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.
The idea of global free trade or that the global market place is an open free market place is a damn lie. This damnation is spread by the World Trade Organization, progressives, many of whom are closet capitalists, globalists, international conglomerate capitalists, so called free-traders, conservatives, RINO’s, business pundits, and most intellectual elites. The lie comes from deep in the elitist Washington, DC, globalist swamp.
There are at least 6 reasons that the idea of global free trade is a damn lie!
Global free trade does not exist when 1) countries refuse to allow any category of products made in the United States (US) into their country, and we allow the same category into our country; 2) countries impose high tariffs on any category of products imported into their country, and we impose tariffs that are a fraction of those imposed by so-called œtrading partners; 3) other countries subsidize production of categories of products, and we do not subsidize production of the same category of products; 4) other countries do not impose costly environmental, health, and safety regulations on energy and production facilities that are required in the US; 5) other countries tolerate theft of intellectual property for new or improved products from US businesses without paying for use of the intellectual property or imposition of penalties when these products enter US markets; and 6) other countries manipulate international money markets for their benefit. If the so called global free trade experts were honest, they could add to my list of real global free trade impediments. Whether or not the announced Trump Administration tariffs will be good for our economy and labor force in general, the argument that tariffs violate free market principles is void because global free trade does not exit. The argument is based on a lie. No true global free trade market exists.
The result of globalism, as now practiced, is global wealth redistribution. The $800 billion US trade deficit is global wealth redistribution. Virtually all of the so-called œFree Trade agreements involving the US constitute wealth redistribution since they result in trade deficits with the other countries involved. The reality is that the redistribution has cost the US labor force jobs, lost wages, and lowered benefits which were transferred to labor forces in developing countries.
In my opinion, most progressive policy initiatives are based on Marxist philosophy, especially wealth redistribution. Similarly, capitalists seek to expand markets and increase their profitability which requires decreasing costs and opening of new markets in developing countries or increasing income, especially disposable income, in new and existing markets resulting in increased customer purchasing power. Although the ultimate goal, increasing consumer or personal incomes and buying power, is the same for both progressives and capitalists, the method of accomplishing the goal is drastically different. Interestingly, globalism often unites progressives and capitalists when nationalism, protectionism, and tariffs are the subject of debate and discussions.
Unfortunately, US laborers have borne the brunt of the adverse effects of globalism, lost jobs lost opportunities, stagnant wages, and regional economic decline. Through factory relocations to the developing world, capitalists achieve their goal of reducing capital improvement and labor costs, and increased factory productivity. Progressive globalists achieve their goal of global wealth redistribution when new factory wages increase the standard of living, opportunity, and economic development in the regions where new facilities are opened.
Global free trade is a globalist myth. Until a global free market actually exists, the experts should stop insisting that tariffs will impede free trade. Global free trade does not exist. The œexperts should simply tell us that tariffs will increase costs and prices and are the same as taxes. However, if the threat of tariffs, force our so-called trading partners to open markets, reduce their own tariffs, end their subsidies, clean up their own environment, end intellectual property theft, and stop currency manipulation, then tariffs could start progress toward an unfettered global free trade where all the people of the world could move toward greater prosperity.
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.
Proposed and existing tariffs will affect global markets. Announced tariffs on steel, aluminum, washing machine, and solar panel imports into United States (US) markets are currently a major economic issue in the news nationally and globally related to global markets. The Trump Administration commitment to renegotiate international trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Paris Climate Accord, and trade sanctions related to efforts to end the Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs further complicate discussions about tariffs and global markets. Global markets also complicate projections of the impacts of tariffs on the global and US economy and the potential for retaliatory tariffs or other market reactions by other nations. Trade wars are the fear of tariff opponents.
Tariffs, global markets, and trade agreements affect and threaten manufacturing capacity in the US.
The Trump Administration claims that the US is in danger of losing adequate steel and aluminum capacity to manufacture military equipment during a time of war. The purpose of proposed tariffs is to correct these critical steel and aluminum production capacity issues as a matter of national security. Although US steel and aluminum imports from China are below 10%, the fact that China often floods the world market with these products drives the international price down. Flooding US markets with Chinese steel or aluminum in this situation, often through other countries, makes it even more difficult for US firms to compete in global markets. Since these prices are determined by global markets, China does not have to flood US markets with steel and aluminum to force prices too low for US companies to be competitive. The issue is whether or not tariffs could be maintained long enough to rebuild US steel and aluminum and whether or not global retaliation and potential trade wars would negate the effect of the tariffs.
Causes for the significant decline of US manufacturing in general as well as our steel and aluminum industries are complicated by global markets. Our previous federal tax codes, environmental, health, safety, labor, and zoning regulations add to the costs of products manufactured in the US. Environmental impact assessments, zoning issues, and permitting often take years to complete for large projects adding significant costs and delays for new facilities or expansions. These extra costs, which many of our competitors in do not incur, adversely influence US product competitiveness in global markets. In addition, any construction or natural resource extraction project in the US that is opposed by a significant part of the population can be delayed by demonstrations due to the right of the people peacefully to assemble. Legal actions in our state and federal courts often delay or halt these type projects which can reduce capacity, increase costs, and decrease our competitiveness in global markets.
In the US, we value clean air and water and the health, safety, and well-being of our labor force. Consequently, the extra costs that we require our manufacturers to incur, and the resultant competitive disadvantage these costs bring, is also part of the calculation that corporations make to locate manufacturing facilities in the US or to locate or relocate facilities to less restrictive countries. For the labor force in Western Europe, North America, and especially the US, progressives and the labor movement have achieved comparatively high wages and benefits compared to other parts of the world. The success of progressives in the environmental and labor movements has resulted in contradictory outcomes related to national and global aspirations which directly influence global corporate capital expenditure decisions related to global markets.
The result is a globalism contradiction for the left, the labor movement, and US capitalists. One of primary goals of progressives on the left is wealth redistribution or income equality on both the national and global scale. In the US, the labor movement has gained wages, benefits, and safe healthy work environments that are the envy of much of the world. Unfortunately, progressive and labor successes in the US are significant reasons for the decline of US manufacturing and competiveness in global markets. The total costs of expenses related to labor, the additional costs related to the anti-capitalist progressive environmental agenda, and progressive taxation resulted in factory closures in the US as corporations relocated factories and jobs to developing countries. The factories built in developing countries are new state-of-the-art facilities built at lower costs and greater worker productivity capacity than the outdated US factories that were closed or remain in the US. The compensation for laborers in the developing countries raises the standard of living for them that multiply as it spreads in local communities. Labor costs in the developing world are usually far lower than similar costs in the US but often much higher than wages before new factories open. In the US, factory closures increase the size of the labor pool for a declining number of manufacturing jobs in old factories now competing with state-of-the-art developing country facilities. Under these circumstances, the US manufacturing labor force is faced with declining number of jobs in old productively disadvantaged factories which can result in lower or stagnant wages and benefits. This is the globalism contradiction for the left. Consequently, in global markets, wealth is being redistributed, but the redistribution is from the labor force in the western industrialized nations to the labor force in the developing nations of the world.
The globalism contradiction for US capitalists and capitalists in the rest of the industrialized west is closely related to the success of progressives and the labor movement and the resultant cost of manufacturing land, labor, and capital improvements. Since the purpose of international manufacturing conglomerates is to maximize corporate profit, cost reduction is an essential responsibility of corporate executives and board members. This necessity stands in direct contradiction to the goals of nationalism, patriotism, and any since of obligation to the labor force, communities, states, and the United States of America, all of which, supported US corporations as they gained economic dominance in global markets. In my opinion, corporations founded in the United States, should give significant consideration to the fact that they would not be in their current global economic situation without the United States of America. These corporations have a debt to pay to We the People who supported their rise to positions of global economic power. This obligation is at the heart of the globalism contradiction for US capitalists.
The tariff and trade negotiation package announced by the Trump Administration is a complicated and aggressive plan to reinvigorate the US steel and aluminum industries and our manufacturing in general in global markets. During a time of war, the United States must be able to support its military with the best equipment available and supply the needs of the population supporting any war effort. This requires a complete manufacturing base. This is one of the primary objectives of the Trump Administration’s goal to Make America Great Again.
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.
With their national poll approval ratings at or below 20%, it is not surprising that 80% of the population hears lies and damn lies when politicians and journalists open their mouths to speak or write. A discussion of the concepts of truth and lies may be an appropriate place to start this discussion. In The Ten Commandments we read this, You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor (EX 20:16, NIV), or do not lie. The Merriam Webster On-Line Dictionary definition of lie is to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive. Conversely the same dictionary defines truth as, the body of real things, events, and facts, actuality, the state of being the case, fact. For We the People, the Deplorable Class, these concepts appear to be quite clear.
Lies of commission and omission advance the progressive cultural narrative to influence our social, political, and economic system.
ACADEMIC LIES
The 1983 Harvard University Press publication, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought essay on truth sheds a very different light on truth. Truth is described as the practical expression of a subject totality achieved in the realized identity of subject and object in history and this-worldly manifestations of class-related needs and interests. In the essay defining historiography, the study of history as a discipline, the definition of truth is refined, in the context of history, as an ideal chosen from an infinite number of similar, potential ideals determined by history and finally realized under communism once a consensus regarding the new truth of history is achieved. Joseph Stalin said, America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within. As a result, obscure and often discredited depictions of history are presented as historical facts to incrementally alter the existing historical paradigm and promote the progressive, Marxist agenda, academic lies. For example, the left ruthlessly uses this process to discredit the notion that our nation and Constitution are based on a Judeo-Christian society, principles, and laws.
With these thoughts regarding truth and history in mind and the current atmosphere on our college campuses and all levels of academia, it may be well for readers to consider the roll of the left’s educational dictatorship in today’s society to accomplish Stalin’s Marxist, progressive plan for America. Consequently, it is relatively simple to view the Constitution as a living, evolving document rather than a constant, unchanging basis for the rule of Law. The change, in jurisprudence from the preeminence of original intent to case law where precedent and the opinion of judges prevails and the Constitution became a living document, began in the middle of the nineteenth century at the Harvard Law School, the start of the left’s educational dictatorship. For the left, social truth is relative and changes with time and the current societal situation; and a lie is a contradiction of the current Marxist, progressive, social paradigm.
CLIMATIC LIES
The environmental movement in general, and the notion that climate change or global warming is primarily associated with industrialization, pollution, and carbon-based energy, is a movement in which academic, political, and journalistic lies and collusion regarding a narrative is obvious. It is interesting that the climate change narrative has turned 180° in the last half-century. In the 1970s the climate change narrative was the coming Ice Age. Today’s narrative is that man caused global warming will destroy the earth and all its inhabitants within 100 to 200 years at the most. There is no interest in the academic, political, or journalistic communities to explore or explain the cause of this narrative change in such a short period of time. That is a question we the deplorables need not ask; and a discussion of the narrative change doesn’t fit the current narrative. The reality is that both narratives placed the cause as industrialization, pollution, and our dependence on carbon-based energy.
This question regarding geological evidence of climate change is rarely considered. How is it possible, in the absence of human activity and industrialization, that the earth has gone through multiple ice ages and subsequent periods of global warming ending each ice age? Some geologist have attributed the cooling cycles to impacts of huge meteorites or asteroids which filled atmosphere with impact debris causing the cooling and the subsequent Ice Ages. Natural atmospheric cleansing resulted in rising temperatures over time ending each Ice Age. This seems to be a logical theory, but here is an interesting question. If such impacts are the cause of the global cooling and ice ages with subsequent atmospheric cleansing resulting in slow steady global warming and the end of the ice ages, does that mean that the earth is too close to the sun? Are such asteroid impacts the only phenomenon that has prevented temperature increases too great to sustain life on earth? Without these hypothesized asteroid impacts, would earth be too hot for life and more like mars? These unasked questions are interesting to a young geezer. To me the real scientific question that should be asked is, if carbon dioxide pollution from carbon based energy sources is the cause of climate change, why did earth experience extreme cyclic ice ages and subsequent global warming before the industrial age? Of course, such questions do not fit the current narrative explaining climate change; nor do they warrant real scientific inquiry according to the narrative.
The majority of academics, journalists, and politicians claim that man caused climate change, currently considered global warming, is settled science. This claim is not without controversy. John Coleman, a founder of the Weather Channel has said that man-made climate change is a hoax and climate change is not happening. He declared there is no consensus in science. Science isn’t a vote, science is about facts. Coleman is skeptical about claims that 97 percent of climate scientists are in agreement on the issue noting,
They don’t have any choice. If you’re going to get the money, you’ve got to support their position. Therefore 97 percent of the scientific reports published support global warming. Why? Because those are the ones the government pays for and that’s where the money is.
Current Weather Channel management does not agree with Coleman. My question is, Who currently pays Weather Channel bills?
Not all scientists and environmental economists agree that costs of climate change mitigation will significantly alter climate change.
Another group of skeptics regarding man caused global warming is Patrick Michaels editor of CLIMATE COUP: GLOBAL WARMING’S INVASION OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND OUR LIVES along with seven other contributing climate scientists and economists. In the introduction to this publication, Michael’s demonstrates how academicians and climate scientists select data to support the current global warming paradigm. While discussing California’s K-12 climate change curriculum guide, he writes,
…The 50 “ year trend in California temperatures is 0.43 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, or 4.3 degrees per century¦.
But starting in 1960 is highly misleading¦. Records began in 1895. Using the whole record, the trend is only 0.08 degrees. California’s alarmist guide over estimates the over “ all trend by over 500%. Further, it is rather apparent, even in the 50 year sample, that the warming takes place largely between 1960 and 1980, with no net change in the succeeding 30 years.
This selective use of data to support the climate change narrative or paradigm is an academic lie of commission, just another damn global warming lie.
Similarly, Chapter 3 of this publication, Bias in the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary and Personal Account, reiterates Coleman’s claim regarding climate change publications. The author, Ross McKitrick, opens the chapter with the following statement:
Unfortunately, Climategate e-mails revealed that indeed there has been systematic pressure on journal editors to reject manuscripts not toeing the line about disastrous climate change. Even more unfortunate, my experience and that of others are that the post-Climategate environment has made this situation worse, not better¦.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), by claiming to be the consensus of scientists,’ is actually defining a paradigm in the sense of the late historian of science Thomas Kuhn. To Kuhn, paradigms are overarching logical structures, and the work of normal science,’ is the care and feeding of paradigms with data and research findings that confirmed that indeed the paradigm is a correct representation of scientific reality.
This is the story of those difficulties with the IPCC and with the keepers of the paradigm¦.
Unfortunately, policymakers and the political class cannot see what is happening because the absence of these publications gives the appearance of unanimity in science that is not there.
Throughout this 28 page chapter, McKitrick discusses the issues raised in his introduction. In conclusion he states,
The paper I have discussed makes the case that the IPCC used false evidence to conceal an important problem with the surface temperature data on which most of its conclusions rest¦.
In the aftermath of Climategate, a lot of scientists working on global warming-related topics are upset that their field has apparently lost credibility with the public¦. I would like to suggest that the climate science community consider instead whether the public might actually have a point¦.
The policy community has aggressively intervened in climate science because of all the breaches of normal scientific procedures¦.. It appears to be a profession-wide decision that, due to the conjectured threat of global warming, the ethic of scientific objectivity has had an asterisk added to it: there is now the additional condition that objectivity cannot compromise the imperative of supporting one particular point of view.
This strategy is backfiring badly: rather than creating the appearance of genuine scientific progress, the situation appears more like a chokehold of indoctrination and intent intellectual corruption. I do not know what the solution is, since I have yet to see a case in which an institution or segment of society, having once been contaminated or knocked off balance by the global warning issue, is subsequently able to right itself. But perhaps, as time progresses, climate science will find a way to do so. Now that would be progress.
Although the authors concede that some warming is occurring, CLIMATE COUP goes on to challenge most of the dire claims related to the global warming paradigm, the extent of man’s contribution to climate change, and the relationship between the costs and benefits of most of the proposed solutions to the problem.
Evaluation of the Paris Climate Accord shows that it appears to be more of a wealth redistribution plan exempting major polluters like China and India and extracting huge costs on the developed world especially the United States of America. This is especially true for carbon credit payment plans where individuals, businesses, and nations pay penalties or taxes for excessive carbon energy usage which is transferred to developing nations. When the world’s most significant carbon polluters are excluded, the actual or scientifically perceived, reduction in temperature creases is relatively insignificant in comparison to the exorbitant costs. Touted benefits appear to be nothing more than political, journalistic, and academic lies, damn lies all. Consequently, the fact that President Trump withdrew from the accord will benefit the United States far more than the accord would benefit the earth with its insignificant impact on changes in the rate of purported global warming.
POLITICAL LIES
In today’s highly partisan environment, with slim legislative majorities and complex legislation often pairing liberal with conservative elements forcing lesser of evils considerations, principled votes can be difficult or impossible. The inevitable result of this type of legislation is political lies since it often hides issues that cannot pass on their merits within other critical legislation such as funding for Planned Parenthood within a an unrelated appropriation bill. The only way to end this political legislative gerrymandering is to require that all legislation relates to a single issue that stands or fails on the merits of the issue. The current legislative process is deceitful and makes political lies inevitable.
A related legislative issue is the Senate rule requiring 60 votes to pass non-budgetary legislation and the resultant filibuster. When the majority party does not have 60 Senatorial votes, the filibuster often forces Senators into defacto lies because they cannot fulfill campaign promises. The situation causes We the People to distrust politicians and the political process rendering election of Senators a somewhat thankless process. Alexander Hamilton observed that the filibuster is not democratic. He discussed what could be described as the tyranny of the minority where the minority overrules the majority. This is inconsistent with the republican form of government and democratic principles where the majority rules. Hamilton also discussed the remote possibility that unscrupulous campaign financiers would only need to come up with money to influence 40 equally unscrupulous Senators rather than 49 such Senators to alter the result of a vote on an issue. Withholding funds would be a more likely and less obvious strategy. This 60 vote super-majority rule often turns hope in the power of our Republic into a damn political lie. This is unfortunate since the origin of the filibuster rule was a simple misunderstanding not part of the Founder’s plan for the Senate.
We the People often feel that politicians simply say what they think their constituents want to hear during campaigns. Once they get into office, politicians seem to vote as the money tells them to vote, We the People be damned. Unfortunately, when politicians do stand on principles and vote based on campaign promises, they are often ridiculed, derided, and ostracized for the purpose coercing a change in their vote which would turn campaign promises into lies. Some unattributed examples will suffice; we really care about the people of the United States (but if bipartisan legislation will reduce our political power we will not participate in any such legislation), the IRS will never be used as a weapon against political opponents, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your healthcare insurance plan you can keep your plan, Under the ACA you will save an average of $2,500 a year, a cut in a government program occurs when the program increase occurs at a lower percentage than the rate of increase in the previous year or a lower than expected increase in a government program is a cut to the program (current Medicaid discussions for example), if you elect a Republican Legislature and President we will repeal and replace Obamacare, If you elect GOP Representatives, Senators, and President we will end illegal immigration and pass immigration reform, If you elect us we will reform Medicare and Social Security and insure that these programs will be available for all future generations, or elect us and we will lower your income taxes and reform the tax code. Of this list of major “lies,” Republicans did reform the tax codes and lower taxes. We the People could add pages to this short list of damn political lies. Liars must be replaced at every level of our political system.
HEALTHCARE LIES
The current Obamacare, healthcare insurance, repeal and replace debate is a discussion where journalistic and political liars collude. Collusion occurred during the debates for and passage of Obamacare. The first question regarding the current debate is the actual portion of the economy involved in the healthcare industry and the individual healthcare insurance market, Obamacare. The claim is that healthcare occupies one sixth of the US economy. Politicians claim and journalist report that the debate is critical because of this large proportion of our economy. Some questions are appropriate. Is healthcare insurance included in the healthcare share of the economy? If not, is the total healthcare contribution to our economy closer to 20% or more? Additionally, the combination of those currently involved in Obamacare and the uninsured is approximately 20% of the total healthcare insurance market. This is also known as the individual healthcare insurance market. Between 50 and 55% of healthcare insurance is provided by employers. Approximately 25% of the healthcare market is provided by VA healthcare, Medicare, and Medicaid. If the above proportions are generally accurate, then the debate regarding repealing and replacing or keeping Obamacare actually involves only 20% of the healthcare portion of the economy, or 3.3-4% not 16.6-20%, of the overall economy. Does this conflation of information, a gross overstatement or exaggeration, of the contribution of the individual healthcare insurance market to the overall economy constitute political and journalistic lies?
Terminology for the funds used to expand the individual healthcare Insurance market to able bodied low income workers through Medicaid using Obamacare is another area where politicians and journalists collude to at least misinform the people of the United States. In my opinion, Obamacare payments to supplement premiums, deductibles, and co-pays for this group constitute Marxist or socialist wealth redistribution from those tax payers with the ability to pay more to those having a greater need for healthcare insurance. In the words of Marx, From each according to his ability to each according to his need, wealth is redistributed by this plan. Depending on their political philosophy, politicians and journalists, use a variety of terms to describe this wealth redistribution. The terms include subsidies, entitlements, corporate welfare, and cost or premium reductions. The term wealth redistribution is not used nor is the fact that wealthier tax payers are financing the Medicaid expansion program ever discussed openly. These damn lies are lies of omission.
Politicians claim and journalists report that the individual market will be a competitive free market controlled by patients providing close patient doctor relationships and treatment choices. How can a market that involves at most 20% of healthcare be a competitive free market when 65-75% of the healthcare market is controlled by Medicare and employer provided healthcare insurance with contracts covering prices and availability? With these thoughts in mind, no one should be surprised that the promises of Obamacare turned into political and journalistic lies. Will the promises of any replacement for Obamacare, or improvements, in the individual healthcare insurance market also turn into political lies? Under the current paradigm, a real patient controlled, free market individual healthcare insurance market providing meaningful doctor-patient relationships, lower costs, and real choice is highly unlikely. Perhaps, it is time to consider an alternative.
JOURNALISTIC LIES
Journalistic lies are as complex as political lies. They are lies of commission and lies of omission. For this discussion, journalistic lies of commission are simply falsehoods intentionally reported as facts or unsubstantiated information and speculation based on anonymous, unverified sources. Lies of omission are simply the failure to report on legitimate factual stories that do not support the current news or social narrative. Both types of lies are developed to support the news narrative that the elites of journalism and the culture determine necessary to mold the opinion of the populace. Both types of lies undermine public trust in journalism.
It is a well-established fact that the vast majority of American journalists refer to themselves as liberal or progressive. These two labels along with communist, socialist, and Democrat are synonyms for Marxist. The difference between these terms is merely the speed and manner in which Marxist philosophy is implemented as the basis for governance. Many conservatives think that the primary purpose of news narratives is to provide information that supports, promotes, and insures that the central concept or ideal of progressive narratives are internalized by the majority of the population over time, social propaganda and indoctrination. Narratives being promoted by the progressive elites of our education system, pop culture, journalism, and progressive politicians, Democrats, are the previously described mission statement of Stalin for America, America will collapse from within¦ if we can undermine¦ its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. When Stalin referred to morality and spiritual life, he was referring to our Judeo-Christian heritage. Adding individualism and capitalism to the list of characteristics essential for American exceptionalism provides a fairly complete list of personal qualities and institutions that Marxism must undermine to ensure the internal collapse of America and usher in governance based on Marxist philosophy, socialism. It is these five areas of American culture, patriotism, morality, spirituality or Christianity, capitalism, and economic entrepreneurial individualism, that the progressive journalism narrative seeks to undermine.
Advancing the progressive social agenda starts in academia primarily in the social sciences. Regardless of the specifics, the narrative and agenda is almost always aimed at undermining our Judeo-Christian heritage, American morality and spiritual life. As soon as academia establishes a strong narrative, journalists join the fray. If politicians are unable to enact laws supporting the agenda, progressives take issues to the federal courts. Consequently, academia, journalist, and politicians collude to accomplish the progressive social agenda. This assault on American morality and spiritual life began with school prayer. The next phase was abortion rights which were followed by gay-rights and the battle for same-sex marriage. Next, progressives began their battle for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights. The final battle in this area could be totally open bisexual polygamy. Each progressive agenda cause would be worthy of extensive discussion. Suffice it to say that this has been a concerted effort to undermine the America of our Founders and the Judeo-Christian principles that made America the greatest nation in history.
Academicians, scientists, politicians, and journalist are all embroiled in a contest for the future of the United States of America based on the difference between lies, damn lies, and truth. Often the difference between lies and truth is in the eyes of the beholder and related to the narrative and motivation of the protagonists. In my opinion, the progressive narrative is that American patriotism, morality, and spiritual life must be undermined to insure that their vision for America will be realized. On the other hand, We the People in the Deplorable Class are diametrically opposed to the progressive narrative and agenda. We believe in the Founder’s vision for the United States of America. We believe in American exceptionalism, the critical impact of our Judeo-Christian heritage, the values espoused in Scripture, and the system of Constitutional capitalism that has evolved in America from colonial times to the present.
We the People in the Deplorable Class know that these values will help Make America Great Again.
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.
Capitalism’s globalism contradiction centers on cost savings in emerging markets.
Capitalism’s globalism contradiction centers on Executive’s and Board of Director’s obligation to maximize profits and their obligation to their employees, their communities, and the nations of their origin. Failure to consider the implications of this contradiction provides the left with a powerful criticism against capitalism. In the United States, this contradiction is exacerbated by our high labor costs and benefits, safety regulations, environmental regulations including environmental impact assessments that increase both the costs and time required to open a facility or project, financial system regulations, land use and zoning regulations, and past high corporate taxes. The relationship between profit and societal obligation is only one component of capitalism’s globalism contradiction.
Another aspect of capitalism’s globalism contradiction is the incredible economic success of western civilization, especially in the United States, since the start of the industrial revolution. Until the 1960’s or 1970’s, globalization was not a significant issue in relation to competition and market share for corporations in the western world. Consequently, costs associated with land, labor, and capital were comparatively inconsequential strategic considerations compared to today’s markets. Costs of doing business were evaluated only in relation to competition in the United States and other western industrial powers. For example, the big three US auto makers competed among themselves for US market share and labor. Labor union contracts for wages, benefits, and working conditions that often precluded effective discipline and quality control were virtually identical throughout the US auto industry. The result was high industry wide wages, benefits, and job security. As countries like China, South Korea, India, other Eastern Pacific rim countries, and parts of the old Soviet Union emerged as competing centers of industry, the cost of land, labor, and capital became a competitive liability for western industry.
Finally, North American and European capitalists are harnessed to strongly unionized labor forces unwilling to negotiate lower, more globally competitive wage, benefit, and work condition packages which could have slowed reductions in US manufacturing and plant closures. This issue is complicated by the success of western capitalism causing high costs of living and the expectation of high disposable income to finance the good life. These two factors make efforts to make our labor costs more competitive in the global market difficult. Western capitalism’s success also amplifies capitalism’s globalism contradiction when faced with emerging markets for our products and competition with our products throughout the world.
Capitalism’s globalism contradiction is profit versus support of the labor force that makes their products or provides their services and loyalty to the communities and countries of their origin. Interestingly, it is also the left’s globalism contradiction, maintaining wealth for our workers while redistributing wealth to developing country industries and workers.
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 progressive globalism contradiction is global wealth redistribution from US laborers to foreign laborers.
The goal of global wealth redistribution, globalism, is contradictory to the progressive goal of wealth redistribution within industrialized capitalistic countries. From the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, progressives struggled to increase the wages of the lower and middle classes, the primary work force. Activists on the left called themselves communists, socialists, progressives, and liberals depending on which term was more acceptable to society at large at the time and location involved in the world. These activists were essential to the success of the labor movement in Western Europe and North America. As a result, the wages and benefits of Western workers became the envy of the rest of the world. The contradiction, for progressives, is the fact that Western wages and benefits have resulted in comparatively high disposable income and standard of living in the industrialized Western world. For globalism, global wealth redistribution, to succeed, workers in industrialized countries must expect wage and benefit stagnation at best or decreases in their standard of living through reduced disposable income. In other words, the left gives and the left takes away, the left’s globalism contradiction.
As industrialization expanded to other regions of the world, specifically the Asian-Pacific rim countries and China, global competition also increased. Initially, lower wages and benefits in these regions allowed Asian automakers, consumer product producers, as well as Chinese steel and other consumer good producers to compete effectively in Western European and North American markets. Additionally, the fall of the old Soviet Union brought capitalistic enterprise and increased industrialization to Russia and Eastern Europe which allowed additional low-cost consumer goods to enter Western markets. The result was that Western manufacturers faced competition from newly industrialized areas where wages and benefits were lower than those in the United States and other Western countries. In the United States, our manufacturing plants, steel and special metal mills, textile mills, and consumer product manufacturing plants were old and outdated. The cost of updating these facilities as well as the time required for licensing and construction and the high cost of construction labor made new manufacturing plants even more time consuming and costly to bring on line. The time and expense of environmental impact and economic assessments adds significantly to the time required and the expense of constructing new modern manufacturing facilities.
Faced with low cost competition and the rapidly expanding global market, the globalism contradiction forced corporations to make decisions regarding manufacturing plant locations. The result was plant closures in the industrialized parts of the United States and new plant construction around the world to replace facilities closed in the US. These decisions have adversely affected the number of manufacturing jobs available, wages, and benefits in western countries like the United States. As a result, middle and lower working class wages and benefits have been at best stagnant or declining for at least two decades.
The final globalism contradiction is related to free trade agreements like NAFTA and TPP. When these agreements result in excessive trade deficits for the United States, they are effectively global wealth redistribution. This fact is contradictory to conservative ideology. Although US consumers purchase goods at a lower price, the value of the good paying jobs we lose in the exchange is roughly equivalent to the value of the trade deficit. The free trade competition results in lower cost consumer goods, but we lose good paying manufacturing jobs due to the high costs associated with US manufacturing. From the perspective of the left, opening factories in developing countries is great. Capital is redistributed from developed industrialized countries to underdeveloped Third World countries creating good paying jobs, more disposable income, and increased standard of living, global wealth redistribution. Of course, leaders and planners on the left do not discuss the sacrifices this global wealth redistribution inflicts on the middle and lower class workers of the more advanced industrialized countries. They stress that the top 1% are not paying their fair share of the costs they inflict on our workers. The question is, are workers in the United States satisfied with the answers provided by the Left?
On his last overseas trip, President Obama indicated that globalism has not leveled the world playing field as quickly as he had hoped. The 2016 election demonstrated that workers in the United States are not interested in sacrificing their standard of living to advance global income redistribution. It was the progressive globalism contradiction, stagnant or declining wages and employment in the United States, that cost progressives the Presidency in the 2016 election. This debate will be critical for the future of our country. This issue among others at this point in time and our history places us at America’s Crossroad.
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.
To understand progressive domestic policy it is necessary to understand that globalism is wealth redistribution. The critical concept of globalism is the statement by Marx, From each according to his ability to each according to his need wealth redistribution will occur on a global scale. To prepare people in successful, industrialized, capitalistic countries like the United States for a totally globalized economy, several precursors are necessary. Changing the minds of the citizenry to accept global wealth redistribution is probably the most difficult, but essential, step. To accomplish this goal, an educational dictatorship has been established by progressives. The second step is the left’s domestic policy. The third step is the lefts foreign and immigration policy. These three prerequisites are discussed in detail at the links provided. A great deal of progress must be made in these three areas before the final stages of global wealth redistribution can be accomplished. The left plans and thinks in evolutionary time frames. They have worked toward their goal of complete globalism, wealth redistribution, since at least the early 1800’s.
For progressive domestic policy and globalism to succeed, it is necessary to understand that both require wealth redistribution.
Some of the tactics of the left in this process are virtually invisible especially in the developed countries. From the perspective of individuals and families, the greatest difference between the people of advanced countries and Third World countries is disposable income. In my opinion, disposable income is income available beyond basic survival needs. Basic survival is simply food to maintain population vigor and vitality or a strong, healthy, and reproductive society. Safe water to drink and the ability to survive extreme heat or cold which requires adequate shelter are also basic survival necessities. The ability to stave off severe epidemics and diseases is also a basic necessity for life. Virtually everything beyond these survival necessities constitutes disposable income. Meeting these needs constitutes the fixed costs of life at the survival level. The more income a population has to secure amenities above these survival needs, the greater their disposable income.
The left has numerous resources and tools available for their closure of the disposable income gap between advanced capitalistic countries and Third World countries. Incremental increases affecting regulatory policies that increase production costs and higher taxes on fixed cost products and services like food, shelter, water, and healthcare are stealthy methods of reducing disposable income in advanced countries. In addition, taxes and regulations that increase costs of unnecessary necessities, such as advanced transportation systems, entertainment, recreation, and technology related to the basics of the good life decrease disposable income available for these necessities in industrialized Western cultures.
Similarly, excessively high business income and property taxes as well as business and financial institution regulations reduce available capital for business expansion. One of the most detrimental regulations has been Obamacare which mandates employee health insurance coverage for all businesses with 50 or more employees. This regulation stifles business growth and profitability. Small businesses either restrict growth to less than 50 employees or increase their prices to cover increased costs. Banking and financial regulations such as increased cash reserve requirements for banks reduce the supply of capital for business improvements or expansion. Financial regulations also cause a reduction in the number of local banks further reducing the supply of capital available to many small businesses. These actions result in lower product and service supplies resulting in increased costs. Until the current administration reduced regulations and taxes, these costs caused corporations to move their headquarters or factories overseas to reduce overhead costs. Loss of productive capacity also increased costs. When taxes and regulations increase, the resulting cost increases are added to fixed costs related to the real or perceived necessities for life, thus reducing disposable income in developed countries.
Possibly the most powerful tool in the progressive stealth toolbox is global environmentalism. In the United States, the environmental movement has been supported by both Democrat and Republican administrations. Republican support shows that they support reasonable efforts to maintain safe water, clean air, and stable ecosystems. Republicans, however, do not support regulations that have adverse effects on the quality of life of our citizens by increasing fixed costs of living. One of the strongest proponents of environmentalism has been the United States federal court system. Our federal courts usually side with environmentalists. Often, these court decisions have the effect of decreasing supplies of lumber products, agricultural production, other renewable natural resources, and nonrenewable natural resources, both petroleum and mineral extraction. Environmentalists also work actively to reduce planned, and in the not too distant future, eliminate existing hydroelectric and irrigation dam projects. Many existing Hydro projects are facing their fifty-year environmental impact reviews in the near future. In all these critical areas of our fixed consumer economy, the result is a decrease in disposable income as fixed costs of the basic necessities of life increase. Environmental regulations associated with global warming have the same impact. They increase the fixed costs of both real and perceived necessities for life. Costs of heating, cooling, energy production, manufacturing, and transportation and sales of consumer goods, constitute increases in fixed costs in industrialized societies.
From the left’s perspective, the stealthy beauty of the entire environmental toolbox is the fact that saving minnows, spotted owls, or rare lizards, sounds so progressively wonderful and feels so good to a large portion of the populace, the urban dwellers. The impact on their disposable income and quality of life is irrelevant to them. After all, they already have enough, until they start losing too much of what they currently have.
In the United States, middle class voters in the northeastern industrialized states who experienced stagnant wages and rising fixed costs for a decade voted for change. They voted against the status quo and declining disposable income because they started experiencing the reality of global wealth redistribution on their quality of life.
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.
Progressive foreign policy is based on Marxist leftist ideology and begins with the premise that all property and wealth will eventually be held in common. Marx stated it, from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need, wealth will be distributed equally among all people. Contrary to the preferred progressive assertion that Marxism is not dead; but, Marxism is a body of rational norms that have been largely assimilated into modern social sciences. The left plans with an evolutionary pace in their journey toward a society where from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need wealth is distributed among all the people. In their vision, societal changes occur first regionally, then nationally, and finally globally. Preparation for the time, when the state withers away, begins with the first steps of wealth redistribution in each state or country.
Although no one on the Left overtly states that they support progressive foreign policy in which the state “withers away,” their speeches and actual policy actions are consistent with a “withered” state of the United States on the world stage. The philosophical underpinning of this claim is discussed in detail below.
In his section of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists Marx made the following statement regarding national sovereignty and Progressive foreign policy:
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.
Working men have no country.
National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie (upper ruling class, land owners, and capitalists), to freedom of commerce, to the world market.
The supremacy of the proletariat (working class) will cause them (countries) to vanish still faster.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end (Emphasis added).
In A DICTIONARY OF MARXIST THOUGHT, Engels is quoted describing the incremental nature of the abolition of nations as follows:
The first act by virtue of which the state really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society “ the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society “ this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then withers away of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not ‘abolished.’ It withers away (p. 467).
Ultimately, the Left, Progressives, and Liberals, as Marxists, are content with the possibility that the United States of America could eventually wither away. The result would be a worldwide Dictatorship of the Proletariat or a border-less global political economic system where wealth will be distributed equally among all people.
In large Constitutional capitalist republics like the United States with strong economies, universal K-12 education, strong secondary education system, and globally significant military power, any progress towards the socialist state is incrementally slow. The left understands that several important influences of capitalistic and predominantly Judeo-Christian societies must be reduced, controlled, or when possible eliminated. In states like ours, the mindset or worldview of the vast majority of the population must be converted from a Biblical Christian and entrepreneurial or capitalistic mindset to the socialist worldview.
To accomplish this goal in the United States, virtually every communications medium and major institutions in our culture become either tools or targets in the incremental march towards socialism envisioned by Marx. Two of the most important cultural influences are the Biblical Christian church and family. These two institutions teach and model the important relationship between the individual and God and personal responsibility. As already discussed, individualism is incompatible with implementation of the agenda of the left.
Since Marxism is a body of rational norms that have been largely assimilated into modern social sciences, the left has achieved an educational dictatorship from preschool to Ph.D. level programs. 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. Under these circumstances, each generation is closer to the time when the state withers away.
The Merriam Webster on-line dictionary defines state as a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially: one that is sovereign or possess supreme political power. For the state, including the United States of America, to wither away, the essential elements of state sovereignty related to domestic and foreign policy, must be whittled away.
Probably the most critical function of national sovereignty is national defense. Each of the last three Democrat presidencies, Carter, Clinton, and Obama, significantly reduced the national defense budget during their administration. These reductions included reduction in weapon system development, strategic weapons development, current weapon system procurement, and reductions in manpower. Cessation of ballistic missile defense systems and reductions in short range missile defense systems and deployment in Eastern Europe by the Obama administration have major consequences in light of the North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons programs, testing, and ballistic missile developments. In my opinion, the Clinton reduction in combat unit numbers increased both the number and duration of deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. In light of the previous reductions in military capabilities, our commanders are concerned about the United States military ability to fight wars on two fronts. As our military capacity decreases and the capacity of other nation states increases, the possibility that the United States withers away into a single global socialist society increases over time. This is the covert or stealth nature and philosophy of progressive foreign policy.
Border control and security, as well as, sound immigration policy and laws are essential for every state to maintain its sovereignty, heritage, and national identity. Border control and security also limits the flow of illegal commerce, drugs, and immigration and improves control of legal international trade. When illegal commerce and drug trade occurs, wealth is transferred to the countries of origin of the products and drugs. Similarly, international trade agreements that promote large trade deficits with much of the world constitute wealth redistribution on a global scale.
Every sovereign state has a national identity, heritage, culture, and legal system. The Founders understood the significance of this concept. John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, eloquently stated this sentiment in The Federalist No. 2 where he wrote,
Providence (God especially when conceived of as exercising this) has in a particular manner blessed it (Independent America)for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice, that 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 (Primarily 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….
Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us.
In his Farewell Address, 1796, President George Washington, expressed similar sentiments when he wrote,
“The name American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism. 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.”
Washington’s farewell address also included a warning against the dangers of political parties and partisanship. His warning still has merit. Our Founders understood the importance of our country’s common Judeo-Christian heritage, independent entrepreneurial spirit of the citizenry, shared enthusiasm about their future, and commitment to the rule of law embodied in our Constitution and the Constitutions of our first 13 states.
To the Founders unity of purpose was important to the future of the new nation. When immigration policy allows immigrants who do not believe that they should assimilate into the culture of their new country, immigration slowly degrades the unique character of any state. The unique nature of each state would be altered over time, and the state would become a mirror of the global population supporting progressive foreign policy. The process hastens preparation of the culture in each state to eventually wither away into a single global socialist society. For these reasons, leftist thinking encourages open borders, and unlimited, uncontrolled immigration as part of their progressive foreign policy agenda. Consequently, our immigration policies should ensure that immigrants wishing to form enclaves and interject their own system of law and disparate codes of morality and behavior with respect to women and minorities should not be allowed to enter our country. Such beliefs are inconsistent with our Constitution and culture.
The Center for Immigration Studies, 1995, publication, Three Decades of Mass Immigration: The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act described the effect of immigration policy on culture and society of the United States. The publication starts as follows:
“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.”
So said President Lyndon Johnson at the signing of the (bill). The legislation, which phased out the national origins quota system first instituted in 1921, created the foundation of today’s immigration law. Contrary to the president’s assertions, it inaugurated a new era of mass immigration which has affected the lives of millions.
Progressive foreign policy promotes global weakness, porous borders, and immigration policies that dilute our unique cultural heritage and global national identity.
Proponents repeatedly denied that the law would lead to a huge and sustained increase in the number of newcomers and become a vehicle for globalizing immigration as a component of progressive foreign policy. Prior to enactment of this law, immigration made up about 10% of annual population growth. After 25 years, immigration made up 39% of population growth. Prior to this law, about 70% of the immigrants were of European decent. In 25 years, about 40% of immigrants were Hispanic and Latin Americans, and 35% were Asians. Discounting millions of illegal immigrants, total immigration tripled. The increase was augmented by non-quota admissions and provisions for family reunification.
Finally, when leaders of a state, like the United States of America, fail to lead as they led in the past in international affairs, either diplomatically or militarily, that state’s power, prestige, and influence will wither away. Unfortunately, some withering occurred when the Bush Administration faltered in its response to Russian aggression in the country of Georgia. The Obama Administration stopped deployment of missile defense systems in Eastern Europe when Russia complained or threatened retaliation with respect to the deployment. This administration failed to take any meaningful diplomatic or military steps when Russia took Crimea from Ukraine and failed to make any significant steps toward ending Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine. The Obama Administration failed to leave a stabilizing force in Iraq; and it failed to act when Syria used chemical weapons in its Civil War after a stern warning by President Obama. The Obama Administration also failed to take a leadership role that could have changed the Middle East during or shortly after the Arab Spring, including failure to support dissidents in Iran. The administration also chose to lead from behind rather than lead the overthrow Moammar Qaddafi in Libya or insuring that Libya was stable after the overthrow. China is building and militarizing islands in international waters with no apparent or meaningful actions by the Obama Administration. In the administrative action resulting in Iranian nuclear weapons program restrictions, the Obama Administration apparently negotiated from a position of weakness. Secret side monetary, banking, and facility inspection agreements, demonstrate this weakness. Finally, the Obama Administration demonstrated its weakness by allowing the Russian military, including its Air Force, to support the Asad regime in the Syrian Civil War. These actions all contributed the “withering” effects of progressive foreign policy.
In my opinion, whether intentional or not, President Obama’s progressive foreign policy activities have allowed the power, prestige, and influence, of the United States to wither away internationally, as Marx predicted. The actions of the Obama Administration serve as a prime example of the ways that the reality of the progressive agenda and progressive foreign policy are part of the incremental manner in which Marxist philosophy is implemented on a global scale.
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.
Contrary to popular conservative thought, in the United States, our progressive domestic policy is a practical reality. Marxism, the philosophical basis for progressive ideology, is a social theory asserting that all property and wealth will be held in common, and as Marx stated it, from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need, wealth will be distributed equally among all people. The editors of A DICTIONARY OF MARXIST THOUGHT, 1983, asserted that Marxism is not dead; but, Marxism is a body of rational norms that have been largely assimilated into modern social sciences and incorporated into a great deal of our domestic and foreign policy practices.
Pragmatic efforts to hasten evolution toward the global society envisioned by Marxists began in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Following publication of The Communist Manifesto and Origin of Species, the concepts of atheism, and both societal and biological evolution became more widely embraced by academicians in the United States and the world. Liberal and progressive scholars began to dominate the social science faculties of most universities in the United States. This was particularly true in mass communication disciplines such as journalism, liberal arts and social sciences including psychology, psychiatry, sociology, philosophy, performing and visual arts, economics, and law.
By 1870, Harvard University and the Harvard Law School fully embraced these concepts. Contrary to earlier teaching, references to God and Scripture, as well as Constitutional Original Intent were eliminated from legal education and the practice of law. The concept of case law to develop new doctrines and principles incrementally over time was also introduced at Harvard. The rest of the nation’s universities followed suit. 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.
In the 150 years since this concept was introduced, the Federal and State Courts have been used to alter the Original Intent of the Constitution, set legal precedents, and overrule the will of We the People, and the legislative process. In many instances, liberals and progressives have used both Federal and State Courts to accomplish their progressive social objectives when We the People do not support their proposals. The United States Supreme Court decision, in favor of same sex-marriage opposed by We the People in numerous state referenda, is a prime example. In my opinion, many Federal Court decisions have been aided by incorrect application of the Supreme Court Marbury v. Madison decision. Court decisions of this type make progressive domestic policy the law of the land. In my view, such decisions are inconsistent with judicial good behavior.
Much of our progressive domestic policy is already Marxist.
In the United States, liberals and progressives in the Democrat Party and moderate or liberal Republicans have introduced and passed legislation, and developed progressive domestic policy positions and programs that individually and collectively quicken the pace at which wealth is spread among all people in our country and eventually the world. The goal is that each state, including the United States of America, eventually withers away. Wars, depressions, recessions, and periods of substantial economic growth cause ebbs and flows in progress toward the world they envision.
The section, of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists, provides 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.” (All added parenthetical remarks in this section describe existing progressive domestic policy . Federal regulations, especially environmental regulations, limit uses of private lands regarding mineral and petroleum extraction, forestry, range and grazing management, agricultural practices crop choices and subsidies, and watershed management. Local and state zoning ordinances limit the uses made on private property. Each of these limitations restricts the way private property can be used, increases production costs, and in land uses related to energy, mineral extraction, and agriculture increases fixed living costs for citizens. For some industries, regulation ads costs sufficient to degrade their competitiveness in the global market. When these costs are combined with high US labor costs and taxes, some industries moved offshore to survive. Each of these factors is an incremental step toward abolition of property and use of property for public purposes.)
“A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”
(In the United States the concept of progressive taxation is now ingrained in our political and economic discourse.)
“Abolition of all right of inheritance.”
(In the United States, gradually increasing death or inheritance taxes are incrementally moving toward abolition of the right of inheritance. The progressive purpose of these taxes is to instill the idea that abolition of all right of inheritance is one of the ways for the rich to pay their fair share in the progressive plan to redistribute wealth from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need.)
“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.”(The United States Federal Reserve Bank controls interest rates, the amount of currency in circulation, and federal laws place strict controls on the banking and securities industries. However, the government does not control the flow of capital with an exclusive government monopoly.)
“Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.”(Many large metropolitan areas in the United States have government owned mass transit train and bus systems. Many politicians are proposing high-speed train systems funded and operated by either state or federal governments.)
“Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of wasteland, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.”(Although Federal regulations, especially environmental regulations, do not constitute state ownership of factories and instruments of production they do constitute state control of factories and instruments of production. Air and water pollution regulations often limit the type and/or size of industrial plants built on private property and emission levels for carbon fuel engines. These regulations ensure clean air and water. The issue is that technology allows pollutant detection at increasingly lower contamination levels, and thus, more stringent regulations are mandated, even when the requirements are below safe limits. The result is increased costs that can make the industry products too expensive to be economical. Local and state zoning ordinances limit the uses of factories and instruments of production on private property. For some industries, regulation ads costs sufficient to degrade their competiveness in the global market. When these costs are combined with high US labor costs and taxes, some industries must move offshore to survive. Each of these factors is an incremental step toward abolition of property and use of property for public purposes.)
“Equal liability of all labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.”(Local, state, and federal minimum wage laws and proposals supporting mandated profit sharing incrementally promote the idea of equal liability of all labour. During the formative years of the labor movement, communists and socialists played major roles organizing workers, gaining recognition and legal status for unions, and securing higher wages and better benefits for union membership. Unions have made great strides toward Equal liability of all labour. The high cost of labor in the United States caused many of our industries to move overseas or fail because they were unable to compete in the global market against competitors with lower labor costs. In the United States, unions have strong support from the political left.)
“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.” (In the United States, progressives have established an educational dictatorship. Socialists and progressives in the Democrat Party are proposing free or highly subsidized secondary education for all or at least families below a threshold income level. This is an expansion of government-sponsored loan programs and progressive style wealth redistribution. Abolition of children’s factory labor was a goal that should have been supported by all. Children’s factory labor was abhorrent and a blot on capitalism. The fact that Marx added the qualifier, in its present form, is a blot on Marxist philosophy. ).
Free education for all children has been promoted in our country since colonial days. Sound agricultural and renewable natural resource practices have been promoted for at least 150 years. Both are essential for a flourishing, capitalistic, constitutional republic like the United States of America.
The left, regardless of the terms used to describe their ideology, Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, liberal, moderate Democrat or liberal Republican, follows a specific societal plan to incrementally or evolutionarily change and the world into the global economy envisioned by Marx. The left thinks and plans in evolutionary terms and is secure with an evolutionary pace, at least 170 years, in their journey toward a society where from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need, wealth is distributed among all the people. Once progressive domestic policy normalizes wealth redistribution in most countries, the left will turn to their final goal for foreign policy. The left, Marxists, will turn to formulating policies that cause states or countries, including United States of America, to “wither away.”
