Claude "Inky" Benson - Published October 31, 2008
With that in mind, let’s be clear from the start—Barack Obama is not Adolph Hitler, has no “final solution” plan, evidences no intention whatsoever to run armies through neighboring countries in a totalitarian effort to establish the superior Aryan race throughout the world and so on. Any reference to the Nazi experience must be done only in the most delicate manner.
That being said, if Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s master propagandist, were alive today, the Barack Obama Show is precisely what he would produce for the current America.
Perhaps the Goebbels in this case is David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign manipulator. If so, Axelrod and his Chicago political machine, seemingly far more devious than Karl Rove has ever been, has done more to con the American people than any other director of political phenomenon in American history. Assuming, as done here, that he is the puppeteer, Axelrod is wagging not just the dog but the entire kennel.
Goebbels had his work cut out for him. He had to sculpt a hero figure out of a pathetic, humorless, genocidal, unsightly failed soldier and convict with limited intelligence and even more limited emotional range... Obama, on the other hand, offered Axelrod and crew quite a different and more workable set of raw material—good looks, style, demeanor, emotional control and range, acting talent, educational resume, and, as he confesses, the self-developed ability to not scare whites, and, to be sure, nothing that resembles Adolph Hitler. Nonetheless, the national idol Axelrod has sold America far exceeds the credentials Obama actually brings to the table.
Goebbels today would not work to establish the traditional styles and emblems of power display—forcing the masses to outwardly show signs of submission through a unique salute, lineup, or goose-stepping walk. True, one could comedically stretch to compare the Sieg Heil with the fist bump, the “Heil Hitler” chant with “O-BAM-A” and “Yes We Can” mania but these are secondary tools. Axelrod is looking for something far more demonic—the hypnotic internal submission to tautological concepts which can never be contested or challenged. “CHANGE” and “HOPE” are universally potent when they subliminally refer to whatever each of us does not like and wants changed. Many Nazis followed Hitler out of fear of the consequences of not following. Many Obamites are in because they have fallen under the spell.
Goebbels made famous the utility of the Big Lie. If a lie was big enough and told often enough, people would more easily accept it and themselves make it stick. Axelrod has made Obama’s entire history a Big Lie. Much of Obama’s biography, record, goals and intentions has been staged and structured to fit our wishes rather than our scrutiny. Axelrod has kept much of his history from his birth certificate, his true background, the funding possibly from the likes of an advisor to Saudi Prince Awaleed bin Tal for his Columbia and Harvard education, what he wrote at Harvard and elsewhere to his deep relationships with radical revolutionary Saul Alinsky, ACORN, Raila Odinga’s campaign, and others hidden from true independent clarification. As Buck Revell, former Associate Deputy Director of the FBI in charge of all FBI operations before his retirement in 1994, has stated, the Obama Axelrod has created could not survive a background check for employment with the FBI.
Once the Big Lie is asserted, it is wisest to leave it alone and allow it to speak for itself. How often have we heard that Obama is The One to work with everyone while his history shows no significant case of “crossing the aisle” or “working together to find common ground” whatsoever? How many has he convinced that he is a tax cutter when his record evidences the grandest of tax impulses? What real experience, executive or otherwise, does he have relevant to the Presidency? And compared to Sarah Palin?
We need not focus here on all the ways in which Axelrod has sold a fictional character “Obama” to the American public. Who writes their memoirs before entering the Illinois Senate except one with long term designs on the presidency? Like Hitler, whose Mein Kampf was written early to establish a written record for what could be shorthanded later, Obama has his name on what he wants us to know and think so that his subsequent references to that material seem based on already established fact. By putting his “story” out there first - as opposed to most candidates whose public tale is woven over time through a long string of media investigation, discovery, and explanation - Axelrod has been able to direct the focus and pre-empt the challenges from the media and others. His books framed for the public what he wanted it to know about Obama’s family, religion and religious training, education, and so on.
This internal submission is sealed in large part with the glue of “white guilt.” White guilt has been, perhaps, the nation’s most dominant drive. It has brought about 50 years of
Great Society spending in the neighborhood of $7 trillion (almost all of our cumulative national debt prior to the Iraq War and the current credit crisis expenditures) in an effort to make defacto reparations for abuses to minorities and the poor. Regardless of this expenditure, white guilt creates the impression that “NOW IS THE TIME” for whites to start to make up for prior abuse.
Perhaps Axelrod’s most powerful use of white guilt has been to plant the notion that any resistance to Obama is a sign of racism. A white who fails to support Obama does so because of racism, not because he believes Obama is a far left radical, a fraud, a novice with no experience, a liar, one who will bring about the largest tax and spending increases in the nation’s history precisely at the wrong time, one who will eliminate all restrictions on abortion, or one of many other objections held by many. Rather, a surprise Obama loss will be deemed the result of the Bradley Effect where whites beef up polls out of fear of showing how racist they are—reverse racism calling the kettle black!
Goebbels was masterful at staging grandiose events. Axelrod has followed suit. Every Obama rally is elevated to “event” status while the Berlin and Denver spectacles have set records for American political theatre that would make Albert Speer smile. Axelrod has Obama’s teleprompters pitched high to make the character appear Messianic. Crowds are brought in (not unlike the techniques in Iran) to supply frenzy. The Berlin Sermon was inserted in between two previously booked rock concerts so the cameras could take advantage of an already assembled large and listening crowd, sprinkled with free beer, in order to convince Americans they must be missing out on something. Indeed, Axelrod has even figured out that charging money for tickets creates an even greater sense of “you don’t want to miss this” to add to the “phenomenon” narrative and Hollywood buzz that feeds so much of Axelrod’s target audience.
Goebbels' speeches, themselves, were works of art. They utilized some of the powerful persuasion tactics that had been developed at the time including, for instance, the “yes set.” Here the speaker, employing audience participation, shouts out a series of questions to which any audience would respond positively. Want abundance? Yes! Good jobs? Yes! Pride in your nation? Yes! Once the audience has joined in a rhythm of positive affirmation, it is easy to slip in the critical item the speaker wishes to be accepted: Eliminate the Jews? Yes!
Axelrod utilizes a full array of modernized mass hypnosis techniques in the speeches he gives Obama. To be clear, “hypnosis” here is not to be confused with getting a subject to quack like a duck against his will. Rather, it refers to techniques that facilitate the ability of the speaker to plant suggestions directly into the listener’s subconscious or unconscious mind (depending on the vocabulary used), bypassing conscious barriers. The more skilled, the more the direction is disguised and the greater likelihood the suggestions will be accepted and followed. Many of the techniques that are utilized in Obama oratory have been modeled from the prolific work of Dr. Milton Erickson (1901-1980) and articulated by a large number of his students.
A proper description and explanation of Ericksonian techniques must be left to the abundant literature on the subject. Suffice it to say that Axelrod and crew have Obama utilizing the full panoply of sleight of mouth techniques, including storytelling inductions, pacing and leading, embedded commands, verbal and physical anchoring, multiple meanings, linking statements and so on. The result is to help the listener into a state of trance to increase suggestibility while slipping suggestions by conscious screens. It is a premise of Ericksonian theory that we are all constantly moving into and out of different degrees of trance throughout our waking experience. His art and skill was to enhance such a state in simple conversational settings such that he could facilitate the “CHANGE” that his patients sought against their own resistances. It is not surprising that “CHANGE” should become the buzzword of the Axelrod production which utilizes such methods skillfully.
Many will have an objection to the notion that Obama followers are somehow led against their knowledge into supporting the Senator. Yet, the Obama “phenomenon” and the behavior of his subjects are often described precisely as a “spell”. Innocuous sounding phrases and concepts, when placed in the hands of a skilled communicator, become powerful tools.
The power of these techniques is to induce belief not by convincing the listener through winning argument but by instructing the listener’s unconscious to accept the belief and to feel as if he decided rationally for himself. Ideas such as “McCain is Bush” can be easily refuted with facts. When stated repeatedly in a wide variety of trance-induced situations, however, it becomes an equivalence that a suggestible listener takes as his own, in complete denial of facts as they are, and with the attached feelings of disgust for Bush transferred over to McCain. Concepts such as “FAIRNESS” and “CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN”, when craftily positioned, mean what the listener supplies unconsciously to the words. The “stickiness” of these internally cemented beliefs is as difficult to break as that from the powerful cult leaders of the past. In modern lingo, it is as potent as THE MATRIX itself.
These beliefs are implanted firmly by the feeling that Obama truly understands the listener—a high state of rapport. Rapport is established in a variety of ways, particularly by being able to cite for the listener the exact experience he is having at the time. Most of Obama’s speeches, as well as his conversational dialogue, commence with various references precisely to what the audience is feeling, seeing, hearing. Similarly, Obama’s frequent references to “time” aids in rapport building—“NOW IS THE TIME.” Obama’s ease and competence in delivering these moves tends to disguise that power that underlies them. His overwhelming display of confidence, itself, helps cement the process.
Once the “spell” takes hold, it is difficult for reason to break the listener free. Rather the listeners become, as members of the Obama campaign have reputedly described for their own purposes, “sticky voters;” incapable of changing their minds regardless of whatever is presented to them.
And Obama did not hide his confidence in his persuasion talents in Newsweek (9/11/06). “I feel confident that if you put me in a room with anybody—black, white, Hispanic, Republican, Democrat—give me half an hour and I will walk out with the votes of most of the folks…” says it all.
Axelrod has attempted to have Obama mirror various popular figures, most particularly, JFK—picking up on a move Bill Clinton started. The Obama character uses not just words but postures, vocal intonations, expressions, and hand movements to communicate beneath the listener’s radar. Connecting a gesture to one set of words and ideas—anchoring—enables Obama to subsequently bring back the gesture with another set of thoughts that he wants to sell. Perhaps Hollywood could learn a thing or two from the Axelrod acting method.
Language, itself, is the tool of the successful propagandist. Axelrod’s overt use of campaign lingos- “CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN” is but one example. Yet, there is an even deeper level where new language uses are injected into the political forum to start having the media and populace practice what will allow them to easily accept in the future. We now hear of references to “ECONOMIC RIGHTS,” for example, as a precursor of the socialist takings that will likely follow an Obama victory. “GAME-CHANGER” was another subtle introduction Axelrod unleashed to encourage listeners to agree that Obama was able to change the momentum. Just as Obama would say “WHEN I AM President” while all other candidates were saying “If I am elected President,” he is careful to constantly paint and “future tense” the picture for the listener exactly the way he wants it to turn out.
Obama is a master of the power of incongruence—saying one thing while demonstrating the opposite. He pleads for an end to “divisiveness” while turning George Bush and anyone who can be deemed to follow him into Satan himself. His demeanor says ‘I am a peaceful man interested in bringing everyone together to find a successful middle ground” while all of his actions demonstrate he will not cooperate with anything other than the most extreme liberals. His management style is to appear to take into account a wide variety of opinions while his history demonstrates radical inflexibility to anything not radical. This incongruence allows his followers to latch onto that side that is easiest for them to accept while ignoring the other.
Axelrod’s policy explanations employ one of Goebbels’ most powerful tools—responsibility displacement. Blame for Germany’s pre-Nazi economic woes were transferred to “the Jews.” While Jesse Jackson and Reverend Wright and others close to Obama would likely agree it is still “the Jews,” Axelrod has made George Bush, the Republican Congress, greedy corporations and CEOs the target of complete responsibility. The Democratic Congress of today is immune in Axelrod talking points; as are the Clinton policies related to expanded home ownership, avoiding confrontation with Al Qaeda, a recession handed to Bush and so forth. For Axelrod, who sells Obama as one capable of realizing the multi-determined nature of things and sophisticated enough to assess highly nuanced viewpoints, only the most simplistic and emotionally primitive means of describing a black and white world are utilized.
In this regard, Axelrod has successfully distracted his audience like a master magician. Once the audience has bought this sleight whereby all blame lies with the other, Obama is able to sneak by all that should trigger fear and anger—his troubling associations, his plans to bring about a panoply of new taxes, curbs on free speech and the second amendment, the socialized programs which will turn our credit difficulties into a full blown economic crisis. He also often starts an argument down one road but then uses completely inappropriate evidence to prove it. His style and confidence so command his listeners' attention that they usually miss the false evidence or logic. He will use a phrase such as “AS I’VE SAID BEFORE…” when he has said quite the opposite before. One of the oldest tricks he employs—buying loyalty by naming your grievance and promising to eliminate it—is still suckering the multitudes. Even John McCain had to ask the audience in their last debate to listen closely to Obama’s words rather than to fall prey to his eloquence.
Temperament has become a major emblem for American liberals as they have convinced themselves that the country’s problems are the result of the cowboy bluster of Bush. Axelrod, early on, scared the McCain campaign that McCain’s supposed wild temper would be tested. (McCain, to the dismay of many of his supporters who have longed to see him get tough, seemed to do all he could to hide any display of anger thereafter). Axelrod figured out early that Obama’s best shot required him to perfect the ability to remain cool and calm at all expense. This would subliminally persuade his audience that he is best able to convince the world that America really is “good."
Goebbels used Leni Riefenstahl to piece together Nazi propaganda films. Axelrod has, and to an unprecedented extent, wrapped the liberal mainstream media around his finger; using it to convey the appropriate Grand Emperor-New Messiah imagery Obama has commanded. The entire television and print media world, with the possible exception of some Fox News shows, has become unabashedly aligned with (and virtually a member of) Axelrod’s campaign. On all levels of communication, from question structuring and choice of topics down to gestures and intonations, media personalities generally have difficult times disguising their individual preferences for Obama and most appear to be overwhelmingly concerned about how their careers would be otherwise jeopardized if they did not fall in line.
The media also has helped implant politically charged opinions as truths. Notions such as that the Iraq War was a mistake, sold on the basis of lies, and has been a disaster, Bush refuses to utilize diplomacy, Iran is simply misunderstood and wants “peace” as we do, and so on become premises for other statements (a common Ericksonian device when used intentionally) rather than offered up for serious debate. Similarly, the counter themes are intentionally missing from significant coverage such as how much safer Iraq has become since the “Surge,” how many true diplomatic efforts the Bush Administration has undertaken, etc. Axelrod has been able to convince otherwise intelligent media voices to ingest and regurgitate fabrications and distortions without any urge to validate, challenge, or refute. That only comes from the intense inner submission Axelrod has been able to generate on a mass scale. Only a few talk radio voices have been spared to present an alternative point of view. Axelrod through Obama will most likely promote the Pelosi plan to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to silence talk radio once they have secured the presidency.
And the media is not the only realm that has taken to appeasing the rising power. As various formerly opposing political figures switch positions and line up behind Obama, a common joke is made about how that figure is seeking a certain position in the new administration or attempting to insure he or she will be invited to the White House. The joke, for many who tell it, however, evidences a deep knowing that something powerful is surfacing. Many attempt to preserve favor with the Axelrod-Obama pack by pre-emptively co-operating and demonstrating allegiance out of a deeper fear of what might happen if they don’t. Unfortunately, one of the greatest lessons of the Goebbels era was that appeasement brings about the very consequence it seeks to avoid.
Goebbels used every maneuver legally available to obtain the votes he needed to originally secure power. Axelrod had Obama spend his primary campaign immersed in general “fluff” verbiage that captured the imagination of the young and those fascinated with the idea of a black president. He secured the nomination, however, by the tricks of the trade. Just as Obama had shafted all of his competition when he ran for the Illinois State Senate by having his former mentor’s (Alice Palmer) petition names challenged and disqualified, he shrewdly campaigned in the caucuses for the backup votes that became available when other candidates failed to obtain the minimum votes to stay in. With so many failing candidates such as Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, etc. there were plenty of second round votes to gobble up; and gobble he did. Enough so that he was able to withstand the Hillary Clinton late surge that surfaced much of Obama’s clay feet.
Goebbels had his “Hitler Youth” and “Brown Shirts,” assistance in large part by civilian youth groups educated and maneuvered to spread the ideology, humiliate those who resisted, and increasingly engage in difficult to control violent youthful activities. Axelrod has assembled his own army of youths in record numbers to assist the campaign, register new voters, swarm citizens and spread the gospel. Rallies are the new form of get-together. Axelrod knows all too well cognitive dissonance theory and “progressive involvement”- that if one can get a subject to take a minimal action in his favor and under his direction, it becomes significantly easier to lock up that subject’s vote. And his political machine has created a wide variety of new activities to get the supporters committed—particularly the young.
And Axelrod added a true coup de gras—charging for attendance at the key Obama events. Besides defraying the costs of the event, the charge for tickets creates the sense of a “must have” ticket, playing particularly on the emotions of the coveted young audience target group. If others are paying, it must be worth it.
While Obama now downplays his connections with ACORN, he battled the primary season by making the unaware public believe that “community organizing” is the same as providing charitable services to the most needy. As the public is just now starting to understand that “community organizing” is a radical political activity developed by Saul Alinsky who served as a guide for Obama, Obama is backing away from associations with ACORN despite having, according to the Wall Street Journal, headed a registration effort for ACORN’s Project Vote in 1992, worked as a top trainer for Acorn’s conferences, and worked as ACORN’s lawyer in a case upholding the critical Motor Voter Act. The Axelrod campaign organization has also directed over $800,000 to ACORN’s umbrella organization Citizen’s Consulting Inc. Not unlike the Hitler Youth, ACORN nationally strong-arms the electorate in blatant violation of the intent, if not the actual letter of, our election laws.
Bullying is perhaps the word of choice for what Axelrod has assembled, whether or not ordered by central command. Like all central cult figures, Axelrod has kept Obama at a distance from the ruthless tactics employed by those charged with growing the cult itself. When Obama’s connections with questionable figures such as Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Reverend Wright, Father Phleger, and so forth are exposed, Obama responds these are not the same people he knew. And the press, even when it wakes up out of its own trance enough to raise a question, rushes to accept the second response no matter how absurd. The power of his trance is that followers, like all invested cult members, become more fearful of waking up from their programming than they are of being increasingly led more deeply. The more activities taken, the more they defend their beliefs.
When voices speak out against Obama, they are swarmed and attacked. Stanley Kurtz researched Obama’s history with Bill Ayers and has had his home picketed as a result. “Joe the Plumber” raised a question about Obama’s “share the wealth” philosophy and was immediately confronted with a blitzkrieg from the media storm troopers. (If only Obama were capable of showing as much strength and willingness to fight America’s real enemies…). Anyone else who dares speak out against Obama is immediately badgered by a multitude of stand-ins screaming “racism” or “Islamophobia” or “warmonger.” Computer hacking of Sarah Palin and the Ohio Motor Vehicles Bureau are just a few of the cyber activities that have been publicized to date. It does not matter whether the Obama campaign has anything to do with the various incidents; what matters is the depth of cult-like behavior on the part of entranced.
Axelrod’s squadrons are not limited by our borders but seem to extend worldwide. Recently Jerome Corsi was temporarily jailed in Kenya while attempting to research Obama’s support of Raila Odinga. Obama has actively inserted himself, allegedly by appearing for and raising money for, into Odinga’s efforts to extend an Islamist agenda into Kenya. Corsi met the equivalent SS guards while investigating Obama’s connection.
And Obama has apparently called for the creation of a civilian national security force which is to be staffed as large as the existing military. These plans have beneficent sounding aims to fit the expanded requirements of security today, including aiding the homeless, education assistance, public health outreach and so forth. It can not be deemed, as described, some kind of secret military force. Nonetheless, assembling the many is the food of all community organizers; once amassed, these forces become useful for a wide variety of purposes. And police state accusations have already started to emerge. Missouri legal officials have threatened citizens with libel prosecutions for making false statements about Obama—creating the impression of “truth squads.” In Texas, one woman claims a campaign worker had the Secret Service visit her on complaint that she had uttered derogatory remarks about the candidate. Left wing bloggers have formed their own police Brown Shirt universe.
A major point of propaganda employed by Goebells was to accuse an enemy of exactly what he was contemplating or engaged in doing. Hitler burned down the Reichstag to facilitate his own power grab and blamed it on the “Jews” and communists. Axelrod’s propaganda is no different. His attacks on “divisiveness” are indications of the extreme level of hostility hidden in his class warfare policies beneath the cool exterior. Having whined throughout the primary campaign about the horrors of negative campaigning, Axelrod unleashed one of the most deviously negative onslaughts upon McCain; lying, distorting, misdirecting and outright humiliating his opponent while having Obama retain his “above the fray” “I’m just the same simple fair great man I’ve always been” demeanor. “A HOUSE DIVIDED CAN NOT STAND” sounds as if Obama is pleading for us all to come together. It has other meanings, however, for the mesmerized devotees: “Since we are divided we must tear it down!” and “I will do all I need to bring those opposing me in line!”
Also paradoxically, Axelrod’s attacks on the greed inherent in a capitalistic society in his case evidence his deep greedy desire to take away from those who earn and deliver to those who adore Obama - as well as his own singular goal to grab power for himself. Blaming the financial crisis on Old Standby Bush without any recognition of the necessary and sufficient cause of democratic regulation to force questionable loans demonstrates Obama’s own inability to accept responsibility. Obama’s soft use of “just trying to give folks a little more ‘FAIRNESS’” displays his unfair desire to secure reparations for what he deems has been a slew of injustices. Some call him a “socialist,” others a “Marxist;” what is clear is that Axelrod has employed the tools of all of them before him.
Nor is Axelrod’s word worth much. Just as Hitler unilaterally broke his deal with Chamberlain for “Peace in our Time,” so did Axelrod and Obama refuse to honor Obama’s agreement with McCain to accept public campaign financing. Perhaps McCain should have learned from Obama’s prior reneging on his commitment to work with McCain on ethics reform legislation. Watching Obama constantly change his description of his relationships with Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, and Reverend Wright should have been evidence enough of Axelrod’s strained relationship with the truth itself. Yet, an Obama devotee is likely to believe that only George Bush is capable of lies.
The underlying ideology Goebbels sought to sell was one of world domination; stirring German national pride. Likewise, Axelrod has had Obama hint at his own global vision to arouse a similar global pride in many of his young and “intellectual” and “elite” followers. To paraphrase David Brooks, Obama, unlike McCain, seems to lack any real tethering to anything specifically American. A one-world unified vision lies in the background of much of Obama’s magnanimous oratory. Too smart to divulge any coherent description (as much of the country could not consciously accept such an approach), Obama occasionally touches upon his dream to address global poverty and disease. The current financial crisis is causing various central bankers to press for a more unified international financial system. Louis Farrakhan, leader of The Nation of Islam, called Obama “the instrument to bring about universal CHANGE.”
Obama has called himself a “CITIZEN OF THE WORLD,” a phrase which carries many powerful political suggestions to those who can hear—America is wrong, misguided, in decline and borders on evil, all of us (countries and individuals) worldwide are equal, sharing the wealth is to be a global activity, approval from other nations is the primary measure of value and so forth. It is an anti-nationalist ethos that forfeits up front all that makes America exceptional and subtly, if not explicitly, attempts to weaken American culture. It is not just lines such as “WE’RE GOING TO CHANGE THE COUNTRY AND CHANGE THE WORLD" that expose the extent of his grandiose aspirations.
Just as Goebbels used the tools of democracy to destroy democracy, some of Obama’s followers’ activities at least border on abuse of our freedoms, even if legal. Voter registration fraud seemingly has been engaged in droves. Obama has received undisclosed amounts of campaign financing from foreign sources, capitalizing upon the lack of disclosure requirements for small lot contributions. He supports abolishing secret ballots in union elections, re-arming his union leader buddies with the tools they need. Just as Goebbels ordered massive book burning, our free speech is at risk. Obama has challenged cable company airings of certain unfavorable material and has unleashed assault squads to hammer radio and television stations whenever unfavorable opinions are voiced. Axelrod has cancelled interviews with an Orlando television station when it was dissatisfied with questions asked. Obama will certainly join the Pelosi-Reid post-election attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine in a transparent effort to silence opposing opinions for good. Recent claims have been made that Obama campaign contributions have been charged to credit cards of holders who do not even support Obama. Some claim that when they complain to the Axelrod machinery, they are actually encouraged to keep the charge. Operating with the efficiency of Rommel’s desert forces, the Axelrod’s battalions monitor the media and the blogosphere better than any fantasy Bush-Cheney NSA and are able to immediately supply a sharp response.
Goebbels knew that taking away freedoms must be done in slow stages. Just as a frog will remain in slowly heated water until it is boiled to death, many entranced in Goebbels’ Germany remained immersed in the illusion that a serious transition could not possibly take place. Axelrod has also carefully managed his task in stages so that the incremental abuse and fabrication is easily digested.
Just as a Big Lie sells, so does a Massive Fraud escape the possibility of prompt efficient challenge and remedy. Reports have been made of clearly fraudulent voter registrations but little has been done to cure the abuses. Axelrod has declined to have Obama repudiate the activities of ACORN. (Instead, what emerges is the limited admission by some fraudulent registrants to create the impression that the problem is of manageable size). Voter registration games progress to acceptable voter misconduct, to shutting down access to relevant background information, to what will become a radically liberal agenda that can potentially reconstruct our entire society and legal system. No substantial objections are mounted as the public expects existing regulations to protect it. More significantly, even if violations such as substantial voter fraud are proven, there are no real remedies available under the law that could bring back a stolen election. This election will not be a matter of hanging chads that can be resubmitted for scoring. False votes can not be reversed. Too many states refuse to require any form of voter identification. Election law today is a pure partisan issue and Democrats will never allow states to create legislation that will deprive them of the advantages they have secured for themselves.
The most sinister Big Lie in Obama’s case concerns the fact that Axelrod’s true agenda is a revolution; not the orderly evolutionary CHANGE we are used to seeing occur within the constructs and constraints of our democratic institutions. Vladimir Lenin, as paraphrased by Yashiko Sagamori, opined that a revolution is typically preceded by the conditions in which those on top are unable to maintain and those on the bottom are unwilling to maintain the current order of our society. These are the conditions of today’s America as those “on top” are increasingly unable to enforce the most basic laws that hold our system together - covering border protection, financial integrity, drugs, terror to name a few - while those on the bottom are increasingly unwilling to cooperate. Obama and Axelrod appear well armed and dangerously advanced to take advantage of an acquiescent populace.
The Obama Revolution is animated by simple class warfare. The language of “ECONOMIC JUSTICE” and “ECONOMIC RIGHTS” indicate precisely what he has in mind. It is not the destruction, per se, of a race as Goebbels sold. Rather, it is the destruction of an entire class. Obama’s associations with Ayers, Wright, and others are accepted by those under his spell as mere acquaintances that should not be relevant in any assessment of the man. A common hypnosis phenomenon is to make the subject blind to objects right in front of him. Another is to make a subject see and feel something not there—as with an amputee experiencing himself regaining a missing limb. The complete hypnotic fabrication of Obama is turning over to him the keys to the entire Western system “right before our eyes!”
As Goebbels demonstrated, once power has been taken, the means are no longer relevant. Once in full power, Goebells and his associates insured that full power was secured for the future. Again, Obama is not Hitler nor like him in any significant fashion whatsoever; but armed with a Democrat Congress, an Obama presidency will certainly act quickly to secure itself for years to come—through redistricting efforts, directing spending to Hispanic and other growing populations to build loyalty, and further working with election laws to their partisan favor to mention only the obvious. Just as the Clinton Administration’s first legislation was the Motor Voter Act which is responsible for some of the alleged voter fraud acts today, there is no question that an Obama Administration will tighten its legal grip on the electorate immediately. Also, as the government increasingly intervenes into private business to address the current credit crisis, it is unlikely that an Obama administration will retract or retreat from such involvement even if the markets are subsequently restored to order.
Those who bet that their “pre-emptive appeasement” secures a safe refuge have historically been disappointed. Many on the Right comfort themselves with the fantasy that if Obama wins, he will only last for one term. Such wishful thinking is similar to that which pervaded Germany in the thirties and elsewhere at other times. Once power is secured, any hidden real agenda will become easy to implement. “CHANGE” will certainly take place, whether or not it is the change which the voters truly desired. “YES WE CAN will easily mutate into “NO YOU WON’T.” The operative motto: Do what you can to get there; NOW IS THE TIME and no one can stop you. Once there, you become the “GAME-CHANGER.”
This is the genius behind the masters - Goebbels of then and Axelrod of NOW!
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Claude “Inky” Benson is a writer living in Ohio.