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.
Racist Socialists Acknowledged That Trust Fund Individuals (Bad Liberals) Were Monopolizing Money Yet Blamed Liberals and Conservative Christians (Good Liberals)
"Elites had perverted democracy by assuming control of major institutions and rendering average citizens isolated, apathetic, and bereft of community." -(page 312)
The racist socialists knew that trust fund individuals were the source of monopolies, yet instead of rebelling against trust fund socialists, they persecuted the Civil Rights Movement who was eliminating the caste system in the United States through pacifism. Instead of fighting the source of conflict and division including protesting Kissinger and the FBI (covert socialists who were warmongers) they attacked American students, professors in their universities, and citizens in their jobs (Army recruiters were reviled and attacked by deranged affluent college socialists instead of going to Kissinger's place of residence. Army recruiters did not create the Vietnam war. Affluent college socialists staged sit ins in universities that were already desegregated due to JFK and MLK.) The racist college socialists in the mid 1960s decided to attack and barricade liberal universities? To prevent others from getting a quality education? The deranged affluent college socialists (who may have been children of trust fund socialists) did not want to argue and discuss ideas in college and instead wanted to trash cities and break windows. (Not very utilitarian at all). The affluent socialists called for "participatory democracy" according to Tom Hayden that was a call to harassment and violence.
"If powerlessness was the evil to be purged, then Hayden's vision of a better future was a society in which the people would take control over their owns lives, a society governed by something he called "participatory democracy".
"There were, it turned out, good liberals and bad liberals. The bad liberals were Kennedy liberals, corporate liberals, who managed the problem of the new era so that the 'old order of private corporate enterprise shall be preserved and rationalized.' The good liberals were the 'democratically oriented liberals' who were 'trapped by the limitations of the Democratic party, but afraid of irrelevancy outside.'"- (page 314) Projection from socialists about JFK being a bad liberal while marxists are bad liberals
Marxists were instructed to blame and hate classical liberals and conservatives for the world's problems. This was so that marxism could be seen as a better alternative to Democracy and capitalism. Marxists hated John F. Kennedy for being industrious, anti-socialist, pro-Democracy, and keeping the United States ahead of the Soviet Union so much so that bureaucrats had to oppose him at multiple times. The good liberals were classical liberals like Kennedy, and the bad liberals were the marxist socialists. Johnson was attacked for continuing the Civil Rights Movement while he was used as a scapegoat by marxists to attack classical liberals and moderates and at the same time decrease his popularity. (Hoover threatening Johnson to most likely escalate the Vietnam war, promote anarchy in the US through bureacracy in OEO and prevent James Farmer from obtaining a grant, and make Nixon look like a "peacemaker" to secure Nixon's chances of a 1968 presidency.) Marxist socialists even called for Democrats in the universities to boycott and abstain from voting in the 1968 election (Marxists hate democratic elections?) Socialists and college students tend to vote Democrat and if Democrat students were not voting in the 1968 election who could win the election? So marxist affluent college students were Nixon's helpers while appearing to be pacifists, rebellious, and anti-establishment. This was while they were trashing cities, rioting, and a part of the establishment. The marxist bad liberals were helping Nixon win his presidency in 1968. (Which he barely won by a slim margin after the removal of JFK, RFK, and intimidating Johnson to not be a candidate for the Democrats, escalation of the Vietnam war, and marxist affluent college students rioting in 1965-1968 calling themselves Democrats while working for Nixon.). Marxists were not anti-establishment and were actually establishment. The Civil Rights Movement was anti-establishment and anti-racism.
Affluent Marxist College Students Worked For the Establishment
"When the project sought to become the voice of the poor rather than a tool of the establishment, "the liberals", said Hayden, viewed it as 'a problem if not a danger,' and bailed out.'"- Hayden blaming liberals when the marxists were who bailed out because the Newark Community Union Project opposed establishment and was working with labor unions
Similar to Mobilization, once the community projects were going against the interests of the establishment, the marxists were told to forsake the poor's interests and work with establishment guidelines. Then they were told to blame the liberals for the project not working out. The "liberals" (actually establishment) were who did not want to help the poor. Marxists actually preferred to foment conflict and trash cities than actually provide helpful services for the poor.
"Liberal reform, Hayden now said, was just a way of strengthening 'elite rule under the slogan of curbing private enterprise.'"- (page 316)
The socialist affluent marxist then said that liberal reform was negative and helped the establishment. Liberal reform through legislation helps citizens like JFK's desegregation legislation that broke segregation. SDS students in college spoke lies and promoted propaganda for the establishment. Essentially, marxists slandered and lied about liberals being evil. JFK was hated by the establishment for being anti-bureaucratic and anti-marxist. Oglesby also blamed the Vietnam war on liberals and not on Kissinger nor Nixon who were marxist imperialists.
"The men who engineered the war in Vietnam, 'are not monsters,' he said. 'They are all honorable men. They are all liberals.'"- 0 put of 3 for Oglesby because the architects of Vietnam were marxists, shameful, and not great men (page 319)
"Vietnam, which created the favorable climate for radical growth, posed problems as well. The hoardes of converts created by the war knew that the government was evil and "liberals" the enemy, but quite often they knew little else."- (page 321)
Marxist agents lied to students stating that "liberals" were the enemy when in fact it was marxists who were the enemy. The bureaucrats were not good and opposed Johnson. The marxists blamed everything on Johnson since he was a liberal who kept making Civil Rights legislation. The marxists opposed Civil Rights and wanted to decrease Johnson's popularity through lies and slander. Marxist students trashed universities and cities and called themselves Democrats to blame Johnson. Marxist converts knew that the Vietnam war was bad, Johnson was bad, and liberals were bad. This was to discourage individuals from being righteous, moderate, responsible, and capitalists. This was to radicalize students into marxism based on discouragements, lies, and anger. This was to favor Nixon while decreasing Johnson's popularity because of the amazing Civil Right's Movement's progress that had ended segregation and was looking to end housing segregation (if the Civil Rights Movement was not impressive why was it being opposed?) Marxists opposed the Civil Right's Movement speaking lies and by persecuting.
"At the Iowa convention in August 1966, newly elected vice president Carl Davidson, a twenty-three-year-old philosophy instructor at the University of Nebraska, led SDS back to campus under the slogan, 'student power.'"- (page 324)
SDS had chapters (student organizations) in different schools attempting to foment division and violence in the US in 1966 due to the advances of the Civil Rights Movement. The call to "freedom" was replaced by the call to "student power". The affluent marxists plagiarized MLK's call to "freedom" while oppresing the Civil Rights Movement (lying saying affluent marxist students were oppressed) and then copied Carmichael's call to "power" in 1964-1965 (which is what they were after). Lying sources equivalated Carmichael, the Black Panthers, and marxism to the Civil Rights Movement while actually infiltrating and opposing the Civil Rights Movement. (SNCC was radicalized by H. Rap Brown and Carmichael who obtained leadership and called for racism, looting, and rioting instead of pacifism and non-violence.)
"In an even more dangerous departure, Carl Davidson explicitly rejected the very norms of democracy itself. The social order we fight against is 'totalitarian, manipulative, repressive, and anti-democratic.'"- (page 330)
Davidson then decided to go full communist by projecting the deficits of marxism to Christianity, Democracy, and capitalism. The socialists are totalitarian, manipulative, repressive, and anti-democratic, but they are not going to say that from the very beginning. That would be the truth. People would avoid socialism and idolatry. Instead they had to lie and say that affluent socialists were "oppressed" like the African Americans, Caucasians (non idolatrous), and minorities that were living below the poverty line due to classism, racism, two tier system, and segregation. Segregation in the 1960s was socialism in action. Persecutiom by racist socialists against the Civil Rights Movement was socialism. Trashing cities and universities is socialism. Totalitarianism is socialism. Manipulation is socialism. Persecution and repression is socialism. Anti-democracy is socialism. If an individual does these things and says they are Patriotic and a Christian, then they are not a true American and definitely not a true Christian.
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.
There is the story of affluent marxist socialist students in Columbia University who decided to oppress administrators, protested and disrupted MLK's memorial service in 1968, trashed the university, and barricaded themselves to prevent others from attending university. The administration decided to build a gym so students could exercise and de-stress, and the marxists decided to protest by assembling a crowd and intimidating other students. Marxist affluent students ripped down a fence, wrestled with police, and then fled back to campus. Later, they attempted to close down the university. The intention was to remove universities in the US. As soon as desegregation allowed individuals of all races and ethnicities to go to university and school, racist affluent marxists attempted to close down and barricade universities. Instead, schools and universities kept instructing in 1968 and kept instructing until the late 2010s and covid "experimental" vaccines. (I am grateful that I did not get vaccinated with an experimental "vaccine" to be in med school (Moderna has twice the mRNA amount as other vaccines and was not told until 2 years later) nor have to promote a "vaccine" that may cause a thrombus (stroke and embolism). Can see the positive side of life. And can keep exercising too.) Socialists are also lagging the internet while typing this out describing that they oppose the truth. There is bad and then there is socialism.
"At one point the assembled crowd of five hundred charged Low Library, only to be repulsed by a line of Conservative students. Rudd stood on a trash can pondering aloud what to do next, the crowd suddenly dashed towards the gym site, where some of its members ripped down a fence, tussled briefly with police, then retreated to campus."- (page 333)
"Classes virtually ceased in Columbia university and final exams were canceled."- (page 334)
(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.
