Ch 5 – The Philosophical Roots of the United States of America

The Tree – History of Political Philosophy diagram describes the flow of three major branches of political philosophy and their evolution over two millennia. The goal is to answer the questions: where did we come from and how did we get here? 

 

 

 

This tree of the history of Western Political Philosophy has been influenced greatly by
the monumental work of Bertrand Russell – A History of Western Philosophy, and
other eminent works on the subject. Certainly many other visionaries could go on this
tree, but this simple diagram may help in clarifying political terms often misused.
Appropriately, on the far left are some of those who influenced the present day
socialist and Marxist ideologues. Those on the right have inspired fascist ideologies.
The middle path leads us to the founding of the United States of America.

 

It is no doubt a contentious point of view that modern American liberalism or
progressivism is simply socialism by another name. The terms need not be that
confusing, but ideologues have hidden their real purpose in order to promote
their agendas. It is actually shocking that Obama has been caught on tape promoting
the idea of single payer health care not once but twice in 2004 and 2007, yet he
vehemently denied that his proposed government controlled healthcare is a "Trojan
horse" for the goal of a single payer system in 2009 when he crammed a monumentally

unpopular monstrosity of a healthcare bill through the congress? How can he get away
with such outright contradictory statements? Holding contradictory positions appear to
be the coin of the realm of many politicians but it is hard to find a time when there has
been so blatant a disregard for consistency or the truth as there is today.

 

Certainly in America, couching a socialist program and renaming it liberal or
progressive gets more traction in the market place of ideas. Socialism at its simplest is
state ownership of the means of production. It is a fair statement to say that with the
nationalization of banking, ownership of two of the three major manufacturers of autos
in America, the cap and trade Energy bill, and government controlled Healthcare, the
Democrat Party of "liberalism" and "progressivism" is now promoting policies that
will lead to state ownership of production and control the economy of America. These
policies lead us to a steady socialist path if not outright socialism.

 

Fascism at its most basic is an authoritarian government with a single party or ideal
that controls its citizens by intimidation or extreme nationalism. Nazi Germany used a
combination of extreme nationalism and government socialism to control the people.
Islamic states have used theocratic and secular variations of fascism. Saddam Hussein
controlled Iraq was more secular. The present regime of Iran is a theocratic version of
fascism. The recent farce of an election in Iran and the subsequent protests give us
hope that the people will throw off this repressive regime and the theocratic bonds that
have made a storied people slaves to fascism hiding behind religious dogma.

 

Modern American Conservatism is more in line with the Liberal values of freedom of
Religion, Natural Law, rights of the individual, utilitarianism, prudence, and private
property. Once upon a time, liberty and these were ideals were highly valued in
America. Today the forces of Marxism and Fascism are undermining these principles.

  

Roots of Socialism

 

From this diagram we see that Plato‘s Utopia – The Republic – is the first in a line of
socialist utopian visions that have culminated with the present Marxist-Alinsky
ideology. In The Republic, Socrates tells us that we are like prisoners in a cave, and
what we perceive of the world is like the shadows we cast on the walls. We think that
the shadows are real, but reality is something we cannot see. From this original
concept, we have many philosophers including Hegel who believed that reality was not
to be found in everyday observation. What is interesting about Hegel, besides his
obvious influence on Marx, is his singular belief that there can be no state without a
battle between rich and poor. Of course, this is paramount in Marx‘s vision. This is the
fundamental reason that modern Marxists tacticians like Alinsky work so hard at
destroying the middle class.

 

Marxism‘s idea of a social utopia is similar in concept to Plato‘s Republic. Plato tells
us there are three classes and the Guardians are the only class with political power. In
the new American socialist utopia, those Guardians are the elites where only a select
few have power. The new American "Guardians" are Congressmen, Senators, Judges,
and the unelected bureaucrats of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of
Government. Although America‘s founding documents expressly prescribes a system

of checks and balances between an executive, legislative and judicial branch of
government, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The
Marxists in power today are moving us as fast as they can to change America to a
government of the Guardians, by the Guardians, and for the Guardians.

 

Debates about to what degree someone is socialist or Marxist is purely academic.
Alinsky is substantively a Marxist who may have been "impatient" with idealistic true
believers of Communism, but his views are not qualitatively different. Obama may not
yet outright own all of the means of production to officially be labelled a socialist, but
what do you label him if he is successful in owning a majority stake in two of three
auto manufacturers, regulating the largest banks, well on his way to controlling almost
20% of America‘s economy with government controlled healthcare, and about to
implement a cap and trade policy that will give government mandates that effectively
dominate the entire energy sector?

 

Marxists drones do not appear to care how wealth is created because the propaganda
they are fed on a daily basis is about spreading the wealth – not creating it. Those elites
who do understand the benefit of the American system actively work against it in order
to seize power. They do not much care about the ultimate welfare of the people. It is
almost as if the unwashed masses are to be treated more like pets or children.
Ultimately, the Guardians know best. Although it is fair to say that Marx himself was
not motivated by power, his ideology has served as a tool for tyrants all over the world
to gain and maintain power.

 

It actually takes some work to objectively understand what Marxism really is and "how
the world really works" to quote radio Rabbi Daniel Lapin. Marx was the descendant
of Rabbis, but was raised by middle class German parents who converted to
Christianity. Marx met up with Engels, a British Factory Manger, in France where he
went to study Socialism. After failed attempts at journalism, Marx lived a rather tragic,
poverty stricken life in England, but he was a prolific writer and in England wrote Das
Capital and The Communist Manifesto. So from this set of experiences – especially the
vision of the plight and miserable conditions of the wage earner of the early Industrial
Revolution in England, Marx developed his system – a variation of Hegel‘s "dialectic".
Marx added his definition of "materialism" and came up with the concept of
"dialectical Materialism". The motive force behind Marx‘s dialectic is "material" not
"spirit" as Hegel had devised. And from this "materialism" he was able to turn his
philosophy into an argument for the "production" and "distribution" in economic
systems. The term "Dialectic" is used because the process is never fully realized and it
is always evolving.

 

There are several questions that need to be addressed by digging a bit deeper into the
origin of Marx‘s political philosophy. In fairness to Karl Marx, it is very easy to see
why he was sympathetic to the plight of workers during the early stages of the
Industrial Revolution. Marx, like many of his followers, fully well believed that it was
the more humane cause to have sympathy for the wage earner rather than the
insensitive, greedy and cruel Capitalist factory owner. But as Saint Bernard of
Clairvaux said: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And for the victims of
the failed experiment in the former Soviet Union, and oppressive dictators around the
world who preach Marxist doctrine to secure and hold power, Marxism has proved to

be hell on earth. On the other hand, while no one is saying that Capitalism is pretty or
perfect by any means, it has been the engine that has produced the most wealth for
more people on the planet than any other system. In America where Capitalism has
been more fully realized than Europe, it has given over 250 million people, middle
class or higher, almost 90% of its population, a very high standard of living that is the
envy of the world.

 

Marx did not see this potential of capitalism or perhaps he would not have been so sure
in the inevitability of the worker‘s struggle to overcome the greedy capitalist. To the
true believer, Marx‘s ideology has become a religious belief that the world would
.evolve. and eventually free the .wage earner. from the oppressive Capitalist
employer. But the reality of his political philosophy is that it has been used as an
excuse for tyrannical leaders like Lenin, Stalin, Chavez and Castro to gain power and
brutally crush dissent. And in all cases this has led to economic disaster for their
citizens. For example, after seventy plus years of Communist rule, the GDP of Russia
with 140 million people is only equivalent to the state of New Jersey by one measure,
and by a more generous measure (with the aid of recent jump in Oil prices) maybe as
high as the GDP of New York. In both cases, New York or New Jersey has a tiny
fraction of Russia‘s population and hence the per capita wealth is many times greater
for citizens of New Jersey and New York.

 

Millions of people have been slaughtered in tyrannical Marxist regimes, while America
and capitalist systems all over the world have prospered. Of course, there is some
poverty and injustice in America. But the ideological radical Marxists do not really
care to work within the American system proven so remarkably successful for a very
large middle class. It is almost as if their intentions are to exacerbate the problems of
the poor as a tactic to effectively tax the middle class out of existence. When the
middle class is destroyed there will be real class warfare that will allow them to reach
their own utopian aspiration to defeat Capitalism and the American free enterprise
system.

 

Roots of Fascism

 

As a young person, one starts out with slogans and .bumper stickers. that assure us of
America‘s moral high ground: Peace is good (and the corollary War is bad), feed the
poor, altruism is good. Then as we get older, we might question the practicality of
some or all of these beliefs, and have romantic notions that heroic exploits of great
conquerors – Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Genghis Kahn – are to be revered. The
exploits of the warrior city state of Sparta cannot help but capture the imagination.
One of the early inspirations for war as a romanticized ideal was the heroic battle of
three hundred Spartan‘s and their last stand at the battle of Thermopylae against many
thousands of Persians.

 

Romanticized notions of hero worship can be found in the writings of Rousseau and
Nietzsche. Nietzsche‘s Ubermenschen and the Spartan warrior state may be the major
contributors to philosophic roots of the National Socialist Party, the Nazis Party,
responsible for the slaughter of 6 million Jews and starting World War II. Nietzsche‘s
philosophy that only the pure race of Superman – the Ubermenschen – can achieve the
truly heroic human is also a direct link to the nightmare of modern fascism. Today we

see variations of fascism in both secular totalitarian states and Islamic variant of
fascism –cloaked in a head scarf hiding behind an unreformed medieval religion.

 

Prior to full blown modern Fascism of the 20th and 21st Century, there was the
Romantic Movement inspired by Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau
maintained a dislike for authority of any sort and sought to restore a proper respect for
the creativity and worth of individual human beings. But this romanticized view led to
hero worship and though the romantic notions of Rousseau began as a desire for
individual liberty, the end result of his world view was not dissimilar to Nietzsche‘s.
Rousseau exploration of the political implications of these ideas: his notion of
individual liberty and his convictions about political unity helped to fuel the romantic
spirit of the French Revolution. However, without the rule of law, this Romantic
Movement led to notions of hero worship and eventually to the .supermen. which
influenced Nietzsche and eventually the Nazi movement, and finally it‘s most recent
virulent strain in Militant Islam.

 

But when one spends time objectively analyzing their end product one is left with the
conclusion that romantic hero worshipers have been responsible for untold death and
misery to achieve their vision of the great leader or the superman. Where there is hero
worship, death and destruction soon follows. One need only look at the carnage that
follows leader by names such as Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein. In some cases
religious leaders are just as guilty of bringing about unimaginable cruelty and death in
the name of saving or promoting their religion. And as we mature, some of us realize
that neither hero worship nor socialism holds the moral high ground. In both cases,
they lead to despotism. The moral high ground and the more perfect union is found
somewhere in the middle. This is where America‘s founding fathers meant for us to be.

 

Philosophical Roots of America

 

Who are we as a nation? Where did America‘s philosophy of governance come from?
Why is America‘s system of governance preferable to other systems? What is the
difference between the two most oppressive and tyrannical ideologies on the planet –
Fascism and Marxism? Why are they grave threats to the continuing survival of this
great country?

 

The best place to start in attempting to answer these questions is Aristotle. Aristotle,
who was known for his pragmatic point of view was more grounded in the world as we
see it than the other giant of early Greek philosophy Plato. Aristotle influenced early
Islamic scholars such as Avveroes, whose translations of Plato and Aristotle were
passed down to St Thomas Aquinas in the 13th Century, which became a central
doctrine of the Catholic Church. The Church prior to Aquinas was influenced to a
greater extent by Platonic ideas which were expanded to fit into Church doctrine by St.
Augustine and others. The importance of Aquinas and his appeal to "natural reason"
became paramount to the Liberals of the 17th Century, who later influenced America‘s
Founding Fathers.

 

Next, in attempting to ascertain where America‘s founders got some of their key ideas,
it is necessary to look at John Locke and Montesquieu. Montesquieu held that
"government should be set up so that no man need be afraid of another". This led

directly to America‘s Founder‘s belief that the new American government required a
clear delineation of each branch of government and a balanced separation of powers. In
John Locke‘s Second Treatise on Government he discusses a state of nature and the
law of nature. Prior to Locke, Aquinas via Avveroes via Aristotole, were all
proponents of the natural law thesis. St. Thomas Aquinas probably had the most direct
influence on Locke: "Every law framed by man bears the character of a law exactly to
that extent to which it derived from a law of nature. But if on any point it is in conflict
with the law of nature, it at once ceases to be a law: it is a mere perversion of law". It
is fair to say that the concept of the rights of man, and the principle of laissez-faire
capitalism owe its origins to natural law doctrine. From this concept, there is a break
from the Tyranny of the Monarch where his subjects have rights to their own property,
possessions and "free exercise of their industry".

 

And this is where we must understand where American ideals begin. It is hard for a
modern man to put himself in the mindset of 17th century and to understand just how
radical Locke‘s ideas were at the time. If you go back a couple of millennia, you can
trace the glimmers of natural law back to the Greek Stoics and in particular to Zeno.
Zeno believed that there was not such a thing as chance, and everything in nature is
subject to natural laws. In some ways this makes sense for the stoic, because they
prized the life of the individual where virtue was the sole and only good. Where they
differ from the natural law philosophers of the 17th century is that the Stoic does not
believe that happiness, possessions and health are important. From the 17th century to
the present, health, happiness, individual rights and property are primary in the modern
doctrine of Natural Law.

 

By the time of St Thomas Aquinas, God and religion began to play a significant part in
the development of the concept of natural law. As a thumbnail sketch of the evolution
of the Church, it is fair to say that from the time of Constantine, when Christianity and
not the pagan religion of Mithras was named the primary religion of Rome, through the
Middle Ages and through the Reformation and the Renaissance, the church was
dominant over individual states or governments. Not to diminish the importance of
Christianity for the last two millennia, but it is almost by chance that Christianity
developed into one of the world‘s most dominant religions.

 

The fact is that Constantine had a choice between Christianity and Mithrasism (the worship of the Persian Sun God) as the way to mollify and control his soldiers. Christians in the third century were actually a smaller minority than followers of Mithras, but were very aggressive in their
evangelical zeal and successfully became the state religion. Conversion to Christianity was a relatively easy process of admitting one‘s sins with a reward of everlasting life. This was an attractive notion to warriors about to go into battle.

 

Early Christians were a pretty shrewd lot. At the time Christmas was created in 320
AD, Mithraism was still very popular. The early Christian church had gotten tired of
their futile efforts to stop people celebrating the solstice and the birthday of Mithras,
which happened to be December 25. So the pope decided to make Jesus‘ official
birthday coincide with Mithras‘ birthday. No one knows what time of year Jesus was
actually born but there is evidence to suggest that it was in midsummer. So the Church
from its earliest days was very adroit at marginalizing its competition for the hearts and
minds, not to mention souls of the people.

 
We can mark the beginning of the end of the dominance of the Catholic Church with
the development and growth of new independent churches such as the time Henry VIII
made his break with the Catholic Church. So with the Catholic Church first being split
between two empires the East and West, and then the Western Church being
challenged by States and monarchs until the dogma of a single church doctrine was
defeated and multi-denominational churches of Christianity were born.

 

But for many centuries there was no real disagreement with the accepted concept of the
divine right of the king. That changed by the 17th century, as philosophers and
thinkers like John Locke were successfully challenging the King‘s power. Locke‘s
first of his two treatises on Government is very important because it was a very
powerful argument against Sir Robert Filmer's "the natural power of Kings". Filmer, a
devout believer in the divine rights of Kings, essentially supported the monarch‘s
position and it is no surprise that he was knighted by Charles I. According to Filmer,
the king is above human laws, and it is wrong that "mankind is naturally endowed and
born with freedom from all subjugation, and at liberty to choose what form of
government it please". From Filmer's point of view, the king is a descendant from
Adam, and hence where the monarch gets his divine rights. So is important to realize
that political power is not derived from any "social contract", but entirely from the
authority of the father over the child. This became the basis of how the king justifies
being above the law.

 

This theory sounds absurd to most in the modern world, yet it must be remembered
that there is nothing particularly unnatural about this way of thinking. Russell notes
that Imperial Japan prior to World War II held that all political power was assimilated
in a similar same way. That is, the Mikado can trace his dissent from the Sun Goddess.
Russell conjectures that there were two main causes for the defeat of the divine right in
England. One was the multiplicity of religions and the other was the conflict for power
between aristocracy, the wealthy middle class and the king.

 

What is fascinating about the middle ages is that while the unreformed catholic church
was conducting their barbaric Inquisition, an Islamic scholar Averroes, in his treatise
on Justice and Jihad wrote a commentary on Plato's Republic, stating that the human
mind can know of the unlawfulness of killing and stealing and thus of the five maqasid
or higher intents of the islamic shari`a or to protect religion, life, property, offspring,
and reason. The concept of natural law in fact entered the mainstream of Western
culture through Averroes‘ commentaries on most of Aristotle‘s works and his
commentary on Plato‘s Republic, which ultimately ended up influencing the writings
of Thomas Aquinas.

 

So it is fair to note that because of the enlightened Islamic philosopher Averroes, the
great Greek philosophers were rediscovered in the west and Aquinas was able to put
forward his theories on Natural Law that later found its way into Locke and America‘s
founding fathers. It is a fact this was an historical period where the Muslim world was
more advanced than the West. This all changed with Europe and America‘s rise of
science and the move toward religious tolerance. All of this had a crushing effect on
religious dogma. It is not difficult to see that the real difference in the development
between Islam and the West was due to the inability of Islamic thinkers and men of
science to win the battle of ideas with fundamentalists. This unreformed dogmatic

victory for Islamic fundamentalists eliminated free thinking and stifled the progress of
the Islamic world at the same time that the West was evolving and prospering.

 

Not all theories of natural law had the same outcome. In Hobbes' opinion, the only way
natural law could prevail was for men to submit to the commands of the sovereign. As
stated earlier, however, John Locke incorporated a different view of natural law.
Edmund Burke‘s view, which is close to Locke‘s view, tells us that "There is but one
law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of
humanity, justice, equity - the law of nature and of nations". Locke turned Hobbes'
viewpoint upside down, saying that if the King went against natural law and failed to
protect "life, liberty, and property," people could justifiably overthrow the existing
state and create a new one.

 

This obviously had a major influence on the Founders who used this point of view as justification for the American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson, echoing Locke, appealed to unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Locke‘s original writing stated: "no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty and or possessions". It should also be noted that Franklin changed Jefferson‘s original draft: "we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable". Many of us who believe in the importance of our creator in the founding of the miracle of America like the original text better!

 

So this is the basic flow of ideas of where America has come from. Looking at the
diagram at the beginning of this chapter, America since its founding has seemingly
always been under the pressure from one or both of the oppressive philosophies on the
extreme branches. And for those oppressive philosophies, telling the "truth" has never
been part of their fundamental political ideology. In the overall worldwide struggle for
power, radicals on both extremes tell lies to further their cause. As Burke wisely tells
us "Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go
beyond promise, it costs nothing". In fact, the true believers on both sides of the
ideological extremes have often ridiculed America for immorality and decadence as a
way to argue against its principles.

 

America has not been perfect by any means, but it is quite easy to give examples of its
moral superiority to the other two competing branches. In the conversation today,
religious doctrine, socialism and altruism (whether religiously or secularly motivated),
are usually assumed to be morally and ethically superior to a Republic that engages in
competitive free enterprise system and has religious and individual freedom. Although
there is no clear objective way to proclaim which political system is more ethical, there
a scientific approach based upon the evidence to make a strong case why America‘s
system is preferable in economic terms, utilitarian terms, and ultimately in terms of
fairness and opportunity to prosper.

 

Two opposite points of view show just how vast the differences are in the world of
ethics and morality. On one side was the Utilitarian view of Jeremy Bentham and John
Stuart Mill, who postulated the Highest Good – the Summum Bonum – is the pinnacle
of what is moral; and that thing is best which provides the greatest good for the
greatest number. On the other side Immanuel Kant believed that the only thing truly
good was something .good in itself. – and was prior to experience – a priori. Both

made points and had significant arguments why their system of ethics was preferable.
In the end, however, neither point of view is totally satisfactory. But certainly both
have their benefits. If you believe that wealth for the greatest number of people makes
sense, you have a utilitarian outlook. Wealth is neither good nor bad .in itself., but in
the real world it seems to make a great deal of sense.

 

An interesting side note to Mill‘s version of Utilitarianism is that he did not agree that
all pleasures can be quantified. That is, he also believed that there are qualitative ways
to experience what makes people happy and only those who have experienced pleasure
of the intellectual as well as the physical kind are able to judge their relative quality.
From this Mill argues that intellectual pleasure may be just as important as physical
pleasures to achieving happiness. Nevertheless, because of the difficulty in finding
what really makes us happy physically and intellectually, we often find ourselves
avoiding pain as much as actually seeking happiness.

 

What motivates people to do the right thing? Mill believed that in addition to fear of
punishment, we are also motivated by such things as self-esteem, guilt, and conscience.
Certainly, guilt appears to be an active motivating force for many people in America
today. .White guilt. helped to get a black man elected in an overwhelmingly white
country. Guilt also seems to be working for Marxists in America who cannot motivate
the white middle class by appealing to the evidence. Instead, guilt relating to race,
gender and wealth has been an effective strategy to gain power. Although it is certainly
true that Locke and other liberal thinkers of his age were influenced by Utilitarian
thought, it can also be said that there is another branch of Utilitarianism that breaks off
to influence Marx as well – at least as a rhetorical device if not an actual belief.

 

Since it seems that there is no one ethical system that is perfect, which one might be
considered the most perfect system of morals? Perhaps the book of Ecclesiastes – .To
every thing there a season, a time to live, a time to die, a time to plant, a time to reap.
– is a good place to start. From a purely universal point of view, almost all religions
have in one form or another what we know as the Lord‘s Prayer – "forgive us our
trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" and the Golden Rule: "Do
unto others as you would have them do unto you". America‘s system of governance
has more in common with these very basic moral codes than either of the two versions
of tyranny – fascism or socialism.

 

Impact of these Ideologies on America

 

America‘s founding principles have been ignored at the Universities and presented in a
biased way by the media. The message to Americans from those "trusted" sources is
often that America is war mongering, imperialistic, and oppresses the poor. This is
exactly the message that Saul Alinsky and his followers promote. When examined
these claims are false. America fought the Civil War in part to liberate slaves and to
make good on the Declaration of Independence‘s self evident truth that .all men are
created equal.. America has fought wars not as occupiers, but as liberators. America
rebuilt imperial Japan and Nazi Germany and now they are two of the most prosperous
countries in the world. Kuwait and Iraq have been liberated from Saddam. America has
produced the most wealth for more people than any country on the planet. These facts

do not seem to get in the way of America‘s enemies both within and without repeating
over and over again the big lie.

 

With Obama‘s victory, Alinsky and his mob tactics have been successful in achieving
at least part of his Marxist vision: the beginning of the end of the American middle
class. Reading articles on Hillary Clinton‘s connection to Alinsky, you would think
that Alinsky is not really a radical Marxist but rather almost a saintly character. In her
College thesis, Hillary actually compared Alinsky to Martin Luther King. Georgetown
University historian Michael Kazin, called Alinsky "a tactician more than he was an
ideologist." That may be true but that does not mean there was not a very strong
Marxist dogma driving his tactics.

 

As Alinsky tells us in Rules for Radicals – he despises the middle class and everything
it stands for. When you combine Karl Marx with Al Capone you have Saul Alinsky.
Jed Babbin (in Human Events Magazine March 2007) notes that Alinsky, did post
graduate research in the streets of Chicago: "He attached himself to the Capone gang,
attaining a perspective from which he viewed the gang as a huge quasi-public utility
serving the people of Chicago". By calling it research, the left has made Alinsky‘s
gang relationship more politically palatable. This Alinsky connection to .organized.
crime suggests that Alinsky‘s community organizers are indirectly students of one the
most notorious gangsters in American History – Al Capone. This explains a great deal
about why these Community Organizations like Acorn use intimidation to achieve
their ends. After all – the ends justify the means to the true committed Marxist and the
mobster! If Obama is a follower of Saul Alinsky, what does that suggest about the
tactics that we can expect from him?

 

And it is amazing that many pieces of the puzzle of Barak Hussein Obama‘s
ascendancy to power were there to warn us. Unfortunately a fawning media and
uninformed electorate, feeling white guilt over slavery and the oppression of Blacks in
America, have been manipulated beautifully by a Democrat Party and enemies both
within and without America, literally willing to do anything to gain power. Although
the Democrat Party since FDR has shown socialist tendencies, there were always
forces that managed to keep the genie of Marxism in the bottle. Between FDR and
Obama the Democrat Party leaned left but could not really be labelled as socialist.

 

Nevertheless, the Democrat party has had a consistent history of socialist leaning
policies. LBJ‘s Great Society had moderate success in moving America to the left, but
corruption and the Viet Nam war forced LBJ from returning for a second term. In the
final analysis The Great Society did much more harm than good. There is no doubt that
the Great Society had supporters who thought that they were doing the right thing, but
it has been proven to be a major waste of money with very little benefit for the ones it
intended to help, due in large part to excessively large social programs and imprudent
and inefficient spending. The outcome of 40 years of Great Society programs designed
to help Blacks and other minorities has left them more dependent and poor than when
the programs started. And one of the nasty unintended consequences of the welfare
spending is the toll it took on the Black family: over 70% of Black births now are out
of wedlock. And the Black poverty rate is the highest of any ethnic group in America.
In 2007, Poverty as defined by the US Census, in Black single families was 44%
versus 5.8% of all married families! 

 

This means that almost half of all Black children start out with a tremendous
disadvantage, and it can be argued that the policies that were designed to help them
have made their lives worse. The cure was worse than the disease! The real cure
ultimately will be the social cure that motivates Black men to stay home and
participate in the raising of their Children so that they escape the bondage of poverty –
not by a handout – but by stepping up by being responsible husbands and fathers – not
deadbeats! A system that freely throws money at an issue and indirectly encourages
bad behavior is the problem – not the solution! This tactic sounds a lot like what goes
on in the education establishment – just keep throwing money at it as the system
degenerates and student test scores keep declining. Will we ever understand that
simply throwing money at social problems is not the answer? As exemplified by
poverty programs and government based education – blindly throwing money at these
programs do more harm than good!

 

Affirmative Action and racial preference has given a percentage of Blacks like Barak
Obama an advantage to get ahead. Even with Affirmative Action the vast majority of
Blacks continue a downward spiral caused in large part by policies that were designed
to help them. So the net is that they are less able to compete in a competitive society.
By this criterion, the Great Society fundamentally has to be judged as a dismal failure.
But that does not stop the =soft‘ tyrants hiding behind noble objectives in and out of the
Democrat Party from raising their ugly head again. After the Viet Nam war, the
Georgia Peanut Farmer did his best to thwart the forces of liberty, but he was swatted
down by the great Reagan. But here we are again. America sits at the crossroads
where we can either continue to move down the path of the failed socialist tyrannies, or
to come back to the original founding ideals of Locke, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Reagan.

 

When discussing the massive failure of the Carter Administration it is difficult to
maintain any sort of objectivity, because his policies are so antithetical to a true
conservative. When Arafat, Carter and Gore (and now Obama himself - rewarded not
by any other accomplishment other than winning the presidential election and
providing hope for those progressives in Europe.) share Nobel prizes, it says more
about the Marxist ideologues on the selection committee than whether any of these
people deserve this award. A Nobel peace prize used to be an honor and now it has
become a badge of shame.

 

A few facts of his administration: Unemployment during the Carter administration was as high as 11%; Interest Rates were as high as 21%. The American people endured the double whammy of "Stagflation" – high unemployment and high interest rates at the same time. More than sixty American hostages were held by Iran for 444 days – and were released the day Sheriff Reagan came to town. The birth of the new Islamist movement occurred in Iran during Carter‘s administration as Carter unwittingly helped to remove the Shah and the vacuum was filled by the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet. Islamo-Fascism in the modern era was born during the Carter Administration.

 

Clinton is another man of the left who, despite his impeachment and being caught
lying under oath, today still has near rock star status in the Democrat Party. Although
there is significant evidence that Clinton‘s foreign policy as well a seeming never
ending string of scandals kept him preoccupied and not focused on protecting the
country. This at least partly contributed to the lack of readiness prior to 9-11. Bill and

Hillary (an actual student of Saul Alinsky), were political pragmatists and after her .it
takes a village. universal Healthcare proposal was stopped in its tracks, Bill and the
Republican led congress were actually able give America to a relatively prosperous
eight years. The problem was that during the Lewinsky scandal and subsequent
Impeachment trial, Clinton and his team, according to former advisor Dick Morris,
took their eyes off the ball when it came to national defense. The .wall. their
administration created to separate the intelligence agencies prevented them from
sharing information. This is a key reason we lacked the Intelligence needed to prevent
the attack on 9-11.

 

Mark Simone stated while he was sitting in on the Mark Levin radio show: with the
new administration in power it appears that the last three democrat presidential
administrations have one thing in common – they are all at war with the agency that is
directly charged with keeping America safe – the CIA. Nancy Pelosi‘s accusation that
the CIA lied to her about EIT (enhanced interrogation techniques) without putting forth
evidence support her claim is only the latest in a string of anti-CIA activities by those
patriotic Democrats. Carter virtually dismantled much of the CIA by no longer
allowing informants to speak to the CIA. This is patently absurd since the whole
premise of getting .bad guys. to give up information of their planned nefarious deeds
is a great deal of what the CIA does. So the Carter Administration made the CIA the
enemy and said that we need .choir boys. and only technological intelligence to keep
us safe. The cold reality is that it takes "bad guy" informants to find the "bad guys" no
matter how good America‘s technology is.

 

And maybe the most harmful policy of all was when Clinton‘s cronies put a "wall"
between the CIA and other law enforcement agencies. That is the one policy that can
be argued is most directly responsible for not preventing 9-11, and is highlighted in the
9-11 commission report. From the Washington Post April 2004: "the disclosure that
Jamie Gorelick, a member of the September 11 commission, was personally
responsible for instituting a key obstacle to cooperation between law enforcement and
intelligence operations before the terrorist attacks raises disturbing questions about
the integrity of the commission itself. Ms. Gorelick should not be cross-examining
witnesses; instead, she should be required to testify about her own behavior under
oath. Specifically, commission members need to ask her about a 1995 directive she
wrote that made it more difficult for the FBI to locate two of the September 11
hijackers who had already entered the country by the summer of 2001".

 

For those of us to have been fortunate enough to have had teachers or professors who
revere the founding documents of this great country and have taken the time to try to
understand their meaning, it is and has been very difficult having a reasonable
discussion with many of our fellow citizens who do not agree with these principles.
The biggest problem is that due to the massively flawed government education system,
there is a vast number of otherwise well educated people who have been brainwashed
to blame America first for all of the ills in the world rather than to be proud of the
greatness of this country. America has much to be proud of; we have done many great
things. But if you talk to these brainwashed drones, you would think that America‘s
success has only been accomplished at the expense of other countries.

 
This notion is absurd, but as Lenin says, you repeat the lie often enough and it becomes
the truth. The truth is that America has one of the highest, if not the highest standard of
living for a greater percentage of its citizen than any country its relative size in the
world. This was accomplished by the genius of the founding fathers and a
Representative Republic, combined with rule of law and the notion of protecting
private property, driving a free enterprise system that helped to produce scientific
breakthroughs and innovative and desired products. It has given us the largest
economy on the planet. Despite propaganda to the contrary – even the poor have
access to the best healthcare system on the planet! No one who needs healthcare is
turned away from any U.S. emergency room. It is no wonder that the rest of the world
votes everyday with their feet in trying to get here both legally and illegally.

 

But let us not be confused with facts when we have brilliant professors and talking
heads on TV telling us everyday how bad we are. We are committing cultural suicide
to allow seditious and treasonous behaviour to continue while these traitors are hiding
behind the first amendment and their guaranteed government jobs and tenured
professorships. One wonders if their tune would be the same if they actually had to
work in the free market?

 

America‘s capitalist system has winners and losers, and we have a past of oppression
and racism. In response, we abolished slavery and written it into the Constitution with
the XIII amendment. In socialist or fascist systems lead by a single point of authority,
there is no mechanism for change unless the tyrant in charge sanctions it.

 

Neither system can be called more moral and ethical than a system based upon the rule
of law and the necessity of telling the truth. In America‘s judicial system, perjury or
lying in a legal setting is a punishable offense. As long as the rule of law is functioning
properly, America‘s judicial system is the more ethical and moral system. But no
system can be moral or ethical if there are no standards of right and wrong, or those
rules can be modified easily by those in power.

 

Any system begins to break down when politicians and other elite groups get a pass
and are not held accountable for their misdeeds. The key here is that the judiciary has
to be independent and not be in lock step with the other branches of government. If
you live in a system where the rule is flip flopping and holding opposite viewpoints
simultaneously – where is the truth found? When there is government sanctioned
duplicity and the judiciary is not independent of the two other branches of the
government, the truth takes a back seat to an ideological agenda. What is frightening
today is the real possibility that we are entering the world of a single party rule. With
all instruments of government in the hands of one party, where are the checks and
balances?

 

Marxists say we exploit the worker and therefore they justify their lies for the greater
goal to achieve their worker‘s paradise. Fascists whether they are thugs in a Banana
Republic, or Militant Islamists, justify their lies to protect their dogma from the
perceived evils of America‘s decadence, fail a basic test of ethical behaviour. They are
in a consistent mode of lying and justifying their duplicity.

 
So it is ironic indeed, that both the Secular Marxist and the Fascist hiding behind
dogmatic principles both attack America based on issues of morality, both of these
ideologies are by nature corrupt and built on deceit. And somewhere in the mix is this
jealousy of America‘s wealth and success. They do not really understand it. How
could hard work and creativity and the selfish profit motive be a good thing when other
people are poor? Every true believer to Allah or to the Social Utopia knows that
personal self interest is a bad thing. Wealth achieved in this way must either be
decadent and an offense to Allah or accomplished at the expense of the poor worker by
the greedy, imperialistic, war mongering middle class -- to paraphrase Saul Alinsky.

 

 Is Atlas Starting to Shrug?

 

Some of us may think we are starting to live in a world that is not very different from
the vision Ayn Rand created in her book Atlas Shrugged. We are definitely living in a
time where the producers are being squeezed by the ever expanding central
government. Is it really true that America‘s government is now firing CEOs and
running two of the three largest Auto Manufacturers in the Industry? Is it true that
America‘s government has effectively bailed out and control some of the largest banks
in America? Is it true that America‘s government is going to take over production of
energy production with the cap and trade bill? Is it true that America‘s government
has just taken over about one sixth of the economy by nationalizing healthcare? At
what point does Atlas shrug, and it all falls apart? Who is John Galt? Is he a man
about to throw up his hands and take his fellow producers with him? Is he a man who
believes in individual excellence and not Government excess? It is highly unlikely you
will find him in Barak Obama‘s administration. John Galt in Atlas Shrugged
eventually went on Strike (original title) – and in doing so let the non producers fend
for themselves. Are we headed for a similar fate?

 

Although the real nightmare of a 1984 type government may not have come to fruition
in America yet, we have already begun the nightmare of Atlas Shrugged. In Atlas
Shrugged, the leading industrialists and businessmen refuse to allow the government to
exploit their labor for the "general good." As an aside, this sounds a lot like the Marxist
who attempts to coerce the producers by using the same Utilitarian rationale – do it for
the .general good.. The end result is anything but the .general good.. Like non
producing tyrants and elites everywhere, the only real beneficiaries in a socialist
system are the elites and the non producers. In American society, the vast majority of
us who play by the rules are decimated by the spread the wealth philosophy and
opportunities once thought of as a birthright are stolen.

 

In Atlas Shrugged, the heroine, Dagny Taggart finds society imploding around her as
the government increasingly asserts control over all industry, while society's most
productive citizens, led by the mysterious, John Galt progressively disappear. Galt
describes the strike as "stopping the motor of the world" by withdrawing the "minds"
that drive society's growth and productivity. This is designed to demonstrate that the
economy and society would collapse without the profit motive and the efforts of the
productive. When Atlas shrugs, what happens to the formerly advanced world? One

need not look any further than a few central and South American banana republics to
find out. Is that what is in store for America after Atlas shrugs?

 

There are enemies at home and abroad that question the morality of America‘s success
as a tactic to destroy us – to divide us by guilt built on lies. In reality, we have nothing
to feel guilty about but sociopathic tyrants do. As psychologists tell us, psychopaths do
not have a conscience and a key trait that all seem to have in common is their ability
for deceit and lies and do so in a charming way!

 

America‘s wealth is derived from the work and creativity of individuals, not
government mandate. No matter how the wealth is created, it in and of itself is neither
good nor bad. Wealth, however, gives citizens of that country options, and prosperity
gives more opportunities for good. There is very little nobility in starving and suffering
except among certain religious orders or monks. For the rest of us a good steak is
preferable to eating gruel. There is no reason to feel guilty for success if it is fairly
earned through hard work and creative endeavors. It is a false morality that tells you
that suffering is preferable to happiness.

 

There are some seemingly noble idealists who say that based on America‘s economic
blessings we should share in America‘s success – we should do more. Again, based on
simple statistics, America gives more back in charity than any other major
industrialized country. In overall Charitable giving, according to Sources at World
Bank WDI in 2005, the U.S. was by far the largest charitable giver of all nations on the
planet. Charitable giving as a proportion (%) of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in
Industrialized Countries (where it makes sense to compare), the amount individuals
give to charity varying from 0.14% of GDP in France to 1.7% in the US, followed by
the UK at 0.73%. The U.S. figure is more than twice as much as the closest
industrialized charitable giver the U.K

 

To put this in perspective, not just in percentage of GDP but absolute terms, the U.S.
gives almost 2% of its GDP to charity – which is a huge $238 Billion – about 66 times
the giving in France and 15 times the giving in England! France gives a paltry .14% of
their GDP to charity, and England is second of industrialized nations with .73% of the
GDP given to charity. It may not be that the people are really that much less generous
in Europe. The exceedingly high tax rate may put a damper on some of their charitable
inclinations.

 

Now that Obama is in the process of removing charitable deductions from the tax code,
America is on its way to emulating the not so generous folks in Europe. This is
consistent with the socialist approach. Make the people dependent on the government.
There is no clearer example of this as when the government so burdens the tax payer
that he can no longer be as charitable as he once was. But this is exactly what the
elites want – the people must get their charity from the Government – not from the
goodness of individuals and the private sector.

 

But to some America still does not give enough. In fact, it seems that there are those
who would rather kill the fisherman and divide up the remaining fish rather than learn
how to fish for themselves. And there are others who simply want to destroy the

decadent fisherman whether they eat the fish or not. The forces of socialism fall into
the first group. The forces of fascism fall into the second.

 

In reality, there are pure ideologues who flat out despise America and what it stands
for: freedom, capitalism, and the middle class. Certainly the Marxist despises the
success of the middle class. How can they go about their class warfare when almost
90% of the population is living a middle class lifestyle or better? But instead of
praising the wonders of how America has prospered and created this miracle of wealth
for a large and vibrant middle class, Marxists do their best to attack that success.
Where is the criticism from that so-called objective free press when Marxists are left
unchallenged on their propaganda about poverty, race and gender inequality in
America?

 

Of course, it is tragic that poverty exists, but this debate has gone way beyond talking
about the glass being half empty. The fact, as measured by the percentage of
Americans in the Middle Class – is not just half full, it is almost 90% full. So the
poverty and childhood poverty is a constant drum beat, but there are no accurate
explanations of the causes given by the Marxist controlled Media and University
System. Factoring the poverty numbers that are dramatically increased because of the
12 to 20 million illegal immigrants added to the system, and the social problems
caused by Black and other single mothers raising children alone, we are left with the
politically incorrect and politically inconvenient fact that there is very little poverty in
America.

 

But the Marxist agenda does not include a fair accounting of the causes of the poverty
that does exist. Instead, Marxists condemn the entire system that produces the largest
wealth in the world instead of addressing the two social issues that are directly related
to poverty that exists in America – Illegal Immigration and Black males abandoning
their families.

 

And of course the reason one does not hear an accurate accounting of
these social issues is that as soon as the rational person begins this discussion he is
labelled a racist. It has been a very effective deterrent to rational discussion by the
Marxists. If America is to survive, we must be able to address these problems
rationally. How many black men need to be elected President of the United States
before we can drop the race card every time there is a serious social issue that involves
an ethnic or racial group that is not white?

 

The Marxist wants to divide up the pie and spread the wealth and if successful under
Obama, that pie will undoubtedly shrink and there ultimately will be a lower standard
of living for the largest group that drives this economy – the middle class. It is a sad
truth that anyone in the middle class who voted for Obama has committed cultural and
economic suicide.

 

Where are those objective journalists reminding us of the facts about America‘s
success? Where are the teachers and professors stating facts to reinforce the greatness
of America in their classroom rather than spewing the never ending propaganda that all
the evil in the world has been created by the imperialistic white man from America?
Instead they take social issues that indeed exist but exaggerate and mislead to promote
their agenda. Alinsky and the other Radical Marxists have targeted America‘s middle
class and with Obama‘s election they are about to oversee the largest transfer of wealth

in the history of the world! And guess where that money is coming from and who is
going to get it?

 

Facts and fairness do not matter to the Marxist. Justice to the Marxist and to the likes
of Saul Alinsky is punishment for the Capitalist and especially the middle class. For
those in the middle class who work hard and play by the rules the reward used to be a
good to great standard of living for almost all and for a few fabulous riches. Today,
producers are punished and those who do not are rewarded. But the drum beat
continues for the white male: feel guilty about your wealth, feel guilty about your race,
and feel guilty about your gender. And yes, hand over your hard earned money for the
.public good.. And be happy that you have the good sense to assuage your guilt by
voting for an articulate black man for president!

 

By the recent Presidential election, America has been shown to be one of the least
racist nations on the planet. How else could you explain a predominantly white country
electing a black man to the highest office in the land? But do not worry. These facts
will be ignored as the relentless Marxist continues to berate the greatest country on
earth until they remake it into their utopian vision.

 

But the facts of the greatness of this country did not stop Alinsky‘s followers from
their radical anti-American agenda. And it certainly does not stop George Soros and
the other Anti-American enemies within trying to bring this country down. Although
Alinsky despised the middle class as any respectable Marxist elitist would – he knew
that the key to a successful .revolution. in the US lay with converting enough of
"those war mongering", "materialistic", "imperialist" middle class members to their
side.

 

Alinsky says: "Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead (written in
1972) center upon America's white middle class. That is where the power is." But he
says this not because he respects the middle class – on the contrary, he says: "Our
rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and the way of life of the middle class.

They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate,
imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt. They are right; but we must
begin from where we are if we are to build power for change, and the power and the
people are in the middle class majority." Alinsky goes on to say: "begin to dissect and
examine that way of life [the middle class lifestyle] ... He will know that 'square' is no
longer to be dismissed as such -- instead his own approach must be 'square' enough to
get the action started."

 

The attack on the middle class over the last few decades since Alinsky‘s death is
breathtaking. How could those of us in the middle class, who have been the prime
beneficiaries of this greatest country on earth, let the radicals who despise us take
almost complete control of the Education establishment and the main vehicles of
disseminating news? Before we discuss actions that can be taken to neutralize the
Government-Media-Education Complex, let us discuss America‘s first line of defense
– protecting the 1st Amendment.

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.