See also Part One: Total Destruction of the U.S.: An Interview with Larry Grathwohl and Part Two: American Education: Rotting the Country from the Inside
In Part 1 of this interview with former FBI operative Larry Grathwohl, we addressed the goals and methods of the Weatherman organization and debunked recent attempts to dismiss their words and activities as “youthful folly” or “typical of those days.” In Part 2, we discussed the continuity of purpose connecting the murderous radicalism of the Weather Underground leadership with theprogressive education and social justice advocacy of the “mature,” “respectable” Ayers, Dohrn, Machtinger, Boudin, and others.
Here in the final installment, I ask Grathwohl about the alarming cognitive dissonance of today’s Middle America in the throes of the “fundamental transformation” promised by Barack Obama, facilitated by the progressive education and legal establishments, and put into practice by federal agency appointees, colleges of education, union leaders, and bureaucrats with established leftist pedigrees.
As an example of this dissonance, consider an American colleague of mine here in Korea: a friendly, down-to-earth, educated family man in his early thirties, and a teacher by profession. On the eve of the 2012 election, I asked him whether it bothered him that Barack Obama had been so strongly endorsed by the Communist Party. He said he had never heard of that. When I explained that the Party’s official endorsement cited Obama’s signature policy initiatives as the surest means to achieving socialism in America, and that CPUSA leaders were actively campaigning for Obama in swing states, my colleague fell silent for a moment, and then said, matter-of-factly, “It doesn’t really bother me; I guess it might bother me if Obama were endorsing the Communist Party, but ifthey’re endorsing him, it doesn’t matter.”
I leave you with that thought, by way of introduction to Part 3 of my conversation with Larry Grathwohl.
DJ: The Communist Party USA has officially endorsed and vocally supported President Obama, and his administration has included several people with well-known Marxist or Maoist views and affiliations. And yet most people, including many so-called conservatives, shy away from this entire subject area, and they practically run for the hills when anyone mentions Bill Ayers, re-education camps, or communism in connection with current political events.
Why do you think there is such discomfort among Americans, including supposed conservatives, when confronted with this issue?
LG: To answer this question in a word, I would say “political correctness.” Today we live in a world where people are afraid to discuss issues of importance due to a concern that they might say something wrong. We have a society where people can be condemned for being on the wrong side of an issue, especially if you’re in a position where you could be labeled as a racist or an individual who has no sensitivity towards those who are in some way in need. Today, [concern about] Marxism is out of vogue, and the Chinese are our friends and are lending us money in order for our government to continue to exist. How can you question this? Conservatives are afraid of being labeled as mean or uncaring and want to maintain a civil image in the midst of this chaos and confusion. Senator McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign refused to confront Barack Obama regarding his ties to Bill Ayers the unrepentant terrorist. When others brought up the possibility of Obama’s connection to the Muslim world, McCain became angry and turned away. By doing so, he negated any possibility of forcing the two-year member of the Senate to explain his sympathetic positions towards Islamic terrorism and the domestic terrorism that his friend Bill Ayers had participated in [during] the ’70s and the ’80s.
Basically, this is the problem we face today. If you criticize the president for any of his policies, you are racist, and your argument ends. There aren’t defenses for these kinds of accusations, and it completely eliminates any possibility of discussion and compromise. This works wonderfully for the Democrats and their policies, and it puts the Republicans and conservatives in very un-defensible positions. The bravery or whatever you care to call it simply no longer exists [when] people who are involved in the political process are more concerned with the next election than they are with what’s best and right for America. I often wonder what would’ve happened during the Revolutionary War if people of this stature were to be the ones we were dependent upon to defeat the British. I wonder if this tendency can be overcome or eliminated.
DJ: How frustrating is it for you, having seen what you have seen, to encounter this kind of reluctance from people who should be your allies?
LG: While I do have some allies, which includes those who have the courage to speak the truth and to stand up for what’s right, the fact is that it is extremely frustrating that people are simply unable to recognize the truth when it is presented to them along with the evidence which exists in the WU’s activities, writings, and continued attack on our institutions. As for me, the frustration is simply a greater motivation to accomplish my mission of enlightening people as to the true goals and objectives of the WU and the means that they used in their attempt to achieve the destruction of the United States.
DJ: Many people dispute President Obama’s claim that Bill Ayers was just “a guy in my neighborhood.” And Ayers himself has spoken of being ecstatic when Obama was elected in 2008. What connection or consistency do you see between the goals and/or methods pursued or promoted by the WU and those pursued and promoted by the Obama administration?
LG: The goals and objectives of these two individuals are the same. Bill Ayers tried first to destroy this country through violence. Having failed, the WU determined to accomplish this through the system and in my opinion Barack Obama was recruited as a means to accomplish this goal. …
The connections between Barack and Bill include having shared an office for at least three years in Chicago, being co-members on two boards in which Barack was the chairman, and one of which was called the Annenberg Challenge[, which] was charged with the dissemination of approximately $100 million to educational institutions in the Chicago area. Bill Ayers has been associatedwith the writing of Barack’s book, Dreams from My Father, through content analysis, and on three occasions Bill has admitted that he wrote this book and then later retracted his comments. It would seem apparent to me that individuals who have been this closely associated through many years have a common knowledge [of] one another’s political aims and goals. This can only mean that they are in agreement, and while Bill has utilized the educational system to further his objective, Barack Obama has chosen politics. Keep in mind that Barack Obama’s first political fundraiser was held at Bill’s and Bernardine’s home while Barack was running for the Illinois state legislature. This is his first fundraiser, and Bill and Bernardine are involved — can there be any doubt as to the extent of the relationship that exists between these individuals?
Obama is in the process of attacking all institutions of our society and government, [including] the First Amendment by stating that it’s the conservative media that keeps the Republicans from negotiating with him; the Second Amendment [through] his attempts to impose restrictions on gun ownership, procurement of ammunition, and whatever other means he can devise; and lastly, there is his attack on the freedom of religion by trying to impose birth control and abortion under the Obama health care act on churches who run such institutions as hospitals, schools, rests homes, and other services.
DJ: You have spent a good portion of your life trying to warn Americans about the specific intentions of the young leftist radicals of the late 1960s. How do you answer people who might say that those leftists are older now, their radical days are in the past, and there is no longer anything to worry about from them?
LG: The fact is, Bill Ayers and many of his comrades from those days of strategic sabotage in the underground movement have not changed their goal or their purpose. Bill has made this very clear in his book, Fugitive Days, in which he makes no apology for the death and destruction the WU were responsible for and even seems to revel in what he perceives as the glory of the revolution. In his book Underground, Mark Rudd also makes no apologies for his activities and even admits prior knowledge to the bomb factory in Greenwich Village in which three members of the WU were killed. He states that Terry Robbins had told him of the purpose of their bomb creations and that they were to be used at Fort Dix, New Jersey during an enlisted men’s dance and at the officers’ club. These bombs were adulterated with fence staples and roofing nails, whose purpose can only be to inflict as much death and injury as possible. There are many other individuals from the WU who have written books and also regret only that they did not succeed or that they didn’t do enough. Some individuals were involved in a Brinks armored car robbery during which two policemen and a Brinks guard were killed. Kathy Boudin is no longer behind bars, but her husband, accomplice David Gilbert, is still in jail and writing books about love and the revolution and has many supporters [who are] trying to get him released to this very day.
It simply cannot be said that these people have allowed the last three or four decades to change their political beliefs or political goals. Instead, they have been involved with the Occupy Wall Street movement and the encouragement of young people to defy authority and to create as much chaos and turmoil as possible. Bill has actually attended Occupy meetings during which he instructed individuals on how to accomplish the most destruction of property and confrontation with authority and in a way that makes it appear as if they are the victims. This I know for a fact, as people who are friendly to me and have attended some of these meetings have reported these facts.
Van Jones, who was appointed as the green jobs czar by President Obama, is very active [in the] political movement in the Bay Area, particularly in Oakland and Berkeley. He has associations with Bill Ayers and has attended Occupy meetings in which they were both in attendance.
It is simply impossible to conclude that any of these people have in any way, shape, or form been influenced to change their political beliefs or their goal and objectives by the passage of time. They still believe that the United States is the root of all evil and must be destroyed, whatever it takes. Innocent lives or genuine disagreement is not a qualification for being spared, and it is my belief that Bill and people who follow Bill are consumed with this hatred for this country and a desire to be in control of life and death, and this may be the underlying reason for the personality disorders they obviously suffer from.
Author’s concluding note: Larry Grathwohl provides powerful witness to the hatred the Weathermen bear for the United States as founded, and their utter disregard for human life in pursuing their transformative agenda. I do not believe that Grathwohl’s perspective is infallible any more than I believe that of anyone else. I do believe, however, that he speaks sincerely, and from a deep understanding of the minds and hearts of the Weather Underground radicals.
Rational observers know that Ayers’s relationship with Obama is much more developed than either man has publicly acknowledged. And it is undeniable that these two progressive “reformers” have achieved a degree of mainstream success and influence in their respective fields of endeavor, education, and politics that would have been inconceivable a hundred years ago, when Ayers’s educational role model, John Dewey, was beginning progressivism’s long march through the souls of America’s children. A century of progressive schooling made Barack Obama’s presidency possible. In turn, with a president openly bent on transforming America according to a collectivist “social justice” agenda, public education itself, under the leadership of Ayers and his colleagues, may reveal itself ever more fully as the socialist indoctrination center Dewey could only dream and scheme of.
As Grathwohl warns, Ayers is urging followers to see that they are “very close to accomplishing their mission of changing America forever.” The circle envisioned by early Western progressive intellectuals such as Antonio Gramsci is almost complete: government schools prepare the souls of men for subservience and dependency, and the progressive intelligentsia churn out attractive demagogues to appeal to this forcibly debased population’s need for a provider. Eventually, all that is preserved of the history of modern liberty will be the veneer of democracy masking the tyrannical structure beneath, as an emasculated humanity “freely chooses” its own slave masters.