Obama's Bizarre Secret

Obama’s Bizarre Secret Many slightly illegitimate political causes have gone from being nonviolent, legal processes, to violent acts of terrorism. The only essential ingredient is a leader who is well trained, charismatic and dedicated to replacing the current situation completely with a tyrannical politically correct situation.

Trotsky Punishing Subordinates Obama is a foreign Marxist who has infiltrated the Democrat Party as an American citizen and Democrat. Many treasonous people with bad intentions have been self-

seduced by popular leftist and Marxist movements that soon have turned out to be the opposite thing of which in fact they wished. The later era to World War II produced a great number of leftist/Marxist radical causes, political wars of liberation, and alliances run from Moscow. Working with traitorous left wing media “journalists” they successfully created a romantic attraction towards the revolutionary delinquents, treating them like champions of the popular causes. However, their success was limited only to ignorant and impressionable college students. (The leading Marxistcapitalists of today, from Soros and Ayers down to the officers of various corporations and military units are middle aged and elderly products of Marxist indoctrination in American college class rooms. Along with the dark Marxist romantics, anti-Semites and black racists, the movements also attracted a great number of professional, avenging radicals, criminals and also subversive agents. Scattered through their ranks are numerous Soviet infiltrators or sleeper agents who never went home after the USSR supposedly collapsed. Many more were “red diaper babies” whose parents, like the Hollywood Baldwin brothers, were hard core communists who lived and breathed communism. They passed on their communist values and hate to their children by indoctrinating them from infants to adults. They are the adult influential persons who take a

“...critical view of their own society, sympathize with the communist view in some way or put their own economic interests before the political interests of their country." Lenin referred to such people as “useful idiots,” and they can be counted on to assist leftist/Marxist agents of influence in their continuous influence operations. The Leftist student revolts of the 60's and 70's, led by red diaper babies, leftist Jews and Soviet sleeper agents, produced a great number of radicals and idealists, some of which remained in dissident movements and

Barack Obama’s Close Friend/Associate W.C. Ayers, Weather Underground

changed from one movement to another. Others, who felt sympathy towards their movement were integrated into normal life, in their respective societies, where they worked until reaching superior positions of responsibility, or levels within the same government. Some of these people, in the present, form the base for the peripheral support of these terrorist organizations.

Recent Photograph of W.C. Ayers (on left), Weather Underground, Now a US College Professor and still Hater of US. (He is standing on a USA Flag) To the Righ is US Presidential Contender, also a Marxist, Barack Obama demonstrating how he feels about the USA. The two are close associates in 2008 and work closely together.

Entryism Entryism (or entrism or enterism) is a political tactic by which an organisation encourages members to infiltrate another organization in an attempt to gain recruits, or take over entirely.

In situations where the organisation being "entered" is hostile to entryism, the entryists may engage in a degree of subterfuge to hide the fact that they are, in fact, an organisation in their own right. In the case of the Militant tendency, this was done by claiming that the tendency was in fact simply a newspaper, Militant, its editorial board and readers. Militant was open about its support for Trotskyism and revolutionary socialism. Other entryist groups have gone to the extent of hiding both their political views and their organisational existence. Entryism does not involve dissolving the small organisation into the larger one. Entryism is often (but not always) done secretly and often in organisations run on democratic centralist lines. Entryism is seen by some as a logical conclusion from Leninist political theory which postulates that a "revolutionary vanguard" can successfully foment a revolution within a larger capitalist society, but according to some, the strategy of entryism is as old as politics itself

Trotsky's "French Turn" The “French Turn” refers to the classic form of entryism advocated by Leon Trotsky in his essays on "the French Turn": In June 1934, he proposed that the French Trotskyists dissolve their Communist League to join the French Socialist Party (the SFIO) and that it also dissolve its youth

section to join more easily with revolutionary elements. The tactic was adopted in August 1934, despite some opposition. The turn successfully raised the group's membership to 300 activists. Proponents of the tactic advocated that the Trotskyists should enter the social democratic parties to connect with revolutionary socialist currents within them, and steer those currents toward Leninism. However, entry lasted only for a brief period: the leadership of the SFIO started to expel the Trotskyists. The Trotskyists of Workers Party of the United States also successfully used their entry into the Socialist Party of America to recruit their youth group and other members. Similar tactics were also used by Trotskyist organisations in other countries, including The Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Poland. Entrism was used to connect with and recruit leftward moving political currents inside radical parties. Following is an extract from a communist document which gives context to the word entryism. Although the document alludes to entryism in Great Britain, it means the same thing for the USA. In fact communist entryism, stolen from Trotsky is victorious within the USA to a greater extent than in England because the English leaders are usually far more sophisticated in the ways of revolutionary warfare.

“Permit me to begin, Comrade General Secretary, with the briefest description of the background of the British Labour Party and of its steady penetration and successful eventual domination by the Hard Left over the past fourteen years. The Party was originally founded by the trade union movement as the political arm of the recently organized British working class. From the outset it espoused the cause of moderate bourgeois socialism—of reform rather than revolution. The home of the true Marxist-Leninist was then in the Communist Party. Even though the bedrock of Marxism-Leninism in Britain has always been in the trade union movement, true believers were excluded from the Labour Party itself. From the 1930s onward, a few of our pro-Soviet Hard Left friends in Britain managed to infiltrate the Parry by subterfuge, but they had, once inside it, to maintain an extremely low profile. Other friends of Moscow, perceived as they sought to enter the Labour Party, were refused admission or, if spotted inside the Party, were expelled. The reason our true friends in Britain were for so many years excluded from the mass-support Labour Party can be described in two words: “proscribed list.” This was a list of banned organizations; it prohibited all fraternal contact between the Labour Party and those much-

smaller groups inhabited by the true revolutionary socialists—that is, the Marxist-Leninists. Further, no member of a Hard Left group was permitted membership in the Labour Party under the terms of the proscribed list, which were staunchly maintained by successive Labour Party leaders for fifty years. As the Labour Party was the only mass-support party of the Left with a hope of acceding to government of Britain, infiltration and domination of it by our friends, following the classic Leninist teaching of “entryism,” was for all those years an elusive dream. Nevertheless, our friends within the Party, few though they were, worked tirelessly and covertly; in 1973 their efforts were finally crowned with success. In that year, when the Party was under the weak and vacillating leadership of Harold Wilson, they achieved a wafer-thin majority on the allimportant Party National Executive Committee, and used it to pass a resolution abolishing the proscribed list. The outcome was beyond their dreams. With the floodgates open, shoals of Hard Left young activists of the post-1945 generation swarmed into

the Labour Party and were at once able to offer themselves for office at every level of the Party organization. The road to entryism, influence, and eventual takeover was open, and that takeover has now been achieved. Since 1973 the absolutely vital National Executive Committee has seldom been out of the hands of a Hard Left majority, and it has been through the skillful use of this tool that the constitution of the Party and its composition at the higher levels have been changed out of all recognition. A brief word of digression, Comrade General Secretary, to explain precisely whom I mean by “our friends” within the British Labour Party and trade union movement. They fall into two categories: the deliberate and the unwilling. With the first category I am referring to people not of the so-called Soft Left or of the Trotskyite aberration, both of whom abhor Moscow, albeit for different reasons. I refer to those of the Hard Left with, at their core, the Ultra-Hard Left. These are dedicated, dyed-in-the-wool MarxistLeninists, who would not appreciate being called Communists since this implies membership in the quite useless British communist Party. They are, nevertheless, staunch friends of Moscow and in nine cases out often will act in accordance with Moscow’s wishes, even though those wishes may remain unexpressed and even though the person

concerned would stoutly claim he was acting for “conscientious” or “British” reasons. The second group of friends inside, and now dominating, the British Labour Party can be characterized as follows: those persons with a deep political and emotional commitment to a form of socialism so far left as to qualify as Marxism-Leninism; persons who will, in any given set of circumstances or in any contingency, almost invariably react quite spontaneously in a manner completely parallel to, or convergent with, the desires of Soviet foreign policyvis-à-vis Britain and/or the Western Alliance; persons who need no briefing or instructions whatsoever, and who would probably be offended if such were proposed; persons who, wittingly or unwittingly, whether impelled by personal conviction, a warped patriotism, a desire to destroy, a craving for self-advancement, a fear of intimidatory pressure, a sense of their own self-importance, or a desire to move with the herd, will conduct themselves in a manner that suits our Soviet interests perfectly. They all constitute agents of influence to our benefit. They all, of course, claim to be seekers after democracy. Happily, the overwhelming majority of Britishers today still understand by the word democracy a pluralist (multiparty) state, whose governing body shall be

chosen at periodic intervals by universal adult suffrage based upon the secret ballot. Obviously, our Hard Left friends over there, being people who eat, drink, breathe, sleep, dream, and work at left-wing politics every waking hour of every day, mean by the word democracy a “democracy of the committed,” with its controlling roles performed by themselves and like-thinkers. Fortunately,

the

British

press

takes

few

steps

to

correct

this

misapprehension…” France, Russia and Cuba demonstrate that terrorism is an important part in the beginnings certain movements. In many cases terrorist tactics were used to obtain arms, ammunition and explosives. In most of these cases, like in the War of Vietnam, terrorism performance is a vital part from the beginning. The terrorist infrastructure that harassed and terrified the population, in Vietnam, was successful in separating the population of the government, and helped to destabilize the population. This was the powerful weapon of the insurgents. Unfortunately, in most of cases, the terror that reigned during the insurgency was replaced later by institutional terror (terror by the government), creating more oppression than the one of the previous regime. Also it is worth mentioning that with few exceptions most of the

terrorists were eliminated of their position, once the insurrection was finalized. Terrorists such as Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Guevara, Marighella and others, left a violence legacy that, in the name of the masses, causes shaking to the world.

The Bankruptcy of Winning Hearts and Minds The control of masses of people by terror illustrates the bankruptcy of the leftist anti-terror sabotage principal of ”winning hearts and minds.” That winning of submission to government political correctness has worked in America by the use of conditioning and psychological terror. The invention of international and transnational terrorism has resulted in numerous groups of revenge and hatred, in countries of the third world, ideological mercenaries, that have lent their experience, knowledge, and armaments to their political and ideological allies, anywhere in the world. Most of the terrorist organizations differ from one other by ideology. However, Leftist /Marxist and/or Islamic terror is the norm in all successful population control, everywhere in the world. The least successful and most dogmatic attempt to control masses is the US leftist concept of “winning hearts and minds.” Trillions of dollars in bribes, handouts and “nation building” for America’s enemies continues as a colossal failure to this day. If you seek the truth visit: www.quikmaneuvers.com