L.I.B (Let it burn) Burn baby Burn…


I keep seeing this comment all over the conservative blogsphere, L.I.B (Let it Burn). I know those of you making this comment are angry, frustrated, exasperated and genuinely fed up. But I cannot help wonder how many of you really understand exactly what it is you are advocating. So ok, it is true, the GOP elite once again betrayed their base. Who exactly didn’t see that coming? As many of the GOP elite are closet Marxists as their Democrat counterparts. Seriously, if you haven’t figured that out yet, well I just don’t know what to say to you.

The Marxist’s took over academia way back in the 1920′s, it’s theirs they own it lock stock and barrel. If you attended a Ivy League College, like it or not, whether you even know it, you are a Marxist. Ya that’s right, you were indoctrinated into Marxism, and that is how it really is. While you might think that you are a conservative, the truth is you hold dozens of Marxist ideological position and just don’t know it. And why would you know it, your college professors didn’t tell you that what they were teaching you as facts were in fact Marxist propaganda. You most likely would never have accepted what they were teaching you if they had. Which is exactly why they didn’t tell you.

Gay right, same sex marriage, yea, that’s a Marxist ideology. The Gay right’s movement was started by a Marxist organization.

The Marxist/Communist connection to the homosexual movement goes back to its roots in 19th-century pseudoscience. It was back in the 19th century, during the era of Fabian socialism—back when “gay” was the catchall term for the entire demimonde of homosexuals, prostitutes, theater people, and “bohemian” artists—that the idea of homosexuals as a “third sex” was first posited. There were a number of terms floated back then: homosexuals referred to themselves as “Uranians” or “urnings” (yes, that referred to “Uranus” as a Greek mythological reference); there were suggestions that homosexuals were “undersexed” (i.e., did not achieve “escape velocity” to be attracted to the opposite sex) or “oversexed” (i.e., were so sexually overpowered that they were attracted to both men and women). All of this non-scientific mishmash just got folded into the idea that because homosexuals were “different” science had to find a “cause”—and, therefore, a “cure.” There is absolutely no genuine science at the bottom of “gay identity”—it is bullshit all the way down.

By the end of WWI, there was a strong homosexual-rights movement in Germany, associated with the Communist Party. Magnus Hirschfeld, who ran a sex clinic in Berlin, was a Communist. The first homosexual-rights groups in the US, following WWII, were also Communist-founded—and, of course, the gay-liberation movement which sprang up after Stonewall, for which the older groups were too staid, was founded by Maoists and members of the New Left. The post-Stonewall groups were quite open about their desire to destroy marriage, family, and religion—and, just as many of the gay-rights movements today make common cause with the Islamists in their opposition to Israel, the early gay-liberation groups were vocally pro-Cuba, despite the fact that Fidel Castro routinely imprisoned and murdered homosexuals.

Are you for amnesty for illegal aliens? Yea, that’s another Marxist agenda item that you have been indoctrinated into accepting.

The arguments fall broadly under the category of folk Marxism, a term introduced by Arnold Kling in the essay Folk Beliefs Have Consequences. Roughly, folk Marxist theories are theories that see events and actions in the context of a struggle between oppressor classes and oppressed classes. Folk Marxist arguments for open borders see developing countries and migrant workers as the oppressed classes. Business interests in the developed world and racist/nationalist type folks in the developed countries are variously seen as oppressors. It’s argued that the actions of the oppressors cause violence and poverty in the lands of the oppressed, forcing them to migrate to the lands of the oppressors (developed countries) and work there. On this view, mass immigration is not something to celebrate, but rather, an unfortunate consequence of exploitative policies. Turning away the immigrants, or dehumanizing their status (for instance, by labeling them as illegal and denying them rights and privileges accorded to citizens) is a further wrong against them. Welcoming immigrants is the least that can be done, while the root causes of mass migration are fixed. I present below a passage from the beginning of the final chapter (Myth 21) of They Take Our Jobs: And 20 Other Myths About Immigration (Amazon ebook) by Aviva Chomsky (Wikipedia page).

Today’s immigration is structured by contemporary relationships among countries and regions, and by their history of economic inequality. Unequal economic relationships should be changed — not because they lead to migration, but because they lead to human suffering and an unsustainable world. High levels of migration are a symptom of a global economic system that privileges the few at the expense of the many. It could be called capitalism, it could be called neoliberalism, it could be called globalization, it could be called neocolonialism. As long as it keeps resources unequally distributed in the world, you’re going to have people escaping the regions that are deliberately kept poor and violent and seeking freedom in the places where the world’s resources have been concentrated: in the countries that have controlled, and been the beneficiaries of, the global economic system since 1492.

You think abortion should be a woman’s right to choose? Guess what… Yup, that’s right.

Margaret Higgins Sanger was a radical feminist, eugenicist, Marxist, and the founder of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Sanger was born Margaret Higgins in 1879 in Corning, New York. Her parents, Michael Hennessy Higgins and Anne Purcell Higgins, were socialists and early activists in the women’s suffrage movement.

In 1902 Miss Higgins (i.e., Margaret Sanger) earned a degree as a registered nurse and married architect William Sanger; the following year she gave birth to her first child. Later acknowledging that she had neglected her children (one of whom died of pneumonia at age four), Sanger declared that she was not a “fit person for love or home or children or anything which needs attention or consideration.”

In 1912 Sanger and her family settled in New York City. She became a member of both the Women’s Committee and the Marxist Committee of the New York Socialist Party. “Our living-room,” she would write in her 1938 autobiography, “became a gathering place where liberals, anarchists, Socialists and I.W.W.’s [Industrial Workers of the World members] could meet.”

Also in 1912, Sanger began writing a women’s-rights column for the New York Call entitled, “What Every Girl Should Know.” In addition, she wrote and distributed a pamphlet titled Family Limitation, which provided details about contraception methods and devices. By publishing this pamphlet, Sanger ran afoul of the Comstock Law of 1873, which classified such material as obscene and barred its dissemination via the U.S. mail.

I could do this literally all day, exposing the incredible number of idea’s that most so called conservatives believe are conservative idea’s that are in fact Marxist ideologies, that however isn’t the point of this article, Well, at least not directly.

L.I.B, (Let it burn) is a Marxist ideology, yes, shocker aint it. You think I’m either kidding or full of shit right about now don’t you. Well sorry to inform you, but I’m not.

Cloward–Piven strategy.

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward (1926–2001) and Frances Fox Piven (b. 1932) that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty”. Cloward and Piven were a married couple who were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in liberal[1] magazine The Nation titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”.[2]

The two were critical of the public welfare system, and their strategy called for overloading that system to force a different set of policies to address poverty. They stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party, thus forcing it to implement a national solution to poverty. Cloward and Piven wrote that “the ultimate objective of this strategy [would be] to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income…”[2] There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party then-splintered by pluralistic interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national “solution” to poverty); and relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national “solution” to poverty)[citation needed].

So, basically whether you realize it or not, when you are advocating for the L.I.B (Let it burn) you are advocating for the Cloward-Pivens Strategy. The tragic part isn’t that in advocating for L.I.B you are in fact advocating for the Cloward-Pivens Strategy, the tragic part isn’t even that you have been duped into doing exactly what the Marxist’s want you to do. The real tragedy is that most of you haven’t really grasped what Let It burn really means. It means a complete and total collapse of the American economy. It means people literally shooting and killing their friends and neighbors for things like food and gasoline. It means a complete abandonment of the United States Constitution. It means the construction of William “Bill” Ayer’s extermination camps for the 25 million Americans who refuse to accept the new Marxist government.

Let it burn is exactly what the Marxist elite in both parties are trying to accomplish. It is the only way they can ensure the level of lawlessness and civil unrest required to suspend the United States Constitution and replace it with a “Temporary Emergency Powers Act”. Let it burn means a violent bloody civil war which the political elite have been preparing for for decades. You really think that the department of Homeland Defense need 5.1 BILLION rounds of hollow point ammunition to defend American Borders that they refuse to defend?

Do you honestly think for one picosecond that America’s Police forces and other Law Enforcement Agencies will not act to enforce whatever laws are passed by congress? Including a full suspension of the United States Constitution? Are you honestly stupid enough to think that the United States Military will refuse to follow the orders of the President of the United States of America and fire on “Revolting” American citizens? Is there one single person on earth insane enough to think that the President of the United States or congress will allow one single state to secede without a single shot being fired or blood being spilled?

Yes, that is right, Let it burn means, no gasoline, no food, no electricity or heating oil, no consumer goods, no medical supplies or treatments. It means violent lawless civil unrest and inevitably full on Martial law or bloody and violent civil war. It is 100 percent exactly what the political elites are planning for, it is the means by which they achieve their end goal, and that end goal is to dissolve the United states Constitution and replace it with a Marxist Constitution.

About these ads

4 thoughts on “L.I.B (Let it burn) Burn baby Burn…

  1. “Yes, that is right, Let it burn means, no gasoline, no food, no electricity or heating oil, no consumer goods, no medical supplies or treatments. It means violent lawless civil unrest and inevitably full on Martial law or bloody and violent civil war. It is 100 percent exactly what the political elites are planning for, it is the means by which they achieve their end goal, and that end goal is to dissolve the United states Constitution and replace it with a Marxist Constitution.”
    —————————————————–
    Yes and if they can’t accomplish the above with their strategy they will simply let the dollar collapse and the same thing happens(dollar cannot be saved). What this post fails to understand is that the above scenario is going to happen unless we surrender and let them implement world socialism or communism in small doses. We cannot escape the inevitable evil that is upon us and which we all let crawl upon us, now we shall suffer dearly and we will have to chose to fight or surrender. People need to start accepting this reality and quit trying to run from it, thinking things are able to be “saved” in any form at this point. They want us to surrender because they have more control if we surrender, if we make the choice to fight they have less control and the outcome is not certain for them.

    Wake up, accept reality, and prepare your mind for what is coming.

  2. While I enjoy and agree with many of your comments at HotAir (from which I found this post) and laud your attempted effort here, it fails to persuade.

    First, you correctly identify three socio-political movements with links to — but not necessarily exclusive to — Marxist underpinnings (gay rights/same-sex marriage, amnesty for illegal aliens, and pro-abortion); however, you then go on to state that they’re among numerous “… ideas that most so called conservatives believe are conservative ideas …” That’s just flat-out not true on its face. Sure, there are RINO (i.e. non-conservative) “leaders” who subscribe to some or all of these ideas — but the vast majority of conservatives? It’s a demonstrably self-contradicting false premise.

    As regards the Cloward-Piven strategy (and I followed the link to the Wikipedia article), you mistakenly claim that its ultimate desired ends are “… violent lawless civil unrest and inevitably full on Martial law or bloody and violent civil war.” and “… to dissolve the United states Constitution and replace it with a Marxist Constitution.” In contrast, its actual stated end is overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.” While indeed a more Marxist outcome is desired, the means (crisis or crises) and actual outcome of your conclusion, again, are unfounded.

    Finally, the preceding non sequiturs invalidate your primary hypothesis that those advocating for the L.I.B. (Let It Burn) strategy are advocating for a Marxist/Cloward-Piven strategy. Yes, you are correct that it could mean a complete and total collapse of the American economy. This doesn’t necessarily mean, although historically the odds are good that it will result in, a descent into bloody civil war; there will be opportunities for a peaceful revolution if a courageous (willing to lose everything including his/her life) spiritual (not political) leader emerges, a la MLK, Jr. or Gandhi, who holds sway over the vast majority of Americans.

    Assuming the worst, when you ask “Are you honestly stupid enough to think that the United States Military will refuse to follow the orders of the President of the United States of America and fire on ‘Revolting’ American citizens?” — I answer YES. The military (those presently serving and, perhaps more importantly, those veterans who’ve already served) are in my experience (1) the most patriotic of all American citizens and (2) take their oaths to heart/seriously (unlike most of our so-called “leaders”).

    What will actually cause and sustain, and likely win a civil war for the liberty forces over the tyranny forces, will be a splitting of the military into two camps: those who refuse to obey illegal orders (in which case, a “good” general will emerge as the leader of the resistance) and those who do, respectively. Among the former camp will be most of the gun-owning citizens of America (which is actually why I personally believe that the most likely trigger for a civil war will be a Presidential order to the military to go door-to-door and confiscate Amercans’ firearms). Although there is the risk of losing America forever in the “Let It Burn” sentiment/strategy: (1) it is in fact the opposite of Marxism and a Marxist end that motivates it; and (2) there is the likelihood that it’s the last opportunity we’ll have to save and restore America to its founding principles … to live free or die trying.

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” — Thomas Jefferson

    • you mistakenly claim that its ultimate desired ends are “… violent lawless civil unrest and inevitably full on Martial law or bloody and violent civil war.” and “… to dissolve the United states Constitution and replace it with a Marxist Constitution.” In contrast, its actual stated end is overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.” While indeed a more Marxist outcome is desired, the means (crisis or crises) and actual outcome of your conclusion, again, are unfounded.

      When the Cloward-Pivens Strategy was originally written that might have been true, however it is extremely unlikely. What is more likely is that Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven simply employed deceptive terminology to describe their actual intentions. That Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were Marxists is simply indisputable. In Pivens own words.

      So where are the angry crowds, the demonstrations, sit-ins and unruly mobs? After all, the injustice is apparent. Working people are losing their homes and their pensions while robber baron CEOs report renewed profits and windfall bonuses. Shouldn’t the unemployed be on the march? Why aren’t they demanding enhanced safety net protections and big initiatives to generate jobs?

      You get an idea of what she and her husband were really after all along.

      As to the Military or the police not following the orders of the Federal government, I think you need look no further than Hurricane Katrina, where the National Guard and the Louisiana Police did in fact confiscate law abiding civilians firearms for your example. The instinctual unwillingness for regular law abiding citizens to not put up armed resistance to the Police even in the face of such obvious and egregious violation of the US Constitution was abundantly displayed in Louisiana.

      • Fool me Once shame on you , Fool me twice SHAME ON ME!

        This time just might be a Little Diff.

        If not we Deserve to Die and be slaughtered Like the Sheep we may have become. Our forefathers revolted over a Tea Tax.
        This Government is destroying everyones Livelihood and the Ability to feed and care for their family.

        Which is far worse fighting for what is to come or try and pick up the pieces after.
        Our Predecessors Knew. The longer you wait the more will die.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s