Replies

The leadership of various extremist groups in the US, “right” and “left,” have been known to accept funding from interested parties, even nations - the USSR, Iraq, Qatar, Soros, British billionaires, Iraqi arms dealers, etc ....to run campaigns and put on street theater... and do it whether or not their followers are aware of it.
In the Gulf War Saddam Hussein paid American white supremacists to protest against the war, some even traveled to Iraq to put on a little play there.

Ever hear of front groups? Muslims of the Americas is a front for Jamaat ul Fuqra. CAIR is a front for Hamas- but that doesn’t mean that everyone who joins CAIR knows this or believes in Hamas’s “Project.” But the leadership does.

Now that doesn’t mean the car crash in Charlottsville was orchestrated by some higher power, I don’t think it was, more likely a peon who fell into their orbit and sincerely believed the front group’s spew. But in Alinsky’s view, any crisis could be an opportunity, and organizers should be prepared to take advantage. To whose advantage did it work? Who benefits? Certainly not his supposed cause. He only damaged it.

The USSR backed the Nuclear Freeze movement, the same movement Obama belonged to when younger. Doesn’t mean the then-peon Obama knew that, as he had no need to know... but whoever accepted the money and ran the accounts certainly did. There was no reason to advertise that and every reason not to.

Speaking of Obama- here he was, friends with and a co-worker in the Joyce Foundation with a guy who wanted to be leader of the white army in a race war to complement the Black Liberation Army, a guy who plotted to bomb a dance hall at Ft Dix. And yet the same Obama spent 20 years attending a “Christian” church led by Rev Wright, who was openly friendly with heretical “Muslim” and black nationalist Louis Farrakhan of NoI, who’s all cuddly with the late Moamar Qadaffi [killed by the Obama admin of all things] and cuddly with Duke and Stormfront to the point their groups published each other’s articles in their publications.

Look up David Duke’s position on Iran. Look up Louis Farrakhan’s position on Iran. What’s the difference? You’d think they would hate each other, being, at least vocally, racists, and Farrakhan’s group wanting a separate black country formed out of southern states [which of course they’re never going to get]. But these leaders don’t hate each other, instead they treat each other as allies.
Why is that?
It’s because the race angle is superficial to their other objectives; the race crap is merely the tool which gives them warm bodies - a following large enough not to be ignored by the press. Their less obvious objectives are to cripple the US’s foreign policy and destroy Israel as a nation.

This isn’t outlandish; it’s the same thing though on a smaller scale than what the two major parties do when in primary races the GOP candidates run to the right... and the Democrats run to the left, only those two parties objectives are merely money and power for themselves rather than the destruction of the US and the dems in particular won’t shed any tears over Israel.

After the primaries, these two parties run back towards the center; the problem is that if elected, they more and more ignore their base and heed only the big donors, who are willing to sit quietly through the primaries listening to their candidates spout hardline positions only because they knew the harsher rhetoric designed to capture warm bodies was just bullsheiss all along.
If the major parties can pull off crap like this to win, then individual radicals with vision can and will do it as well.

Farrakhan and Duke both lead small groups composed of people either dumber than a box of rocks- the dumber the better for them, because stupid is what you need to put on a good show in the streets to move public opinion to what the backers [not the street people] want. So what if a few get hurt? They can also just as easily use sharp people who are selfish and proud, because these will never entertain the thought that they are dupes once they are emotionally invested in a cause. these can be the face of the organization while the leaders remain in the shadows.

This fusion of seemingly disparate groups to advance a singular objective also isn’t a new idea... this is what the Weather Underground wanted decades ago - they were to be the white army to complement the Black Liberation Army. The objective was to overload and break society down into weaker factions and set them against eachother, in the aftermath, the agitators would divvy up the scraps and form them in their own image. [Or as in Iran, one group of agitators ends up stabbing its former partner in the back.] So we should not discard the possibility that both antifa and the white separatists share the same covert support.