the movement, "We need to take advantage of the antagonisms of the current social crisis to build and renew forms of dynamics of struggle that can deepen the cracks in the capitalist order." Inadvertently, the contemporary socialists confirmed what some of us familiar with Marxism knew all along; the socialist tactic is merely grabbing power through violence and destruction.  

The White House took a notice and endorsed the socialists' thesis. When an opportunity presented itself-the killing of a black teenager by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014-the president and his party decided to take direct control of events. They mobilized professional organizer Al Sharpton, a sympathetic media, the Department of Justice and the prestige of the Oval Office to organize a nationwide revolt under the banner of victims of racism.

In the process the administration embraced a system of justice ruled by staged mass demonstrations and introduced its distinct concept of legitimacy based on racial chauvinism. This combination of mob justice and peculiar legitimacy redefines the limits of permissible; it entitles a segment of the population to riot, loot, assault, burn down buildings and otherwise destroy property, and provide false and misleading testimony to a grand jury with impunity, all   in the name of defending human rights while viciously disregarding the rights of humans.

Whether the ongoing revolt is labeled as "Occupy Wall Street", "Hands up, don't shoot", or "Black lives matter," the "near" objective of this campaign is to weaken law enforcement, forcing it to choose between security and political posturing. Should law enforcement get overwhelmed, the radical turmoil could gain momentum and expand merging various liberal grievances-social, economic, racial, and gender-and turn them into a broader replay of the 1960s upheavals. Determined not to "allow a crisis to go to waste," the administration is enticing violent rules of conduct and manipulating a multiplicity of divergent political interests, keeping them cohesive enough to support ideological conquest. This potentially explosive ploy inevitably leads to a bloody outcome. The recent murder of two New York police officers is a prelude to what's to expect.

The Liberals who support this movement are either impervious to or undaunted by the prospect that the inflamed rhetoric of Al Sharpton and other provocateurs gives a false sense of purpose and an aura of heroism to disturbed souls looking for a motive to unleash their anger, which may result in catastrophic destruction and massive loss of life.

In any event, given the unwavering support the participants are getting from the administration, is a sign that the president is comfortable with the greater level of anarchy if it can bring about his vision of CHANGE.

Hence, we shall not be deceived by Obama, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, and other Liberals' morally irrelevant backpedaling on their racist rhetoric and shedding crocodile tears for the slaying police officers.

Motivated by political imperatives, the president and the Liberals will continue to emulate Marxist tactics and ideological oratory, instigating class warfare, civil disobedience, and riots dividing the nation along racial lines and income brackets to implement the CHANGE.

SOURCE

****************************

Marines Think Armed Recruiters Might Scare Recruits

How ridiculous can you get?

Nearly two months after the July 16 terrorist attack in Chattanooga, Tennessee, the Marine Corps announced that it will not heed calls to arm military personnel at recruitment centers. Sadly, those centers will remain gun-free, target-rich zones for jihadists. On Tuesday, Lt. Gen. Mark Brilakis, commanding general of the Marine Corps Recruiting Command, explained, “The arming piece is one of those things on the recruiting side that myself and [Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford] still have great concerns over. All the services … said they don’t want to arm their folks.”

The decision mostly has to do with public perception. The Marine Corps Times noted, “The Marine Corps has worked hard to build strong relationships with members of the communities in which they recruit, Brilakis said. That isn’t something leaders want to jeopardize.” Added Brilakis, “Whichever way you stand on the Second Amendment, recruiters showing up armed is not going to make either educators or parents comfortable.”

This isn’t about making people comfortable; it’s about giving our warriors the chance to defend themselves against bloodthirsty jihadists. Moreover, police officers also do a lot of work with the community. Should they be prohibited from carrying firearms too?

Rather than arming military personnel, “Changes being considered include more security cameras, remote-locking doors, and better ballistic protection, such as movable shields or desk partitions that could protect troops from bullets,” the Times continues. And the most ridiculous part of all? Marines will also continue conducting security training, which, according to Brilakis, proved vital to those involved in the attack on the Chattanooga facility. As Brilakis put it, “Marines in Chattanooga got out of that recruiting station in less than a minute. And they did so because, one, they were trained, and two, they sat down and talked about it before.” In other words, they’re being trained to retreat. They can take on the world’s most brutal terrorists, but taking on a domestic jihadi is somehow different? Our bravest souls shouldn’t be forced to flee the battlefield — here at home, no less — especially when the reason is that you wouldn’t want people to think that joining the military meant you had to be around icky guns.

SOURCE

******************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated) and Coral reef compendium. (Updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on A WESTERN HEART.

List of backup or "mirror" sites here or  here -- for when blogspot is "down" or failing to  update.  Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

****************************