Guest Post -- Calling Out Antifa in USA Part of Elite Political Families, Open Borders Advocates

per ACD, can twist a metaphor quicker and better than the libs can rewrite their own history.

24 April 2020  ...on how it all came to be in America as we find it today.

Although pooh-poohed on occasion by one and likely others with whom I correspond (or, much more like, to whom I broadcast!), to my mind, Dot Connecting remains a venerable, respectable, worthy discipline, shoulder-to-shoulder with its oft-neglected counterpart, Critical Thinking.  Except in courses devoted to The Culture of Critique (Kevin MacDonald), these subjects typically get "short shrift".

Even the simplest exercise in Dot Connecting can raise ire, gorge, and the Wrath of Cain (Kane?).  Example.  Take these two dots.

DOT 1. 

"Antifa" Organizer Exposed As Member of Elite Political Family

https://www.unz.com/estriker/antifa-organizer-exposed-as-member-of-elite-political-family/

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=206208

EXCERPT FROM DOT 1

A leading organizer in a self-described “Antifa” cell, Iron Front USA, is a member of a prominent Maryland political family. The organization takes inspiration from the German Iron Front, a paramilitary group that embraced violence against conservatives, National Socialists, and even left-wing rivals.

Sean Thomas Kratovil-Lavelle, pictured above at an “Antifa” rally next to his sister Charlotte, posts on the Iron Front’s reddit under his own name, bragging about engaging in the groups masked antics. Kratovil-Levelle is wearing the three arrows symbol appropriated by anarchist paramilitary organizations, while his sister is wearing a “Refuse Fascism” t-shirt, a group run by the Revolutionary Communist Party.

According to witnesses, the mother of the two, an immigration attorney and open borders activist, was present with them at the rally.

ACD:  I note that "Antifa' in Beserkeley, Kalifornication, featured a local bike-lock-wielding "professor" -- masked, possibly presciently, well before the viral scare that caused Americans everywhere to "hunker down", OR, alternatively (alt-LEFT, doncha know?) the man simply realized that facial recognition could lead to his arrest for assault with a deadly weapon -- seems not unlike "Antifa" in Maryland, where the above story got exposure.  As I commented at "The Truth Seeker" site, Miles Mathis would have commented with the quote "Nothing new under the sun."  Which leads us directly to consider DOT 2, with the name and methodology of Miles Mathis a handy clue.

DOT 2. 

Review of "Agitprop in America", Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/04/24/review-agitprop-in-america/

QUOTE:  “Agitprop has been the method for destroying America’s culture and rebuilding it as Cultural Marxism.”
      John Harmon McElroy, Agitprop in America

EXCERPT FROM DOT 2

McElroy is at his best when he focuses on the methodology of Culture Marxism, writing:

“...Instead of overturning the U.S government by force and taking comprehensive control of the United States all at once, the Counter Culture/Political Correctness Movement has been engaged for the last fifty years in gradually but relentlessly transforming the United States from within little by little, by co-opting its institutions and destroying existing cultural beliefs slowly and methodically, and replacing them with the dogmas of Marxism.”

The key to the success of Cultural Marxist agitprop is its “intrinsic deceptiveness.” McElroy writes,

    Political correctness represents itself as a champion of fundamental American values. That brazen pretense, that Marxism is identical to American liberalism and progressivism, is why the Counter Culture/Political Correctness movement has had so much success in the United States.”

Drawing on Saul Alinsky’s infamous Rules for Radicals, McElroy explains how Cultural Marxists provoke their opponents into reacting (e.g. threatening to take down historical monuments, ordering “gay cakes”) and then denounce them as irrational “reactionaries” Another tactic is to create problems, or interpret problems, in such a manner that permits the proposal of Marxist “solutions.” I thought that an analysis of Alinsky’s works might provoke a deeper reading from McElroy, who writes that Alinsky was “an atheist.” In fact, Alinsky was an agnostic who, when asked specifically about religion, would always reply that he was Jewish. This error is indicative of a broader blind spot in the text — the ethnic component of anti-American activism. This blind spot manifests more subtly throughout the lexicon of Cultural Marxist terms that comprises the middle of the book. Quite frankly, when one actually looks at the individuals who have coined or popularized many of these genuinely novel agitprop terms (e.g. ‘homophobia’ by George Weinberg, ‘deconstructionism’ by Jacques Derrida, ‘racism’ by Magnus Hirschfeld and Leon Trotsky, ‘transgender’ by Magnus Hirschfeld and later Harry Benjamin, ‘sex work” and ‘sex worker’ by Carol Leigh, ‘cultural pluralism’ by Horace Kallen), they emerge almost exclusively as Jews. It’s a simple and unavoidable fact that Jews have been at the forefront of changing “ways of seeing” by first changing “ways of describing.” I agree with McElroy that we shouldn’t call anti-American agitators “liberals,” and that “Leftists” also leaves a lot unsaid. McElroy, however, proposes “PC Marxists,” which I feel doesn’t get any closer to the mark.

ACD:  It is at this "point" in the lecture on Dot Connecting that PC folks and others with "snowflake sensitivity" bail wholesale out of the classroom, make signs for carrying around denouncing the "teacher' or "professor" giving the course, and demand -- if consistent with their multi-faceted "cause" -- his|her|it's dismissal forthwith!  WHY? some of you might ask, curious if not completely puzzled.  Succinctly, even mention of disproportionate numbers of persons who claim or acknowledge "Jewishness" in particular areas of interest (! pun intended) or of concern seems politically correct grounds for shunning and protest.  Woe be unto those who discuss, critically, "Jewish Power"!  So, in DOT 2, the reviewer of the book "Agitprop in America  " crossed the line and mentioned what the author of the book could not, did not, for whatever reason, blind spot or deference to "Jewish Power" and the havoc it can bring to one's book sales and|or one's peace of mind.  [I note here that Veterans Today adopted the phrase Khazarian Mafia.  Brandon Smith (Alt-Market.com) prefers "globalists" and "elites".  To each their own.  It's a "free country" right?  Left?]

.

So, drawing a simple line (conceptually) between DOT 1 and DOT 2, for some, is IMPOSSIBLE!  I assure you, a child with a mind still open could accomplish the task in 9-11 seconds, then spend profitably a sunny afternoon reconstructing the absurdities of Sandy Hook in the backyard sandbox.

My own takes -- 12 spokes like those of the Wheel of Samsara -- I have entitled Kultural Marxi$m.  Though my spelling be idiosyncratic, my thinking has congruence  with thoughts expressed and the lexicon developed by John Harmon McElroy, author of Agitprop in America.

Dr. Joyce ended his review with this, and I concur!

John Harmon McElroy’s work of catharsis is a worthy addition to the Arktos library, and offers an original and multifaceted new approach to the subject of America’s undeniable and ongoing decay.  At almost 400 pages of commentaries on numerous subjects, including a large lexicon of Cultural Marxist terms, the book certainly represents value for money and will consume many hours of study.

Of course, it doesn’t have “all the answers,” something it has in common with the vast majority of political texts on the market, but it does approach a normally pessimistic subject with intellectual vigor, aggression, confidence, and even optimism. It’s a book worthy of being “balanced out” by the later reading of another text like Sunic’s Homo Americanus, and I think readers can gain much from such an exercise. Readers could also benefit by conducting some of their own research into the origins of certain agitprop terms. McElroy includes several blank pages at the end of his book for “notes,” which could be put to use in this manner. As hinted at earlier in this review, I guarantee that readers will find some predictable but useful information in the process.  Andrew