News narratives stimulate fake news; and opinion reported as fact is fake news.
News narratives stimulate fake news. The fact that news agencies formulate a narrative designed to guide public opinion, including political news, is general knowledge. Accordingly, news stories are selected or rejected to promote or reinforce the “narrative. Conversely, stories that do not support the “narrative are eliminated or buried in the back of the publication, or buried at the end of a report behind other irrelevant information.
The issue is not new. The narrative of the news media concerning the Viet Nam War was changed after the North Viet Nam Army and Viet Con Communist forces launched the Tet Offensive.
In February 1968, in the wake of the Tet Offensive, the respected TV journalist Walter Cronkite, who had been a moderate and balanced observer of the war’s progress, announced that it seemed ‘more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.'”
Walter Cronkite down played the fact that the Tet Offensive was repelled by United States and South Vietnamese forces suffering one tenth the casualties of the attackers. Although South Vietnamese forces proved quite capable during the counter offensive and communist forces were severely weakened, the Tet Offensive was characterized as a defeat. To me, this misrepresentation of facts constituted fake news. The news changed the perception of the war and drastically increased anti-war sentiment in the United States. Decades later North Vietnamese generals admitted that they were defeated but understood that they only had to delay long enough for the anti-war sentiment in the United States to end the war politically giving them victory.
In my opinion, Walter Cronkite should have ended his nightly news program saying, That’s the way we choose to portray it month, day, year, instead of saying, That’s the way it was month, day, year. The same is true for most news today.
Fake news has been in the news lately as well. Once a news narrative is posited, fake news is often started on Internet social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, or other Internet News outlets. Unfortunately, traditional standards of Journalism such as source vetting and multiple source conformation, do not apply at many of these sources. Some of these Fake News stories originate with unfriendly foreign governments, like Russia or North Korea, intent on manipulating public opinion in our political process, foreign affairs, socio-economic system, and culture. Fake News has been treated as legitimate news by traditional print and mainstream broadcast news agencies without proper vetting when the fraud fits the Narrative.
Legitimate pols can become fake news, or least a misrepresentation of public opinion, when specific responses fitting the narrative are emphasized because the answers fit the narrative. Pols can also be manipulated by the order and nature of the questions leading respondents to the desired headline opinion that fits the narrative of the news agency involved. In this situation, the headline and first section of the story, or news, reinforces the narrative. Opinions that mitigate or modify the narrative are buried later in the story or left out hoping the public does not go to the complete pols for a more realistic view of the opinions of the entire pol creating fake news through omission.
The 24/7 “news” cycle that evolved with cable television introduced an abundance of editorial style expert analysis, opinion programs, and opinion segments as part of hard news programs. Internet news outlets are also heavily involved in editorial and opinion writing. Some influential bloggers also get involved in news dissemination, analysis, and opinion. These outlets often blur the distinction between news, editorials, and opinion. When the editorial opinion writing and punditry matches the narrative, opinion and expert analysis often turns into headlines and lead stories. This is especially true when the editorials and opinions concern the outcome of elections, the future of the economy, a corporation, how healthcare will change, or what the tax plan will contain, etc. This news is often just hours and pages of viral speculation. In many situations the punditry from one outlet is subsequently debated on another outlet. When opinion is reported as fact, the result is, in reality, fake news.
In my opinion, the majority of news outlets in the United States and the world are dominated by progressives and disseminate news based on the progressive narrative. This narrative opposes Biblical Christianity, the Biblical traditional family, reduction or elimination of influence of Christianity on our culture, personal responsibility and morality, and favors progressive culture, economic principles, and centralized government over Biblical Christianity, capitalistic economic concepts, and limited government.
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.
Russian hackers revealed Democrat corruption and disdain for our citizens and the “deplorable class.”
Russian hackers revealed a great deal about the left’s corruption and disdain for our citizens in what Democrats define as the “deplorable class.” WikiLeaks and our own news media, which provided the leaked information to voters, exposed the modus operandi of the left and the Democrat Party. Additionally, the Democrat Party must, if they hope to remain a viable political force, look into its soul and change its behavior to regain the respect of the constituents they lost in the 2016 election.
Be that as it may, the United States must formulate a realistic plan to combat foreign cyber warfare against our citizens, businesses, and government including our political process and elections. Our national government must develop a robust cyber warfare strategy that provides both impenetrable defensive and unstoppable offensive capabilities. The desired result would be cyber peace through cyber strength.
The hacked 2016 election Democrat campaign Emails exposed the corruption and disdain of the leadership of the Democrat Party at the highest levels. The Emails showed that the Democrat Party leadership was going to do everything possible to ensure that Hillary Clinton was the party nominee for the Presidency. The Emails also showed that the party leadership was willing to conspire with the news media to give Hillary Clinton the upper hand during at least one presidential debate since the Clinton campaign was given at least one debate question in advance of the debate. This act also demonstrated the bias corruption and disdain of our news media. Each individual in the United States should be asking whether this behavior was amoral, unethical, unlawful, or anarchistic. We the People must demand better; or we are also complicit by tolerating such behavior.
The last two presidential candidates of the Democrat Party have placed a large part of We the People of the United States into a Basket of Deplorables, as Hillary Clinton described us. President Obama disparaged We the People of the fly over states as people clinging to our guns and Bibles, his characterization of We the People in the left’s Basket of Deplorables. For one claiming to be Christian, his opinion of Biblical Christianity is alarming to this Biblical Christian. Both candidates exhibited their mental corruption and disdain for the political process and We the People.
Finally, the anarchism displayed by the left following the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States will only serve to solidify Deplorable Class support for him. Their demonstrations which at times turned into riots, their refusal to accept the election results, and their irrational attempts to change votes in the Electoral College show their hypocrisy, corruption and disdain for the Deplorable Class and the Constitution. For those who understand history, the Bolshevik nature of their actions is cause for great concern. The actions of the left show their true motivation and vision for the future of the United States of America.
We are 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.
In my opinion, the left, Marxists, communists, and progressives of the world were not fighting the same Cold War that the United States and our allies were fighting. For the left, the strategic “Cold War”is a philosophical ideological “Cold War.” With this thought and the recent death of Fidel Castro in mind, it seems an appropriate time to consider the place of Fidel Castro, in the world and the nature of the Cold War. After his revolutionaries defeated the Cuban dictator Batista, Castro openly embraced communism. He nationalized the economy of Cuba and sought support from the communist regime in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the Old Soviet Union, today’s Russia. He brutally eliminated political opposition. With the support of the Soviet Union, Cuba became the center for communist revolutionary expansion into several countries in Latin America. Probably the most notable was Venezuela. The communist dictator of Venezuela nationalized the country’s oil industries which had been developed by North American and European petroleum companies. Cuba allowed the Soviet Union to position nuclear missiles on the island nearly bringing the world to a nuclear disaster before the missiles were removed from Cuba. The fall of the USSR effectively ended Soviet financial support of the Castro regime, and greatly reduced Cuba’s influence in the western hemisphere. From this perspective, Fidel Castro was a central figure in the Cold War in the Americas.
To me, the Cold War was a geopolitical, economic, militaristic contest between the United States and the USSR, the two dominant nuclear powers of the world at the time. These two powers competed to bring allies into their spear of influence throughout the world. The Cold War ended when the United States and our allies were victorious after fall of the USSR. Dismantling the USSR in non-Russian Eastern Europe completed the process. Although the USSR was a totalitarian communist regime, it was not the only totalitarian communist regime in the world. China, North Korea, Vietnam, the communist regimes of the Eastern European Soviet bloc, Cuba, Venezuela and several other countries in Latin America were also totalitarian communist regimes. Without the support of the USSR, Eastern European countries overthrew their communist governments embracing various forms of democracy.
During the height of the Cold War, Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the USSR said, communism will outlast capitalism, not We will bury you!”
However, several powerful totalitarian communism regimes still exist in Asia and Latin America and communist revolutionaries still battle to control countries in some parts of the world. It seems appropriate to ask a question. Did we actually win the Cold War? We certainly did not eliminate totalitarian communist regimes and revolutionaries as a threat and influence in the world. Perhaps a more important question to ask is this. Did we understand the nature of the Cold War from the strategic perspective of our Marxists, communist enemies. In a 1960’s speech at the United Nations, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev used a phrase that was translated We will bury you!” A better translation of the phrase is, communism will outlast capitalism. From the standpoint of Marxist philosophy expressed in The Communist Manifesto, Khrushchev’s phrase provides a simple strategic description of the goal of communism or Marxism for the world. Khrushchev was not speaking of a geopolitical, economic, militaristic contest, he was speaking of an evolutionary paced contest of philosophy and ideology, Marxism versus capitalism. Given the attitude of millennials in the United States toward Marxist ideas underpinning communism, socialism, progressivism, and liberalism, or the brutality of totalitarian communist regimes, and their lack of understanding of capitalism and this nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage, we should ask this question. Was Nikita Khrushchev correct when he said, Communism will outlast capitalism?
In my opinion, the Marxist of the socialist, progressive, liberal movement certainly out foxed the conservative capitalistic thinkers of the United States and the world. One of the principal objectives of America’s Crossroads is an informative discussion of the goals and tactics of the left as they seek to convert capitalistic societies, especially the United States, into Marxist societies. Pragmatists of the left have been formulating and slowly teaching and implementing their ideas since the early 1800’s.
When considering the question,is Marxist philosophy the basis for leftist ideology, it is important to understand that Marxist philosophy has been largely integrated into the modern social sciences. Ideas like wealth redistribution, progressive taxation, curtailing or eliminating inheritance rights, diminishing the influence of Biblical Christianity, eliminating or degrading the Biblical family among other topics are all concepts now embedded in liberal arts and social science curricula at all stages of our education system. Competition, individualism, self-confidence, personal responsibility, and strong moral and ethical values are critical elements to successful capitalistic societies. The Biblical Christian church and family are institutions where these values are taught and modeled for children by church leaders and parents. The role of the individual in Biblical Christian culture and Marxist or progressive culture is antithetical in nature. Before a society like the United States with a strong Judeo-Christian heritage and capitalist economy can be converted to society based on Marxist philosophy, the population has to embrace Marxism. To accomplish this goal, the left has achieved an educational dictatorshipwhere their ideas are taught in virtually all the liberal arts and social science curricula throughout the educational system. Marxist progressives have accomplished many of their objectives toward globalism in both domestic and foreign policy in the United States.
Finally, it is my opinion that the left has even managed to integrate its philosophy into jurisprudence in the United States. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, legal progressives slowly started to substitute case law and the opinion of judges about the Constitution for the manifest tenor and original intent of the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury versus Madison was critical to this evolution in jurisprudence. Consequently, this shift in the Supreme Court’s attitude towards the Constitution exposed a flaw in our Constitution. There are no meaningful constitutional checks or balances on the decisions of the federal judiciary. Marxists and progressives on the left have succeeded in using this flaw to enact laws and regulations that could not be instituted through the legislative process.
Since the people of the United States of America have failed to understand the Cold War from the perspective of the Marxist or the socialists, progressives, and liberals, We the People are close to losing the real Cold War, the philosophical battle between communism or Marxist philosophy and capitalism. The extremely important philosophical or ideological “cold war” is not over; and, in my opinion, capitalism and conservative Judeo-Christianity is losing.
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 Trump Train carries a larger portion of the total conservative movement and forgotten Democrats. Looks like the track gs to 2024.
The Trump Train movement envisioned and then activated by Donald Trump may be what Tea Party founders wished they had formulated. In my opinion, the reason Donald Trump succeeded where others failed, is the fact that the Trump Train carries a larger portion of the total conservative movement and forgotten Democrats. The leaders of the Tea Party movement restricted their vision to balanced budgets, a smaller less intrusive government at all levels, and reestablishment of constitutional original intent rejecting social and religious conservatives. President Elect Trump asked evangelicals, labor oriented Reagan Democrats from the Rust Belt, and the Fly Over rural voters to climb aboard the Trump Train. Additionally, Trump’s call for economic reforms, lower taxes, and regulatory reform, incorporated significant elements of the Tea Party agenda. All of the other groups were left out or marginalized by the Tea Party movement, the Democrat party, and, during the last two cycles, the Republican Party.
For followers of Biblical Christianity, evangelicals, the fact that President Elect Trump asked them and important Catholic leaders to formulate religious advisory groups is extremely encouraging. He quickly demonstrated an understanding that religious liberty has been under attack by the courts at all levels, government at all levels, and the left’s educational dictatorship. Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees also encouraged the support of evangelicals. Consequently, he received the highest level of support from the evangelical communities of the last four Republican Presidential candidates. This masterfully crafted coalition on board the Trump Train ushered in the Trump Presidency.
Biblical Christians aboard the Trump Train will watch the actions of President Trump in his first hundred days, first year, and first two years with hope, prayers, and wary skepticism. In my opinion, President Trump is on a very short leash. My prayer is that he will only tug lightly on that leash and succeed beyond all our hopes and prayers.
SO FAR, THE TRUMP TRAIN HAS ENOUGH BELLS AND WHISTLES TO GET US TO 2024.
THEN IT WILL BE PENCE24 GIVES US 8 MORE. WHAT A FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM THAT WILL BE!
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.
Progressives oppose Christianity since Marxist intellectuals have always understood the necessity of reducing or eliminating the influence of Biblical Christianity on society. This reduction is necessary to hasten societal evolution toward the goal they envisioned. In the first half of the nineteenth century, European Marxist philosophers and political theorists referred to themselves as both socialists and communists. These and the modern terms, liberals and progressives are interchangeable. Marx and Engels were commissioned by the Communist League in London to draft a detailed theoretical and practical program of the party. The result was the 1848 publication of The Communist Manifesto.
Progressives oppose Christianity since role and values of the individual is antithetical in the two ideologies.
In The Communist Manifesto with an introduction by Gareth Stedman Jones, 2002, Marx and Engels indicated that pragmatic means of hastening this evolution would be required in more advanced industrialized, capitalistic countries. Any belief system or institution that values the individual is inconsistent with the ideology of the Marxist left, progressives. Hence, progressives oppose Christianity, especially Biblical Christianity. Our nation’s Founders had a strong Judeo-Christian heritage. This heritage valued Biblical Christian churches and families.
The tone and rhetoric of the discussion and debates between the proponents of any form of Marxism and the Founders’ Judeo-Christian vision is intense. Marxist disdain for all that is Judeo-Christian is really quite simple. The implications of one word, individualism, explain this disdain. The role, value, and relationship of the individual to the society or group as a whole are direct, antithetical opposites in Marxist philosophy and the Founders’ Judeo-Christian values, Biblical Christianity, conservative Jewish culture, and conservatism. For any form of Marxism to succeed, the individual must submit to the good of society. For Marxists, the individual has no value compared to the value of the society. Individuals are worthless.
In Biblical Christianity, the individual has infinite value because
God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still Sinners, Christ (God’s only Son) died for us (each individual) (Romans 5:8 NIV).
The value of the individual is magnified by the fact that
The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs “ heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory (Romans 8:16-17 NIV).
As joint heirs with God’s only Son, Jesus Christ, each Christian individual has infinite value in the sight of the God. This component of Christianity, the value of each individual, is one of the primary reasons that progressives oppose Christianity.
In his 2002 introduction to The Communist Manifesto, Gareth Stedman Jones discussed Marxist scholars concerns about the relationship between Christianity and the individual. According to Ludwig Feuerbach,
Christianity alienated man’s communal character as a species into individual relationships with an external being resulting in the rise of individualism.
Consequently, according to Feuerbach, the essence of Man is contained only in community, in the unity of Man with Man. In the relationship between I and Thou, Christ had become Thou. Religion was misdirected. The infinite was not an external God, but Man. Once Man was made aware of his infinite nature through philosophy and reason, individual limitations would be eliminated. Max Stirner sought to eliminate all vestiges of religion especially ethics, morality, and the Protestant God from communist philosophy. Engels observed that,
The Christian world order cannot be taken any further than this.
He considered the abstract subjectivity of individualism to be a problem of the Christian-Germanic view of the world and the Christian state. Accordingly,
the free and spontaneous association of men would lead to an ever certain victory over the unreason of the individual.
In his doctorate, Marx expressed his atheism and belief that philosophy is the only true god and that the gods of religion were irrelevant by stating that
all heavenly and earthly gods who do not acknowledge human self-consciousness as the highest divinity are false.
Since God was the creation of Man, Christianity was the symptom of the problem, egoism, individualism, and private property. According to Gareth Stedman Jones, this is a good explanation for the reasons that progressives oppose Christianity.
THE BIBLICAL CHURCH
The New Testament describes the Biblical Christian church and family as the only Holy institutions established by God to raise and train each individual Christian and share Christ with the world. In these institutions, church leaders and parents teach children and new Christians Biblical truths, morality, and the importance of Christian service and ministries. These leaders also model Christian living for children and new Christians. Most importantly these institutions teach and share this simple truth with the world,
God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whver believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16).
Since each person who hears this truth must accept Christ’s free gift of eternal life individually, each person on earth is individually valued and loved by God.
In his section of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists Marx wrote the following regarding religion, especially Christianity:
Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.
In the 1983 publication, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, the editors discuss a treatise on historical materialism by Nikolai Bukharin, which indicated that
religion (especially Christianity) must be opposed actively since it would take too long for it to die out of its own accord.
Since the Biblical Christian church works along side traditional Christian families to raise children into strong self-reliant individuals, animosity toward the Biblical church is part of the reason that progressives oppose Christianity.
THE BIBLICAL FAMILY
Biblical Christian families are the institution where parents model their Judeo-Christian heritage and values for the next generation. These values include our moral codes and the worthiness of each individual in the sight of God. This model for the family is an anathema to Marxist. The significance and influence of the Biblical family in society must be drastically reduced or eliminated for their vision for society to succeed. Attacks on the traditional Judeo-Christian Biblical family and marriage are based firmly on the writing of Marx. In his section of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists Marx wrote the following.
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois (ruling class, land owners, and capitalists) family based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.
In his 1994 publication, The Frankfurt School Its History, Theories, and Political Significance, Rolf Wiggershaus chronicled the work of one of the more significant groups of western progressive philosophers. He summarized, Robert Briffault’s, 1927 work on the family, The Mothers: A Study of the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions, by observing that paternal families were a product of economic systems where property inheritance by individuals was important to society. Briffault’s vision for the future traditional family follows:
¦The expectation that the decay of the patriarchal family as a result of the serious crisis of the individualistic, competitive economy would increase, and that a society no longer characterized by competitiveness would be able finally to release social emotions which went beyond the narrow and distorting circle of family.
Michele Barrett observed that Engels’ view of the family still dominates Marxist thought on the family. Engels viewed the Bourgeois family as an institution of male dominance in which the wife simply provided heirs for legal transmission of property to succeeding generations in exchange for sustenance. Engels considered the relationship a form of prostitution.
The Marxist definition of family, according to Barrett, is simply kinship arrangements or the organization of a household.
This view is consistent with the current demands of the LGBTQ+ agenda. The role of the Biblical Christian family in relation to raising strong individuals is a significant reason that progressives oppose Christianity.
Just as Marx demonstrated his disdain for God and religion, as mere pawns of capitalists, he demonstrated his disdain for marriage and the family. Members of the progressive liberal movement in the United States often express similar sentiments. The attacks on Biblical Christianity and the multi-millennial Judeo-Christian church and family are consistent with the Marxist goal of elimination of all vestiges of our Judeo-Christian heritage as a significant influence on our society. Consequently, progressives oppose Christianity including the Christian Church and the traditional Christian family. Progressive disdain for Christianity is greatest for Biblical Christians who adhere to Biblical morality and ethics as essential to their faith.
For modern Marxists, they call themselves socialists, progressives, liberals, and Democrats to mask their philosophical roots, all vestiges of Biblical Christianity must be rendered socially impotent for their vision for the future of the United States of America to be fully implemented. Consequently, progressives oppose Christianity as a matter of strategic necessity.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
The Deplorable Class includes Roman Catholics and Protestants who hold traditional values. We are white, African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and other minorities.
The groups potentially falling into the left’s Deplorable Class may surprise some in the United States. Among the Christians, who hold the Biblical view of marriage and the family as husband and wife and their children, are tens of millions of African-American and Hispanic Biblical Christians. Additionally, tens of millions of Roman Catholics in the United States, many of whom are Hispanics, also believe that the Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. According to the left, this view of marriage is homophobic. The Christian homophobes who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman are in the “Deplorable class.” As a consequence, the left’s Deplorable Class includes Roman Catholics and Protestants. We are white, African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and other minorities. This group also opposes abortion and understand the gender is genetic not aspiration.
Xenophobes are another group in the left’s “Deplorable Class” They are deplorable simply because they want secure borders, an end to illegal immigration, assurance that everyone employed in the United States is legal, assurance that visas are not abused, and an immigration plan that is not harmful to our citizens. Islamophobs are also in the left’s Deplorable Class because they want the government to insure, by a process that requires verified documentation, that Islamic terrorists, from any group, are unable to infiltrate immigrant or refugee populations and attack the United States homeland. People who hold the Biblical view that life begins at conception and oppose abortion are part of the war on women and sexists. These United States citizens are also part of the left’s Deplorable Class. Obviously, Biblical Christians hold many views deemed deplorable by the left.
In the “Deplorable Class,” we believe that we should protect our nation against invaders who use our porous boarders and weak immigration laws to gain illegal access to the nation. Most seek a better life, but some are criminals or want to subvert our culture both peacefully or as violent terrorists. We also understand the the United States is an essential force for good in the world. This requires a strong military and diplomatic corp that promotes world peace through our strength.
In the eyes of Christophobes like Hillary Clinton, liberals, and progressives on the Left; if you hold any of the views above, you are part of their Basket of Deplorables. You are among the tens of millions of United States citizens who are part of the left’s despised Deplorable Class.
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.
