NewsWithViews on Pinterest NewsWithViews on Google+

Additional Titles


Smiling at the Gas Pump? Thank The Russians

The Nazis' "Other" Culture












By Servando Gonzalez
January 19, 2016

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. —Proverb

America is dead,[1] and the vultures are ripping apart its rotting corpse. The new vultures that recently joined the New Age, Satanist, gay, lesbian, feminist and transgender vultures already having a feeding frenzy on America’s carcass are young, extremist blacks in colleges and universities.

Their main fighting tool is not an assault rifle, but political correctness. Their fighting strategy is the misuse of democracy. Their battle plan is to conquer “safe spaces” where they can feel protected from the threat of “micro aggressions.”

These young blacks in American colleges and universities apparently have a monomaniac fixation with safety. Their mantra, repeated over and over, is “safety” — they need safe spaces to feel secure. Their concept of “safe spaces” is actually places where nobody can express ideas contrary to their beliefs.

Of late, the battle of these young blacks fighting for “safe spaces” has reached new, alarming heights. Black students at Yale complained about some Halloween costumes they considered offensive. Black students at Amherst College asked the president to apologize for the college’s “institutional legacy of white supremacy, colonialism, anti-black racism, anti-Latin racism, anti-Native American racism, anti-Native/indigenous racism, anti-Asian racism, anti-Middle Eastern racism, heterosexism, cissexism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, ableism, mental health stigma, and classism.”[2]

In November, both the President and Chancellor of the University of Missouri system in Columbia were forced to resign by an angry mob of black students who claimed they were responsible for racist policies on campus.[3] But this is not the most egregious case of young blacks’ aggression against perceived or imagined white “aggression.”

Black students at Amherst College turned on its mascot, Lord Jeff — or Lord Jeffery Amherst, the 18th-century military commander whom this college town is named for. Under pressure, Union College will modify its centuries-old motto, “Under the laws of Minerva, we all become brothers,” to add the word for “sisters.” Georgetown University is renaming two buildings that previously honored slaveholders. Some black students at Harvard University have demanded that administrators replace the law school’s official seal, which they claim is borrowed from the family seal of a slaveholder who helped found it.[4]

Faced with growing pressure from black students, colleges across the U.S. are updating or renaming campus fixtures that have been deemed insensitive or outdated. Inspired by racially-charged protests at the University of Missouri, students have demanded changes of that type among broader calls for improved treatment of minority students.

Just recently, students at a small Pennsylvania college are demanding that administrators rename a building called “Lynch Memorial Hall” because of the racial overtones of the word “lynch.”[5] Princeton students occupied the university president’s office demanding that the name Woodrow Wilson — America’s 28th president and former President of Princeton — be erased from campus. That included the Woodrow Wilson School of Public Policy and International Affairs, residential halls and a mural of him in the dining hall.[6] Protesters also demanded the immediate implementation of “cultural competency training” to reeducate faculty members and the introduction of mandatory courses on marginalized peoples.[7]

Students at the University of Missouri recently demanded that in two years the faculty will be at least 10 percent black.[8] Some black students are also demanding that anything related to black culture —art, literature, music, history— must be taught by blacks only, not by whites.

All of this is pure, unadulterated racism. There is no other name for it. The color of a person’s skin has nothing to do with his knowledge, experience and ability to be a college professor. Even more important is the fact that these students not only want black professors but also black professors who make them feel safe, that is, professors who fully agree with their political beliefs.

Anyway, the least one can expect is that these racist, separatist blacks may be consistent with their own ideology — lack of consistency is the mark of the opportunist and the liar. Unfortunately, inconsistency is precisely what has characterized the separatist blacks’ discourse. If they really believe what they say, they should ask not only for the banning of Clyde A. Lynch, but also ask Obama to fire Attorney General Loretta Lynch and ban pictures of Che Guevara on campus — Che’s real name is Ernesto Guevara Lynch.

Moreover, they should ask for the erasing of anything honoring Martin Luther King — the name Martin Luther, a guy who defied the Pope, is highly offensive to black Catholics. Even worse, any mention of the word “King,” must be banned, because it is highly offensive to Americans whose ancestors fought a revolutionary war against a king.

Also, it is a shame that many black athletes are football players, a game that can be traced to early versions of rugby football and association football. Both games have their origin in varieties of football exclusively played by whites in Britain in the mid–19th century. Black football players should immediately stop playing a game created by slave traders.

Furthermore, politically correct young black extremists should stop right now using iPhones created by white yuppies in Cupertino and manufactured by yellow semi-slaves in China. They should demand that in two years Apple employees be at least 10 percent black and that iPhones be manufactured in Africa by black semi-slaves — asking Apple to stop using semi-slave workers would be an unrealistic demand.

Likewise, they should stop speaking English, the language of the American white slave masters, and begin speaking the languages of the African black slave masters.

In addition, it is a shame that a city in Georgia whose population is mostly black is named after a mythical island inhabited by a white, blue-eyed, blonde race much admired by the Nazis — Atlantis. I guess that the name Atlanta is very offensive to most American blacks. These politically correct black extremists must demand that the city’s name be changed to something like Africana.

But wait, as black American scholar Nathan Huggins has pointed out, the “identity’ of black Africans is a fiction created by European whites.[8] Actually, most of the so called “Africans” in Africa don’t feel themselves as belonging to a particular geographic area, much less a continent Europeans call Africa, but to a particular tribe, like Ashanti, Watusi, Zulu, Yoruba, Bambará, etc. That perhaps explains why the Black Panthers rightly refused the denomination “African-American” and preferred to call themselves blacks, as evidenced in their assertion “black is beautiful.’

Back to square one.

Also, these young black extremists should stop calling Obama “black,” because he is not. Though his father was black, Obama’s mother was Caucasian. Therefore, he is actually a half-breed, a mulatto. And I would bet that, at the bottom of his heart, he is not too happy about being called black. In most countries mulattos feel highly offended when somebody calls them blacks. Even more important, they should stop calling Obama “African-American” because, despite claims to the contrary, Mr. Obama is not African-American.

The qualification of African-American is applied only to citizens of the United States who have origins in the black peoples of Africa. It is not an ethnographic term but a political one. As many African-American militants have pointed out, it expresses pride in their African origins and solidarity with others of the African Diaspora, particularly the ones brought to America as slaves. As author Debra Dickerson contended, “Black, in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves.”[9]

But Mr. Obama’s ancestors in Kenya were not brought to America as slaves. Actually, there is a remote possibility that some of his ancestors may have been among the blacks in Africa who enriched themselves by making some of their own kin slaves and selling them to the Portuguese and other Europeans. Most of these slaves were acquired through intertribal wars or kidnappings.[10]

In the mid-eighties, one of the CFR-controlled think tanks developed the idea of calling American blacks “African-Americans.”[11] With full support of the CFR-controlled mainstream media and academia, the term was rapidly adopted by most brainwashed blacks. In honor to truth, however, American blacks should call themselves AMERICAN-Africans. Contrary to Brazilian and Cuban blacks, who play African musical instruments, dance African music, speak some African languages and profess some African religions, there is not much African cultural influence in American blacks. Culturally, American blacks are 95 percent white American and 5 percent black African.

Still, now that young black extremists are deeply committed to the name-changing business it would be the right time to change the name of San Francisco’s Castro Street, a name highly offensive both to blacks and gays, and rename it Batista Street. Cuba’s black President Fulgencio Batista, a black man of humble origins, was overthrown in 1959 by white, rich, Jesuit-educated Fidel Castro, who quickly implemented his anti-black racist policies — Cubans say that the Castro government is like Mount Everest: the higher you go the whiter it gets. A few years later the Castro government began a systematic harassing of homosexuals and even created concentration camps where homosexuals were interned for politically correct “reeducation.”[12]

Instead of wasting their tuition money waging political battles they don’t fully understand — indoctrination is the antithesis of education — these young, brainwashed black students should profit by studying Korzybki’s dictum “the map it not the territory.”[13] Words are just signs pointing to things, not the things themselves. You can change the name “torture” and rename it “enhanced interrogation technique,” but it does not change the essential inefficiency and inhumanity of the act. You can change the name “global warming’ and call it “climate change,” but the scientific fact that human behavior does not significantly affect the weather cannot be changed.

Now, the big question is why university and college presidents have not exerted their authority to fight back the black student’s irrationality and madness? Perhaps President Woodrow Wilson offered the answer a century ago.

In 1913, the year he became President, Wilson made a confession in his book The New Freedom:

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

University presidents are fully aware that there is a big power behind the extremist black student’s claim for “free spaces.” They know, or at least suspect, that behind their demands there is a power they cannot oppose: the power of the Invisible Government of the US. So, they prefer to resign and cash their generous golden parachutes than opposing such a power that can easily destroy their careers and their lives.

There may be, however, more than meets the eye in the current fight of these young black extremists in search for “safe spaces.”

An American Cultural Revolution?

In his December 18, 2015, program, talk radio host Michael Savage devoted some time to express his theory that the current trend of growing political control of black students over colleges and universities is a reenactment of Mao’s Cultural Revolution in China. I think Dr. Savage is onto something.

The Cultural Revolution was launched in May 1966, after China’s dictator Mao Tse-tung declared that bourgeois elements had infiltrated the government and society at large, and were attempting to restore capitalism. Mao told the masses that these “revisionists” must be removed through violent class struggle. China’s youth responded to Mao’s call by forming the infamous Red Guards — groups of young people fully devoted to punishing the politically incorrect citizens. Under the banner of the Cultural Revolution the Red Guards harassed and persecuted millions of people who suffered a wide range of abuses including public humiliation, loss of jobs, arbitrary imprisonment, torture and seizure of property.

Are we in America experiencing the early steps of a Chinese-style Cultural Revolution? It might be. We have to remember that, after a trip to China in 1973, David Rockefeller, one of the key ideologues at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote a report praising Mao for the great job he had done in China — a job that included the slaughtering of over 40 million people.

In his report, “From a China Traveler,” David shamelessly wrote:

One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony . . . Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution it has obviously succeeded . . . in fostering high morale and community purpose. General social and economic progress is no less impressive. . . . The enormous social advances of China have benefited greatly from the singleness of ideology and purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in history.[14]

Most of the black student’s fighting for “safe spaces” would be surprised to discover that, contrary to what they may think, those absurd ideas totally alien to Americans are not of their own, but have been implanted in their feeble, impressionable minds. Contrary to what they may think, political correctness is actually the creation of a few White Old Men specializing in psychological warfare. Most likely it was developed at the Stanford Research Institute, the Hudson Institute, the RAND Corporations or other of the CFR-controlled think tanks.

So, may it be that the growing movement evolving on campuses that is giving more political power to black youth is just another carefully planned PsyOp conceived at one of the CFR-controlled think tanks? Is this another tool to carry out a new social experiment: the destruction of America as a necessary step to implement their New Gay World Order?

Well, it might be.

The November events at the University of Missouri that ended with the resignation of both the President and Chancellor began when black student Jonathan Butler went on a hunger strike to protest what he called “revolting” acts of racism at Missouri. Soon after, black members of the university football team threatened to strike for the rest of the season unless Tim Wolfe, Mizzou’s president, stepped down. Soon after, Wolfe stepped down.

A few days later, though, somebody found out that Butler was not part of the exploited masses of deprived young blacks but the son of a wealthy Union Pacific Railroad executive who made $8.4 million in 2014. It is interesting to know that, almost since the Council on Foreign Relations was created in 1921, there have been close links between the CFR and Union Pacific.

W. Averell Harriman, who joined the CFR in 1923, two years after its founding, was originally an executive with the Union Pacific Railroad. Paul Warburg, another CFR founder and director (1921-1932) was one of the Union Pacific directors. Other Union Pacific executives with close links to the CFR were Robert Lovett, William Rockefeller and Jacob Schiff.

Currently, both James H. Evans, former Chairman and CEO of Union Pacific Corporation and Andrew H. Card, member of the UPC board of directors, are also CFR members. Though Union Pacific does not appear in the current CFR list of corporate members, it is a corporate member of the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales), a CFR-controlled organization of the many that have mushroomed in Latin America belonging to what the globalist conspirators at the Harold Pratt House now call the Council on Councils.

Surprised that an organization of old, reactionary white men is backing the activities of young, revolutionary black students? Don’t be so. This is not the only case.

One of the most rabidly anti-American organizations of young Hispanics of Mexican ancestry in the U.S. is the National Council of La Raza. Its ultimate goal is “la reconquista,” or reconquest, of the Southwestern U.S. by Mexico.[15]

The man behind the growth and empowerment of La Raza was Raul Yzaguirre, its president and CEO from 1974 to 2004. Yzaguirre is a proud CFR member. As expected, La Raza survives thanks to generous grants from the CFR-controlled Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations.[16]

Coincidence? Maybe, but I don’t think so. All roads lead to Rome. Of course, CFR-controlled professional conspiracy deniers will strongly oppose those who dare to publicize this fact. The CFR conspirators and their ilk hate “truthers,” and they brand them as “tin hat kooks.”

It is not by chance that, since immemorial times, the elders, not the youth, have been the ones in control of the tribe. The reason is obvious. Old people have lived long and have more experience about life. Even more important, they are less prone to be influenced by apparently revolutionary ideas.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts

*required field

In contrast, the impressionable youth are easily captured by ideas they see as just or revolutionary, without realizing that some of these ideas have been planted in their impressionable minds by reactionary white people who use them as tools to advance their evil policies — something like what is currently happening in colleges and universities in America. After knowing David Rockefellers’ view of Mao’s social experiment in China, I would not discard the possibility that both “revolutions,” the one that almost destroyed China and the one going on in America today, had been conceived by the same people at the same place: the Council on Foreign Relations.

Nevertheless, there is a big difference between China and America. Mao’s Cultural Revolution was implemented at gunpoint over a mass of unarmed citizens — Mao once said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Here in America, however, the only thing that may prevent a bloody Maoist-style cultural revolution is the existence of an armed, alert and politically savvy mass of citizens.

� 2016 Servando Gonzalez - All Rights Reserved


1. America did not commit suicide, as some claim. America was assassinated. It was a plan carefully conceived by the CFR’s mafia and carried out by their hit men infiltrated into the U.S. government, the mainstream press, academia and the military.
2. Roger Kimball, “The Rise of the College Crybullies. The status of victim has been weaponized at campuses across the nation, but there is at least one encouraging sign,” the Wall Street Journal, November 14, 2015.
3. Eliott C. McLaughlin, “University of Missouri president and chancellor step down amid race row,” CNN, November 9, 2015.
4. Collin Blinkey, “Colleges update mascots, mottos, amid pressure from students,” Associated Press, November 19, 2015.
5. The building is named after Clyde A. Lynch, who was president of Lebanon Valley College from 1932 until his death in 1950.
6. Actually, Woodrow Wilson should be re-evaluated as a traitor to America. See, Servando Gonzalez, Psychological…
7. An indication that the black student’s battle is not racially, but politically motivated is the fact that Condoleezza Rice, former US Secretary of State, was forced to withdraw from a campus event at Rutgers University. According to some militant students, Ms. Rice, a black woman, was a “war criminal” that supported the Iraq invasion.
8. Nathan Irving Huggins, Black Odyssey: The African-American Ordeal in Slavery (New York: Pantheon Books, 1990).
9. Debra Dickerson, “Colorblind,”, January 22, 2007.
10. Contrary to what is taught at U.S. government schools (the ones disingenuously called “public schools”), British, Portuguese, Dutch or Spanish slave traders rarely penetrated far beyond the coasts: they actually bought slaves already captured by other tribes. As the great African-American historian Nathan Huggins pointed out, “virtually all of the enslavement of Africans was carried out by other Africans.” So, “African Americans” who claim for reparations should look at Africa first.
11. It is not by chance that Jesse Jackson, a proud member of the Council on Foreign Relations, was the one who popularized the term “African-American”. Fortunately, however, not all American blacks were brainwashed. See, Jesse Washington, “Some Blacks Insist: I’m Not African-American,” AP, March 6, 2012. Another prominent “African-American” belonging to the CFR is Charles Rangel. By the way, none of the prominent “African-American” leaders manifested their support for Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney when she was strongly criticized and eventually sacked after suggesting that George W. Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 events.
12. See, Servando Gonzalez, The Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol (Oakland, California: InteliBooks, 2001).
13. Polish-American independent scholar Alfred Korzybski, the creator of general semantics, coined the expression in “A Non-Aristotelian System and its Necessity for Rigour in Mathematics and Physics,” a paper he presented to the American Mathematical Society at the New Orleans, Louisiana, meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, December 28, 1931. The paper was reprinted in his 1933 book Science and Sanity, pp. 747–61.
14. The New York Times, August 10, 1973.
15. Charlie Norwood, “Exclusive: The Truth About ‘La Raza,” Human Events, April 7, 2003.
16. . Joseph Fallon, “Funding Hate - Foundations and the Radical Hispanic Lobby- Part III,” The Social Contract Press, Vol. II, Number 1 (Fall 2000).

Share This Article

Click Here For Mass E-mailing


Servando Gonzalez, is a Cuban-born American writer, historian, semiologist and intelligence analyst. He has written books, essays and articles on Latin American history, intelligence, espionage, and semiotics. Servando is the author of Historia herética de la revolución fidelista, Observando, The Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol, The Nuclear Deception: Nikita Khrushchev and the Cuban Missile Crisis and La madre de todas las conspiraciones: Una novela de ideas subversivas, all available at

He also hosted the documentaries Treason in America: The Council on Foreign Relations and Partners in Treason: The CFR-CIA-Castro Connection, produced by Xzault Media Group of San Leandro, California, both available at the author's site at

His book, Psychological Warfare and the New World Order: The Secret War Against the American People is available at Or download a .pdf copy of the book you can read on your computer, iPad, Nook, Kindle or any other tablet. His book, OBAMANIA: The New Puppet and His Masters, is available at Servando's book (in Spanish) La CIA, Fidel Castro, el Bogotazo y el Nuevo Orden Mundial, is available at and other bookstores online.

His most recent book, I Dare Call It treason: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Betrayal of the America, just appeared and is available at and other bookstores online.

Servando's two most recent books in digital versions only are The Swastika and the Nazis: A Study of the Misuse of the Swastika by the Nazis and the first issue of the political satire series OBSERVANDO: American Inventors.


E-Mail: servandoglez05(at)yahoo(dot)com



Their main fighting tool is not an assault rifle, but political correctness. Their fighting strategy is the misuse of democracy. Their battle plan is to conquer “safe spaces” where they can feel protected from the threat of “micro aggressions.”