The Anti-Christian Literature of the Neo-Marxist Left

What is Truth? said jesting Pilate, he would not stay for an answer.

Abstract

Dozens of anti-Christian articles are published every month by academics in the Neo-Marxist Left. These articles denigrate and attack Christian faith as “right wing fanaticism” and “absurdist beliefs”. These tracts also accuse Christians of being paranoid without valid cause, when in fact these very articles attacking them is blatant proximate cause in themselves. Some of these anti-Christian authors are:

Tanner Mirrlees, James Scaminaci, Michael Bellesiles, Brian Dunning, Chip Berlet, Steven Hassan.

I shall be quoting from some of the articles of these and other authors in this category in the following pages.

Tanner Mirrlees replies:

Thank you for engaging with my article. I think that you might be confusing "cultural Marxism" and "reform liberalism." Apples and oranges.

[1] There is no such thing as a "Cultural Marxist" movement with any power and influence in the United States. In the United States, you have small organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and Jacobin magazine, using Marxist concepts to analyze the world, and to argue for social democratic reforms (that are quite normal and common across most countries). A few hundred thousand DSA people is far from State power/hegemony! In fact, those scrappy social democrats are no match for the corporate-backed lobby groups that have captured both the Democrat and Republican parties, and do everything they can to stave off public interest or even modestly redistributive policy and regulation.

[2]The United States is one of the most anti-Marxist and anti-social democratic countries on the planet. It has been for over one hundred years. Likely will be for years to come. No wonder why the divide between the haves and have nots is so large. Your ruling class teachers workers to vote against policies that could improve their material conditions. Anyhow, why do you believe "cultural Marxism" is a real and powerful force in society and politics? How can you believe that? Show me the evidence.

[3] James Lindsay's situation has nothing to do with Marxism or Marxists. Also, do you think Amazon saying it supports "BLM" on its website while exploiting Black warehouse workers and demolishing their efforts to unite with white warehouse workers in a union (to win better wages and benefits) is "cultural Marxism"?

[4]Do you think LGBTQ folks' fight for human rights is the result of "cultural Marxism"?

[5]Do you think women's fight to get paid the same amount as men when doing the same job is "cultural Marxism"? If so, you've been woefully misled by alt-right/far Right propaganda, which now passes as "common sense" in the Republican Party and its lollipop echo chambers online and off.

[6]Your apparent lack of knowledge about the actual history of Marxism may place you alongside FOX TV pundits like Mark Levin, who mis-names the "Frankfurt School" the "Franklin School" in his best-selling but absolutely ludicrous book. If you are interested in learning about Marxism from actual Marxists, I'd be happy to recommend a lot of books.

[7]Anyhow, please substantiate your claim that my "mission is disinformation and propaganda against populism and the adherence to constitutional governance." Evidence? Why do you believe this? And what do you mean by populism? What books have you read on that topic? And are you referring to Left or Right populism? BTW--Bernie Sanders is a Left populist, and I fully support Sanders and the types of social democratic policies he stands for. So even in that context, your argument that I spread "disinformation and propaganda against populism" doesn't hold.

[8] I am against right-wing populism, though (e.g., of the Trump variety). Why? Because Trump, a spoiled brat who benefitted from his family's fortune and knows nothing about what its like to be working class or poor, does not care about the "people" he speaks of, and his tax breaks for rich people is anti-working class.

[9]Also, I find your engagement with my article impolite and unprofessional. If you'd like to have a serious discussion with me about American history, political economy, Marxism, liberalism, whatever--stop spewing ad hominem attacks (e.g., "psychobabble buzs words", "disingenuous rhetorical sophistry", "apologist" etc) and start making more substantive claims about what claims and statements you disagree with in my article, and why. E.g., select a claim or a statement, and pose a rational counterpoint. I'll play nice if you do that. Otherwise, I feel your message is boring, predictably ideological, and lacking sufficient capacity to engage in a serious political discussion.

Regards, Tanner Mirrlees

___________________________________________________

DSA = Democratic Socialists of America

Tanner Mirrlees email:

tanner.mirrlees@ontariotechu.ca

____________________________________________

My reply to Mirrlees:

The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory

The Frankfurt School, known more appropriately as Critical Theory, is a philosophical and sociological movement spread across many universities around the world. It was originally located at the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), an attached institute at the Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany. The Institute was founded in 1923 thanks to a donation by Felix Weil with the aim of developing Marxist studies in Germany. After 1933, the Nazis forced its closure, and the Institute was moved to the United States where it found hospitality at Columbia University in New York City.

The academic influence of the critical method is far reaching. Some of the key issues and philosophical preoccupations of the School involve the critique of modernity and capitalist society, the definition of social emancipation, as well as the detection of the pathologies of society. Critical Theory provides a specific interpretation of Marxist philosophy with regards to some of its central economic and political notions like commodification, reification, fetishization and critique of mass culture.

Some of the most prominent figures of the first generation of Critical Theorists were Max Horkheimer (1895-1973), Theodor Adorno (1903-1969), Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), Walter Benjamin (1892-1940), Friedrich Pollock (1894-1970), Leo Lowenthal (1900-1993), and Eric Fromm (1900-1980). Since the 1970s, a second generation began with Jürgen Habermas, who, among other merits, contributed to the opening of a dialogue between so-called continental and the analytic traditions. With Habermas, the Frankfurt School turned global, influencing methodological approaches in other European academic contexts and disciplines. It was during this phase that Richard Bernstein, a philosopher and contemporary of Habermas, embraced the research agenda of Critical Theory and significantly helped its development in American universities starting from the New School for Social Research in New York.

The third generation of critical theorists, therefore, arose either from Habermas’ research students in the United States and at Frankfurt am Main and Starnberg (1971-1982), or from a spontaneous convergence of independently educated scholars. Therefore, tthird generation of Critical Theory scholars consists of two groups. The first group spans a broad time—denying the possibility of establishing any sharp boundaries. It can be said to include also scholars such as Andrew Feenberg, even if he was a direct student of Marcuse, or people such as Albrecht Wellmer who became an assistant of Habermas due to the premature death of Adorno in 1969. Klaus Offe, Josef Früchtl, Hauke Brunkhorst, Klaus Günther, Axel Honneth, Alessandro Ferrara, Cristina Lafont, and Rainer Forst, among others, are also members of this group. The second group of the third generation is instead composed mostly of American scholars who were influenced by Habermas’ philosophy during his visits to the United States.

Not long after its inception, the Institute for Social Research was formally recognized by the Ministry of Education as an entity attached to Goethe University Frankfurt. Felix could not imagine that in the 1960s Goethe University Frankfurt would receive the epithet of “Karl Marx University”. The first officially appointed director was Carl Grünberg (1923-9), a Marxist professor at the University of Vienna. His contribution to the Institute was the creation of a historical archive mainly oriented to the study of the labor movement (also known as the Grünberg Archiv).

In 1930, Max Horkheimer succeeded to Grünberg. While continuing under a Marxist inspiration, Horkheimer interpreted the Institute’s mission to be more directed towards an interdisciplinary integration of the social sciences. Additionally, the Grünberg Archiv ceased to publish and an official organ was instead launched with a much greater impact: the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung. While never officially supporting any party, the Institute entertained intensive research exchanges with the Soviet Union.

https://iep.utm.edu/critical-theory-frankfurt-school/

12:52 PM – Thursday, April 4, 2022

Mr. Mirrlees

[1] There is no such thing as a "Cultural Marxist" movement with any power and influence in the United States.

What do you mean by "power and influence"? You seem to be referring to politicians and government bodies.

I would counter that it is the educational systems ie: academia that forms the basis for sociopolitical thought. A close second would be the media (Communications--your field).

So let us examine your first assertion quoted above. I will simply give you the facts as stated in the *Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy*

____________________________________________

The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory

The Frankfurt School, known more appropriately as Critical Theory, is a philosophical and sociological movement spread across many universities around the world. It was originally located at the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), an attached institute at the Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany. The Institute was founded in 1923 thanks to a donation by Felix Weil with the aim of developing Marxist studies in Germany. After 1933, the Nazis forced its closure, and the Institute was moved to the United States where it found hospitality at Columbia University in New York City.

The academic influence of the critical method is far reaching. Some of the key issues and philosophical preoccupations of the School involve the critique of modernity and capitalist society, the definition of social emancipation, as well as the detection of the pathologies of society. Critical Theory provides a specific interpretation of Marxist philosophy with regards to some of its central economic and political notions like commodification, reification, fetishization and critique of mass culture.

Some of the most prominent figures of the first generation of Critical Theorists were Max Horkheimer (1895-1973), Theodor Adorno (1903-1969), Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), Walter Benjamin (1892-1940), Friedrich Pollock (1894-1970), Leo Lowenthal (1900-1993), and Eric Fromm (1900-1980). Since the 1970s, a second generation began with Jürgen Habermas, who, among other merits, contributed to the opening of a dialogue between so-called continental and the analytic traditions. With Habermas, the Frankfurt School turned global, influencing methodological approaches in other European academic contexts and disciplines. It was during this phase that Richard Bernstein, a philosopher and contemporary of Habermas, embraced the research agenda of Critical Theory and significantly helped its development in American universities starting from the New School for Social Research in New York.

The third generation of critical theorists, therefore, arose either from Habermas’ research students in the United States and at Frankfurt am Main and Starnberg (1971-1982), or from a spontaneous convergence of independently educated scholars. Therefore, tthird generation of Critical Theory scholars consists of two groups. The first group spans a broad time—denying the possibility of establishing any sharp boundaries. It can be said to include also scholars such as Andrew Feenberg, even if he was a direct student of Marcuse, or people such as Albrecht Wellmer who became an assistant of Habermas due to the premature death of Adorno in 1969. Klaus Offe, Josef Früchtl, Hauke Brunkhorst, Klaus Günther, Axel Honneth, Alessandro Ferrara, Cristina Lafont, and Rainer Forst, among others, are also members of this group. The second group of the third generation is instead composed mostly of American scholars who were influenced by Habermas’ philosophy during his visits to the United States.

Not long after its inception, the Institute for Social Research was formally recognized by the Ministry of Education as an entity attached to Goethe University Frankfurt. Felix could not imagine that in the 1960s Goethe University Frankfurt would receive the epithet of “Karl Marx University”. The first officially appointed director was Carl Grünberg (1923-9), a Marxist professor at the University of Vienna. His contribution to the Institute was the creation of a historical archive mainly oriented to the study of the labor movement (also known as the Grünberg Archiv).

In 1930, Max Horkheimer succeeded to Grünberg. While continuing under a Marxist inspiration, Horkheimer interpreted the Institute’s mission to be more directed towards an interdisciplinary integration of the social sciences. Additionally, the Grünberg Archiv ceased to publish and an official organ was instead launched with a much greater impact: the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung. While never officially supporting any party, the Institute entertained intensive research exchanges with the Soviet Union.

https://iep.utm.edu/critical-theory-frankfurt-school/

As you can see this philosophy is in fact Marxist. Of particular interest is this: "It was during this phase that Richard Bernstein, a philosopher and contemporary of Habermas, embraced the research agenda of Critical Theory and significantly helped its development in American universities starting from the New School for Social Research in New York."

As you must be aware Critical Theory is viral, and spread throughout US academia quickly through the years and is now deeply ensconced in the liberal left wing universities throughout the US. It is of overwhelming influence in the post modern period. The exact dates of the post modern period is like most things a matter of dispute, sometimes said to have begun as early s the 1940s, but certainly taking hold in the 1960s and 70s.

I would say that we are near the end of the original post modern period, and are now in a brand new paradigm in the 21st century on the cusp of what is referred to as The Great Reset by the technocrats running the World Economic Forum. Klaus Schwab being the grandfather guru figure in Devos.

________________________________________________________

William Whitten - 1:57 PM – 4/14/2022

Naïveté is not innocence, it is gross and moribund ignorance. ~WW

[2] "The United States is one of the most anti-Marxist and anti-social democratic countries on the planet. It has been for over one hundred years. Likely will be for years to come. No wonder why the divide between the haves and have nots is so large. Your ruling class teachers workers to vote against policies that could improve their material conditions. Anyhow, why do you believe "cultural Marxism" is a real and powerful force in society and politics?
How can you believe that? Show me the evidence.
*James Lindsay's situation has nothing to do with Marxism or Marxists.*

Also, do you think Amazon saying it supports "BLM" on its website while exploiting Black warehouse workers and demolishing their efforts to unite with white warehouse workers in a union (to win better wages and benefits) is "cultural Marxism"?"

(This is such a disjointed, flow of consciousness statement/question that I can only answer it with my own interpretation of your meaning)>>
____________________________________________________
“It is not education, of course, but as political indoctrination it will be highly effective. Blame it on the early indoctrination in the imperial system.
The results of this indoctrination campaign are already evident.”—H. L. Mencken

COMPULSORY SCHOOLING – INDOCTRINATION
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/compulsory-schooling-indoctrination/

The woke grandchildren of the former outsiders are now more ruthless systematic insiders. The woke and wired new establishment knows how to use money and power to rebirth America as something the founders and most current Americans never envisioned. Name one mainline institution that the woke left does not now control— and warp The media? The campus? Silicon Valley? Professional sports? The corporate boardroom? Foundations? The K-12 educational establishment? The military hierarchy? The government deep state? The FBI top echelon? The left absorbed them all. But this time around, members of the left really believe that “by any means necessary” is no mere slogan. Instead, it is a model of how to disrupt or destroy American customs, traditions and values.
Woke revolutionaries are not panhandlers, street people or Grateful Dead groupies. They are not even a few nutty and murderous Symbionese Liberation Army terrorists fighting against “the Man.” They are “the Man.”

Our 21st century revolutionaries are multibillionaires with flip-flops, tie-dye T-shirts and nose rings, but with the absolute power and desire to censor how half the country communicates — or cancel them entirely. They don’t flock to campus free-speech areas; they are the campus administrators who ban free speech. They don’t picket outside the Pentagon; they are inside the Pentagon. They don’t chant “eat the rich”; they are the rich who eat at Napa Valley’s French Laundry. They don’t protest “uptight” values, because they are more intolerant and puritanical than any Victorian.
They don’t believe in racial quotas based on “proportional representation,” because they are racists who demand underrepresentation of “bad” racial groups and overrepresentation of “good” groups. The color of our skin is their gospel, not the content of our character. They are top-down revolutionaries. None of their agendas, from open borders and changing the Constitution to critical race theory and banning clean-burning fossil fuels, are ever favored among a majority of the population.
Their guiding principle is “never let a crisis go to waste.” Only in times of a pandemic, a national quarantine or volatile racial relations can the new upscale leftist revolutionaries use fear to push through policies that no one in calm times could stomach.

Critical Race Theory is an aspect of the Woke culture that is all the rage in the new neomarxist culture being promoted by the far left.


Lewis Carroll predicts the Woke thinking with the words of Humpty Dumpty:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’’
'The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
’’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”― Lewis Carroll

It is best explained by Dr. James Lindsey who has made a deep study of Woke culture:
“If you want to understand the Woke ideology, you have to admit that you’re not ready to understand Woke ideology. Everyone knows that the Woke use terminology with their own inventive and biased definitions, but understanding that terminology requires understanding how the Woke think about the world.
It isn’t possible to understand concepts like “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “equity” without first understanding that the Woke see everything in the world through a particular lens of power. When you do understand how the Woke see the world and thus how they use language to their advantage, you’ll also understand how we’re all being played.

Diversity gets revealed as a program to concentrate resources, influence, status, and power in the hands of Woke Critical Theorists while disempowering everyone else. Inclusion is comprehensible as restricted speech, intentional segregation, and a justification to concentrate their idea of “diversity.” Equity is the goal, which has to be understood as a combination of affirmative action and reparations used to redistribute resources and engineer outcomes in the name of correcting past injustices.
Everything can be threatened by this change of context in our language to one that interprets everything through “systemic power dynamics.” Our contracts, our laws, and even our Constitution can all be reinterpreted to mean something completely different without having to change a single word through this Woke manipulation of language.
Join James Lindsay as he walks you through the Woke mindset and how it can, and will, be used to turn our societies’ core principles back against them. The Great Awokening Conference, Session 2

All the best, \\][//

______________________________

William Whitten -8:49 – 4/14/2022

The abstract of your paper, ‘The Alt-Right’s Discourse of ’Cultural Marxism’ A Political Instrument of Intersectional Hate’
Says, “This article analyzes the history of production, circulation, and political uses of the alt-right’s discourse about cultural Marxism in the context of the right-wing populist of Trump presidency, the rise of fascist movements in the United States and worldwide, and the politics of intersectional hate.”
_______________________
The casual segue between “the Trump presidency”, and “the rise of fascist movements” is a scurrilous rhetorical trick attempting to frame Trump as a fascist. An example of why I asserted your use of disingenuous rhetorical sophistry. A phrase that you then characterized as an ad hominem attack.
The Southern Poverty Law Center defines “The Alternative Right, commonly known as the "alt-right," is a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that “white identity” is under attack by multicultural forces using “political correctness” and “social justice” to undermine white people and “their” civilization.“
Wikipedia has this definition:
“The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right white nationalist movement. A largely online phenomenon, the alt-right originated in the United States during the early 2010s before establishing a presence in other countries and declining after 2017. The term is ill-defined, having been used in different ways by alt-right members, media commentators, and academics.”

In 2010, the American white nationalist Richard B. Spencer launched The Alternative Right webzine.
Now, I understand Richard Spencer’s fascist views, and any attempt to associate of such views to those of Donald Trump is spurious and outrageous defamation, and slander.

I cannot help but notice you have failed to engage me since my very first reply concerning the Frankfurt School.
I suspect that it wasn't my lack of a substantive argument that really bothered you initially. It seems to by my substantive arguments that have caused you to back off entirely.

If this is not so, then get with it! Where is your response?!?!?

____________________________________________________

William Whitten – 4:30 AM – 4/15/2022

>> “You claim that academia is ruled by Marxists.”

No, I do not, My claim is that there is a huge influence in academia by Neo-Marxists. And this influence is felt mainly in the teaching of the sociopolitical science classes, I am hardly alone in this opinion. The psychologist Jordan Peterson has similar views, as does the author and social commentator Douglas Murray.

>>No, I didn't call Trump a fascist in my essay, or elsewhere.

I did not say that you called Trump a fascist in your essay, I said that it is subtly implied in the subtext of your essay, through innuendo. The fact that the fascist element in the United States think that "Trump is their guy" is blown out of proportion in your essay, and other uber-leftist in your camp. This goes hand in had with the inflation of the January 9 riot as an "insurrection". Which is STILL going on with Pelosi's deranged and disingenuous witch hunts.

>> "Why else would Richard Spencer declare, "heil Trump, heil victory" after Trump was elected?"

Because they read into Trump things that simply are not there, which you are doing yourself in the framing of the question above.

>> Do you believe Sweden is a tyranny because it has the most advanced, successful and functional welfare state on the planet?

No, a functional welfare state is not the same thing as a socialist state.

Venezuela under Chavez was a socialist state, and it was authoritarian, I would say totalitarian. Sandinista rule in Nicaragua was a communist dictatorship and totalitarian. And of course there is North Korea, a bleeding example of Communist style socialism.

Then there is the modern CCP in China witch is the best example of Neo-Marxism in power. It is a Marxist form of Corporatism. Neo-Marxism is a blend of capitalist economy with the same totalitarian social order China had under Mao Zedong.
This CCP model is the one that the Neo-Marxists in Biden regime are attempting to impose on the United States at the present time. This is meant to be a temporary transient stage prior to the dissolution of national sovereignty during the 'Great Reset' when the global order envisioned by Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum becomes manifest.

I do not need any lessons on Marxism, or Democratic Socialism. I am well informed.

I am also well informed on the distinction between Capitalism and Corporatism. Most critics of Capitalism are actually criticizing Corporatism.

The final form of the Global Regime is meant to be Neo-Feudalism':

“The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.”-- Carroll Quigley - Tragedy & Hope

________________________________

William Whitten

In the last comment made here I said:
*This CCP model is the one that the Neo-Marxists in Biden regime are attempting to impose on the United States at the present time. This is meant to be a temporary transient stage prior to the dissolution of national sovereignty during the 'Great Reset' when the global order envisioned by Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum becomes manifest.*

I give you here and now the evidence of my assertion, straight from the words of John Kerry, Biden's current Special Envoy on Climate Change:

John Kerry reveals Biden's devotion to radical 'Great Reset' movement

In June, elites at important international institutions such as the World Economic Forum and the United Nations launched a far-reaching campaign to “reset” the global economy.

The plan involves dramatically increasing the power of government through expansive new social programs like the Green New Deal and using vast regulatory schemes and government programs to coerce corporations into supporting left-wing causes.

The two justifications for the proposal, which has been aptly named by its supporters the “Great Reset,” are the COVID-19 pandemic (the short-term justification) and the so-called “climate crisis” caused by global warming (the long-term justification).

According to the Great Reset’s supporters, the plan would fundamentally transform much of society. As World Economic Forum (WEF) head Klaus Schwab wrote back in June, “the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”

Internationally, the Great Reset has already been backed by influential leaders, activists, academics and institutions. In addition to the World Economic Forum and United Nations, the Great Reset movement counts among its the International Monetary Fund, heads of state, Greenpeace and CEOs and presidents of large corporations and financial institutions such as Microsoft and MasterCard.

But in America, most policymakers – including President-elect Joe Biden – have been relatively quiet about the Great Reset, leaving many to speculate what a Biden administration would do to support or oppose this radical plan.

There has been some evidence suggesting that Biden and some of his biggest allies back the Great Reset and would attempt to impose it on the United States. But Biden and his team have never explicitly stated that America would be involved — that is, until now.

At a panel discussion about the Great Reset hosted by the World Economic Forum in mid-November, former Secretary of State John Kerry – Biden’s would-be special presidential envoy for climate – firmly declared that the Biden administration will support the Great Reset and that the Great Reset “will happen with greater speed and with greater intensity than a lot of people might imagine.”

When asked by panel host Borge Brende whether the World Economic Forum and other Great Reset supporters are “expecting too much too soon from the new president, or is he going to deliver first day on this [sic] topics?,” Kerry responded, “The answer to your question is, no, you’re not expecting too much.”

“And yes, it [the Great Reset] will happen,” Kerry continued. “And I think it will happen with greater speed and with greater intensity than a lot of people might imagine. In effect, the citizens of the United States have just done a Great Reset. We’ve done a Great Reset. And it was a record level of voting.”

Kerry later argued that the Great Reset is necessary to slow the “climate crisis” and that “I know Joe Biden believes … it’s not enough just to rejoin Paris [the Paris Climate Accords] for the United States. It’s not enough for us to just do the minimum of what Paris requires.”

Kerry also said that because of the Great Reset movement, he believes “we’re at the dawn of an extremely exciting time” and that “the greatest opportunity we have” to address social and economic problems is “dealing with the climate crisis.”

These and the other comments made by Kerry at the WEF event are made more important by the fact that Kerry’s role in a Biden administration would involve working with the very same international institutions that have already expressed their support for the Great Reset on climate change.

This isn’t the first time Kerry has thrown his weight behind the Great Reset. At a June World Economic Forum virtual event, Kerry said the coronavirus pandemic was “a big moment” that opened the door for the Great Reset and that, “The World Economic Forum – the CEO capacity of the Forum – is really going to have to play a front and center role in refining the Great Reset to deal with climate change and inequity — all of which is being laid bare as a consequence of COVID-19.”

The evidence is now crystal clear about Biden’s connection to the Great Reset. He, John Kerry and the rest of the Biden administration are planning to bring the Great Reset to the United States. And if they are successful, the country will never be the same.

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/528482-john-kerry-reveals-bidens-devotion-to-radical-great-reset-movement

Yours in 322, \\][//

_______________________________________________

Tanner Mirrlees 4/16/2022

Hi William,

Re: neo-Marxists

I would not call the majority of professors in social science and humanities disciplines neo-Marxists or Marxists or cultural Marxists. I call them variants of liberalism. Jordan Peterson is no authority on modern academia, nor on Marxism. In my opinion, Peterson should have stuck to social psychology, as he has no track record of accomplishment in doing research on or publishing about other topics. No one serious takes Jordan Peterson's rants about cultural Marxism seriously. Peterson is one of the major spreads of the dubious notion that academia is run by postmodern cultural Marxists. Foolish, inaccurate and weird point. Like, the Ivy League psychology department that paid him $180K per year was not full of Marxists; he was a Full Professor at the country's top university, and yet he acted like a pathetic spoiled brat, played the victim all the time, prattling on about how we was in some way the victim of "cultural Marxists." Utterly ridiculous: tenured professor at an elite school pulling $180K year in salary on top of millions more on sales from that ridiculous self-help book is NOT a victim. I have almost zero respect for Peterson's ideas.

Re: CCP

Most Marxists I know would not call the CCP in China an example of Neo-Marxism in power. To the contrary, the more useful phrase is "capitalism with chinese characteristics' or alternately, 'authoritarian neoliberalism.' The CCP folks buried Mao a long time ago, and the new ruling class in China is capitalist; the neoliberal market reforms enacted by the CCP aimed to integrate China into global capitalism, not develop into a state that would revolt against or overturn global capitalism.

Re: state sovereignty

Your point of national sovereignty is a bit idealistic; never has any state anywhere been 100% sovereign. To the extent that all nation-states interact and exist within a world system of other nation-states, no nation is an island with one Robinson Crusoe. I mean, do you shop at the Dollar Store or Wal-Mart? If you answer yes, then you contributed to the erosion of 'American economic sovereignty' a long time ago. At the same time, there is one country in the world that is more sovereign than others, and yes, that is the United States. Like what other country has over 800 military bases outside of its own sovereign territorial jurisdiction protected by status of forces agreements in other countries. What other country goes to war, saying it is promoting human rights, all the while exempting itself from the International Criminal Court and any prospect of being tried for war crimes/crimes against humanity (you know, like in Iraq and elsewhere)?

Re: fedualism

Feudalism was dead long ago. That is over. Done. Kaput. The world is capitalist, through and through. We live in a capitalist system. Money makes the world go round. Competition between corporations for investment, resources, consumers, profits makes the world go round. A subscription to The Economist helps one figure that out; the business pages of the NYT are also insightful.

Re: Great Reset conspiracy theory

You are reading way too much into the whole "Great Reset" thing. There are lots of boring conspiracy theories floating around this these days. The "Great Reset" is just a buzz word. Governments and corporations, etc., coin buzz words all the time to try to give a name to what they want to do to bring about social change (or make themselves appear useful in some way). There is nothing conspiratorial about any of this. Donald Trump's buzzword was, with lots of oil and gas and real estate corporations, "Make America Great Again"; lots conservative elites pursued that, tried to 'influence society.' Now, coming out of COVID-19 pandemic, some liberal political and economic elites in and around the WEF make mention of something called a "Great Reset". So what? Is the WEF a government? No. Is it a corporation. No. Is it an international policy networking entity that produces knowledge about the world and tries to get other people to act upon it. Yes. But it's just one, in a world of thousands of think-tanks and policy-influencing entities. At the end of the day, governments decide if and how they will act upon knowledge in real policy terms. The Great Reset is just a buzzword, a way to try to talk about what might be done, one day. The buzzword of the 90s was globalization. After the Great Depression, the New Deal. Etc. etc. Political and economic elites always plan, make decisions, craft future oriented policy visions, act upon society. It has always been this way in the United States, and everywhere. Again, that's capitalism and representative democracy. If you want deliberative/participatory democracy, cool. But if you really want your next door neighbor to make all the transportation policy decisions for the country, I hope that neighbor of yours is an expert and specialist in that area. I'm certainly not!

Re: am I a Marxist?

Not sure, as I don't really know what "Marxist" means these days. Marx himself once wrote, "I'm not a Marxist." In fact, within Marxist philosophy and politics, there is a ton of disagreement and heterogeneity, so I'd be hard pressed to say there exists something unitary and singular called "Marxism." That said, I do think some of Marx's writings about the world continue to hold some powerful insights. I do think more people would have a better understanding of capitalism, social class/class inequality, and the state if they read some of Marx. Adam Smith and Friedrick Hayek only offer so much. Do I think Marx is correct about everything? Certainly not. Marx is wrong about many things. Do I think Marx's vast writings about the world hold some analytical value for understanding some things? Absolutely yes. Who wouldn't? Even mainstream and right-wing economists respect some of what Marx said about capitalism. And if they don't they have to take some of Marx's ideas seriously. And who isn't thinking about the problems of capitalism these days? I'm not sure that makes me a Marxist though. I guess I'm more of a social democrat. As I said earlier, I'm a big fan of Bernie Sanders. But to bad the United States has never had the benefit of a social democratic party, let alone social democratic government. America is capitalist, to the extreme. No wonder why so many Americans work themselves to death, and still suffer so much debt. The wealth flows to those at top of the American social structure, with the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the middle disappearing. That's capitalism. And both Democrat and Republican parties, have, in the main, support it. Sad to see such a massive divide between the haves and have nots. I wish it wasn't that way. I wish American working class people had a better deal. That point, I guess is a Marxist point (the world doesn't have to be the way it is and the working class doesn't always have to get crushed by capital): but it is also empirical point. Look at all the union campaigns kicking off! Can anyone prove otherwise? Probably not. In that regard, anyone who accepts there is class division, class inequality, and class conflict in American society, might be a Marxist of some kind, even if they think they are something else. But if that is how people think about the world, it is not the result of 'cultural Marxist' or 'woke Left' academics. It is the result of capitalism, and working class people's relationship to it, and their boss. Anyhow, I don't think a good society is one where the typical corporate CEO takes around 400 times the average worker, where extreme wealth exists alongside extreme poverty and where basic human needs go unmet. I think more people would be better off if more countries reigned in the power of the corporate rich, and developed or rebuilt effective welfare states.

I wish this for the United States, as I want the majority of American working people to enjoy a better quality of life than they currently do.

All the best,
TM

______________________________________________

William Whitten

Hi Tanner,

You confidently assert "No one serious takes Jordan Peterson's rants about cultural Marxism seriously"

I beg to differ. I am serious, and I have studied the literature closely and I find Peterson's commentary succinct and accurate. Your personal opinions about Jordan Peterson are irrelevant. Personal opinion presented as fact is inappropriate, especially when supported by disingenuous rhetorical sophistry, which seems to be one of your hallmark attributes.

You then comment on the CCP, saying, "Most Marxists I know would not call the CCP in China an example of Neo-Marxism in power."

I prefer to analyze any and all propositions for myself and not rely on appeals to authority. My assessment is that CCP in China is indeed an example of Neo-Marxism in power.

I do hope to disabuse you of the idea that I need to be re-educated, I find attempts at this arrogant and off-putting.

You say that "Feudalism was dead long ago." Yes indeed historically this is a fact. But the goals of tyrants have never died.
You call the 'Great Reset' "a conspiracy theory." That is truly astonishing! Have you actually read their literature?
Did you not read John Kerry's words about the Biden regimes intention to put the Great Reset agenda into motion as their own policy?

Do you not see the facts on the ground? The southern border is essentially nonexistent after the few months of the Biden regime's disastrous policies. Do you seriously think this is a 'mistake'? Do you think it was a 'mistake' to hand over billions of dollars of high-tech weaponry and military equipment to the Taliban? And now this incredibly preposterous nuclear brinkmanship the Biden regime is playing in the Ukraine. Once may be considered a mistake, twice ineptitude, but three times shows an agenda.

Now, you say that, "America is capitalist, to the extreme." No, America is corporatist to the extreme. America is a corporatist oligarchy and has been since the Supreme Court rulings in the early 1900s used the 14th Amendment to rule that corporations have the same rights as living human beings ( Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394, is a corporate law case of the United States Supreme Court )

I agree with much of what you say in your final paragraph, but I think you have misidentified the true culprit. It is not 'capitalism' it is 'corporatism'

The majority of American working people would have enjoyed a better quality of life than they currently do if the unconstitutional personal income tax hadn't been mandated in 1913. If you think G. Edward Griffin is simply a 'conspiracy theorist', then look into Aaron Russo: http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/F2F.htm
I have been frank here, and I do not mean to come off as hostile. I really do appreciate you taking the time to sort through these issues with me. I have inquired of six other authors on ACADEMIA but you were the only one to respond.
If you have further thoughts, feel free to express them at any time. Yours truly, Willy Whitten
\\][//

__________________________________________________

"The West Needs WWIII" - Martin Armstrong Warns "There's No Return To Normal Here"

Legendary financial and geopolitical cycle analyst Martin Armstrong thinks the New World Order’s so-called “Great Reset” plan for humanity now needs war to try and make it work. 

It could happen in the next few weeks. 

Armstrong explains, “What they are trying to do is deliberately poke the bear..."

"They are increasing the pressure on just about everything under the sun.  The West needs World War III.  They just need it.  The real problem here is they went to negative interest rates in 2014 in Europe.  They have been unable to stimulate the economy, and Keynesian economics have completely failed...

I would say this is mismanagement of government on a global scale.  The problem is that central banks have no control over the economy. 

Add to this, this type of inflation is substantially different than a speculative boom.  This inflation is based upon shortages.  These morons with covid... with lockdowns, ended up destroying the supply chains...

Things that are there, I buy extra of because next time it might be gone.  So, everybody is increasing their hoarding...

So, what we have with Europe, with its negative interest rates, they have wiped out all the pension funds.  They need 8% to break even, not negative rates.  There is not a pension fund in Europe that is solvent at this stage of the game. . . . The European government is collapsing.  If they end up defaulting, you are going to have millions of people down there with pitch forks storming the parliament.  So, to avoid that, they need war...

The Biden Administration has deliberately destroyed the world economy.”

If there is war in Europe, the “U.S. dollar will get stronger initially and not weaker” according to Armstrong.  Armstrong also says,

“This is all deliberate.  There is no return to normal here.  Unfortunately, this is where we are headed.”

Armstrong contends, war in Europe could break out in a couple of weeks, and the EU and NATO are pushing this.  Armstrong says,

“They want Russia to do something. . . . This thing with Russia is the same thing all over again.  Unfortunately, we are headed for war.”

Armstrong also talks in detail about the following subjects:  Digital currency and why the Deep State is pushing so hard for it; gold, silver, food and just about everything going way up in price because of shortages.

Armstrong recommends that people “stockpile two years of food.”  Armstrong has other tips for what the common man needs to stock up on; Armstrong also says President Trump is the only President he knew that cared about U.S. soldiers dying in combat.  This is why Trump wanted to bring the troops home, and the Deep State warmongers hated him for it. 

Armstrong also gives his predictions on who wins the midterm election this coming November.  Will it matter which party comes out on top?

In closing, Armstrong says,

“We are not getting back to normal.  The system is crumbling from within, and it’s just like the fall of Rome, basically."

  (There is much more in the nearly 1 hour interview.)

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with Martin Armstrong cycle expert and author of the popular book “Manipulating the World Economy,” for 4.12.22.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/west-needs-wwiii-martin-armstrong-warns-theres-no-return-normal-here

_______________________________________________________

Isn't this the essence of socialism in reality despite all of the rhetoric claiming the citizens will own the means of production, the meme: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

"Trump derangement syndrome" (abbreviated as "TDS")

– Socialists and Social Media Platforms w/ Tanner Mirrlees and Derek Hrynyshyn

Why was Vladimir Linen financed by Wall Street? See: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, which traces the foundations of Western funding of the Soviet Union. Dispassionately, and with overwhelming documentation.

Derek Hrynyshyn –derekh@yorku.ca

Twilight of American Imperialism?

Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò

Might we be witnessing but not heeding a historical moment that years hence, we would look back and retrospectively christen the twilight of American imperialism?  Donald Trump started a trend the very first year of his presidency of withdrawing or threatening to with-draw from sundry international agreements that previous administrations had negotiated and signed on behalf of the United States: In quick succession, he dumped the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, threatened to pull out of NAFTA, pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Agreement, the Paris Climate accord, and even toyed with the idea that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization might have become redundant. In the latest installment of this trend, he pulled the United States out of the World Health Organization [WHO] right during a pandemic. Something about these moves ought to make leftists, if not all progressives, both in this country and across the world happy. Many leftists are inclined to believe that the United States is, on balance, not quite the force for good in the world that its propaganda would like the world to believe. We are always asking for the US’s withdrawal from different parts of the world. Why, then, are we not celebrating an American president who is pulling the country back from its global domination? I argue that we cannot have it both ways: either the United States is a bad old imperialist power, or imperialist it may be, in times when it has had decent leadership that took seriously its founding utopia, it could be a force for good in the world. The question is whether the latter permutation is under such severe stress under Trump’s presidency that he may actually have presided over the fall of American imperialism. What if, instead of lamenting America’s continual withdrawals from the world, the American left encourages the president to issue more withdrawals? After all, if we desire the end of American imperialism and associated interventions in different parts of the world,we should applaud a president who seems to be doing exactly that.**

William Whitten – 6:30 PM – 4/14/2022

If "we" should be pleased at the twilight of American imperialism, what would replace the vacuum the US leaves? Perhaps a global government such as that proposed by the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland?
A system where, "You will own nothing and be happy"? As it is put by Klaus Schwab, when speaking of his 'Great Reset'
Isn't that the essence of socialism in reality despite all of the rhetoric claiming the citizens will own the means of production, or the meme: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Yours, William Whitten

Chapter 17: The Christian Reconstructionist Plan for the Patriot Militia

This chapter presents the “hole-in-the-donut,” that is, the actual plan that the Christian Right had for the development of the Patriot militia in the 1990s. Chapters 14,15, and 16 established the operational links and the ideological affinities between the Christian Right, the National Rifle Association and other gun rights absolutist organizations, the Wise Use/County Rule movements, and the Patriot militias. Of course, the Christian Reconstructionists did not necessarily hide their intentions to create a Patriot militia movement, but then again, they did not necessarily broadcast clearly those intentions.

Chapter 17: The Christian Reconstructionist Plan for the Patriot Militia

James Scaminaci

This chapter presents the “hole-in-the-donut,” that is, the actual plan that the Christian Right had for the development of the Patriot militia in the 1990s. Chapters 14,15, and 16 established the operational links and the ideological affinities between the Christian Right, the National Rifle Association and other gun rights absolutist organizations, the Wise Use/County Rule movements, and the Patriot militias. Of course, the Christian Reconstructionists did not necessarily hide their intentions to create a Patriot militia movement, but then again, they did not necessarily broadcast clearly those intentions. In 1983, in a book widely overlooked by those who monitor the Christian Reconstructionists and the Christian Right,

The Theology of Christian Resistance, the leading Christian Reconstructionist strategic thinkers laid out a theology of resistance to federal tyranny and openly suggested that they had to create a strategy of resistance to federal tyranny; they further argued that while defensive violence was biblically and constitutionally justified, in the interim, they should retreat and not openly challenge the federal government; they argued that Jesus was the first militiaman; they argued that lesser magistrates, that could include governors, mayors and local sheriffs, were responsible for interposing themselves between federal tyranny and the individual local citizenry; and, they called for the development of a militia based on the models of ancient Israel and the American Revolutionary War. The Christian Reconstructionists created the United States Taxpayer Association in 1990 and the United StatesTaxpayer Party in 1992—organizational vehicles that would appeal to and aggregate hard core Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals, Christian Identity adherents.

------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------

James Scaminaci III, “The Camp of the Saints Worldview,” Copyright: CC BY 4.0

Title: “The Camp of the Saints Worldview”

(Final Version. Last Edit: 9 MAY 2020)Author: James Scaminaci III, PhD, @4GWDOTDOTDOTInformation Cutoff Date: February 3, 2020Copyright: CC BY 4.0 Part 1:

Introduction

A leading Christian Right pastor and advisor to Donald Trump opposes immigration and believes Trump’s impeachment would cause a civil war. A leading paramilitary leader sends his forces to the border and supports the pastor.

Robert Jeffress and Stewart Rhodes are a microcosm demonstrating the ideological connections between opposition to immigration and belief in what would inevitably be a racial civil war in America.

How did we get here?

This is both a battle without bullets—the transfer of loyalty from the state to areligion or race or ideology—and a battle with bullets—the advocacy, preparation, and execution of tactical operations in the hope of causing a racial civil war. I place greater emphasis on the Christian Right, the anti-immigration, and the counter-jihad movements to demonstrate that the dangers are much closer to the heart of our political system than a focus on the Alt Right or neo-Nazis would. This is not to minimize the violence from the latter.

In “Battle Without Bullets” I outlined the basic concepts of Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW): a war-like conflict between a central government and an insurgent non-state actor in which the strategic objective is to undermine the legitimacy of the central government and have the populace transfer their loyalty from the state to the insurgent; conflict exists at the physical, mental, and moral planes, with the moral plane being the highest level of combat; information warfare, more than terrorism or combat operations, is employed to heighten uncertainty, mistrust, and menace in order to fracture and dissolve the moral social bonds holding society together; and, that right-wing populism thrives on the propagation of conspiracy theories in which it is the political elites who are traitors posing an existential threat to the people.

“The Camp of the Saints Worldview” combines moral conflict and physical combat to illuminate the ideological and religious roots, and deadly consequences of the Camp of the Saints (COTS) worldview.

This worldview exists on a spectrum from neo-Nazis to the extreme or populist right to religious conservatives to neoconservatives, *without clear demarcations along the spectrum, but with nuanced differences.*

But, they are all one worldview and the white terrorists or mass murderers are the logical end point of this worldview, though they are not all neo-Nazis.

I conceptualize this worldview in terms of Jean Raspail’s French novel Camp of the Saints

and the Eurabia Project writings of Egyptian Jewish exile writer Bat Ye’or. They are, respectively, the “intellectual forefather” and the “matriarch” of the counter-jihad or “rising Muslim tide” movement.

Ye’or’s Eurabia book is “the standard text of the genre.”

The narrative structure and dynamics of anti-Semitism (Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and Islamophobia (“Protocols of the Elders of Brussels”) are strikingly similar, having in common what Reza Zia-Ebrahimi calls “conspiratorial radicalization.”

In this regard, Arun Kundani has noted that the narrative structure of far right discourse in Europe and the United States has shifted from a neo-Nazi “race war” narrative to an Identitarian narrative, as found in Norwegian Christian terrorist’s Anders Breivik’s manifesto, as well as in think tanks, political parties, conservative writers, and blogs. Kundani observed that after 9/11, while the “new identitarian narrative” moved from “neo-Nazism to counter-jihadism, the underlying structure of the narrative remains the same, but the protagonists have changed: the identity of Western liberal values has been substituted for white racial identity, Muslims have taken the place of blacks and multiculturalists are the new Jews.” Similarly, Breivik reframed “conventional neo-Nazi doctrine of ‘race war’…by substituting culture for race, Muslims for blacks, and multiculturalists for Jews…. [and] ‘race war’…for a ‘cultural war.’”

This does not mean that the neo-Nazi race war narrative has disappeared or that the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory of Jews as the secret cabal orchestrating world history have disappeared—only that neo-Nazi ideology in the hands of New Right strategists has undergone “a radical change of discourse.” Not only has it not disappeared, but neo-Nazis or white nationalists are adept at sanitizing their rhetoric when communicating directly with conservative or Christian audiences.

Bat Ye’or’s writings informed Anders Breivik’s worldview. Paul Jackson observed that Breivik maintained a “revolutionary attitude towards existing western governments, while also promoting a Christian culture and tradition, alongside a pro-Israel stance….Moreover, Breivik is openly hostile towards neo-Nazism, and in particular claims he disagrees with its biological and anti-Semitic underpinning.” Given a choice between killing Muslims and killing “cultural Marxists,” Breivik chose to murder children at the Norwegian Labor Party’s Workers Youth League camp.

In Europe, America, and Australia-New Zealand, scholars have noted that these white terrorists, various “defense leagues” or far-right populist parties in Europe, undertake these and other actions with the specific, stated intentions to both “balkanize” and to provoke a larger racial civil war in these countries, while in many cases repudiating their neo-Nazi roots.

Sindre Bangstad noted that Bat Ye’or centered her writings on the defense of Israel in collaboration with Christians. Bangstad observed, “Ye’or is centrally interested in advancing the ahistorical notion of a ‘common [historical] condition of Jews and Christians [under Islam] in order to generate support for Jewish-Christian alliances in support of Israel in the present.”

Ye’or will emerge as a strong influence on the thinking of the Christian Right.

________________________________________________

Dear Mr. Scaminaci,

I have read two of your papers on the presumed dangers of the So-called ‘Christian Right’ in America: The Christian Reconstructionist Plan for the Patriot Militia and “The Camp of the Saints Worldview”. Both essays seem to promote the idea that President Trump is a demagog that is linked to this dangerous faction of the American population, that are unduly paranoid of the Left.

In my view the case made against President Trump as being part of this dangerous coalition of “radicalized Christians” being compared to Neo-Nazis – which you yourself do in both essays – is hyperbolic disingenuous rhetorical sophistry. And further that claiming these radical Christians a ‘paranoid’ without cause is preposterous, due to the fact that the literature you yourself produces is in fact propaganda aimed at these groups. It is hypocritical to produce such works, and then complain when these Christian groups feel threatened by your work which clearly identifies them as a clear and present danger to America’s freedoms.

This is obnoxious when we look further into the current situation and find that it is the Leftist Corporatist State Oligarchy that is not only poised, as you maintain the Christian Right is, but is now in fact firmly entrenched in the government, the media and educational systems. Having control over the state propaganda produced by the Mockingbird media complex [1] as well as running the intelligence agencies, and military in the current Biden regime; a Neo-Marxist group of draconian thugs entrenched in the DNC.

1. See: Operation Mockingbird – https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmockingbird.htm

Yours, William Whitten

\\][//

Trump Derangement Syndrome hits the Left American psyche like a neutron bomb!!!

– MSNBC cuts away from Trump's address after he again “falsely” declares election victory

William Whitten

4/17/2022

One of the most outrageous events in the modern era, the 'news reporter' cutting off the President of the United States mid-sentence in a virtual coup d'état.

– NBC News Cuts Into Trump Speech To ‘Fact Check’ Him On Election Night | NBC News

"U.S. elections Robust safeguards help ensure the integrity of election results.” Banner under video

– NBC News Fact Checks Trump's False Election Fraud Claims As Battleground Vote Counts Continue. Nov 5, 2020

“I hate to cut away from the President….” – NBC News interrupts President Trump's speech to ‘fact check’ claims he made about voter fraud and election projections. Chuck Todd-- “He’s trying to paint this false picture…”

William Whitten

The American people don't see how outrageous and unprecedented it is for 'the news ' reporters to step in and step of the words of the President of the United States, cutting him off mid-sentence, acting as censors LIVE ON TELEVISION!...a virtual coup d'état -- Bloodless but a coup against the sitting president nonetheless. 4/17/2022.

Julie McGovern – 1 year ago

“I am so embarrassed to live here. I didn't vote for him but this is humiliating. We have much work to do to regroup with the world after the damage that those who voted him in has caused us.”

William Whitten 6:40 AM -- 4/17/2022

Looking back now from April 2022, after the Biden regime has utterly destroyed the US economy, eliminated the southern border, gifted the Taliban with billions of dollars worth of military arms and equipment, and now has us teetering on the brink of nuclear war by meddling in the Ukraine. While Biden stumbles around the stage at 'press briefings' shaking hands with spirits only he can see...Yea now I am embarrassed to live amongst people like Julie McGovern in what used to be the greatest nation in the world.

Hunter Biden’s Laptops Scandal Exposes How Communist Influence Operations Work

By Pamela Geller -on April 16, 2022

‘A secretive Chinese government agency, (the United Front Work Department) process of cultivating “friends” usually involves several tactics. UFWD knows how to make them feel important through excessive flattery, lavish trips to China, and access to high-level Chinese government officials. For foreign business elites and families of prominent foreign politicians, the UFWD has made sure they were rewarded financially either through bribes or preferential business terms.”
Biden’s trip to China with son Hunter in 2013 comes under new scrutiny

Hunter Biden’s Laptops Scandal Exposes How Communist Influence Operations Work

By: Helen Raleigh, The Federalist, April 15, 2022

One lesson from the ongoing scandal is that it lifted the curtain of foreign governments’ covert influence campaigns in the United States.

Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop revealed much information, including Hunter’s shady business dealings in Ukraine and China, raising questions about the extent to which President Biden was involved in his son’s business activities. This ongoing scandal lifted the curtain of foreign governments’ covert influence campaigns in the United States. No government has conducted such influence campaigns more effectively than Communist China.

To understand China’s influence campaigns on foreign soil, one has to get familiar with a secretive Chinese government agency, the United Front Work Department (UFWD), or United Front. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) established UFWD in the 1930s, aiming to recruit famous intellectuals, writers, teachers, students, publishers, and business leaders who were not necessarily Communists.

These recruits promoted the CCP’s agenda, influenced public opinion in favor of the CCP in territory ruled by the Nationalist Party, and helped the CCP secure the weapons, medicine, and other resources to overthrow the Nationalist-led government. Then-CCP leader Mao Zedong called the United Front a “magic weapon” for the CCP.

When Xi Jinping came to power in late 2012, he greatly expanded the UFWD and elevated the UFWD’s status by having a politburo member, Ms. Sun Chunlan, head the UFWD. Today, the UFWD’s headquarters in Beijing is located in an unmarked but heavily guarded building next to the CCP’s leadership compound. This location says the highest power in the nation directly endorses its mission and strategy.

UFWD workers are assigned to many government branches inside and outside China, including almost all Chinese embassies, which now include staff formally working with United Front. The UFWD is tasked with helping the CCP aggressively and yet covertly dictate its messages and narratives about China. UFWD’s goal is to gather information and either win over or co-opt support for the CCP. It is to attack and neutralize potential dissent and opposition inside and outside China.
Influencing the Influencers

The UFWD’s overseas influence campaigns rely on various methods, including establishing Confucius Institutes and controlling Chinese Students and Scholars Associations on college campuses in the west. But one of its most effective methods is to cultivate politicians, prominent business people, and well-known intellectuals in the west as “friends of China.”

One lesson from the ongoing scandal is that it lifted the curtain of foreign governments’ covert influence campaigns in the United States.

Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop revealed much information, including Hunter’s shady business dealings in Ukraine and China, raising questions about the extent to which President Biden was involved in his son’s business activities. This ongoing scandal lifted the curtain of foreign governments’ covert influence campaigns in the United States. No government has conducted such influence campaigns more effectively than Communist China.

To understand China’s influence campaigns on foreign soil, one has to get familiar with a secretive Chinese government agency, the United Front Work Department (UFWD), or United Front. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) established UFWD in the 1930s, aiming to recruit famous intellectuals, writers, teachers, students, publishers, and business leaders who were not necessarily Communists.

These recruits promoted the CCP’s agenda, influenced public opinion in favor of the CCP in territory ruled by the Nationalist Party, and helped the CCP secure the weapons, medicine, and other resources to overthrow the Nationalist-led government. Then-CCP leader Mao Zedong called the United Front a “magic weapon” for the CCP.

When Xi Jinping came to power in late 2012, he greatly expanded the UFWD and elevated the UFWD’s status by having a politburo member, Ms. Sun Chunlan, head the UFWD. Today, the UFWD’s headquarters in Beijing is located in an unmarked but heavily guarded building next to the CCP’s leadership compound. This location says the highest power in the nation directly endorses its mission and strategy.

UFWD workers are assigned to many government branches inside and outside China, including almost all Chinese embassies, which now include staff formally working with United Front. The UFWD is tasked with helping the CCP aggressively and yet covertly dictate its messages and narratives about China. UFWD’s goal is to gather information and either win over or co-opt support for the CCP. It is to attack and neutralize potential dissent and opposition inside and outside China.

Influencing the Influencers

The UFWD’s overseas influence campaigns rely on various methods, including establishing Confucius Institutes and controlling Chinese Students and Scholars Associations on college campuses in the west. But one of its most effective methods is to cultivate politicians, prominent business people, and well-known intellectuals in the west as “friends of China.”

These “friends” then influence policies and public opinion in their home countries to favor China, while trying to minimize harm to China and silence any criticism of the CCP. This approach is called “influencing the influencers.”

The UFWD’s process of cultivating “friends” usually involves several tactics. UFWD knows how to make them feel important through excessive flattery, lavish trips to China, and access to high-level Chinese government officials. For foreign business elites and families of prominent foreign politicians, the UFWD has made sure they were rewarded financially either through bribes or preferential business terms.

John Kerry and Henry Kissinger Connections

Isaac Stone Fish, a visiting fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of “America Second,” recently wrote that one of the most influential “friends of China” the UFWD has painstakingly cultivated is Henry Kissinger, former national security advisor and secretary of the State under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Even though he retired from his government post long ago, whenever Kissinger traveled to China, he was always granted an audience with China’s top leader.

According to Fish, Kissinger has been “actively dampening criticism of the [Chinese Communist] Party amongst his massive network.” For example, Kissinger suggested the George H.W. Bush administration take “a lighter response to the June 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.” Kissinger was also reportedly “convinced the Trump administration not to meet with the Dalai Lama — Trump was the first president since Reagan to not meet with the Tibetan spiritual leader.”

The Chinese government has also been cultivating relationships with family members of other prominent U.S. politicians. For example, Chinese companies, including some large state-owned enterprises such as the Bank of China (BOC), funded 80 percent of the Bohai Harvest RST (BHR) investment fund, which was partly owned and directed by Hunter Biden and Chris Heinz, the stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry, through their private equity fund, Rosemont Seneca Partners.

The Chinese government authorities approved the deal to establish the fund after Hunter Biden traveled to China with then-Vice President Joe Biden in 2013. China’s apparent motive was to buy influence in the United States through the children of two of the most prominent officials in the Obama administration.

Beijing’s investment in BHR soon paid off. In 2015, the fund played a crucial role in securing approval by the Obama administration and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) for the sale of the Michigan-based Henniges Automotive to one of China’s leading military aircraft makers, the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC). 

Wall Street Influence

In addition to prominent politicians and their families, foreign business elites are also targets of UFWD’s foreign influence campaign. Former Attorney General William Barr criticized American businesses from tech companies to Hollywood for becoming “pawns of Chinese influence.” Probably no other sector has been more influenced by Beijing than Wall Street. 

A China sovereign wealth fund, China Investment Corp (CIC), invested $3 billion in funding for Blackstone Group’s initial public offering in 2007. The Chinese government approved BlackRock, another Wall Street firm, to start a private-fund business in China in 2017. BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink received an award from the National Committee on United States-China Relations a year later, with Kissinger and Chinese Ambassador Cui Tiankai in the audience.

Not surprisingly, Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwartzman and Fink have been the most vocal cheerleaders for Beijing on Wall Street. Schwarzman set up a Schwarzman Scholars program at Tsinghua University, one of the most prestigious universities in China, working closely with Chen Xu, the CCP secretary at Tsinghua. Chen later became the deputy head of UFWD. 

On behalf of Beijing, Fink lobbied index provider MSCI to include shares of Chinese companies traded on mainland China exchanges in its emerging-market index. Some investors were against such an inclusion, concerned about the lack of transparency in Chinese companies and the Chinese government’s strict capital control. BlackRock also offered its full support when Hong Kong-traded Chinese companies proposed to require their boards to “seek advice on major decisions from Communist Party committees,” according to the Wall Street Journal. 

During President Trump’s first term, the Chinese government turned to Schwartzman, Fink, and other CEOs of large Wall Street firms for help during the U.S.- China trade negotiations, promising to reward their efforts with more expansion of their firms in China. 

Mutually Beneficial Influence Peddling

In addition to lobbying, Wall Street firms such as BlackRock have also channeled billions of dollars into Chinese companies. Some of the companies they funded are allegedly either involved in human rights abuses of Uyghur Muslims or have close ties with the Chinese military, presenting a threat to U.S. national security. 

In his piece about Kissinger being played by China, Fish stated the UFWD’s overseas influence campaigns have been so successful that some western politicians and business elites who became “agents” of the CCP don’t even know they are agents of the CCP.

One way to address China’s overseas influence campaign is to enforce the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), requiring “those acting as the agents of foreign principals to publicly disclose that relationship and their political or other similar activities by registering with the Justice Department.” But doing so may upset some very rich and famous American elites. Therefore, whether the Biden administration’s Department of Justice has the political will to do so remains to be seen.

Helen Raleigh, CFA

– Jack Maxey