Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) have been on tour across America. In their talks, they have been saying some very inflammatory things. Naked Emperor News has compiled them into one video:
At least Townhall’s Guy Benson pointed out that they were “openly — even gleefully — stirring up racial tensions, without any pretense of subtlety, and with zero apparent hesitation.”
What no one is asking is: Why?
Why are members of the Congressional Black Caucus making such outrageous comments?
It’s more than just ginning up votes for Democrats. There could be a far more nefarious method to their madness.
In 1979, Peter Dreier published an article in the socialist magazine Social Policy. Stanley Kurtz detailed the article in his book, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism:
…aspects of Dreier’s strategic vision are laid out in his February 1979 Social Policy essay, “The Case for Transitional Reform.” This piece, influential within organizing circles
but virtually unknown outside, supplies a Marxist framework and a long-term strategy for community organizing. Here Dreier draws on French Marxist theorist Andre Gorz’s notion of “transitional reforms,” or “non-reformist reforms,” to suggest a way of transforming American capitalism into socialism. The central idea, borrowed from Gorz, is to create government programs that only seem to be “reforms” of the capitalist system. Rightly understood, these supposed reforms are so incompatible with capitalism that they gradually precipitate the system’s collapse.
Dreier’s strategy has two parts. On the one hand, quasi-socialist institutions need to be pre-established in the heart of capitalist society, so as to turn a coming moment of crisis in a socialist direction. These quasi-socialist institutions, of course, would be groups like ACORN, with a significant semi-governmental role via their insertion into the banking system, public utility commissions, business boards of directors, and so forth. The second part of the strategy involves “injecting unmanageable strains into the capitalist system, strains that precipitate an economic and/or political crisis.”
Dreier has in mind a “revolution of rising entitlements” that “can not be abandoned without undermining the legitimacy of the capitalist class.” “Proximately,” says Dreier, “the process leads to expansion of state activity and budgets, and … to fiscal crisis in the public sector. In the longer run, it may give socialist norms an opportunity for extension or at least visibility.” So Dreier’s plan is to gradually expand government spending until the country nears fiscal collapse.
At that point, a public accustomed to its entitlements will presumably turn on its capitalist masters when they propose cutbacks to restore fiscal balance. Dreier fears that this intentionally wrought crisis might actually backfire and produce fascism instead of socialism. That is why he believes it’s so important to have a left-wing grassroots movement already in place. Left-wing community organizers will turn the national fiscal crisis in a socialist direction. Dreier seems to think that some revolutionary violence may emerge at this point. Yet his stress is on conditions designed to achieve a gradual transition to socialism.
We are currently living in an America where the idea of complete fiscal collapse is a daily news lede. The Congressional Black Caucus is targeting the one political movement, the Tea Party, proposing “cutbacks to restore fiscal balance,” and claiming they are at war with them.
It’s tin foil hat madness to believe they are actually fomenting violent resistance, perhaps even revolution, right?
In 1983, Rep. John Conyers, current member of the Congressional Black Caucus, spoke at the Socialists Scholars Conference at the Great Hall of Manhatten’s Cooper Union. The New York chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America conferences.
This time writing at National Review Online, Stanley Kurtz notes that Barack Obama, among others, were present at the conference:
America’s socialists saw the Harold Washington campaign as a model for their ultimate goal of pushing the Democrats to the left by polarizing the country along class lines. This socialist “realignment” strategy envisioned driving business interests out of a newly radicalized Democratic party. The loss was to be more than made up for through a newly energized coalition of poor and minority voters, led by minority politicians on the model of Harold Washington. The new coalitions would draw on the open or quiet direction of socialist community organizers, from whose ranks new Harold Washingtons would emerge. Groups like ACORN and Project Vote would swell the Democrats with poor and minority voters and, with the country divided by class, socialism would emerge as the natural ideology of the have-nots.
Figures pushing this broader strategy at the 1983 Socialist Scholars Conference included ACORN adviser Frances Fox Piven and organizing theorist Peter Dreier, now a professor at Occidental College and an adviser to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.
The man who penned the plan advised Obama’s campaign and one of the men who spoke at a socialist conference is today a member of the caucus stirring up anger over possible entitlement cuts.
In fact, Conyers is listed as a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, as is Rep. Andre Carson, the member of the CBC who said Tea Party members wanted to see black Americans hanging from trees. There are other members of the CBC who are listed as members of the DSA.
Is it really that far of a stretch to say members and/or allies of an organization that sponsored conferences where strategies like Dreier’s were proposed and discussed, people who are by all means communist sympathizers, could be trying to intentionally stir up members of a particular class for violent resistance? Especially when the man who came up with the plan was an adviser to the President who helped create the fiscal crisis?
At the very least, they want to create a climate where the idea of cutting back on anything is so dangerous that it would not be considered. This rhetoric is not designed to create rational dialogue, but to enrage people to the point of irrational action. Mental images of lynchings are not used to compel someone to discuss the finer points of fiscal policy. They are created to instill hatred.
I know it sounds conspiratorial but you have to consider the fact that socialists have discusses the idea of transitional reform for decades and now it appears America is nearing the endgame of that plan. The Congressional Black Caucus is actively trying to create a population angry enough to “turn on its capitalist masters when they propose cutbacks to restore fiscal balance.” It might not be for outright socialist revolution, but it’s not out of the question.