Paul Screvane
Paul Screvane was a New York City Council President in 1964 who exposed the corruption of community action programs. It was noted by school principals that an agency called Mobilization was not trying to help the poor and instead was fomenting quarreling and class warfare. Mobilization was not instructing self-learning through civics and empathy and instead was instructing marxism and hostilities. Mobilization activists intimidated Welfare office workers demanding free stuff being led by marxist socialists.
School principals noted that Mobilization was employing full time paid agitators and organizers from extremist groups. This was in 1964 when the Civil Rights Movement was fighting for equality of opportunity for jobs and education and not for free stuff. The socialists were fomenting class warfare, racial warfare, conflict, and demanding free things such as paychecks and clothing allowances among other things without having to work. The socialists demanded free things without having to work consistent with socialist hippies and beats while persecuting the true Civil Rights Movement. Marxism was not a part of the Civil Rights Movement.
"Though Mobilization for Youth broke off connections with the welfare rights movement at this point, the movement rolled on under its own momentum. During the next two years welfare rights groups in New York routinely occupied welfare offices, damaged furniture, and clashed with police."- (page 263)
"By the end of the decade community organizing ceased entirely to be a component of the agency's program. Mobilization by then was concentrating on vocational education, with stress of changing the poor to suit the job market rather than changing the market to suit the poor. As a bureaucratic agency bearing a distinct resemblance to the type it had once set out to reform, Mobilization appropriately became a favorite target for militant demonstrations on the East Side."- (page 265)
The newspaper, the Daily News, wrote articles describing how the Mobilization action committee was employing "scores of leftists and subversives" to cause social strife in 1964. This was most likely because the Civil Rights Movement was effective. The racist socialists then wanted to cause class and race warfare in the US by employing racist socialists to practice hostilities, chaos, slander, deceit, and preach socialism. (Maybe McCarthy was not wrong?) Paul Screvane also went against socialists and Mobilization. Screvane said that if there were socialists in Mobilization, the city would not renew Mobilization's contract. Scrivane was probably persecuted by slander and opposed by socialists. Screvane was competing for the Mayor position being a Democrat and did not win. Mobilization was able to keep practicing deceit and instigate conflict. Bertram Beck, a socialist leader in Mobilization, then described that it was time to merge with established institutions (this could mean that socialists also had to appease the trust fund establishment to ensure survival. Marxist socialists who rebelled against American ideals of competition and hard work and believed to be independent and autonomous, had to do the bidding of the trust fund idolators. Marxists in Mobilization then became covert socialists since they had been outed, and Mobilization became a bureaucracy.)
There is a difference between the Civil Rights Movement and marxism. The Civil Rights Movement asked for the elimination of a racist caste system to allow for equal opportunity to compete for jobs and education in order for an individual to improve himself. Marxism demands the practice of racism and classism to prevent equal opportunity and thus foment a caste system. The Civil Rights Movement was created to eliminate the caste system while racist socialists wanted to eliminate equal opportunity and the practice of empathy and hard work for slothfulness and a racist caste system. (The difference betwen Christianity and idolatry).
The Upper Middle Class Socialist Leftists Also Protested Universities in 1965
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you've got to make it stop. And you've go to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all." -Projection from Mario Savio (Individuals are born free and it is actually socialism that is chains and shackles.)
It is described that some of the socialists in 1965 were comprised from the upper middle class who had been raised in opulence and had significant resources. Instead of being grateful for the resources, they decided to believe the lies of socialism and decided to rebel against Christianity, democracy, and capitalism. Since consumerism does not offer satisfaction or a sense of identity, they began to practice socialism. They were the first group of college students to rebel against a quality liberal education, consider themselves "saviors or liberators", and wanted to be instructed lies. African-Americans and minorities were opposed and obstructed from going to college in the 1960s seen in the James Meredith story and were grateful when they were able to obtain a great liberal education. Socialists actually rebelled and protested the ability to receive a quality education considering it "oppressive" because it required hard work and dedication.
Individuals including Herbert Marcuse, Carl Oglesby, Paul Potter, Greg Calvert, and Mario Savio, and other protesters described that they needed to fight the "machine" by essentially throwing temper tantrums, lying, and protesting the freedom to receive an education and have autonomy. The socialist students were instructed by socialist propaganda agents (Oglesby, Savio, Marcuse, Potter, and Calvert) to blame liberalism, conservatism, and professors. Socialists were rebeling against having a work ethic, discipline, celibacy, and dedication. They described that the "system" was made up of "liberals" who started the Vietnam war when in fact it was the socialists who created the Vietnam war (Kissinger, Hoover, and Nixon most likely were in charge of escalating the Vietnam war) and kept it going for 5 years until 1970 when Nixon was president. (Coincidence that the war ended once Nixon was president.) The socialist protestors who were college students in university in 1965 created SDS which was to promote socialism in college campuses and rebellion against conservative values, having a work ethic, classical liberalism, and empathy. SDS began to have newspapers, radio programs, and propaganda to lead students to socialism. Despite the student organization, most students did not participate and kept to their integrity and values seeing how socialists were slothful, liars, envious, and conflict causing. (Another reason why Carter and Reagen were elected in the 1970s and 1980s.) The socialist imperialists were actually pro-war and pro-segregation, and the socialist students "appeared" to be the solution to imperialism when the imperialists were socialists. The communist student's solution to socialism's aggression and unneeded warfare was socialism. Essentially socialism is the problem. True patriotic Americans saw straight through the deceit and preferred humble leaders like Reagen and Carter and avoided conflict and envy.
The Socialists Plagiarized MLK's Call to Freedom From the Civil Rights Movement
"The revolutionary struggle is always and always must be a struggle for "freedom"."- Greg Calvert on masking socialist oppression as freedom
"Radical consciousness was the perception of oneself as unfree, as "oppressed"-and finally it is the discovery of oneself as one of the "oppressed"."- Lies and deception based from Greg Calvert SDS member saying that oppressive socialists are "oppressed" (page 323)
While African Americans and minorities were fighting in the Civil Rights Movement for equality and freedom from racial discrimination, the socialists were opposing the Civil Rights Movement. The upper middle class (also might include trust fund students) college socialists in 1965 opposed the Civil Rights Movement and also plagiarized the slogan from MLK about the need to fight for freedom. (Carmichael and Rudd opposed the Civil Rights Movement and may have been FBI or CIA agents and thus from affluent background. SDS socialists were also from affluent background).
"Were the radical thousands fighting against the oppression of others or against the "oppression" of themselves?"- Socialists were not helping others seen in how they persecuted the Civil Rights Movement, and affluent socialists were not oppressed (page 321)
A socialist agent, Calvert, stated that all "students were oppressed" and needed "freedom". There are multiple questions that stem from these socialist temporary lies and non-sense:
Students with trust funds and living above the poverty line where "oppressed"?
What constituted "oppression"? Not being able to be an alcoholic every day? Not being able to be a junkie everyday? Not being able to practice adultery and homosexuality? Not being allowed to be slothful? Not being rewarded nor applauded for being bitter and resentful?
To the socialists what constituted "freedom"? Was freedom being allowed to not work nor study? And also prevent others from working and studying?
Preventing others from competing in sports or school?
Avoiding the need to improve each day?
Avoiding responsibility and the need to grow up?
Elongating the coddled child phase as long as possible?
Past childhood?
Past adolescence?
Past early adulthood?
Past middle adulthood?
There is the question of what is "oppression" to socialists?
Is it capitalist ethics of competition and betterment?
Is it democracy to prefer better options and choices than one party systems and flawed socialist beliefs that are stagnated and lead to stagnation?
What is "oppression" to socialists?
Is it being called out on dishonesty?
Is it being called out on envy?
Is it being called out on the many lies?
Is it being called out on hypocrisy?
Is it being called out on fake empathy?
Is it being called out on arrogance?
Is it being called out on misuse of resources?
Is it being called out on the fact that socialism has never worked? (Neither a 40 hour work week nor a success.)
Socialist students in 1965 were told to hate and disdain classical liberals and conservatives (moderates). The moderates were the "enemy" because they were Christian, Democratic, and capitalistic. Who would oppose cowardice, slothfulness, arrogance, malice, corruption, and deceit from socialism? The socialists opposed the Civil Rights Movement because it was fighting racism and actual oppression. African Americans and minorities who were not affluent, were not trust fund socialist children, and were not upper middle class socialists, were oppressed in the 1960s and since the 1860s after socialists assassinated Lincoln. The affluent socialists stated that they too were "oppressed"? No the racist socialists were the oppressors. Therefore by logic, the socialists can not be the oppressed as much as they wanted to fit in with the working class that they were oppressing in the US and all over the world. The imperialists and imperialism is socialistic seen in the Vietnam war of 1965 that was ended when Nixon was president. Socialists said "liberals" were the imperialists yet JFK created the Peace Corps to send college students to countries to teach and help others. When he wanted that for the US in the Service Corp, Congress denied the legislation. Genuine empathy is not imperialism. MLK fought segregation from socialists with genuine empathy and triumphed. JFK helped MLK. The socialists were creating wars seen in Vietnam, and the architect of that war was Henry Kissinger, a socialist imperialist, neoconservative, and idolator. So the affluent socialist students were both fighting oppression while also oppressing and opposing the Civil Rights Movement and calling liberals "imperialists". So socialism can both oppress and fight "oppression" at the same time? Quite illogical. Che Guevara went to Bolivia to fight democracy and actually oppressed workers in Bolivia (Socialists romanticize and say he went to "liberate" the working class in Bolivia. Shouldn't he have started in his own country or Cuba since he was a henchman of Castro? Guevara could have been a doctor and helped the world in his country by being a good doctor. Instead he dropped out of med school (not due to gangstalking or lack of resources) but so that he could be a slothful murderer and racist socialist.) How is that liberating the working class? So socialism is an oppressive system and also the oppressor. (Guevara got destroyed, Kissinger was outed as a socialist and warmonger, and Nixon resigned from office and also perished. There is justice.)
Racist Socialist College Students Fomented Chaos and Division in 1965
"Blockading intersections with parked cars, trash cans, parking meters, and potted trees, the crowd ringed twenty-five square blocks, declared them a liberated area, and attempted to hold them with improvised guerilla tactics. When police charged, the protestors broke into small groups, retreated, and then reformed elsewhere to set up new barricades. At two intersections demonstrators found themselves superior in force and took up lost positions. After holding the streets for a few hours, the students retreated rather than engage the National Guard and marched back...to Berkeley." - SDS socialist students protesting with violence in Oakland, California (they had decided against peaceful protests thus describing they were not Civil Rights activists and actually hostile socialists trashing a city) (page 328)
Socialist college students that were racist and socialists from SDS in 1965 stated that they were fighting for the oppressed while actually opposing and persecuting the Civil Rights Movement. They were slothful and rebellious and intended to cause racial strife and division. While appearing to be pacifists, they did street drugs like LSD (derived from peyote) and were hostile. On college campuses, they rebelled against civility and decorum wanting dorm hours and arrangements changed according to their specifications (most likely to promote fornication and adultery). They protested against professors for being moderates and classical liberals and probably opposed conservative and liberal students who were not deceived by socialism. They protested the Vietnam war while calling for violence at campuses and communities in the US to further their lawlessness agenda of idol worship. This was so that there could be increased lawlessness for the man of sin in the end times. Socialists students trashed universities, felt offended about about everything, and did not want to compete nor have discipline. They even stormed the Pentagon all by themselves "without help" from the government. They managed to sneak into restricted areas showing that socialists were better trained than government officials? (Most likely a propaganda ploy from socialists in the government and students in 1967 to encourage people to become a socialist.)
"Once on the Pentagon grounds, approximately one thousand demonstrators disregarded the agreements their leaders had negotiated with the government on permissible forms of disobedience and immediately headed for forbidden areas, some of them shoving through a line of US marshals to establish an illegal beachhead on the asphalt plaza leading to the Pentagon's main entrance. A handful even briefly made it past guards through a side door. Thousands more crowded menacingly onto the steps leading to the plaza and on the grassy mall below. This was "resistance", and to direct it SDS leaders, included Greg Calvert, materialized with bullhorns at strategic locations."- Hostile SDS socialists were able to stroll through the Pentagon preaching slothfulness and envy without being opposed while Civil Rights Activists had been reviled, punched, and opposed for protesting racism in universities and buses (page 329)
Seems rather fake and was meant to promote socialism as pacifism and the socialists as "heroes" against unneeded warfare in Vietnam being that Nixon was a socialist and probably threatened the Democratic president in 1965 to escalate the war through Hoover. (While liberals were blamed for the war to further obfuscate the truth.) McCarthy was correct in saying that the military had covert socialists who were trying to undermine American leadership, values, ideals, and the imperative to improve the nation. The socialists wanted chaos, division, lack of discipline, and lawlessness to lead to a socialism dystopia where there is barrenness and envy. (We have seen how socialists have envied amazing leaders for their ideals and for being impressive. Socialists also opposed Churchill similar to McCarthy, JFK, MLK, Carter, Reagen, and Thatcher for fighting against the religion of envy.) Pope John Paul Paul II, Carter, and Reagen where able to be great leaders in the 70s and 80s that helped collapse the Soviet Union. While socialists attempted to turn the US into a socialist barren dystopia like the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union collapsed and Christianity increased in the US and in the countries that became independent from the Soviet Union. Conservatives, liberals, and moderates preferred Carter and Reagen to establishment politicians and saw straight through the deceit of socialism. Pastors also helped fight against the lies of socialism describing that rock and roll, idol worship, deceit, anger, hate, bitterness, slothfulness, conflict, illicit drug use, greed, intemperance, and indiscipline did not help. True Christian Pastors gave sermons against socialism and communism. Late Pastor David Wilkerson preached against sin and fornication. Late Pastor Billy Graham also preached against sin. (Fake communist preachers decided to preach distorted teachings being permissive towards socialism, idol worship, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, envy, and "the need not to judge others" to justify homosexuality while homosexuality needs to be rebuked for being grave sin and lawlessness.) Pope Benedict XVI was hated in the 2000s and 2010s for not approving of and repudiating homosexuality and sin. Despite opposition, individuals still keep speaking truth and rebuke socialism and homosexuality.