from the Congress Action newsletter
by: Kim Weissman
November 19, 2000
The following Secret Memo is for radical activists who are dedicated to subverting a democratic nation's freedom.
Careful preparation and meticulous groundwork are essential when subverting a targeted country that has a long tradition of individual freedom and a significant proportion of the population dedicated to independence and constitutional safeguards. In such a country the preparation would, ideally, proceed gradually over several generations, before conditions are ripe for the final destruction of that country's freedom. If the preparation is done properly, the final destruction of the constitutionally protected liberties in the target country will appear to be nothing more than the normal functioning of that country's traditional constitutional processes.
The first vital step — this is crucial — is to separate the population of the targeted nation from its constitutional and historical roots. The most efficient way to do this is to follow the methods pioneered by previous totalitarian regimes, that is, by indoctrinating the minds of the young. Agents of the State must be placed in key positions as teachers of the young. Where socialism already dominates a State, the teachers can actively instruct the young in the State's socialist ideology. But doing so in a country not already dominated by socialism or collectivism would cause a backlash among the older generations, who would realize too soon what was being done and object. If, however, the activists are willing to extend their time horizon over several generations, it is not necessary to actively teach an ideology destructive of the target country's traditions. It is only necessary to neglect to teach the children the meaning of their constitution, their traditions of freedom, or the history of their country.
Over the course of as little as 2 or 3 generations there will be large numbers of people, especially among the young, who have never learned the reasons for their constitution or learned about their historical traditions, and who are no longer emotionally committed to the concept of individual liberty. The substitution of socialism and collectivism will much more easily fill the resulting ideological vacuum.
Once several generations of the young have been properly indoctrinated, they will form a critical mass of radical activists receptive to the new ideology of collectivism. But it will still be necessary, in preparation for the final takeover, to overcome those who still cling to the constitutional and historical traditions of the target country, and still cling to their quaint notions of individual liberty. Those will include both the older generations, and those among the young who have escaped the proper ideological indoctrination in the State-run schools. Those "holdovers", as they may be called, will still pose an obstacle to the implementation of collectivism in the target country. But it will not be necessary to eliminate the holdovers through the use of force. Because those holdovers will still be committed to their older constitutional forms and institutions, the new radicals can use those traditional forms and institutions against them. One of those constitutional forms that the holdovers will cling to is the public election of government officials by individual vote. Naturally, most of the holdovers will not willingly vote for openly socialist candidates (unless they can be fooled or scared into doing so), so overcoming this problem requires a two-tiered approach.
The first tier is obvious — the activist's chosen candidates for office must hide their true intentions and ideology. They must publicly profess their commitment to the target country's constitutional and historical traditions, and any programs they propose must be claimed to be necessary for the good of the targeted society, or for the good of some important group within that society. Couching the proposals in terms of serving or protecting the children or the elderly is particularly effective, especially in a country that has a traditional protectiveness towards its children and its elderly. Thus the dedicated activist can use the country's own traditional sympathies against it.
The second tier necessary to overcome the holdovers also uses their own constitutional forms and traditions against them. If an official advocates policies that are unpopular to the holdovers, those holdovers will nevertheless find themselves forced by their own integrity to go along with those policies — if they believe that the official was elected in what they think was a "free and fair election". Achieving the appearance of a "free and fair election" is simply a matter of numbers. Many of the younger generations, although providing the critical mass for demonstrations in favor of socialism and collectivism, may not yet be old enough to vote to adopt those ideologies, so the requisite numbers of voters must be obtained elsewhere. One way those added voters can be obtained is by encouraging large numbers of people to immigrate into the target country from countries that have no tradition of freedom, preferably from countries that actually have socialist or collectivist traditions of their own. Those immigrants, of course, will not be able to vote until they become citizens of the target country, so there has to be a program in place to give them citizenship quickly.
It is preferable if those immigrants can attain citizenship without learning the traditions or, especially, the native language of the target country (pretended concern for multicultural diversity is useful here), because then those immigrants will not be able to understand the political debates that occur during election campaigns. They will thus be forced to rely on others to tell them how to vote. It can be anticipated that no rational country would ever grant citizenship, and thus the right to vote, to immigrants who cannot even speak the language of the country. Thus it will be important to prepare the proper groundwork of multicultural dogma to overcome that natural inclination.
Once large numbers of immigrants from countries with no tradition of freedom gain citizenship in the target country, it is necessary to make sure that those new citizens are able to vote, and then actually do vote. This requires an easy means to register large numbers of people who normally would not exert the effort to register. People who cannot bother to register to vote will certainly not exert the effort to educate themselves about the issues in an election. Such people make ideal voters for the takeover of the target country, because they will be easily influenced by meaningless slogans, and it will be easy to induce fear that they may lose some expected government entitlement. A program must thus be implemented to make it easy for those people to register to vote, at the same time that they perform other life activities that they consider to be important, such as getting a driver's license. This voter registration process can be extended to take place at a variety of government offices, preferably offices that attract people who are naturally dependent on government. Thus the new voter signups should not occur at places such as a Registry of Deeds (private property owners being naturally opposed to socialism); but should occur, for example, at welfare offices.
To gain additional votes to assist the takeover, it is also useful to try to register as voters any class of citizens who are naturally disposed to dislike the institutions of the target country, either because of their personal history or their present life circumstances. Criminals, for example, are naturally disposed to dislike the institutions of the country that imprisoned them, thus it would certainly be useful to register convicted felons to vote. But again, as with immigrants who cannot speak the nation's language, it cannot be expected that any rational country would actually allow convicted felons to vote in its elections. In addition to increasing the votes of those who dislike the target country's institutions, it is also important to take steps to reduce the votes of any groups naturally disposed to support the target country's institutions, such as military personnel. Since many of them will be voting by absentee ballot from deployments overseas, it should be a simple matter to arrange for those ballots to be "misplaced" en route back into the country. The same tactic should be used for all absentee ballots, either making them difficult to obtain or losing them, because people who expend the extra effort to obtain absentee ballots will also be likely to make the extra effort to educate themselves about the issues in an election, and will thus be less easily swayed by the meaningless sloganeering.
The stage has now been set to actually take over the target country, using that country's own constitutional forms and institutions against it — by stealing a major national election without appearing to do so. If the groundwork has been properly done, the election results should come out with the numerical victory of the takeover activists' chosen candidate. But there is always a chance, if the activists move too soon, that the holdovers may still be able to block the takeover. It is necessary, therefore, to have contingency plans to achieve the desired result, even after the election.
In any election in a populous country, there are always significant numbers of ballots that are discarded and not counted in the final vote tally, usually because those ballots were marked improperly. Those discarded ballots give the activists an opportunity, once again, to use the target country's own constitutional forms and traditional concepts of fairness against it. The holdovers of a country dedicated to individual liberty and the constitution will highly value each citizen's right to vote. It will be an easy matter to portray those discarded ballots as representing citizens who were deprived of their voice — that is, to portray them as "disenfranchised". Especially in a country that values "fairness" above all things (a weakness not suffered by progressive countries governed by the ideology of socialism, and once again a weakness that can be used against the target country and turned to the advantage of the radical activists), it will be necessary for large numbers of those properly indoctrinated youth, the critical mass, led by agitators who are ideologically sympathetic to the activists, to take to the streets in mob protests, demanding "justice" and "fairness".
The holdovers, dedicated to traditional constitutional institutions and individual liberty, will feel compelled to give in to the demands of whatever the radicals call "justice". That will mean recounting those invalid ballots and pretending to determine what the voter "probably intended" when the ballot was marked. If the first recount fails to produce the desired result, it may be possible to demand a second, and perhaps (if the holdovers are especially gullible) even a third recount or even more, until the count comes out "properly". Once the holdovers are forced, by their own good will and good intentions, to agree to an endless recount process, it is a simple matter to "find" enough additional votes so the activists' candidate appears to have actually won. One method would be to carefully select what should be termed a "representative sample" of voting districts in which to do the recount, and make sure those selected districts are dominated by voters sympathetic to the activists' chosen candidate. The results of that selective recount can then be used to "prove" that candidate really did get enough additional votes to win. That candidate can then, again using the target country's traditional patriotism, demand that the losing candidate capitulate to the new "statistically correct" vote count — for the good of the country, of course. The traditionalist candidate, dedicated to the constitution, the rule of law, and the good of the country, will admit defeat, vowing not to contest the new "statistically correct" recount results any further, to spare the country added turmoil.
If after all this, the activists still cannot complete the takeover for some reason, all of the turmoil caused by the foregoing process will still count as a great success, because the na´ve faith of the holdovers in their constitutional system and in their traditional institutions will have been irreparably damaged.
The preceding "memo" is fictional. Any resemblance to real persons or actual circumstances is purely coincidental.
The above article is
the property of Kim Weissman, and is reprinted with his permission.
19 nov 2000