Critical race theory is Marxist; and it is not new. Critical race theory originated in the mid-1970s in the writings of American legal scholars. Critical race theory emerged as a serious academic movement by the 1980s. Critical race theory is rooted in critical theory. Critical race theory has two common themes. First, it claims that white supremacy, with its societal or structural racism, maintains power through the law. Second, transforming the relationship between law and racial power and achievement of racial emancipation and anti-subordination is possible. Consequently, critical race theory exchanges the two traditional Marxist classes, oppressive capitalists and oppressed labors for oppressive structural racism and white supremacists and oppressed minorities primarily blacks. This is the classical Marxist strategy of fomenting class, or racial, warfare. In 1997, Judge Richard Posner argued that Critical race theory turns its back on the Western tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative,” and “by repudiating reasoned argumentation, [critical race theorists] reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites. Former Judge Alex Kozinski criticized critical race theorists in 1997 for raising “insuperable barriers to mutual understanding” eliminating opportunities for “meaningful dialog. Therefore, critical race theory labels all white people with their white privilege as oppressors who use structural racism to suppress minorities, especially blacks. The result is high levels of racial animosity.
Critical Theory (CT) is a Marxist approach to social philosophy that focuses on the critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures. CT is foundational to critical race theory. With origins in sociology, psychology, psychiatry, and literary criticism, CT argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors. CT maintains that ideology is the principle obstacle to human liberation.
Approximately a decade before critical race theory began to emerge in the United states, Herbert Marcuse, considered the Father of the new left, observed that before radical Marxist change could occur in Western Europe and the United states, a propaganda based educational dictatorship would be required. Marcuse described the strategies necessary to establish the educational dictatorship and the groups, embraced by critical race theorists, that would best serve as radical revolutionaries to change western culture.
Critical Race Theory Revolutionaries and Tactics
Marcuse identified anti-capitalists, radical intellectuals, the socially marginalized, exploited, persecuted outcasts and outsiders of ethnic minorities, people of color, the unemployed, and the unemployable as trainable revolutionaries. Ethnic and gender study programs were established in most universities to train the envisioned revolutionaries.” He favored these groups, the new proletarians, or laborers, of modern Marxism because he correctly believed that working class labors were no longer a potentially subversive force capable of bringing about revolutionary change in western society and culture. Critical race theory became the perfect educational dictatorship tool to train a subversive force capable of bringing about revolutionary change. Today, the Marxist critical race theory revolutionaries identified by Marcuse, are our educators from preschool to Ph.D., including National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers union leadership and members, publishers, progressive mainstream news media conglomerates, journalists, pundits, and commentators, corporate and social media executives, and leaders of the military industrial complex. Antifa affiliate members throughout Western Europe and the United States are the useful unemployed and the unemployable violent minions of progressive intolerance¦ and undemocratic means.
Strategically, Marcuse called for the gradual elimination of conservative faculty, speakers, and student groups, first at our universities, then our high schools, elementary schools, and finally in our kindergartens and preschools. Although Marcuse did not advocate violence, he indicated that the process could involve intolerance¦ and undemocratic means. The political correctness movement and designation of conservative speech as offensive trigger language, safe speech zones, cancel culture, conservative speaker shout downs, demonstrations, and Antifa riots designed to drive conservatives from campuses and our streets are some of the tactics of intolerance¦ and undemocratic means that have evolved to establish the Marcuse educational dictatorship. Currently, the corporate executives of Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, to name the most powerful speech and search platforms on the internet, were educated at universities controlled by the Marxist educational dictatorship and their Marxist curricula. Consequently, these platforms do not hesitate to reduce or eliminate conservative voices by intolerance¦ and undemocratic means.
Marxism, Critical Race Theory, and Black Lives Matter
Since their leaders claim to be trained Marxist, advocates of critical race theory and Black Lives Matter generally support the tenants of Marxism listed below. The section, of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists, outlines strategic details for incremental progressive domestic policy initiatives that gradually eliminate capitalism and private property. Marx wrote,
These measures will of course be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in the most advanced countries [like the United States] the following will be pretty generally applicable:
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance.” [In the United States, inheritance taxes are incrementally moving toward abolition of all right of inheritance.]
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State¦.
Equal liability of all labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children™s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.”
Unfortunately, many of these measures have been enacted. Free education for all children, essential for a flourishing, capitalistic, constitutional republic like the United States of America, has been promoted in our country since colonial days.
Marxism is an atheistic philosophy that is antagonistic to the Judeo-Christian heritage of Western Europe and the United States. Judeo-Christianity, especially Biblical Christianity, has a history of individuals accomplishing great things in service to our God, His Son, and our Savior, Jesus Christ. Individuals must personally accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16, NIV). Within Biblical Christianity, there are two critical institutions, the family and the church. The Judeo-Christian family has consisted of one husband, one wife, and their children (Gen 4:1-2) since creation, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh (Gen 2:24, NIV). The family and the church are both ordained, Holy institutions set aside to serve God.
Husbands, love your wives [and children, Eph 6:4], just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her [the church] to make her Holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word [scripture], and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, Holy and blameless (Eph 5:25-27, NIV).
Consequently, Marxist disdain the Biblical Christian church and the traditional Christian, patricentric or patriarchal family. All categories of Marxists support same sex marriage, multi-person marriages including bi-sexual partners, other forms of polygamy, single parent families, and un-wed mother families. These families contradict the concept of the traditional Biblical Christian family undermining the impact of Judeo-Christian values on our society and culture. Currently, Marxist advocates of critical race theory and Black Lives Matter vociferously denounce the patricentric or patriarchal family.
Marxist animosity toward the Biblical Christian family and church stems from the role of these two institutions in fostering individualism. This fact is well documented in Marxist writings and rhetoric. These two institutions are where individuals learn about their infinite worth in the kingdom of God when they become followers and servants of Jesus Christ. The reason for this animosity is simple; for Marxism, in all its pragmatic forms, communism, socialism, progressivism, critical race theory, and Black Lives Matter to succeed, the individual must be totally subservient to the good of the collective. For Marxists, the individual is worthless compared to the worth of the collective. In contrast, Biblical Christian individuals have infinite worth to God because God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ [God’s one and only Son, John 3:16] died for us [each individual] (Rom 5:8, NIV). In John 15:13, Jesus said, Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command (NIV).
The individualism fostered by Biblical Christianity is incompatible with Marxism. For any form of Marxism to succeed, Judeo-Christian, Biblical Christian, and the Biblical Christian church and family influence on society and culture must be eliminated or, at least, marginalized. Consequently, the vitriol displayed by Marxists toward Jews, Biblical Christians, and the Christian family and church is understandable from the Marxist, critical race theory, Black Lives Mater perspective.
Marxism, in all its forms, claims that societies will evolve into societies where wealth will be equally redistributed from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Most modern Marxist would add that the benefits and wealth of society would be equally redistributed to all regardless of individual willingness or ability to contribute to the good of society. This includes the idea of reparations supported by proponents of critical race theory and Black Lives Matter. All manifestations and characteristics of individualism must be rejected by Marxists. Of Course, Capitalism, the ultimate expression of individualism, is rejected by Marxists and the proponents of critical race theory and Black Lives Matter. Competition, personal responsibility and accountability, self-discipline, strong individual work ethic, and meritocracy, are also rejected as meaningful characteristics of a Marxist society.
Marxists, Frankfurt School philosophers, and critical theorists in our universities have influenced psychology, psychiatry, and sociology curricula and research since at least the late 1930’s. Their curricula, research, and publications emphasize the detrimental effects of competition, personal responsibility and accountability, self-discipline, strong individual work ethic, meritocracy, Christian morality and ethics, and the traditional patricentric or patriarchal family on individuals and our society. According to these psychologists and sociologists, stressing the elements of individualism in our primary and secondary schools harms some children by causing low self-esteem among low performers potentially causing future neurosis or psychosis for the low performers. Of course, the converse, high self-esteem, occurs among high performers. Research and publications designed to explore the societal benefits of the characteristics of individualism are lacking because such information would promote individualism, innovation, entrepreneurship, and capitalism.
Since most university education programs require courses in sociology and psychology, our teachers are taught that the characteristics of individualism are harmful to student psyches and interpersonal relationships. Preschool, kindergarten, and elementary school teachers are told to avoid teaching and free time activities that praise high performers or correct and discourage low performers. Maintaining positive self-esteem is more important for low performing students than promoting and encouraging the efforts necessary for achievement according to the psychologists and sociologists training our teachers. The same philosophy of esteem building dominates our younger sports and extra-curricular activities programs. Games are played without keeping score. Batters try their best rather than striking out; and every player or participant gets a participation trophy. There are no winners or losers because competition is bad in the Marxist collective where all share equally in the benefits of society.
Today, in critical race theory education, self-esteem has been replaced by equity programs which claim that white supremacy, structural racism, and outright racism is the cause of low performance among most minorities. Asian minorities are an obvious and inconvenient exception to these claims. Consequently, under critical racism ideology, correcting a student who concludes that 3+2=6 no longer causes the student to have lowered self-esteem; it is racist. Setting high standards and requiring effort in academics is structural or systemic racism. This is simply a verbal Marxist bait and switch. Critical race theory educators replaced the misguided ideas of the self-esteem movement for the misguided ideas of racism. The goal is the same, a Marxist educational dictatorship. Racial antagonism replaced class antagonism. Unfortunately, elementary students and younger children are taught the divisive ideas that since they are white, they will grow up to oppress people of color.
There are only two words to adequately characterize critical race theory and Black Lives Matter, Marxist racism.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your Patriot Visions, start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Facebook censorship removed comments on my American’s Crossroad, Facebook page. This is a breach of the spirt of Amendment I and free speech rights. Twitter is even worse because it banned the Washington Post Hunter Biden lap top story calling it Russian disinformation when Hunter was under FBI investigation. Twitter also harasses conservatives. The Facebook censorship is documented in the screen shots below.
I commented on Timmothy Lemoine Price’s comment on a Post of mine starting with Yes, when. as follows:
After I completed the comment, the Most Relevant Facebook censorship line showed up above my comment and the comment did not show up in subsequent comments as shown below.
Apparently, according to Facebook censorship guidelines, a discussion of the antithetical nature of the principles of Marxism and both Christianity and Judaism is not relevant.
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!
This Facebook censorship occurred immediately indicating that their algorithm is written to prevent such discussions. Of course, we understand that progressive algorithms are written by, hold your breath, progressives. Why is Facebook afraid? Does Facebook know that Marxism is bankrupt in the face of Biblical Christianity and Judaism?
In my opinion, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google, to name the worst, have become venues for Marxist or progressive propaganda and the Democrat Party like our schools and progressive news media. They claim to be forums for the free open and honest discussion of ideas; but they act with impunity when they censor, cancel, and restrict conservative speech but allow offensive Posts by the Chinese Communist Party, Iran’s Ayatollah, and racist progressives to call Senator Tim Scott hashtag Uncle Tim” for over 11 hours. These social media hide behind hidden, undiscernible, and often illogical, rules with no reasonable and accessible appeals process. Many say conservatives should start their own platforms which is possible; but that would defeat the purpose of platforms for free, open, and honest discussion of ideas. Maybe progressives are afraid of truly open discussion platforms. Maybe progressives know their ideas are losers. Are progressives even afraid to debate that question? Based on the facts, I think they are. Let’s start the discussion with this fact. America’s Crossroad was the victim of Facebook censorship.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your Patriot Visions, start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Our Founder’s nation, like every nation that cannot defend itself, maintain geographic integrity, and loses its unique culture, economic and political identity will wither away as Marx and Engels stated it. The Marxist left, whatever name they have used throughout the last two centuries, communists, socialists, Critical Theorists, humanists, progressives, liberals, or Democrats have accomplished a significant transformation of our Founder’s nation using their plan to transform America. Progressives used the tools provided by our Constitution and culture in a relentlessly incremental process to transform the United States into a nation that our Founders never envisioned.
The Founders also understood that God (Providence) had His hand on this nation.
From colonial times until the Constitution was ratified and well into the twentieth century, We the People of the United States shared a strong, significant Judeo-Christian heritage which the Founders clearly understood. In the late eighteenth century, the majority of the population was of British descent, spoke English, and attended one of the many Protestant denomination or Catholic churches. All of the universities were of Christian origin, including Harvard which was named after a wealthy preacher who gave his theological library and wealth to the university. Most of the first departments established at these universities were Divinity Schools and Law Schools. Additional universities were established after the Great Awakening revivals of the mid-eighteenth century to train more evangelists. Our Founder’s nation shared a strong Judeo-Christian heritage.
VISION FOR THE FOUNDER’S NATION
The Founders also understood that God (Providence) had His hand on this nation from the time the first colonists set foot on this continent. This sentiment was eloquently stated by John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, in The Federalist No. 2 where he wrote,
Providence (God especially when conceived of as exercising this) has blessed it (Independent America) for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion (Christianity with all its orders and denominations), attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, have nobly established their general Liberty and Independence.
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other [by] design of Providence for a band of brethren, united by the strongest ties, should never be split into alien sovereignties.
Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us (Parenthetical remarks added).
James Madison in The Federalist No.14 was also confident that a constitution so ordained and based on Judeo-Christian morality, ethics, and law would be a model for mankind. He stated,
Posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theater, in favor of private rights and public happiness. Happily for America, happily we trust for the whole human race, they pursued a new and more noble course. They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society: They reared the fabrics of governments which have no model on the face of the globe. They formed the design of a great confederacy, which has been new modeled by the act of your Convention, and it is that act on which you are now to deliberate and to decide (Ratify the Constitution, Remark added).
Fifty of the fifty five men who attended the Constitutional Convention were practicing Christians including theologians, denominational leaders, pastors, and evangelists. Many were also legal scholars and attorneys. After shepherding the nation through the first eight years of our experiment, the Father of our Country, George Washington, expressed similar sentiments in his Farewell Address to the Nation:
“With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits and Political Principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts “ of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports. “ In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
Cultivate peace and harmony with all. “ Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? “ It will be worthy of a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The Experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. “ Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
The Father of our Country clearly stated that the international reputation of the United States, sound governmental policies, and the integrity of our courts were dependent on our shared Judeo-Christian religion and morality, our cultural and societal identity. In our Founder’s nation, We the People had leaders like John Jay who summarized the Founders’ view of the importance of Christianity to the successful future of the United States as follows:
No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian religion. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance this great experiment will then be surely doomed.
Not only did these four Founders express this view, but virtually all the significant Founders wrote expansively about the importance of our Judeo-Christian heritage to previous success and future benefits that would come to the world as a result of the virtue and religious morality of the United States. Consequently, our Founder’s nation was a Judeo-Christian nation. In my opinion, most of the current societal, cultural, political, and legal problems in our nation are the consequence of our abandonment of Washington’s admonition concerning Religion and Morality.”
Historically, great nations deteriorate from within. Moral and ethical deterioration of cultures normally precedes political, economic and military instability. These problems often lead to the inability of nations to defend themselves against external economic or military forces. In the United States, our national greatness flowed historically from the individual and collective character, virtue, strength, and moral integrity of We the People. Our Judeo-Christian heritage, Constitution and the rule of law, and our economic system based on individual entrepreneurialism and capitalism have been largely responsible for the success of the United States on the world stage. Virtually every aspect of the historical cultural, political, and economic strength of our nation is being incrementally undermined by forces seeking to fundamentally transform the United States of America.
The preamble to the Constitution of the United States outlined five general functions of constitutional governance, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. Only those areas of life and governance detailed in the various Articles and Amendments to the Constitution were intended to fall under the authority and responsibility of the National or Federal government. In the Founder’s nation, Tranquility, general Welfare, and the Blessings of Liberty were the responsibility of citizens, state, and local governments. The Constitution was established for a virtuous, moral, industrious, and responsible citizenry free to pursue their personal general Welfare and secure the Blessings of [their] Liberty.
In my view, one word in the Preamble to the Constitution has great significance to understanding why our Founder’s nation subsequently exceeded the expectations of the world. The word is “ordain,” to set apart for a sacred function in service of God. The Preamble states, We the People of the United States do ordain’ and establish this Constitution. This meaning for ordain is the only one that fits the context and definitions of ordain and establish found in Samuel Johnson’s 1755 Dictionary of the English Language because all of the meanings for establish are synonymous with the non-sacred meanings in the definition for ordain. If the Framers had not intended the sacred meaning of ordain, they would not have included the word establish which would, therefore, have been redundant. The Constitution was not written as a strictly secular document. The Constitution of our Founder’s nation was a document design to serve God.
During the first half-century or more of the history of our Founder’s nation, our Judeo-Christian heritage was critical to the principles and doctrines of law. Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) wrote, The Law of Nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction the moral law called also the law of Nature. Similarly, Commentaries on the laws of England by William Blackstone, was a widely respected commentary on law in America. In a statement almost identical to that of Coke, Blackstone wrote, Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation (Biblical Law), depend all of human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. Additionally, prior to the mid-1800’s, it is safe to assume that Constitutional manifest tenor was the basis of court decisions related to the constitutionality of laws. Manifest tenor is the readily perceived, obvious, plain understanding of the course of thought running through the applicable article, amendment, section, or clause of the Constitution in relation to the case or statute under consideration. A synonymous phrase for manifest tenor is contextual original intent. During this period in the history of our Founder’s nation, the “law of nature” which “God… infused” into the “heart” of We the people was critical to our understanding of the meaning and purpose of our laws and duties as citizens.
TRANSFORMATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION
Progressives have used several tools to “fundamentally transform America. The first, and possibly most important tool, is the transformation of Constitutional law which has had a significant effect on our Founder’s nation. In 1848, Marx and Engels published The Communist Manifesto promoting atheism and social evolution; and in 1859, Charles Darwin published Origin of Species positing biological evolution which challenged Biblical creationism. Both concepts were widely embraced by academics throughout the world. In 1869, scholars at the Harvard Law School embraced evolutionary thinking as keys to life and the law. They taught that great legal scholars and judges could develop the laws governing mankind since mankind did not need God and Scripture for guidance in law. All references to both God and Scripture were eliminated from legal education, and consequently, from the practice of law.
To accomplish this goal, these legal scholars developed the concept of case law in which legal principles, doctrines, and presidencies are developed over time by degrees through a series of cases. John Chipman Gray, summarized the concept by stating, The law is a living thing with a continuous history, sloughing off the old, taking on the new. After three to six decades of the development of legal principles and doctrines based on case law, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, summarized the legal system as follows, [Law is] simply an embodiment of the ends and purposes of society at a given point in its history, beliefs that have triumphed and nothing more. These two statements regarding constitutional law bear a striking resemblance to the following discussion of truth found in A Dictionary of Marxist Thought edited by Tom Bottomore:
The criterion for evaluating truth-claims normally is, or involves, human practice, a practicist criterion of truth. Truth is conceived as essentially the practical expression of a subject, rather than the theoretically adequate representation. Truth becomes a totality to be achieved in the realized identity of subject and object in history…. Truths are the this-worldly manifestations of the particular class-related needs and interests. Truth is an ideal asymptotically approached in history but only finally realized under communism after a practical consensus has been achieved.
Apparently, according to legal scholars, jurists, and philosophers, the Constitution, law, and truth are living things, ideas that have triumphed at a given point in history. Through case law over time, judges have transformed our Constitution and laws into a changing body of this-worldly manifestations of the particular class-related needs and interests. One could say that the Constitution of the United States of America, as envisioned by the Founders, has already withered away; or the Constitution is being transformed and will soon wither away.
Progressives have been using courts and the concept of living Constitutions to challenge long held Judeo-Christian cultural norms for decades. Consequently, progressives have used our courts to undermine the sanctity of life through abortion and right to die decisions, marriage and the traditional family through same-sex marriage decisions, biological sexuality through decisions recognizing LGBT identity and access to previously gender specific public facilities, and religious freedom in business, public schools, governmental lands and facilities, and government agencies. Our courts have been the most effective tool used by progressives to fundamentally transform the Judeo-Christian culture of the United States of America. As time passes, the United States of America is becoming less and less like our Founder’s nation.
TRANSFORMATION OF EDUCATION
The second tool used by progressives to fundamentally transform America culturally is the establishment of a public education dictatorship. Our current public education curriculum promotes progressive cultural, social, economic, and political values and principles from pre-school to Ph.D. These curricula seek to undermine or eliminate discussion of the influence of our Judeo-Christian heritage and culture, in relation to our Constitution and legal system. Curricula ignore or minimize our Founders’ emphasis on the relationship between shared moral and ethical values and cultural harmony, individual and national prosperity, and national identity and strength on the world stage. Curricula stress claimed abuses of all western civilization on the rest of the world, capitalism as a form of western imperialism a concept espoused by Marxism, the benefits of socialist systems, and the progressive cultural agenda. The left’s educational dictatorship has been extremely effective as an agent to fundamentally transform the United States of America which has less and less resemblance to our Founder’s nation.
TRANSFORMATION OF OUR CULTURE
The third tool used by progressives to fundamentally transform America culturally is our telecommunications and entertainment industry including social media and pop culture. Television, movies, and music promotes non-traditional families and include LGBT characters, single parent families, illicit sexual content including workplace affairs between co-workers and supervisors of both sexes with subordinates, violence, and murder. Christianity, the essence of our Founder’s nation, is often mocked, portrayed as a form of manipulation, or Christian leaders portrayed as criminal. Capitalism is portrayed as an evil often criminal economic system. Our government is also portrayed as a source of problems in the world. Mainstream news outlets including print and on-line sources forward narratives supporting the progressive cultural, political, and economic agenda, policies, and candidates. The advertising industry is a more subliminal medium used to promote the fundamental transformation of America.
The final tool used by progressives to fundamentally transform America culturally is legal immigration policy and border security. Between 1960 and 1970, the 1965 Immigration Act began to change the composition of the US foreign-born population. Due to the ethnic and religious strife between Balkan Muslims and various Christian sects that started WWI, the 1965 Act ended a 1924 regional immigration quota system that discriminated against Southeastern Europeans including Italians, Asians, and Africans. The previously favored regions included Northwestern Europe including the British Isles, and Canada.
TRANSFORMATION OF OUR POPULATION
“Only one other great republic has ever experienced such a change in the texture of its people ” the Roman Republic.” It failed.
Many considered the 1965 Immigration Act to be an extension of the Civil Rights and Voter Rights legislation of the Johnson Administration granting immigration civil rights to the world by eliminating regional quotas. Although some Republicans supported the 1965 Immigration Act in its initial form, the Democrat Party promoted the bill in the legislature giving assurances that the bill would not adversely influence our nation, economy, and culture. When he signed the bill into law, President Lyndon Johnson said, “This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives.” Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA.) reassured his colleagues and the nation with the following:
“First, our cities will not be flooded with immigrants. Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset. [The bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
Senator Hiram Fong (R-HI) testified that Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.” In an October 4, 1965 article on the immigration bill, The Washington Post author wrote,
“The most important change [is that] preference categories give first consideration to relatives of American citizens instead of to specially skilled persons. This insured that the new immigration pattern would not stray radically from the old one.”
Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), testified as follows: “The preferences established by this proposal are not entirely dissimilar from those which underlie the national origins quotas of existing law.” With hind sight as twenty-twenty, it seems fair to ask whether the supporters of the 1965 Immigration Act were actually honest about their claims that the new immigration policy would not alter the culture and ethnic composition of our Founder’s nation.
Some opponents and legislators asked critical questions painting a less rosy picture of the potential outcome. William Miller of New York wrote:
‘The number of immigrants next year will increase threefold and in subsequent years will increase even more.’ He asked, ‘Shall we, instead, look at this situation realistically and begin solving our own unemployment problems before we start tackling the world’s?'”
Myra C. Hacker, Vice President of the New Jersey Coalition, testified in the Senate Immigration Subcommittee hearing:
“We should remember that [the bill will] lower our wage and living standards [and] disrupt our cultural patterns. Whatever may be our benevolent intent toward many people, [the bill] fails to give due consideration to the economic needs, the cultural traditions, and the public sentiment of the citizens of the United States.”
In his 1982 book America in Search of Itself, Theodore White contradicted President Johnson’s signing-day assurance that it was not a revolutionary bill, writing that the bill was revolutionary and probably the most thoughtless of the many acts of the Great Society. In reality, critics were correct and the assurances that the Act would not upset the ethnic mix of our society were not justified as noted by the above data on the changes in foreign-born population associated with the Act.
Data from the US Census Bureau showing the region of birth of the foreign-born population of the United States is informative regarding the cultural transformation of the United States. From 1850-1960, Europeans and Canadians averaged approximately 95% of the foreign-born population. Southern and Eastern Europeans were greatly underrepresented in the US foreign-born population prior to 1960. In 1960, Europeans and Canadians comprised 75% which was a reduction of more than 15% of the foreign-born population compared to the previous 90 years. In 1970 this group comprised 61.7%; 1980, 39.0%; and in 1990 Europeans and Canadians comprised 26.9% of the US foreign-born population which was less than one third of the 1960 level and slightly more than one fourth of the 1850-1960 level. In contrast, Hispanics comprised an average of only 2.8% of the foreign-born population from 1850-1960. In 1960, the composition was 9.4%; in 1970, 19.4%; 1980, 33.1%; and 1990, 44.3% nearly 16 times the 1850-1960 average of the US foreign-born population. Asians comprised an average of only 1.7% of the US foreign-born population from 1850-1960. In 1960, the composition was 5.1%; 1970, 8.9%: 1980, 19.3%; and 1990, 26.3% which was more than 15 times the 1850-1960 average of the foreign-born population. In 1990, people from Africa and Oceania composed less than 2.5% of the US foreign-born population. By 2050, the racial and ethnic composition of the US population is expected to be 47% White, 29% Hispanic, 14% Black, and 9% Asian. According to this projection, the composition of whites will decline; the composition blacks will be stable; and the composition of Hispanics and Asians will increase. Although conservative pundits and other intellectuals agree, progressives always start immigration discussions with the phrase, We are a nation of immigrants, or We are all descendants of immigrants. What they fail to say is that, prior to the 1965 Immigration Act, we were a nation of European and Canadian immigrants; and after 1965, we became and nation of Asian and Hispanic immigrants .
Thirty years after implementation of the 1965 Immigration Act became law some conclusions are relevant to this discussion. A new era of mass immigration ensued in which country origins of immigrants changed radically. The European economy stabilized resulting in fewer European immigrants. Mass entry of people from Asia and Latin America and emphasis on family reunification ensured that these groups could bring in their relatives, freezing out potential immigrants from Europe and from other developing nations because of limits on total immigration numbers. Unfortunately, twice as many immigrants as native-born Americans did not have high school diplomas in the mid-1990’s. This contributed downward wage pressure to a growing pool of blue-collar workers competing for a shrinking number of well-paying jobs. This issue is compounded by increasing levels of illegal immigrants who also compete for these jobs.
In 2000, sociologist Christopher Jencks predicted that the US population will grow to 500 million by 2050 if our immigration policies do not change. After evaluating congressional politics, Jencks concluded that congress did not want to appear to be racist and their leaders would not direct change. Consequently, Jerry Kammer, in his 2015 concluding remarks, included a dire analysis of our national future by Theodore White concerning of the potential impact of the 1965 Immigration Act,
‘Only one other great republic has ever experienced such a change in the texture of its people ” the Roman Republic’ He then observed that ‘Rome could not pass on the heritage of its past to the people of its future’ and ultimately unraveled so badly that it could no longer govern itself. ‘
Kammer also included this contrarian and optimistic quote from a 1965 Immigration Act, 50th anniversary book, A Nation of Nations (2015) by Tom Gjelten, which disregards the lesson of Roman Empire history,
While immigration may swamp us, it may, if we seize the opportunity, mean the impregnation of our national life with a new brilliancy. It is only in the half century after 1965, with a population connected to every corner of the globe, that the country has finally begun to demonstrate the exceptionalism it has long claimed for itself.’
One Amazon reviewer of A Nation of Nations wrote,
“While Gjelten doesn’t make statements about assimilation with current tides of immigrant groups, he suggest[s] that these groups who differ more widely culturally than past [European immigrants] will ultimately accept the national ethos and fit in well.”
Apparently, like most US progressives, Gjelton and the reviewer believes that we can do things better than the Romans, the Soviet Communists, the Maoists, and the Cuban Communists, and achieve an internal globalist culture of new brilliancy and exceptionalism in the United States.
Without the benefit of actually reading his book, it appears that Gjelton does not believe that our Constitution and Bill of Rights are exceptional guidelines for governance or that turning the tide of victory in both World War I and World War II were exceptional events in world history. It doesn’t appear that he considered our Industrial Revolution, railroads, interstate highway system, technical revolution, IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter to be brilliant contributions making the United States the greatest economic power in history. As a true progressive globalist, Gjelton apparently believes that until the United States looks like the rest of the world, we cannot be either brilliant or exceptional. None of the reviews or excerpts answer the question posed by White, [With] such a change in the texture of [our] people, will the United States of America be able to govern itself? The cultural and racial diversity created by the 1965 Immigration Act has not resulted in a political and social environment of greater stability. Our educational, cultural and political elites discourage acceptance of our national ethos, our Judeo-Christian heritage, Constitutional capitalism, and individual freedom. The progressive elites consider and communicate that this national ethos is offensive to the rest of the world, especially the regions of origin for most of today’s immigrants. Under these circumstances, how can we expect these immigrants to fit in well? Under the current circumstances in which we are losing our national ethos, my fear is that the admonition of John Jay portends a dire outcome for the United States of America, Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance this great experiment will then be surely doomed. This component of the fundamental transformation of the United States of America could help ensure that our nation will wither away. Phrased alternatively, our Founder’s nation will cease to exist.
Border security is a critical component of immigration policy. Secure borders insure that nations have control over immigration into each country. Without secure borders and immigration policies that immediately detain or expel illegal immigrants, all immigration has the potential of becoming legal immigration which is the goal for progressive open border advocates. In this situation, citizenship and related voting rights would be meaningless; the wealthy and unscrupulous could import voters to gain control of any jurisdiction; or politicians could promise immigrants free benefits for their votes. Criminals, revolutionaries, insurgents, and freeloaders as well as unskilled and skilled workers, artisans, entrepreneurs, technicians, and highly educated professionals could flow in and out of countries. All pretexts of economic, political, legal system, and numerical population stability and predictability would be eliminated. Determination of population based representation in our republic, as in the US House of Representatives, would not be fair with the fluid population possible without immigration control and border security. This would be a fundamental transformation of the United States of America; and our Founder’s nation could wither away.
TRANSFORMATION OF OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE
The final requirement necessary for nations to persist is the ability to remain strong and defend themselves against both foreign and domestic enemies. For the most part, we have adequate local, state, and national law enforcement and legal system to ensure domestic Tranquility; but this nation has a great deal of difficulty to provide for the common defense. The primary reason for this difficulty is the fact that the Democrat and Republican Parties have vastly different priorities regarding defense and domestic expenditures. The two parties seem to have vastly different ideas regarding the necessity maintaining the world’s most powerful military force that can defend our nation on multiple battle fronts and contingencies simultaneously. Progressives and the Democrat Party do not see this level of military power as a national necessity for funding compared to domestic program spending. Military power and force size was drastically decreased in the Carter, Clinton, and Obama administrations. Each of the intervening Bush Administrations and the current Trump Administration were confronted with depleted military forces which they attempted slowly rebuild throughout their Administrations. Unfortunately the overall trend in our military strength since the Carter Administration is downward in both numbers and capabilities. The problem was compounded during the last Bush and Trump Administrations by the long multi-front war on Radical Islamic Terrorism which has resulted in attrition of equipment due to fiscal constraints. With reduced force size, our military heroes are forced to deploy more frequently or for longer tours in theater. The result is combat fatigue, home front family difficulties for deployed forces, and potential reduction in re-enlistment numbers resulting in less experienced fighting forces.
Currently, our military cannot fight on two fronts, equipment is old and waring out with high percentage of the equipment out-of-service due to lack of repair and replacement parts. This problem and inadequate funding for continuing training means that many of our military unites are not combat ready. These problems have resulted in higher numbers of military training and mission related accidents, personnel injuries, and deaths in the last few years. In my opinion, this situation has the potential to become a threat to our national security due to increasing tensions throughout the world.
The threat of North Korean ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads capable of striking anywhere in the United States intensifies our military readiness issues. Incursion of China into the South China Sea seeking to control sea travel, trading routes throughout the south Pacific, and exert their naval power in the region is also worrying. The fact that China is expanding military forces with the goal of becoming the world’s preeminent military power is cause for additional concern. Iran’s expansion and aggression in the Middle East is troubling. Radical Islamic terrorism is growing not declining in Africa where the opportunity to train is enhanced due to weak governments unable to control terrorist activities. Other parts of the world are also subjected to Radical Islamic terrorist attacks. Threats to the safety and security of the United States of America are increasing worldwide. This aspect of the transformation of the United States of America is the most concerning to me. Without a strong military capable of defending our nation against all enemies foreign and domestic is essential to ensure that my country, the United States of America, does not wither away.
In my opinion, the progressive plan to fundamentally transform of the United States of America has been executed in an incremental evolutionary manner for approximately 170 years. The goal of this transformation has always been a unified global community and economy, a utopia, governed by Marxist principles which ensure that all people share equally in all the benefits of the world regardless of their ability or willingness to contribute to the good of the world community. Phrased another way, from each according to his ability to each according to his need wealth will be redistributed on a global scale. For this goal to be achieved, the United States of America must wither away, a really fundamental transformation. Our Founder’s nation would no longer exist.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
The current debate raging in Washington DC over immigration, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and border security is a reaction to Democrat actions to transform America through immigration policy changes legislated in the 1965 Immigration Act. Before 1965, the Marxist informed Democrat plan to transform America started in earnest during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt with the New Deal effort to alleviate the problems of The Great Depression and establishment of the Social Security Administration. Beginning in the early 1960’s, the Democrat Party supported progressive efforts to gain complete control of public education which would emphasize socialism and atheism over capitalism and Judeo-Christianity transforming public attitudes about capitalism, socialism, traditional Judeo-Christian values, and the traditional family. The plan to transform America continued with the 1965 Immigration Act which, contrary to Democrat assurances, altered the religious, racial, and ethnic composition of the United States by changing immigration policy. Under this immigration plan, people sharing our Judeo-Christian culture and heritage compose a significant minority of legal immigrants rather than ensuring that the composition of new immigrant populations was similar to the existing population composition. The new 1965 Immigration Act policy changed the religious and cultural make-up of our nation and transform America. The latest phase of transformation began five days before the 2008 election when candidate Obama said, We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.
ALINSKY RULES TO TRANSFORM AMERICA
It is important to understand the approach to community organizing outlined in Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, a manual for political war according to Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model by David Horowitz.* Insight, into the true nature of the Alinsky trained community organizer, appears on the dedication page of Rules for Radicals where Alinsky wrote, Lest we forget, the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom “ Lucifer. The name and nature of the kingdom, hell, Lucifer won was conveniently left out. However, Lucifer’s tactics in the temptation of Adam and Eve and other Biblical passages provide an outline for many of the strategies and tactics Alinsky and his disciples, including Barack Obama, teach during their community organizing workshops.
Alinsky trained community organizers understand that Marxist thought underpins their eventual goal; and the difference between communism and socialism is the means of achieving the utopian societal goal. As part of their deceptive tactics, radicals have used a variety of philosophical names throughout their history to camouflage their true identity and purposes. With their changing names, Alinsky radicals create the illusion that their opposition is composed of uninformed buffoons, Deplorables, with irrelevant ideas and opinions about who radicals are and the actual philosophical position of radicals on the issues of the day. For example, members of the US Communist Party were labor activists and members of the Democrat party in the early twentieth century, formed the Progressive Party to oppose President Truman in the 1948 election, rejoined the Democrat Party in the early 1970’s after the fall of the Soviet Union ending the Cold War, and are currently the majority group in the Progressive Caucus of the Democrat Party although many deny or diminish the Marxist, communist, and socialist influence of their progressive political ideology.
According to Alinsky, “A radical is not a reformer of the system; but its would-be destroyer.
Alinsky taught that a radical is not a reformer of the system; but its would-be destroyer. In the case of the United States of America, the system is our political, economic system of Constitutional capitalism based on private property and individual rights supported by our Judeo-Christian heritage and culture. All radical’s efforts are aimed at subverting their society, in a word, change. They plan to transform America. The purpose of change is to take power from the Haves and give it to the Have-nots in the name of the people. Alinsky radicals do not compare America’s Constitutional capitalistic society to other societies but to the utopian system of social justice and freedom they think they are building. Compared to their vision, even America is hell. Consequently, America will never be equal, or liberal, or democratic enough to satisfy radical fantasies so radicals are willing to destroy the values, structures, and institutions that sustain our society. Alinsky, post-Soviet communist, neo-Marxist radicals always know that they will succeed in creation of their utopian system where the radicals of the old Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Laos, Cuba, Venezuela, and etc. failed at the cost of untold millions of lives. The unfortunate historical reality of radical revolution is that power always goes to a new group of Haves, the radical revolutionary vanguard, the new political elites; and the Have-nots are still Have-nots. Have-nots never get their promised utopian heaven on earth under radicals and their plan to transform America.
It is also important to understand that for conservatives, war is a political metaphor; but for radical Alinsky community organizers, war is a political reality. Since the objective is to destroy the enemy, the tactics of Alinsky style political war are brutal and relentless. For Alinsky, the end always justifies the means which have no ethical, moral, or legal limits. Consequently, it is okay to lie, deceive, and even commit murder. The only consideration is whether or not the means effectively advance the cause. Throughout history, the evil wrought by revolutionary radicals of this ilk are always justified as the means of achieving the greater good for all mankind, the social salvation of all humanity. Individual salvation is always secondary to mass salvation since it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice individuals for the greater good. This idea is consistent with Marxist philosophy where individual good is always subservient to the collective good. In such a war, unlike Alinsky community organizers, conservatives are at a severe disadvantage because most conservatives are constrained by ethical, moral, and legal considerations.
Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals emphasize that power and building a vast power base, an Alinsky army or a civilian national security’ force, is the only rule. Accumulating power is the first priority in implementing radical change to transform America. These Alinsky statements and workshop titles; we are not virtuous by not wanting power, we are really cowards for not wanting power, because power is good and powerlessness is evil, self-interest is the only principle around which to organize people, understanding power, power analysis, the path to power, elements of a power organization, and relationships built on self-interest, demonstrate the importance of power accumulation to achieve change through community organizing. To Alinsky radicals, the accumulation of power is always the issue.
Deception is an Alinsky radical tactic in their sociological and political war designed to gain power over political enemies and subsequently eliminate them and destroy the system they control. Since power is always the issue, the actual issue or cause which concerns the people supporting a cause is not the issue that concerns community organizers because without power to transform America, change is unattainable. The community organizer deceptively infiltrates the leadership of a cause, embraces the cause, and uses the people’s self-interest to create an army of people supporting the cause to gain power to accomplish the community organizer’s goal of destroying the overall system, to transform America.
As a consequence, Alinsky community organizer’s deceptive subversion of causes is another means to the end, accumulation of political power. Group, issue, or cause names, goals, and objectives are irrelevant because the only issue is gaining political power to destroy the enemy and the system. Community organizers, individually or in groups, often work simultaneously with disparate causes with a variety of names to accumulate power by uniting these groups to weaken and eventually destroy the system. Alinsky successfully created coalitions of communists, anarchist, socialists, new leftists, liberals, social justice activists, progressives, black radicals, and Democrats. Since each issue or cause has associated enemies that their cause needs to overcome and destroy, another powerful tool of deception used by Alinsky radicals to destroy enemies is to stigmatize opponents with terms like racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic etc., whether the terms apply or not. Radical community organizers have successfully united disparate groups with a campaign to stigmatize President Trump and the Republican Party with an ist, ic, and phobic epitaph associated with their particular cause. The “self-interest” of each cause unites the group around the epitaph representing their cause giving the group its own power while the common enemies, the President and the GOP, multiplies the power of the combined groups into throngs of protesters, the Alinsky army or civilian national security’ force. The plan is a wave election that sweeps the Democrat Party into control of the state governments and the US Congress in 2018 and the Presidency in 2020 resuming the delayed Democrat plan to fundamentally transform America.
Conservatives look at these disparate groups and ask what do they actually want? What is their unified goal or objective? The Alinsky community organizers answer under their breath, We want the political power of all these groups to be unified to destroy you and the system. The issue or cause is not the issue; accumulating political power is the only real by issue to the Alinsky community organizer. The “organizers” are working with all the current self-interest groups, the “Women’s” and “Me Too” marchers, the “Stop Gun Violence” marchers, the “Teachers” marchers, the “Black Lives Matter” marchers, and the “silence conservative speakers” marchers, and the etc. marchers. Many of these marches are infiltrated Antifa and Anonymous rioters. These different large “cause” demonstrations fulfill two radical purposes, they gather the Alinsky “armies” of the various “causes” and build energy; and they unite the different groups into a combined political power base which the “organizers” combine to defeat their political opponents.
Finally, perhaps the most powerful Alinsky rule for radicals is to infiltrate the institutions* that support the system, eliminate internal opposition leadership and replace it with supportive leaders, and transform the institution to promote transformation or destruction of our overall system of Constitutional capitalism, private property, individual freedom, and our Judeo-Christian heritage as a critical influence on our society. Marxist philosophers have embraced this plan almost from the beginning. Infiltration of institutions has been quite successful in the United States. Communist participation in the early labor movement, FDR’s legislative attempt to change the US Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary in order to fill the courts with progressive judges, progressive domination of public education from preschool to Ph.D. curricula and educators, dilution of Biblical moral principles in many Christian denominations, the entire United States government bureaucracy, and the Democrat Party. The progressive versus conservative contest for control of the US Supreme Court, the entire lower Federal Court system, and state court systems is evidence of the critical battle over the balance of our courts. Progressive Justices at every level of our court system often use progressive ideas rather than the text of laws, judicial precedent, or constitutions to render decisions that alter or stop the actions of Republican Administrations, capitalistic initiatives, and Judeo-Christian influences on society and transform America. In many cases, progressive bureaucrats in the upper and middle levels of several Executive Branch Departments such as State, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Interior, Internal Revenue Service, Justice, and the National Security Agency have acted to delay or in some situations possibly subvert the policies and activities of conservative groups and conservative Republican Presidential Administrations and Governors. This progressive infiltration of our institutions has drastically altered the nature and character of our nation. This is part of the Democrat plan to transform America.
OBAMA’S PLAN TO TRANSFORM AMERICA
Although President Obama never fully disclosed the details of his plan to transform America, some insight can be gleaned from his formative youthful years and his own words most of which are also available in written, audio, and video form. Former President Obama has a radical, Marxist background. Both his father and mother had radical backgrounds and educations. His mentor in Hawaii, Frank Marshall Davis, was a 60’s communist radical from Chicago where Saul Alinsky worked as a founding community organizer. When he went to college, he followed his Marxist roots regarding his college associates and course work. In Barack Obama’s DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, he talks of his time at Occidental College in California. Here’s a quote:
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. At night we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. We were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints. We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.”
This statement provides vital insight into the mind and ideology that informed the Presidency of Barack Obama.
Frantz Fanon was a psychiatrist, philosopher, and radical revolutionary in the fields of post-colonial studies, critical theory (a synonym for Marxist theory used by the Frankfurt School to mask their roots and enable the primarily Jewish faculty to migrate from Frankfurt Germany to Columbia University immediately prior to the rise of Adolf Hitler), and Marxism. As an intellectual, Fanon was a political, Pan-Africanist, and Marxist humanist concerned with the psychopathology of colonization, and the human, social, and cultural consequences of decolonization. Neocolonialism, a tenant of the anti-capitalist rhetoric of Marxism, is the use of economic, political, cultural, or other pressures to control or influence other countries, especially former dependencies. Eurocentrism, focusing on European culture or history to the exclusion of a wider view of the world; implicitly regarding European culture as preeminent, is the philosophical term for white privilege which is inherently evil to the Marxist world view. This view ignores the reality of the fact that European culture, our Judeo-Christian heritage and capitalism has the demonstrated potential to increase the wellbeing of the world beyond the demonstrated capacity of Marxist philosophy and socialism. Patriarchy is a system of society in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line or a society or community organized on patriarchal lines. To Marxists and progressives, patriarchy also represents the traditional Judeo-Christian family consisting of one husband, one wife, and their biological or genetic and adopted children. Of course, the greatest anathema of the traditional family to progressive, Marxist thinkers is the idea that the patriarchal family is headed by a male. To President Obama, diminishing the significance of these “problems” is central to his plan to transform America.
Finally, it is critical to understand the significance of a concept statement that Barack Obama considered critical to enshrine in his autobiography, We were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints. The bourgeois society is a phrase straight out of The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Such societies are full of stifling constraints. According to Barack Obama, a bourgeois society is a Judeo-Christian, capitalistic, Eurocentric, neocolonial, patriarchal society. A bourgeois society is the society that made the United States of America the greatest, most prosperous and benevolent nation in the history of the world. It was the bourgeois society of the United States of America that saved the world from the scourge of German Imperialism, Japanese Imperialism, fascism, and the totalitarian communism of the Soviet Union. It is the bourgeois society of the United States of America that compelled then President Barack Obama to tour the world stating his regret by apologizing for everything that the United States of America stands for regarding world peace and the potential we represent for a better world. It is due to the”bourgeois society”of the United States that Barack Obama feels that it is necessary to transform America.
We were resisting bourgeois society’s [America’s] stifling constraints, Barack ObamaAfter graduating from Columbia University, Barack Obama moved to Chicago and began the final, most informative, stage of his Marxist preparation for his political career; training and working at the Saul Alinsky associated Gamaliel Foundation to organize the South Side of Chicago. At Gamaliel, where he finally became Director of the Developing Communities Project, Obama was trained by three Alinsky associates from Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation in the community organizing methods outlined in Rules for Radicals, a manual for political war. A picture on Obama’s presidential campaign website provided an interesting insight into his vision for his Presidency. The picture showed him teaching an Alinsky based, ACORN, community organizing workshop in front of a blackboard showing the topics he was teaching in that session, Power Analysis and Relationships Built on Self-Interest. After his work as an Alinsky community organizer, ACORN trainer, and attorney, early in his political career, Michelle Obama said, Barack is not a politician first and foremost. He’s a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change’ (the transformation of America). Obama responded, I take that observation as a compliment. His goal is to transform America.
With this summary, the Democrat transformation of America that preceded him and the ideology that informed the Presidency of Barack Obama, some insights into his statements and policy decisions are possible. The 1965 change in immigration policy which altered the religious, racial, and ethnic composition of the United States and the progressive domination of our system of public education enabled Obama’s 2006 speech statement,
Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation “ at least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
Although he purportedly intended to say,
Given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation….
By his statement, Whatever we once were, regardless of the place in either statement of the word just, President Obama acknowledged that in the United States, we once were just a Christian nation since he stated that Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation. Changes in immigration policy, Supreme Court Decisions, and public education have served to transform America. Many conservatives contend that President Obama always planned to link the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), immigration, and wealth redistribution, an important tenant of Marxism and socialist philosophy, on an American and global scale. President Obama said,
If someone is here illegally, they won’t be covered under this plan (Obamacare). That is a commitment I’m making. Even though I don’t believe we can ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken. If anything, this debate (whether illegal immigrants would be covered under Obamacare) underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform (giving Illegal immigrants citizenship) and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all (giving former illegal immigrants who could become citizens with comprehensive immigration reform voting rights and coverage under Obamacare, as Obama envisioned).
In my opinion, President Obama viewed Obamacare as a means of wealth redistribution which he would expand to global proportions as revealed by the linkage between illegal immigrants and Obamacare that he made in the above statement. The subsidies provided to low income Obamacare participants constitutes a substantial level of wealth redistribution, another way to transform Amercia.
One of the early advisers of the Obama Administration was Van Jones, a pre-Black Lives Matter, Marxist activist advocating against the adverse consequence of Eurocentrism and patriarchy on the black and all minority communities in the United States. Jones is also a wealth redistribution advocate. In an interview where wealth redistribution was discussed, Jones noted President Obama’s plan to bring about redistributive change, by stating, That sounds radical “ redistribution of wealth. But listen to our own president talking about the Constitution. Jones referenced the following statement by President Obama equating opinions of Supreme Court Justices with the Constitution which does not address wealth redistribution:
The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth. The tragedies of the civil rights movement was “ because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.
Clearly, President Obama understood that his plan to transform America through wealth redistribution could be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, conservatives were disappointed when the Supreme Court upheld many of the redistributive aspects of Obamacare even when the text of the Act did not support Obama Administration applications of the law.
The Paris Climate Accord and Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) were part of President Obama’s plan to transform America into a leader in global wealth redistribution. However, President Trump withdrew from both the Paris Climate Accord and the Trans Pacific Partnership because they are both methods of global wealth redistribution. A June 2017, National Public Radio article summarizing the provisions of the Paris Climate Accord stated, “To help developing countries switch from fossil fuels to greener sources of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change, the developed world will provide $100 billion a year” which the Accord identified as a floor,’ not a ceiling. The article did not state how much of the $100 billion a year the United States would pay, but our share was probably planned to be similar to our share of the annual United Nations budget considering the Obama Administration’s skill at international negotiations. The article also states that
limiting the rise in temperature to 2 degrees (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial revolution global temperatures by the end of the twenty first century) has been discussed as a global goal for several years now. That amount of warming will still have a substantial impact, scientists say, but will be less devastating than allowing temperatures to rise unchecked.
Under the Accord, that statement indicates that industrialized nations would pay at least $100 billion each year to under developed nations to achieve an indeterminate reduction in climate devastation; and the 2050 global temperature goal is a target the world hasn’t yet figured out how to meet. In addition, the article indicates that the Accord is totally voluntary, lacks verbal precision, and is filled with ambiguous phrases related to national commitments to the Accord such as,
Nations aren’t expected; voluntary pledge; not an immediate pledge; each target should reflect progress; this target date isn’t actually precise: the deal describes it as mid-century;’ greenhouse gases emitted would be balanced by removing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere carbon dioxide (balance) would be accomplished by growing forests, which absorb carbon dioxide (but the Accord fails to guarantee sufficient land to add the needed forests); many sections of the deal, of course, don’t nail down any numbers at all; nations around the world should strengthen their cooperation;’ all parties ‘should’ cooperate to enhance the capacity of developing country parties; and at least 55 nations ” between them accounting for at least 55 percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions ” are needed to formally approve the pact.
The globe’s worst polluters including China and India do not have to begin reducing their greenhouse gas emissions for a decade or more under the Accord.
Similarly, according to a May 2017, New York Times (NYT) article on-line, the Paris Climate Accord was intended to be non-binding with no penalties for falling short of declared targets. This article stated the United States would contribute $3 billion in aid to poorer countries by 2020. A related November 2014 NYT article indicated that in addition to the $3 billion from the United States at least 10 other industrialized countries pledged a total of $3 billion prior to final drafting of the Accord. The pledged $6 billion was considered a means to mobilize industrialized nations to begin their annual $100 billion contribution to help poor nations deal with climate change. None of these articles discussed the way the United States would finance our share of this massive global wealth redistribution scheme. Consequently, President Trump withdrew the United States from the Accord.
In a related discussion of climate change regulation of greenhouse gasses in January 2008, Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle:
Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost on to consumers.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, President Obama’s cap and trade plan, was rejected by the US Senate defeating President Obama’s plan. The plan failed due to the impact of the anticipated increases in the cost of electricity, other carbon based energy sources, jobs, and the economy as a whole. In August 2015, over the objection of Congress, President Obama signed an Executive Order establishing the 1,560 page, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation titled the Clean Power Plan which essentially established a carbon cap and trade plan similar to the one defeated by Congress in 2009. Obama’s 2008 prediction that electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket under his cap and trade plan was quite accurate. According to one source, the 2012, market-clearing price of natural gas was $16 per megawatt; and by 2015, the price ranged from $167 in the Mid-Atlantic region to $357 in parts of Ohio, an 8.5 to 22.3 fold cost increase in only three years. The impact of these cost increases was most severe in industrialized states, states heavily dependent of coal fired electric plants, coal mining regions, states with high relative concentrations of middle and lower class manufacturing workers, and lower population states, Trump country. During his first year in office, President Trump, with input from the head of the EPA, used his Executive Order authority to eliminate the adverse economic consequences of former President Obama’s Executive Ordered cap and trade Clean Power Plan without sacrificing air or water quality.
During a July 2008 Presidential election campaign speech in Colorado Springs, CO, Candidate Obama gave a speech which contained the following embedded statement,
We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
This statement was totally out of context and unrelated to the rest of the quotation from this segment of the speech; and its removal would have avoided both consternation and confusion regarding its meaning and intent. The security force statement was preceded by promises to expand AmeriCorps to provide a service vehicle to meet national goals connected to a common purpose, a call for people of all ages to serve, a call for veterans to find jobs and support for other vets and our military families, and a commitment to grow our Foreign Service and double the size of the Peace Corps. Similarly, the security force statement was followed by a promise to utilize technology to connect people to service, (and) expand USA Freedom Corps to create opportunities to volunteer. This portion of the speech ended with the statement, This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change’ from the bottom up. Again, the security force statement is totally irrelevant to the rest of the quotation since none of the organizations are designed to achieve national security objectives and their stated functions do not require a civilian national security force that is powerful strong ( and) well-funded. Of course, these organizations would have to be well-funded to accomplish their stated goals.
In my opinion, a FACTCHECK.org article by Brooks Jackson discussing this Obama civilian national security’ force quote is deceptive and resembles a discussion of the meaning of is rather than a reasoned contextual discussion the words Candidate Obama used in his civilian national security’ force statement and the surrounding text contained in the link presented above. The FACTCHECK article begins with the question, Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like civilian national security force? The article answers the question by stating, This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama’s call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service. The question and answer was prompted by a November 2008 Associated Press story by Ben Evans with the headline “Georgia Congressman Warns of Obama Dictatorship” that contained this embellished statement by Evans, Broun fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.’ The headline and statement is based on an interview of Georgia Representative Broun in which Broun stated, It may sound a bit crazy or off base, but the thing is, he’s (Obama’s) the one who proposed this national security force. That’s the thing Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did.
The militaristic Hitler and Soviet Union concerns raised by Representative Broun about this security force statement comes from the fact that the term security is used in the context of military activities in the first sentence; and security is a significant part of the phrase civilian national security’ force in the second sentence of the statement. The militant connotation of the two sentences considered together in the context of a proposed civilian national security force is unavoidable but ignored by Jackson’s answer to the question. In addition, Jackson’s answer fails to consider the implications and internal context of the security force statement as anything other than an amplifier of a contextually unrelated discussion of the Peace Corps, networking, and the Foreign Service. As a highly respected orator, it seems improbable that Obama’s security force statement was an inept attempt to emphasize the importance of his commitment to the Peace Corps, networking, AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, and the Foreign Service. Jackson also failed to consider the possibility that as an Alinsky trained community organizer, Obama might have deceptively hidden his stated intention for a civilian national ‘security’ force in plain sight and hearing and actually meant what he said and said what he meant, an Alinsky style army of empowered activists. Finally, the security force statement stuck out like a sore thumb, screaming to be noticed. Unfortunately, nobody, including Jackson noticed; but Representative Broun noticed.
Given questions surrounding candidate Obama’s security force statement and his work as an Alinsky style community organizer, additional questions seem relevant. During his Administration, several groups that are not adverse to mass political demonstrations that include violent masked black clad protesters often causing extensive damage to private and public property were tolerated by local governments, law enforcement, and the Obama Administration’s Justice Department. Violent protesters have also infiltrated some mass protests that were planned to be non-violent. Groups that plan and conduct violent protests and invade other public political demonstrations to riot and create havoc include, Anonymous, ANTIFA, members of Occupy Wall Street, and Black Panther voter suppression activists, among others. Some suggest that the Obama Administration was more tolerant of these groups than other administrations by its relative inaction to suppress their activities. The plan of many of these groups is to transform America.
Another question about the Obama Administration is the possibility that the Administration installed and promoted an excessive number of progressives to critical positions who could impede succeeding conservative administrations and attempt to preserve the Obama legacy. The latest questions revolve around the actions of high level executives in the IRS, Department of Justice, FBI, and the US Intelligence community. Such a plan would be consistent with strategies outlined in Rules for Radicals and candidate Obama’s 2008 promise that We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.
*Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model. David Horowitz. 2009. David Horowitz Freedom Center. Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-6562.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Christians unite. President Trump is committed to religious freedom and the sanctity of life. Consequently, Christians should unite and counter progressives and secularism. To Make America Great Again Biblical Christianity must unite and Take America Back to a culture based on our Judeo-Christian heritage and founding roots. In order to Take America Back, Christians, who believe that the Bible is God’s Word and an infallible guide to human interactions, must work together regardless of denominational allegiances and dogma. Biblical Christians should also understand that the religious freedom of both Protestants and Catholics is under assault; and when Christians unite and work together, God will be glorified. We should also understand that our Jewish friends, the root on which we are grafted (Romans 11:13-21) through the House and Lineage of David, also face assaults on their religious freedom. In my opinion, our national greatness is as grass that withers and dies without God as the true source of the strength of our nation. The words of an old hymn, “Onward, Christian Soldiers,” seem appropriate for a call for Judeo-Christian action.
Onward, Christian soldiers, Marching as to war, With the cross of Jesus Going on before! Christ, the royal master, Leads against the foe; Forward into battle, See his banners go!
Like a mighty army Moves the Church of God; Brothers, we are treading Where the saints of trod; We are not divided; All one body we, One in hope and doctrine, One in charity.
Onward, Christian soldiers, Marching as to war, With the cross of Jesus Going on before!
Christians unite. It is time to “Make America Great Again!”
Unfortunately, Biblical Christianity is decades, actually at least two centuries behind, in the battle to Take America Back. To March¦. against the foe of the progressive agenda, we must understand the progressive agenda. All of the links in this post provide some of the necessary insight. More insight is available at americascrossroad.com. In addition to their assault on Biblical Christianity, progressives already control educational curricula from preschool to PhD, domestic and foreign policy, and have been preparing our citizens for an eventual global government or at least global wealth redistribution. Before discussing strategy for the battle to Take America Back, an explanation of the critical components of the battle is needed.
From the Judeo-Christian standpoint, the battle to Take America Back is relatively simple. From a political perspective, the battle takes place on the left, right political continuum. In my opinion, the left side of this continuum is based on the essentially atheistic philosophy of Karl Marx. The difference, between the named components of the left, is merely the speed at which they seek to move society and governance to the system envisioned by Marx. The philosophy of the political right is based on constitutional capitalism, Judeo-Christian morality and ethics, individual incentive and responsibility, and freedom, including the free exercise of religion.
From the spiritual, Judeo-Christian perspective, our battle is being fought on two fronts. The first front, which is beyond our understanding, is a battle taking place in the heavenly realms between God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit and Satan and the forces of evil. This battle began when Lucifer, Satan, rebelled and tried to exalt himself to a position above God. In defeat, Satan was cast from the heavenly realms to earth where he now seeks to separate humanity from the love of God. The battle to Take America Back is political, cultural, and spiritual, the human component of the spiritual battle to Take America Back and share Christ with the world.
The goal of the social left is to eliminate all Judeo-Christian influences on every aspect of human behavior and interaction within each society. The nature, role, position, and responsibility of the individual is at the heart of the battle to Take America Back. On the primarily atheistic left, the individual should be free from the moral and ethical bonds of all religion. The only limits on human interactions, under this concept of individuality, are what the culture and society deems acceptable at any given time. Consequently, human interactions have few limits under this concept of individuality. Progressive judges believe that the United States and State Constitutions should also reflect current cultural mores and make judgments regarding the constitutionality of law in accordance with this belief regardless of the actual meaning of the text of the Constitutions or laws.
One of the strongest impacts of this concept of individuality relates to human sexuality. From this perspective, there should be no limits on sexual behavior in relation to gender, marital status, the age of the participants, or the species involved in sexual encounters. Given modern technology and current mores of behavior, individuals can even choose to be, or display, a different gender identity from their genetic gender reality. If there are no limits on human sexuality, then the logical conclusion is that there are no limits on the definition of marriage. Consequently, the social left has redefined marriage to include same-sex marriage. It is not unreasonable to presume that polygamous marriage and marriage involving minors will soon be acceptable as well. Other casualties, in the realm of human interactions resulting from this amoral attitude, include respect for the sanctity of human life at all stages, personal responsibility and accountability, truth, respect for the property of others, respect for the rights, freedom, and values of others, and respectful political and cultural discourse. Under this concept of the individual, each person is free to do almost anything they please; and everyone that an individual interacts with must comply with and support their expressions of individuality.
In contrast, the role and status of individuals from a political and economic standpoint in relation to the society or the collective stands and stark contrast to the freedom of individual behavior demanded by those on the left. Politically and economically, for the socialist system envisioned by progressives, to function properly, the individual must submit to the political and economic good of the society. A simplistic summary of the political and economic philosophy underpinning the left is that all people share equally in all the benefits of society regardless of their willingness or ability to contribute to the good of society. Marx summarized it stating, From each according to his ability to each according to his need, wealth will be distributed throughout the society. Therefore, according to progressive philosophy, the individual is behaviorally free but economically and politically worthless in comparison to the economic and political needs of society as a whole .
For Biblical Christians and all humanity, God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8 NIV). Unbelievably, each individual has infinite worth in the sight of God because of Christ’s sacrifice for us. We know that this sacrifice was for each individual when we read, For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16 NIV). Whoever is a singular pronoun. The fact that this verse says whoever rather than all y’all refers to each individual as the subject of God’s infinite love. Biblical Christians freely follow the moral and ethical codes for human behavior described in both the Old and New Testaments which are all-inclusive. Biblical Christians freely follow God’s word because we have eternal life through God’s love and sacrifice for us. Consequently, the behavioral freedom demanded by the atheistic left constitutes immoral and unethical behavior for Biblical Christians and Orthodox Jews; and participating in such behavior is also Biblically, morally, and ethically contrary to our beliefs. Abstaining from support of such behavior is consistent with religious freedom and our First Amendment right to the free exercise thereof (of religion). Finally, each Biblical Christian is personally responsible for their actions as an individual. We are responsible for our political, economic, moral, and ethical behavior. We are also individually responsible, according to our ability, to care for those in need around us regardless of the nature of their needs. This is a personal responsibility which should not be delegated to the state sense the actions of the state cannot be substituted for our individual responsibilities to act.
Although the economic and political status of the individual in relation to society as a whole is the basis for the disdain for Judeo-Christianity from the viewpoint of the left, the cultural and behavioral concept of individuality is the primary basis for progressive attacks on our Judeo-Christian heritage. These attacks center on the Judeo-Christian family consisting of one husband, one wife, and their children. The traditional family is the institution where Judeo-Christian morality and ethics are taught, personal responsibility and sound work ethics are taught, and the parents model these values for children. The concepts taught within the Judeo-Christian family are contradictory to the progressive message. Same-sex marriage is a powerful way of attacking and reducing the positive effect of the traditional family in relation to the concepts necessary for constitutional capitalism to succeed. Biblical Christian churches that support these values are subject to the same attacks by progressives. One phrase or word, characterizes the disdain of the left for our Judeo-Christian heritage, Judeo-Christophobia or simply Christophobia. Progressives used the courts in state after state to force same-sex marriage when the people of the states rejected it. Of course, acceptance of homosexuality was a necessary precursor to same-sex marriage. Progressives use terms related to bigotry, various forms of phobia, individual freedom, and civil rights analogies to foment their attacks against Judeo-Christian community regarding sexuality, same-sex marriage, and all Biblical morality. These terms are used to cast those of us who support Judeo-Christian values as evil. In reality, these attacks on the Biblical Christian family and church are attacks on the important role of the individual as a driving force for Constitutional capitalism, the system disdained by progressives and all Marxists.
The idea that each individual has infinite value in the sight of God in both Judaism and Christianity is incompatible with the progressive idea that the individual is worthless in comparison to the value of society as a whole. That is to say, the individual must economically and politically submit to the good of society for the philosophy of the left to be successful. These two concepts of individuality are diametrically opposed and incompatible. Consequently, for the philosophy of the left to work all vestiges Judeo-Christianity must be eliminated as influences on society. This is the true nature of the battle to Take America Back so we can Make America Great Again.
Armed with the above insights, Christians unite to counter progressives and secularism. There are a number of steps that we can take as we march against the foe, the progressive agenda, in the battle to Take America Back. At a minimum, every church and synagogue should work actively to register every member of their congregation that is not registered to vote and encourage every member to vote in every election. Data shows that the majority of the Judeo-Christian community is no more likely to vote than the general population. If we were able to increase our Presidential election participation from 50% to 75%, we would add 8,000,000 to 15,000,000 votes, or more, in presidential elections. In this situation, there would be no question regarding the winner of the popular vote. Conservative candidates supportive of Judeo-Christian values in state local elections would also be elected. As seen in 2016, election of candidates supportive of our Judeo-Christian values will also impact the composition of the Supreme Court of the United States. In the current situation, replacement of one progressive Justice with another Scalia would probably change the composition of the Court for 30 to 40 years.
Christians unite in order to end the educational dictatorship, and counter progressives and secularism that dominates public education. The Judeo-Christian community must find and elect candidates supportive of our values to local school boards. In addition, the Judeo-Christian community in each state, using the power of the purse through their legislatures and governorships, must unite and demand that our colleges and universities end their assault on constitutional capitalism, American exceptionalism, and our Judeo-Christian heritage. Finally, the Judeo-Christian community should encourage our members to stop financially supporting colleges and universities that do not support our values. The effort to change the direction of education in the United States is critical. Our children are exposed to progressive curricula from preschool to PhD level subject matter. Young voters in the last two or three presidential elections were educated by curricula that supported the anti-capitalist, anti-American, atheistic values of the progressive movement. If these voting trends continue, progressive presidential candidates will continue to win the popular vote while conservatives win in the Electoral College. It will become more difficult for conservatives to win the Presidency, and the current polarization will continue for the foreseeable future. If the progressive agenda is successful, current red states will become blue states, and the nation we love will be lost to progressive globalism.
Many, if not most, members of the Judeo-Christian community, especially evangelicals, will say that we are called by the Great Commission to lead people to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ not to a life of political activism. To parody President Trump in asking for the African American community vote, How has that worked for you? What has happened to our nation’s culture, education system, morality, and general attitude and discourse? However, my call to action, “Christians unite,” is not outside the directive of the Great Commission which follows:
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age (Matt 28:18-20 NIV).
Two questions regarding this discussion are relevant. First, where and how do we go and make disciples of all nations? Secondly, where and how do we teach them to obey everything I have commanded you? During the time of Jesus, the synagogue was the center of religious, political, and social life. Jesus taught in synagogues where He led people to faith in Him and to action. Paul taught debated before the leaders of his day throughout the known world. Our children spend at least half their waking hours in schools that teach them the progressive agenda. They are taught not to be disciples of Christ and not to obey everything that Christ commanded us. Our laws and our courts are becoming more and more amoral an irreligious. The Judeo-Christian community has stood silently and watched this cultural degradation. Consequently morality is evil, and immorality is lawful. Is our inaction consistent with the great commission?
Every aspect of our culture, education, entertainment, advertising, news of all venues, and music promotes the amoral, atheistic, anti-American, socialist propaganda of the progressive movement. All of these venues promote the progressive social, economic, and political agenda. The progressive concept of social amoral individualism permeates every aspect of culture and the mainstream media. Everyone is exposed to amoral behavior no matter where we are or what we do. We are in a very difficult, some would say impossible, position as we attempt to Take America Back. Two final activities are necessary, prayer and revival. There is no better call to action than this:
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land (2 Chron 7:14 NIV).
Obviously, the task is daunting; but we have this encouragement, I can do everything through Him Who gives me strength (Phil 4:13 NIV).
Now is the time. Christians unite to counter progressives and secularism.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
From their beginning in the early nineteenth century, European philosophers, political theorists, and educators sought to establish the left’s educational dictatorship. These academicians interchangeably referred to themselves as both socialists and communists. Modern synonyms for these terms have expanded to include liberals and progressives. These intellectuals understood the importance of education in their effort to hasten societal evolution toward the goal they envisioned. Marx and Engels were commissioned by the Communist League in London to draft a detailed theoretical and practical program of the party. The result was the 1848 publication of The Communist Manifesto.
In his section of The Communist Manifesto, with an introduction by Gareth Stedman Jones, 2008, titled Proletarians and Communists Marx wrote the following.
“But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
In the early 1920’s during Marxist Study Week in Frankfurt, Germany, Karl Korsch and Georg Lucs conducted seminars for leading Western European scholars. According to the author of The Frankfurt SchoolIts History, Theories, and Political Significance. 1994, the statement by Marx, You cannot transcend philosophy without realizing it, was central to the discussions of the early theoretical formulation of the left’s educational dictatorship. He summarized the discussions as follows:
It meant that intellectuals who were prepared to ally themselves to the proletariat (workers and laborers)were to have an important role to play. There could be no question ofcuring’ them of their intellectuality. Rather, it was necessary to transmit this intellectuality to the workers.
Later to a similar group, Lukacs stated,
As you now emerge from economic struggle and devote yourselves to culture, you are devoting yourselves to that part of the control of society which will produce the central idea for future society.
In his 1924 Inaugural Address for The Institute for Social Research, at Frankfurt University Carl Grnburg, said,
“And then,there are the optimists. They see, instead of a decaying form of culture, another, more highly developed one approaching. And for their part they consciously demand that what is outmoded should stand aside in favour of what is emerging, in order to bring it more speedily to maturity.
Many people are firmly scientifically convinced that the emerging order will be a socialist one, that we are in the midst of the transition from capitalism to socialism and are advancing towards the latter with gathering speed. I, too, subscribe to this view. I, too, am one of the supporters of Marxism.
I need not emphasize the fact that when I speak of Marxism here I do not mean it in a party-political sense, but in a purely scientific one, as a term for an economic system complete in itself, for a particular ideology.
From the early 1950’s through the early 1970’s, Herbert Marcuse taught, as a political theorist, at Columbia, Harvard, Brandeis from 1954 to 1965, and the University of California, San Diego. He supported the students of the anti-war movement in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s in the United States and around the world. During an anti-war symposium discussion period in Berlin, a student asked him this question,
What material and intellectual forces are required for radical change?
In his response summarized in The Frankfurt School, Marcuse admitted his helplessness, as follows:
In order for new demands to develop, the mechanisms that reproduced the old demands would first have to be abolished; while, on the other hand, in order to abolish those mechanisms, the demand for them to be abolished would first have to be created. The only solution he could envisage was aneducational dictatorship’.”
In the United States, the concept of the left’s educational dictatorship is the model for the rescue of education from the influence of the ruling class demanded by Marx in The Communist Manifesto. The left’s educational dictatorship is the means by which what is outmoded is being forced to stand aside in favour of what is emerging, in order to bring it more speedily to maturity in Grnburg’s words.
The left’s educational dictatorship teaches progressive curricula from Preschool to Ph.D. in our classrooms.
In the United States of America, the Marxists of the liberal progressive movement have accomplished their major goal for education. They have used their political power and academic supremacy to established the left’s educational dictatorship. Demands to abolish the old mechanisms have been created from preschool to Ph.D. level educational programs. The current generation of teachers is, for the most part, completely supportive of the liberal progressive agenda for the future of our country. Faculties,at alllevels are dominated by liberals and progressives. The publication process, including editorial boards for most liberal arts and social science journals, is also dominated by liberals and progressives. In many cases, conservatives need not submit manuscripts for publication under these circumstances. In the current culture of political correctness, university and secondary education students now demand that conservatives of all stripes are banned or restricted on their campuses. The reality of our Founders Judeo-Christian heritage has been scrubbed from both curricula and textbooks at every level. Virtually all references to God and the traditional Biblical family are prohibited and disparaged in our schools.
Since Marxism is “a body of rational norms” that has been largely assimilated into modern social sciences, our students are taught by curricula determined byleft’s educational dictatorship. The applicable principles of Marxist philosophy are now taught in each liberal arts and social science discipline. With these educational programs, each new generation of citizens becomes more tolerant of and often in favor of a more socialist society in the United States.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Progressives oppose Christianity since Marxist intellectuals have always understood the necessity of reducing or eliminating the influence of Biblical Christianity on society. This reduction is necessary to hasten societal evolution toward the goal they envisioned. In the first half of the nineteenth century, European Marxist philosophers and political theorists referred to themselves as both socialists and communists. These and the modern terms, liberals and progressives are interchangeable. Marx and Engels were commissioned by the Communist League in London to draft a detailed theoretical and practical program of the party. The result was the 1848 publication of The Communist Manifesto.
Progressives oppose Christianity since role and values of the individual is antithetical in the two ideologies.
In The Communist Manifesto with an introduction by Gareth Stedman Jones, 2002, Marx and Engels indicated that pragmatic means of hastening this evolution would be required in more advanced industrialized, capitalistic countries. Any belief system or institution that values the individual is inconsistent with the ideology of the Marxist left, progressives. Hence, progressives oppose Christianity, especially Biblical Christianity. Our nation’s Founders had a strong Judeo-Christian heritage. This heritage valued Biblical Christian churches and families.
The tone and rhetoric of the discussion and debates between the proponents of any form of Marxism and the Founders’ Judeo-Christian vision is intense. Marxist disdain for all that is Judeo-Christian is really quite simple. The implications of one word, individualism, explain this disdain. The role, value, and relationship of the individual to the society or group as a whole are direct, antithetical opposites in Marxist philosophy and the Founders’ Judeo-Christian values, Biblical Christianity, conservative Jewish culture, and conservatism. For any form of Marxism to succeed, the individual must submit to the good of society. For Marxists, the individual has no value compared to the value of the society. Individuals are worthless.
In Biblical Christianity, the individual has infinite value because
God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still Sinners, Christ (God’s only Son) died for us (each individual) (Romans 5:8 NIV).
The value of the individual is magnified by the fact that
The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs “ heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory (Romans 8:16-17 NIV).
As joint heirs with God’s only Son, Jesus Christ, each Christian individual has infinite value in the sight of the God. This component of Christianity, the value of each individual, is one of the primary reasons that progressives oppose Christianity.
In his 2002 introduction to The Communist Manifesto, Gareth Stedman Jones discussed Marxist scholars concerns about the relationship between Christianity and the individual. According to Ludwig Feuerbach,
Christianity alienated man’s communal character as a species into individual relationships with an external being resulting in the rise of individualism.
Consequently, according to Feuerbach, the essence of Man is contained only in community, in the unity of Man with Man. In the relationship between I and Thou, Christ had become Thou. Religion was misdirected. The infinite was not an external God, but Man. Once Man was made aware of his infinite nature through philosophy and reason, individual limitations would be eliminated. Max Stirner sought to eliminate all vestiges of religion especially ethics, morality, and the Protestant God from communist philosophy. Engels observed that,
The Christian world order cannot be taken any further than this.
He considered the abstract subjectivity of individualism to be a problem of the Christian-Germanic view of the world and the Christian state. Accordingly,
the free and spontaneous association of men would lead to an ever certain victory over the unreason of the individual.
In his doctorate, Marx expressed his atheism and belief that philosophy is the only true god and that the gods of religion were irrelevant by stating that
all heavenly and earthly gods who do not acknowledge human self-consciousness as the highest divinity are false.
Since God was the creation of Man, Christianity was the symptom of the problem, egoism, individualism, and private property. According to Gareth Stedman Jones, this is a good explanation for the reasons that progressives oppose Christianity.
THE BIBLICAL CHURCH
The New Testament describes the Biblical Christian church and family as the only Holy institutions established by God to raise and train each individual Christian and share Christ with the world. In these institutions, church leaders and parents teach children and new Christians Biblical truths, morality, and the importance of Christian service and ministries. These leaders also model Christian living for children and new Christians. Most importantly these institutions teach and share this simple truth with the world,
God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whver believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16).
Since each person who hears this truth must accept Christ’s free gift of eternal life individually, each person on earth is individually valued and loved by God.
In his section of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists Marx wrote the following regarding religion, especially Christianity:
Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.
In the 1983 publication, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, the editors discuss a treatise on historical materialism by Nikolai Bukharin, which indicated that
religion (especially Christianity) must be opposed actively since it would take too long for it to die out of its own accord.
Since the Biblical Christian church works along side traditional Christian families to raise children into strong self-reliant individuals, animosity toward the Biblical church is part of the reason that progressives oppose Christianity.
THE BIBLICAL FAMILY
Biblical Christian families are the institution where parents model their Judeo-Christian heritage and values for the next generation. These values include our moral codes and the worthiness of each individual in the sight of God. This model for the family is an anathema to Marxist. The significance and influence of the Biblical family in society must be drastically reduced or eliminated for their vision for society to succeed. Attacks on the traditional Judeo-Christian Biblical family and marriage are based firmly on the writing of Marx. In his section of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists Marx wrote the following.
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois (ruling class, land owners, and capitalists) family based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.
In his 1994 publication, The Frankfurt School Its History, Theories, and Political Significance, Rolf Wiggershaus chronicled the work of one of the more significant groups of western progressive philosophers. He summarized, Robert Briffault’s, 1927 work on the family, The Mothers: A Study of the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions, by observing that paternal families were a product of economic systems where property inheritance by individuals was important to society. Briffault’s vision for the future traditional family follows:
¦The expectation that the decay of the patriarchal family as a result of the serious crisis of the individualistic, competitive economy would increase, and that a society no longer characterized by competitiveness would be able finally to release social emotions which went beyond the narrow and distorting circle of family.
Michele Barrett observed that Engels’ view of the family still dominates Marxist thought on the family. Engels viewed the Bourgeois family as an institution of male dominance in which the wife simply provided heirs for legal transmission of property to succeeding generations in exchange for sustenance. Engels considered the relationship a form of prostitution.
The Marxist definition of family, according to Barrett, is simply kinship arrangements or the organization of a household.
This view is consistent with the current demands of the LGBTQ+ agenda. The role of the Biblical Christian family in relation to raising strong individuals is a significant reason that progressives oppose Christianity.
Just as Marx demonstrated his disdain for God and religion, as mere pawns of capitalists, he demonstrated his disdain for marriage and the family. Members of the progressive liberal movement in the United States often express similar sentiments. The attacks on Biblical Christianity and the multi-millennial Judeo-Christian church and family are consistent with the Marxist goal of elimination of all vestiges of our Judeo-Christian heritage as a significant influence on our society. Consequently, progressives oppose Christianity including the Christian Church and the traditional Christian family. Progressive disdain for Christianity is greatest for Biblical Christians who adhere to Biblical morality and ethics as essential to their faith.
For modern Marxists, they call themselves socialists, progressives, liberals, and Democrats to mask their philosophical roots, all vestiges of Biblical Christianity must be rendered socially impotent for their vision for the future of the United States of America to be fully implemented. Consequently, progressives oppose Christianity as a matter of strategic necessity.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
In order to Take America Back, Christians, who believe that the Bible is God’s Word and an infallible guide to human interactions, must work together regardless of denominational allegiances and dogma. Biblical Christians should also understand that the religious freedom of both Protestants and Catholics is under assault; and when Christians unite and work together, God will be glorified. We should also understand that our Jewish friends, the root on which we are grafted (Romans 11:13-21) through the House and Lineage of David, also face assaults on their religious freedom. In my opinion, our national greatness is as grass that withers and dies without God as the true source of the strength of our nation. The words of an old hymn, “Onward, Christian Soldiers,” seem appropriate for a call for Judeo-Christian action.
