2.3k SHARES Facebook Twitter Google Reddit Tumblr Digg Linkedin Stumbleupon Mail Print

The term “thought police” was popularized by George Orwell in his 1949 dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the book, Orwell’s Thought Police are charged with uncovering and punishing “thought-crime” and thought-criminals throughout the fictional superstate of Oceania.

The secret police agency uses propaganda, psychological methods, and omnipresent surveillance to search, find, monitor, and arrest members of society who could potentially challenge the authority of “Big Brother.”

Likewise, all across the western world, individuals are currently being jailed and prosecuted for expressing legitimate political views deemed “hateful” or “extreme” by governments.

Recent examples include a U.K. politician being arrested and charged last year under section 4 of the country’s Public Order Act of 1986 – which defines “racially aggravated public order offenses,” as “abusive or insulting words or behavior” – for reciting a Winston Churchill quote critical of Islam.

In places like Sweden and Canada, Christian pastors have been arrested and even sentenced to prison for espousing biblical positions on homosexuality. Across Europe, questioning the official version of Holocaust will get you locked up.

Even in the United States, a similar style of thought-policing has steadily infiltrated the culture over the past several decades, culminating with the Obama Administrations unveiling of a new global police force which is to be utilized to “fight extremism” in major cities across the country.

At the end of last month, Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced at the United Nations that her office would be working in several American cities to integrate what has been dubbed the “Strong Cities Network” (SCN) in a move toward international consolidation of law-enforcement agencies around the globe.

Called the “Launch of Strong Cities Network to Strengthen Community Resilience Against Violent Extremism,” the international program already includes 23 cities around the world including New York, Atlanta, Denver, and Minneapolis in the United States.

Decried by critics as amounting to “nothing less than the overriding of American laws, up to and including the United States Constitution, in favor of United Nations laws” that would inevitably be implemented in the country without any Congressional oversight, the Obama Department of Justice described the program in a press release stating:

Cities are vital partners in international efforts to build social cohesion and resilience to violent extremism. Local communities and authorities are the most credible and persuasive voices to challenge violent extremism in all of its forms and manifestations in their local contexts. While many cities and local authorities are developing innovative responses to address this challenge, no systematic efforts are in place to share experiences, pool resources and build a community of cities to inspire local action on a global scale. The SCN will connect cities, city-level practitioners and the communities they represent through a series of workshops, trainings and sustained city partnerships. Network participants will also contribute to and benefit from an online repository of municipal-level good practices and web-based training modules and will be eligible for grants supporting innovative, local initiatives and strategies that will contribute to building social cohesion and resilience to violent extremism. The SCN will include an International Steering Committee of approximately 25 cities and other sub-national entities from different regions that will provide the SCN with its strategic direction. The SCN will also convene an International Advisory Board, which includes representatives from relevant city-focused networks, to help ensure SCN builds upon their work.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has already lauded the program and its intent to protect citizens against “all forms of violent extremism, whether it’s based in religious, or racial, or nationalistic, or ideological intolerance.” (sic)

Its important to understand that the United States government has made it clear over and over again – they perceive American enemies to be gun owners and libertarians.

One of the most egregious confirmations of this was back in 2012 when a report published by The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) stated that Americans “reverent of individual liberty” and others adamant about protecting their personal freedoms, are “extreme right-wing terrorists.”

In that paper, Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008, researchers used definitions from another START study, 2011’s Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism, to characterize what traits should be considered when describing right-wing terrorists.

Those definitions include:

Americans who believe their “way of life” is under attack

Americans who are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”

People who consider themselves “anti-global” (presumably those who are wary of the loss of American sovereignty)

Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”

People who are “opposed to abortion and support the second Amendment”

Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty”

People who “believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”

START – a University of Maryland project funded directly by the Department of Homeland Security, released a report last year which collected information from state and local fusion centers, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, the DHS, BATF, DEA, ICE, and state and local homeland security and anti-terrorism task forces.

The report found that the so-called “Sovereign Citizen Movement” has been named the number one domestic terrorist threat in America, with “52 percent of respondents agree[ing] and 34 percent strongly agree[ing] that sovereign citizens constitute the most serious terrorist threat” – opposed to 39 percent of respondents who agreed and 28 percent who strongly agreed that Islamic extremists are the most serious threat.

Self-described sovereign citizens take the position that they are answerable only to common law and are not subject to any statutes or proceedings at the federal, state, or municipal levels. They especially reject most forms of taxation as illegitimate. Participants in the movement argue the concept is in opposition to “federal citizens” who, they say, have unknowingly forfeited their rights by accepting some aspect of federal law.

“The 2013-14 study results show that law enforcement’s top concern is sovereign citizens,” the START report states. “Although Islamic extremists remain a major concern for law enforcement, they are no longer their top concern.”

The report recommends state and federal law enforcement share intelligence data on targeted groups, develop “tactical responses” to threats and “act on that information to prevent or mitigate threats.” Among the threat groups listed include Militia members, tax-protesters, and Christian Idenitarians.

Federal authorities, particularly the Department of Homeland Security, during both the Obama and Bush administrations, have been involved in producing a plethora of literature portraying liberty lovers and limited-government advocates as terrorists.

One of the most blatant examples was the infamous 2009 MIAC report, published by the Missouri Information Analysis Center which framed Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag, as potential terrorists.

Even everyday behaviors are now regarded as suspicious by the United States government. Under the FBI’s Communities Against Terrorism program, the bulk purchase of food, using cash to pay for a cup of coffee, and showing an interest in web privacy when using the Internet in a public place are all labeled as a potential indication of terrorist activity.

The agenda to consolidate federal authority over local law enforcement was typified best in a white paper presented to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in 2012 – which outlined an ‘evolving mission’ for Homeland Security that moves away from fighting terrorism and towards growing a vast domestic intelligence network that would expand integration with local and state agencies and private-public partnerships already underway via regional fusion centers.

Crafted by the Aspen Institute Homeland Security Group, co-chaired by former DHS chief Michael Chertoff, the report proposed a transition from outwardly dealing with the threats posed by terrorism towards intelligence gathering “focused on more specific homeward-focused areas.”

DHS maintains that “the threat grows more localized” which requires the militarization of local police in major cities and the training of staff from local agencies to make sure that oversight is restricted to the federal government.

The creation and implementation of fusion centers in urban areas was to “serve as focal points within the state and local environment for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information between the federal government and state, local, tribal, territorial (SLTT) and private sector partners.”

“As the threat grows more localized,” the report reads, “the federal government’s need to train, and even staff, local agencies, such as major city police departments, will grow.”

Apparently the need for international involvement in local policing is growing too. According to Attorney General Lynch, the Strong Cities Network scheme “will be run by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD)” – a left-wing European think-tank.

Knowing that according to the United States governments own reports and documents, liberty-lovers are considered “terrorists,” it is important to note that the UN and ISD have similar views and routinely support gun control and other draconian social and speech policies across Europe.

According to an ISD report entitled Old Threat, New Approach: Tackling the Far Right Across Europe, “The project will develop an online tool to provide practical training for practitioners, and will seed a long-term network of experts and practitioners working to counter far-right extremism” – which the group identifies with nationalism, opposition to immigration, and firearm ownership.

President Obama told the UN last week that the U.S. will use “all of our tools” to fight Islamic State terrorists but its clear from the ISD website what kind of “extremism” it plans on fighting.

Gracing the site are numerous mentions of “far-right extremism across Europe,” the increasing legitimization of “anti-immigration and anti-Islamic discourses,” “the extreme right,” “Islamophobia and anti-immigration sentiment,” and “violent right-wing extremism.”

In other words, what most Americans consider to be traditional Western values will now be policed as thought-crimes and “terrorism” by international bodies in cities across the country with absolutely no oversight by United States citizens.

Perhaps even more troubling, was a Department of Justice announcement made Wednesday that the affirmed that under the umbrella of “Homeland Security,” the agency will now be moving away from combating Islamic extremism to fighting home-grown “anti-government groups” with a new “Domestic Terrorism Counsel.”

Speaking at a forum hosted by George Washington University’s “Program on Extremism,” Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Carlin said, “while addressing the evolving international threat of violent extremism, we cannot lose sight of… home-grown violent extremism that can be motivated by… anti-government views, racism, bigotry and anarchy, and other despicable beliefs.”

According to Carlin, the domestic terrorism counsel will now assist federal prosecutors nationwide who are working on domestic terrorism cases. He says the counsel will “help shape our strategy and analyze legal gaps or enhancements required to ensure we can combat these threats.”

“What causes some confusion is that ‘domestic terrorism’ is not an offense or a charge,” Carlin said. Therefore, domestic terror groups or actors must be prosecuted with firearms or explosives offenses, hate crimes or murder.”

The overt unveiling of the thought police in the United States highlights the success of Cultural Marxism in the country. By the end of WWI, socialists realized that the world’s proletariat had not heeded Marx’s call to rise up in opposition to evil capitalism and to embrace communism instead. Therefore, a new strategy was needed.

Separately, two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci – Founder of the Communist Party of Italy and Georg Lukacs of Hungary, concluded that the Christianized cultural institutions of the West were the obstacle standing in the way of a communist world order.

Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had also corrupted the working class. The West would have to be “de-Christianized,” said Gramsci, by the means of what a latter acolyte would call, a “long march through the institutions.”

Gramsci had reasoned that the new battleground must become the culture, starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science, art, and history. All of these things must be radically transformed as must the social and cultural order if socialism was to be successful.

Additionally, a new socialist movement was to be created through identity politics. In his Prison Notebooks, Gramsci suggested that this new proletariat be comprised of many criminals, women, and racial minorities.

In short, Marxism needed to be translated from economic into cultural terms. Traditional Marxism views the world through the lens of economic determinism. That is to say, there are the oppressed: the workers, and the oppressors: the bourgeoisie and capital owners.

Cultural Marxism offered a new class analysis and system of victimology. The oppressed are now: well, everyone that isn’t a heterosexual white male, and the oppressors are: white males.

Gramsci’s prescription, along with Lukacs’ insights gleamed from implementing similar operations as Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik-Era Bela Kun regime in Hungary – established the precursor to what was known as the Frankfurt School in Weimar Germany. Among its founders were Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse, and Theodor Adorno.

The school was a multidisciplinary effort which included sociologists, sexologists, and psychologists seeking to synthesize the works of thinkers like Hegel, Marx, Kant, Weber and Freud into an all encompassing “critical” social theory that principally employed the Hegelian dialectical method with its emphasis on dialectic and contradiction as inherent properties of human reality.

With the rise of Hitler in the 1930s, many Frankfurt school intellectuals moved to America, taking up positions in key U.S. universities, and the rest is history.

Building on the earlier Fabian Society strategy of “gradualism,” as opposed to an outright revolutionary transition to socialism, the Cultural Marxists initiated the slow infiltration, subversion, and usurpation of traditional American cultural institutions like academia, silencing all dissenters of their agenda as hateful bigots, racists, and homophobes.

When examining the microcosm of political correctness on college campuses, its totalitarian nature becomes clear. Universities have become nothing more than mini-North-Koreas with their own internal legal systems that ruin the lives of anyone who dares to speak out against the Cultural Marxist indoctrination or selective privilege given to so-called “victim groups” by administrators and professors under the auspices of “social justice.”

This paradigm has been slowly transitioning from institutions of higher learning to the rest of the society at large. With the announcement of a new global police force and domestic terrorism counsel to fight “extremism,” political correctness will invariable come to define the modern American state, as it has done in many other Western countries where free-speech no longer exists.

That is, unless we react to stop it. There is much more information to consider within the context of this article but if you would like to understand more about how political correctness originated and developed over time as a means to silence dissent to totalitarian socialism, you can check out this documentary.