Deep State is Involved in a Two-Pronged Attack as the West Capitulates to Islam

What is the ‘Deep State’? It’s said to be a government within a government, not elected, but just there, always writing rules, subverting criticism, and never letting the opposition gain a foothold. A president is restricted to eight-years. Members of Congress can be thrown out of office at the ballot box every two (House) and six (Senate) years. “The existence of a deep state or state within a state … exerts influence and control over public policy, regardless of which political party controls the country’s democratic institutions.”

The radicals did not stop being radicals after what happened at Kent State in May of 1970. They joined university faculties, became lawyers, journalists, and filmmakers. Others traveled the political road to gain legitimacy and access to a whole lot of money and power. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are two recent examples. It wasn’t just Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals that guided them; it was Antonio Gramsci. Gary North writes:

[T]he Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci recognized early that Marxism had to deal with the issues of Western Christian culture. Marxism would not be successful simply by revolutionary violence because the people as a whole were not committed to the goals of the revolutionaries in the realm of culture.

The Deep State has two prongs. Muslims, like America’s Leftists, are borrowing a page from Gramsci’s playbook. Instead of blowing up people, Muslims in the United States are trying to mainstream their religion by pushing for Islamic Studies at the University level. Like the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s, they are calling for the right to have their opinions count in terms of “toleration” and “diversity.” They are becoming lawyers, judges, and politicians. There are a record number of radical Muslims in Congress. The goal of Islam is total domination. It’s getting easier as the West capitulates to Islam. Consider the following from Sabatina James who escaped from her Muslim family and converted to Christianity:

Islam is not compatible with democracy and freedom of expression. That was understood in Europe, and thus you separated the church from the state. This caused Europe to continue its development while the Arabic/Muslim world is still stuck in the 7th century.


The Muslims are actually right, Westerners do not believe in anything. The lack of faith is making us weak, as individuals and as a society. We still have freedom of expression, but if it dies, all other human rights will disappear. Do not ever forget that.

Their goal is to use free speech, toleration, diversity, and political correctness to gain access to seats of power wherever they are found. Once in the door, they will shut it. This is about to happen in New Zealand as the nation voluntarily capitulates to Islam.

Bill Muehlenberg explains how it works:

And while Muslims are quite happy to have useful idiots in power for now, as they enable the Islamisation of the West, once their power is fully consolidated, folks like [Jacinda] Ardern [the current Prime Minister of New Zealand] will of course be the first to go. This is common practice, and as the Islamisation of New Zealand is finalised, expect to see much more of this.

The following video is from an Islamic school in Houston, Texas. The students are celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Islamic revolution in Iran.

Free speech and toleration were used as the entryway into cultural domination. Same-sex marriage was pushed as “toleration” and “free expression,” and once the new laws were signed, refuse to make a cake for a same-sex wedding and you’ll be fined $135,000. It’s still going on, but the election of Donald Trump put the social revolution on hold. That’s why everyone on the left is so angry – spitting angry – angry enough to spend two years throwing every monkey wrench they can into the system. Rosie O’Donnell called for “martial law” even before Trump was sworn in:

“In an exclusive interview with NBC News’ ‘Meet the Press,’ Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) said he does not believe Donald Trump is a ‘legitimate president,’ citing Russian interference in last year’s election. ‘I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president.’” This was more than two years ago and he’s still bleating out the same narrative even though he and his fellow-Leftists just got a major spanking.

Anyone who supports Trump is immediately attacked and often cowed into submission.

Roger Kimball captures the long-term tactic of the Left in his book The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America: “The long march through the institutions signified in the words of [Herbert] Marcuse, ‘working against the established institutions while working in them’. By this means — by insinuation and infiltration rather than by confrontation — the counter-cultural dreams of radicals like Marcuse have triumphed.”1

Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) considered Christianity to be the “force binding all the classes — peasants and workers and princes, priests, and popes, and all the rest besides, into a single, homogeneous culture. It was specifically Christian culture, in which individual men and women understood that the most important things about human life transcend the material conditions in which they lived out their mortal lives.”2 Gramsci broke with Marx and Lenin’s belief that the masses would rise up and overthrow the ruling “superstructure.” No matter how oppressed the working classes might be, their Christian faith would not allow such an overthrow, Gramsci theorized. Marxists taught “that everything valuable in life was within mankind.”3

While Gramsci was still a committed Marxist and “totally convinced that the material dimension of everything in the universe, including mankind, was the whole of it,”4 he believed that the road taken by traditional Marxists to “utopia” was one lined with formidable obstacles.

Let me know if any of the following sounds familiar.

Gramsci began his re-imaging of Marxism by dropping the harsh slogans. “It wouldn’t do to rant about ‘revolution’ and ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ and the ‘Workers’ Paradise.’”5 Instead, Marxism would have to put on a new face and talk about “national consensus,” “national unity,” and “national pacification.” Sound familiar? The democratic process rather than revolution would be used to bring about the necessary changes. At first, pluralism would be promoted and defended. Further, Marxists would join with other oppressed groups — even if they did not share Marxist ideals — to create a unified coalition of voting power. After building their coalition “they must enter into every civil, cultural and political activity in every nation, patiently leavening them all as thoroughly as yeast leavens bread.”6

Even after all these successes, Gramsci still understood that Christianity remained his biggest obstacle in achieving his newly formulated Marxist goals. He had to strip the mind of any notion of the transcendent — “that there is nothing beyond the matter of this universe. There is nothing in existence that transcends man — his material organism within his material surroundings.”7

The pagan notion of the separation of the two realms that has dogged orthodox Christianity since the first century had to be reintroduced.

In the most practical terms, he needed to get individuals and groups in every class and station of life to think about life’s problems without reference to the Christian transcendent, without reference to God and the laws of God. He needed to get them to react with antipathy and positive opposition to any introduction of Christian ideals or the Christian transcendent into the treatment and solution of the problems of modern life.8

The here and now must be made absolute and made the reference point for everything we think and do. “Everything must be done in the name of man’s dignity and rights, and in the name of his autonomy and freedom from outside constraint. From the claims and constraints of Christianity, above all.”9 Has Gramsci and his disciples been successful? Most definitely.

Gramsci wasn’t finished. After building their coalition “they must enter into every civil, cultural and political activity in every nation, patiently leavening them all as thoroughly as yeast leavens bread.”10 To change the culture, Gramsci argued, “would require a ‘long march through the institutions’ — the arts, cinema, theater, schools, colleges, seminaries, newspapers, magazines, and the new electronic medium [of the time], radio.”11

Have they been successful? To ask the question is to answer it.

  1. Roger Kimball, The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2000), 15. []
  2. Malachi Martin, The Keys of This Blood: The Struggle for World Dominion Between Pope John II, Mikhail Gorbachev and the Capitalist West (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990), 245. []
  3. Martin, The Keys of This Blood, 245. []
  4. Martin, The Keys of This Blood, 248. []
  5. Martin, The Keys of This Blood, 249. []
  6. Martin, The Keys of This Blood, 250. []
  7. Martin, The Keys of This Blood, 251. []
  8. Martin, The Keys of This Blood, 251. []
  9. Martin, The Keys of This Blood, 251. []
  10. Martin, The Keys of This Blood, 250. []
  11. Patrick J. Buchanan, Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization (New York: St. Martin’s Press/Thomas Dunne Books, 2001), 77. []
Previous post

Anti-Christian Haters Attack Chick-fil-A (Again) and Liberty University's Basketball Team

Next post

How Well Do You Know the First Amendment?