Pincer Impetus

Written By Michael Reign on Saturday, November 29, 2014 | 4:58 PM

Authored into existence by Jan Kozak, a prominent fixture of the Czechoslovak Communist Party Central Committee who was also an important member of the government secretariat, the pincer impetus is consistent with the emergence of a democratically elected parliamentary system (In the United States, this semblance of a democratically elected parliamentary system is synonymous with the creation of Congress, as well as its political extensions, both the House of Representatives and the Senate), that, through legislative edict, becomes an extrajudicial conduit of revolutionary collectivism.
Thomas R. Eddlem, in written summation of the Kozak dissertation, And Not A Shot Is Fired, affirms the existence of Communist and Socialist elements within a parliament, that, while occupying a small minority of positions within a traditionally representative political appendage, initiate “policies and legislation which strengthen the hand of grassroots revolutionaries.” Protagonists of this philosophy actively engage in open, oftentimes publicly broadcast campaigns designed to discredit those who would voice opposition to their legislative proposals. “Meanwhile, grassroots revolutionaries whip up the appearance of popular support” for the revolutionary agenda “through strikes, rallies, petitions, threats, and – sometimes – sabotage. The ‘pressure from below’ by this small, yet concentrated, number of revolutionaries and their significantly larger number of dupes is then used to ‘justify’ the centralization of power in the hands of the executive branch of the state. Politicians whose opinions are easily swayed succumb to these unspoken threats of intimidation as ‘pressure from above’ intensifies. Each legislative victory results in new demands for even stronger legislation, which is relentlessly pursued by communists and their dupes in parliament – who claim, of course, that they are acting in consensus with the will of the people. The vicious cycle continues until opposition is completely powerless, intimidated, or liquidated – and the revolution is a fait accompli."

In her book, “For the New Intellectual,” p. 76, Ayn Rand describes it as the following:

“Watch the pincer movement. If you’re sick of one version, we push you into the other. We get you coming and going. We’ve closed the doors. We’ve fixed the coin. Heads—collectivism, and tails—collectivism. Fight the doctrine which slaughters the individual with a doctrine which slaughters the individual. Give up your soul to a council—or give it up to a leader. But give it up, give it up, give it up. My technique . . .  Offer poison as food and poison as antidote.”

G. Edward Griffin equated the implementation of the Pincer Strategy with the manifestation of a Revolutionary Parliamentary system of governance:

That strategy is called “Revolutionary Parliamentarianism” and is well known in modern totalitarian circles… The strategy involves a political “pincers” movement - and these are the terms (Jan) Kozak uses to describe it - a “pincers” movement applying political pressure “from above” and “from below.”

The hidden objective will be to expand the power of the bureaucracy and to move the country closer to the ultimate goal of total government…The result is that the majority of the population is caught in the middle. They look “above” and see government spokesmen calling for legislation for some new expansion of government power. They look “below” and with the help of the mass media, see mobs of demonstrators shouting for the same thing. They say to themselves, “Has everyone gone crazy? Or have I?” They may still be in the majority by far, but they don’t know it. They think they are hopelessly outnumbered, and they bow to what they think is the democratic will of the majority.
Through the strategy of “Revolutionary Parliamentarianism,” the nation gradually becomes totalitarian, and the people are convinced that they asked for it themselves.

The pincer impetus, is, in actuality, a socialist construct whose actualization is contingent on the imposition of policy or legislation designed to engineer the fundamental transformation of the national identity. This is accomplished through a process of societal stratification whereby the creation of a permanently dependent base can be effected via the introduction of various multicultural assemblies whose allegiance/ oath of loyalty will always remain the subject of speculation. The ultimate objective, which is largely discounted by its proponents within the telecommunications industry as conspiratorial conjecture, is the revocation of sovereignty.
It is also closely associated with the Cloward-Piven Strategy,

where the concerns of a once vibrant middle class are systematically delegitimized through, either formal proclamation by the political electorate, or the execution of writ instruction by judicial committee.

WRITTEN ADDENDUM: The pincer impetus, in contrast to its militarily inspired counterpart - which is oftentimes identified as the pincer movement - doesn’t typically involve the use of force in the realization of its principal objective.
Share this article :


Speak your mind and let your voice be heard.

This is a censorship free discussion area.

Support: Creating Website | Johny Template | Mas Template
Ωmnibus ™ and © Michael Reign. All Rights Reserved.
Template Created by Creating Website Published by Mas Template
Site modifications and enhancements by Michael Reign c/o Legerdemain Technologies