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.
Capitalists capitalism’s problem is the result of the behavior of some capitalists throughout history, call them Godless immoral capitalists. The behavior of a few capitalists provides evidence for the need to control the raw nature of man according to Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. Smith observed that controlling this raw nature is one of the few reasons for government involvement in commerce and industry. Abuse of the labor force was the rule during the much of the Industrial Revolution. These Godless immoral capitalists abused child laborers, working women, and laborers in general who lacked viable employment alternatives. The result was a rapid rise in the labor movement which included Marxists who formed communist and socialist parties throughout the industrialized Western world. Over time, progressives and liberals combined forces with Marxists to form the modern political left.
Evidence for the statement, capitalists capitalism’s problem, in relation to socialism.
The behavior of Godless immoral capitalists is continually cited as evil and prima facie evidence that societies based on Marxist philosophy are better for humanity. Pictures of child laborers fill our textbooks as examples of the evils of capitalism. Factory fires where exits were chained on the outside to prevent laborers from taking unauthorized breaks resulting in extremely high labor casualties are cited as additional examples of the evils of capitalism. Unethical and often illegal business schemes such as Enron and Ponzi schemes like that of Bernie Madoff are also cited as evidence of the evils of capitalism. Unfortunately, in developing Third World countries abusive labor practices still occur.
Consequently, capitalists capitalism’s problem remain a major issue in the debate between capitalism and the Marxist alternatives of the left, socialism, and the progressive and liberal movements. It is interesting that while Godless immoral capitalist’s behavior is highlighted by the left as abuses of capitalism, the behavior the communist regimes of the old Soviet Union, now Russia, North Korea, China, Cuba and Venezuela, among others, are totally ignored by the left in these discussions.
The ratio of the corporate executive compensation to employee compensation within each corporation is an additional issue in which capitalists capitalism’s problem is paramount. Several internet sources indicate that the ratio was approximately 20 to 1 in 1950, 40 to 1 in 1980, 120 to 1 in 2000, and 200 to 1 in 2014. In a very few corporations, the compensation ratio now approaches 500 to 1. To put this in perspective, during the same period of time executive compensation increased 1000% while employee compensation increased only 11%. From the perspective of the left, the compensation differential is most concerning in the industrial manufacturing and service industries. This is especially true in situations involving labor unions or the desire of employees to join the labor movement. The following statement can be found in the online Bloomberg article, CEO Pay 1,795-to-1 Multiple of Wages Skirts U.S. Law:
When CEOs switched from asking the question of ‘how much is enough’ to ‘how much can I get,’ investor capital and executive talent started scrapping like hyenas for every morsel, said Roger Martin, dean of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, in an interview. ‘It’s not that either hates labor, or wants to crush their lives. They just don’t care.’
The statement, They just don’t care concerning corporate executive’s attitude about the executive to employee compensation ratio seems to qualify as the raw nature of man. Such indifference could also be considered Godless immoral capitalist behavior, a prime example of capitalist capitalism’s problem.
During the formative years of the labor movement, the raw nature of man reared its ugly head in the form of riots resulting in property damage and human suffering. The Communist Party in the US was so deeply involved in the violence of the labor movement that federal law precludes participation in labor leadership by members of the Communist Party. This behavior included violence between competing labor unions for membership. Labor union violence continued past the middle of the 20th century. It is safe to say that Godless immoral behavior is unfortunately endemic to the human condition.
The phrase Godless immoral capitalism was coined for its relationship to our Judeo-Christian heritage. Contrary to popular opinion on the left, religion and morality have been essential in the rise of the United States of America to its position of prominence in the world today. In his Farewell Address to the Nation, the Father of our Country, George Washington, said:
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports. “ In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. “ The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. “ A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity (happiness). “ Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. “ Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure “ reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence, — Who can doubt that in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The Experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. “ Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?…
In my opinion, most of the current societal problems in our nation, including capitalists capitalism’s problem, are the consequence of our abandonment of Washington’s admonition about Religion and Morality.
Does the Judeo-Christian heritage of the Founders and Biblical Christianity substantiate the advice given to the United States of America by the Father of our nation? The Bible does provide numerous scriptures related to the source of wealth and the requirement to treat laborers fairly. Some relevant New International Version Bible scriptures follow:
But remember the Lord your God for it is He who gives you the ability to produce wealth. (Deuteronomy 8:18a).
Do not take advantage of a hired man who is (comparatively) poor and needy. Pay him because he is counting on it. Otherwise you will be guilty of sin (Deuteronomy 24: 14-15).
Honor the Lord with your wealth. (Proverbs 3:9a).
So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and fatherless, but do not fear Me says the Lord Almighty (Malachi 3:5).
Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord. (Jeremiah 17:5).
The worker deserves his wages (Luke 10:7b and 1Timothy 5:18b).
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation (Romans 4:4).
Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you. (1Thessalonians 5:12).
The Godless immoral capitalist behavior, capitalists capitalism’s problem, previously described, including the corporate executive to labor salary ratios are inconsistent with the advice of George Washington and the cited Scriptures.
In my opinion, many of the Marxist left’s objections to capitalists capitalism’s problem are justified. Prior to the early 1900’s, treatment of the labor force, including women and children, was consistent with what I call Godless immoral capitalism. Similarly, the violent behavior of the labor force as they sought to organize themselves in their effort to secure better wages and benefits and working conditions was equally Godless and immoral. The behavior of both sides in the labor management struggles was the epitome of the raw nature of man. Nevertheless, the capitalistic economy that evolved in the United States developed into the largest and most successful economy in history. Our nation also became the most potent military, political and economic power of the 20th century. In the 21st century, everything from our Judeo-Christian heritage and constitutional capitalistic political economic system is being challenged by the left.
For the last 200 years, the philosophical leadership of the left has worked to gain dominance in virtually every form of communication in the Western world including the United States. The left’s first objective was to marginalize Christianity in society. Second, the left established an educational dictatorship in the entire public education system. Third, the left has learned to use both our United States and State judicial systems, which lack effective checks and balances, to thwart the will of We the People when the left is unable to accomplish their goals through the legislative process. Progressive ideology dominates all forms of the news media, telecommunication entertainment, movie and theater entertainment, and the advertising industry which is filled with subtle social, political, and economic messages. The cinema graphic industry produces works filled with stories of excesses and adverse impacts of capitalism on society and the environment. Millennials are probably the first generation that have been exposed to progressive curricula from preschool to PH.D. and the media generated progressive agenda.
In light of the fact that Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a democratic socialist challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democrat party nomination for president, the philosophically Marxist progressive agenda is gaining wide popularity with younger citizens. In polls, a surprising number of millennials favored socialism over capitalism. For millennials, capitalists capitalism’s problem is ingrained in their psyche. Wealth redistribution through heavy taxation of the œ1% is their answer to all their problems. The wealth of the 1% will pay for their higher education, eliminate their college loans, subsidize their healthcare, save Medicare and Social Security, and save the planet. They see corporate executives secure prescription monopolies for the purpose, in their mind, of securing drastic increases in prescription prices. They look at the rise in the corporate executive compensation to employee compensation ratio, stagnant or falling labor compensation compared to the unprecedented increase in corporate executive compensation; and millennials are revolted. Finally, millennials hear statements regarding the executive compensation to employee salary ratio indicating that these executives no longer ask the question, How much is in enough? but now ask How much can I get? When millennials are told that corporate executives just don’t care, they conclude that capitalists capitalism’s problem is a good reason to reject capitalism as a fair economic system.
No one can actually speak for them; but, based on remarks from his Farewell Address to the Nation, that George Washington and the other Founders as well as their Biblical Christian morality would indicate that capitalists need to make real changes in their behavior. In light of the fact that the Marxist or socialist, progressive, liberal agenda dominates all aspects of culture in the United States, it seems that capitalist leaders should begin evaluating their decisions and behavior in relation to solid moral and ethical standards.
Although it is the fiduciary responsibility of corporate executives to maximize profits for shareholders, it might be appropriate to start asking do our decisions benefit both our stockholders, and equally important do our decisions benefit our employees as efficiently as our executives have benefited from their compensation. This change in attitude toward employee management relationships would provide a positive employment atmosphere and could even have a positive effect on productivity. Asking the question, is this decision moral and ethical could also lead to reductions in potential environmental problems caused by manufacturing, energy production, and reduce land, air, and water pollution. To accommodate this change in approach, corporate boards of directors would also have to allow executives latitude to affect change.
The system of constitutional capitalism that has evolved in the United States since the Revolutionary war has given our nation the most potent political socioeconomic system of governance in history. Unfortunately, conservative and capitalistic institutions have failed to recognize the all-inclusive and pervasive influence of the left in our society. The left is now the dominant force training and evangelizing the youth of the United States of America. The cultural mores and ideology of the left dominate our education system, information system, and economic ideology of our young people.
Donald Trump is not a conservative. Conservatives cannot become complacent simply because he is a Republican. He was a pragmatic, innovative, populist. Capitalists, corporate executives, and conservatives cannot assume that the results of the last several elections, the dramatic shift to Republican office holders, indicates movement towards conservative and Republican principles and ideology in our nation. Polls regarding the attitudes of millennials show a strikingly different philosophical and ideological attitude of the next several generations of voters. Conservatives and Republicans cannot assume that these voters will always be undependable Democrat voters in the future. From the perspective of young voters completely immersed in Marxist and progressive philosophy, capitalists capitalism’s problem is a reality in their mind. The welfare of the middle and lower classes will determine the political socioeconomic future of the United States of America.
A relevant question is, How can conservatives and capitalists change the negative populist perception about capitalism that prevails in the minds of a growing percentage of current and future and young voters in the United States? The answer to that question will determine the future of the United States of America.
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.”
From their beginning in the early nineteenth century, European philosophers, political theorists, and educators sought to establish the left’s educational dictatorship. These academicians interchangeably referred to themselves as both socialists and communists. Modern synonyms for these terms have expanded to include liberals and progressives. These intellectuals understood the importance of education in their effort to hasten societal evolution toward the goal they envisioned. Marx and Engels were commissioned by the Communist League in London to draft a detailed theoretical and practical program of the party. The result was the 1848 publication of The Communist Manifesto.
In his section of The Communist Manifesto, with an introduction by Gareth Stedman Jones, 2008, titled Proletarians and Communists Marx wrote the following.
“But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.
In the early 1920’s during Marxist Study Week in Frankfurt, Germany, Karl Korsch and Georg Lucs conducted seminars for leading Western European scholars. According to the author of The Frankfurt SchoolIts History, Theories, and Political Significance. 1994, the statement by Marx, You cannot transcend philosophy without realizing it, was central to the discussions of the early theoretical formulation of the left’s educational dictatorship. He summarized the discussions as follows:
It meant that intellectuals who were prepared to ally themselves to the proletariat (workers and laborers)were to have an important role to play. There could be no question ofcuring’ them of their intellectuality. Rather, it was necessary to transmit this intellectuality to the workers.
Later to a similar group, Lukacs stated,
As you now emerge from economic struggle and devote yourselves to culture, you are devoting yourselves to that part of the control of society which will produce the central idea for future society.
In his 1924 Inaugural Address for The Institute for Social Research, at Frankfurt University Carl Grnburg, said,
“And then,there are the optimists. They see, instead of a decaying form of culture, another, more highly developed one approaching. And for their part they consciously demand that what is outmoded should stand aside in favour of what is emerging, in order to bring it more speedily to maturity.
Many people are firmly scientifically convinced that the emerging order will be a socialist one, that we are in the midst of the transition from capitalism to socialism and are advancing towards the latter with gathering speed. I, too, subscribe to this view. I, too, am one of the supporters of Marxism.
I need not emphasize the fact that when I speak of Marxism here I do not mean it in a party-political sense, but in a purely scientific one, as a term for an economic system complete in itself, for a particular ideology.
From the early 1950’s through the early 1970’s, Herbert Marcuse taught, as a political theorist, at Columbia, Harvard, Brandeis from 1954 to 1965, and the University of California, San Diego. He supported the students of the anti-war movement in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s in the United States and around the world. During an anti-war symposium discussion period in Berlin, a student asked him this question,
What material and intellectual forces are required for radical change?
In his response summarized in The Frankfurt School, Marcuse admitted his helplessness, as follows:
In order for new demands to develop, the mechanisms that reproduced the old demands would first have to be abolished; while, on the other hand, in order to abolish those mechanisms, the demand for them to be abolished would first have to be created. The only solution he could envisage was aneducational dictatorship’.”
In the United States, the concept of the left’s educational dictatorship is the model for the rescue of education from the influence of the ruling class demanded by Marx in The Communist Manifesto. The left’s educational dictatorship is the means by which what is outmoded is being forced to stand aside in favour of what is emerging, in order to bring it more speedily to maturity in Grnburg’s words.
The left’s educational dictatorship teaches progressive curricula from Preschool to Ph.D. in our classrooms.
In the United States of America, the Marxists of the liberal progressive movement have accomplished their major goal for education. They have used their political power and academic supremacy to established the left’s educational dictatorship. Demands to abolish the old mechanisms have been created from preschool to Ph.D. level educational programs. The current generation of teachers is, for the most part, completely supportive of the liberal progressive agenda for the future of our country. Faculties,at alllevels are dominated by liberals and progressives. The publication process, including editorial boards for most liberal arts and social science journals, is also dominated by liberals and progressives. In many cases, conservatives need not submit manuscripts for publication under these circumstances. In the current culture of political correctness, university and secondary education students now demand that conservatives of all stripes are banned or restricted on their campuses. The reality of our Founders Judeo-Christian heritage has been scrubbed from both curricula and textbooks at every level. Virtually all references to God and the traditional Biblical family are prohibited and disparaged in our schools.
Since Marxism is “a body of rational norms” that has been largely assimilated into modern social sciences, our students are taught by curricula determined byleft’s educational dictatorship. The applicable principles of Marxist philosophy are now taught in each liberal arts and social science discipline. With these educational programs, each new generation of citizens becomes more tolerant of and often in favor of a more socialist society in the United States.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Progressives oppose Christianity since Marxist intellectuals have always understood the necessity of reducing or eliminating the influence of Biblical Christianity on society. This reduction is necessary to hasten societal evolution toward the goal they envisioned. In the first half of the nineteenth century, European Marxist philosophers and political theorists referred to themselves as both socialists and communists. These and the modern terms, liberals and progressives are interchangeable. Marx and Engels were commissioned by the Communist League in London to draft a detailed theoretical and practical program of the party. The result was the 1848 publication of The Communist Manifesto.
Progressives oppose Christianity since role and values of the individual is antithetical in the two ideologies.
In The Communist Manifesto with an introduction by Gareth Stedman Jones, 2002, Marx and Engels indicated that pragmatic means of hastening this evolution would be required in more advanced industrialized, capitalistic countries. Any belief system or institution that values the individual is inconsistent with the ideology of the Marxist left, progressives. Hence, progressives oppose Christianity, especially Biblical Christianity. Our nation’s Founders had a strong Judeo-Christian heritage. This heritage valued Biblical Christian churches and families.
The tone and rhetoric of the discussion and debates between the proponents of any form of Marxism and the Founders’ Judeo-Christian vision is intense. Marxist disdain for all that is Judeo-Christian is really quite simple. The implications of one word, individualism, explain this disdain. The role, value, and relationship of the individual to the society or group as a whole are direct, antithetical opposites in Marxist philosophy and the Founders’ Judeo-Christian values, Biblical Christianity, conservative Jewish culture, and conservatism. For any form of Marxism to succeed, the individual must submit to the good of society. For Marxists, the individual has no value compared to the value of the society. Individuals are worthless.
In Biblical Christianity, the individual has infinite value because
God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still Sinners, Christ (God’s only Son) died for us (each individual) (Romans 5:8 NIV).
The value of the individual is magnified by the fact that
The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs “ heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory (Romans 8:16-17 NIV).
As joint heirs with God’s only Son, Jesus Christ, each Christian individual has infinite value in the sight of the God. This component of Christianity, the value of each individual, is one of the primary reasons that progressives oppose Christianity.
In his 2002 introduction to The Communist Manifesto, Gareth Stedman Jones discussed Marxist scholars concerns about the relationship between Christianity and the individual. According to Ludwig Feuerbach,
Christianity alienated man’s communal character as a species into individual relationships with an external being resulting in the rise of individualism.
Consequently, according to Feuerbach, the essence of Man is contained only in community, in the unity of Man with Man. In the relationship between I and Thou, Christ had become Thou. Religion was misdirected. The infinite was not an external God, but Man. Once Man was made aware of his infinite nature through philosophy and reason, individual limitations would be eliminated. Max Stirner sought to eliminate all vestiges of religion especially ethics, morality, and the Protestant God from communist philosophy. Engels observed that,
The Christian world order cannot be taken any further than this.
He considered the abstract subjectivity of individualism to be a problem of the Christian-Germanic view of the world and the Christian state. Accordingly,
the free and spontaneous association of men would lead to an ever certain victory over the unreason of the individual.
In his doctorate, Marx expressed his atheism and belief that philosophy is the only true god and that the gods of religion were irrelevant by stating that
all heavenly and earthly gods who do not acknowledge human self-consciousness as the highest divinity are false.
Since God was the creation of Man, Christianity was the symptom of the problem, egoism, individualism, and private property. According to Gareth Stedman Jones, this is a good explanation for the reasons that progressives oppose Christianity.
THE BIBLICAL CHURCH
The New Testament describes the Biblical Christian church and family as the only Holy institutions established by God to raise and train each individual Christian and share Christ with the world. In these institutions, church leaders and parents teach children and new Christians Biblical truths, morality, and the importance of Christian service and ministries. These leaders also model Christian living for children and new Christians. Most importantly these institutions teach and share this simple truth with the world,
God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whver believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life (John 3:16).
Since each person who hears this truth must accept Christ’s free gift of eternal life individually, each person on earth is individually valued and loved by God.
In his section of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists Marx wrote the following regarding religion, especially Christianity:
Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.
In the 1983 publication, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, the editors discuss a treatise on historical materialism by Nikolai Bukharin, which indicated that
religion (especially Christianity) must be opposed actively since it would take too long for it to die out of its own accord.
Since the Biblical Christian church works along side traditional Christian families to raise children into strong self-reliant individuals, animosity toward the Biblical church is part of the reason that progressives oppose Christianity.
THE BIBLICAL FAMILY
Biblical Christian families are the institution where parents model their Judeo-Christian heritage and values for the next generation. These values include our moral codes and the worthiness of each individual in the sight of God. This model for the family is an anathema to Marxist. The significance and influence of the Biblical family in society must be drastically reduced or eliminated for their vision for society to succeed. Attacks on the traditional Judeo-Christian Biblical family and marriage are based firmly on the writing of Marx. In his section of The Communist Manifesto titled Proletarians and Communists Marx wrote the following.
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois (ruling class, land owners, and capitalists) family based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.
In his 1994 publication, The Frankfurt School Its History, Theories, and Political Significance, Rolf Wiggershaus chronicled the work of one of the more significant groups of western progressive philosophers. He summarized, Robert Briffault’s, 1927 work on the family, The Mothers: A Study of the Origins of Sentiments and Institutions, by observing that paternal families were a product of economic systems where property inheritance by individuals was important to society. Briffault’s vision for the future traditional family follows:
¦The expectation that the decay of the patriarchal family as a result of the serious crisis of the individualistic, competitive economy would increase, and that a society no longer characterized by competitiveness would be able finally to release social emotions which went beyond the narrow and distorting circle of family.
Michele Barrett observed that Engels’ view of the family still dominates Marxist thought on the family. Engels viewed the Bourgeois family as an institution of male dominance in which the wife simply provided heirs for legal transmission of property to succeeding generations in exchange for sustenance. Engels considered the relationship a form of prostitution.
The Marxist definition of family, according to Barrett, is simply kinship arrangements or the organization of a household.
This view is consistent with the current demands of the LGBTQ+ agenda. The role of the Biblical Christian family in relation to raising strong individuals is a significant reason that progressives oppose Christianity.
Just as Marx demonstrated his disdain for God and religion, as mere pawns of capitalists, he demonstrated his disdain for marriage and the family. Members of the progressive liberal movement in the United States often express similar sentiments. The attacks on Biblical Christianity and the multi-millennial Judeo-Christian church and family are consistent with the Marxist goal of elimination of all vestiges of our Judeo-Christian heritage as a significant influence on our society. Consequently, progressives oppose Christianity including the Christian Church and the traditional Christian family. Progressive disdain for Christianity is greatest for Biblical Christians who adhere to Biblical morality and ethics as essential to their faith.
For modern Marxists, they call themselves socialists, progressives, liberals, and Democrats to mask their philosophical roots, all vestiges of Biblical Christianity must be rendered socially impotent for their vision for the future of the United States of America to be fully implemented. Consequently, progressives oppose Christianity as a matter of strategic necessity.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Liberals and progressives vehemently object to the contention that Marxist leftist ideology accurately reflects the origins of their approach to society and governance. In my opinion however, the programs and policies of the left are based on Marxist philosophy. The fact that Marxism rarely surfaces during discussions of ideas underlying the cultural, social, political, and economic issues of our time is powerful evidence of the stealth nature of Marxism. Pseudonyms, such as socialism, liberalism, the progressive movement, the left, and the far left, substitute for the term Marxism in most discussions. Each term has its roots in Marxist philosophy.
Although they disagree, Marxist leftist ideology is an accurate description of progressive thought.
Marxist leftist ideology is philosophically based on the concept that all societies will evolve into societies in which all people share equally in all the benefits of society regardless of their personal willingness or ability to contribute to the good of society. The theorized evolution will occur locally first, regionally, nationally, and finally expand into a global reality. Under Marxist social theory, all property and wealth will eventually 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.
For the most part, socialist philosophers, both before and after Marx, postulated that their vision of social change would occur at an inevitable but evolutionary pace. Socialists, including Marx and Engels, felt that the worsening plight of laborers resulting from the expanding industrial revolution would soon be a catalyst for the change they predicted. These changes would eventually have global scale and impact.
The editors of A DICTIONARY OF MARXIST THOUGHT, 1983, demonstrated the staged demise of Marxism and its hidden influence that continues to this day, as follows:
Leszek Kolakowski’s Main Currents of Marxism, which distinguishes between the value of Marxism as ‘an interpretation of past history’ and its ‘fantasy’ character as a political ideology, and argues that while the intellectual legacy of Marx has been largely assimilated into modern social sciences “so that as an independent explanatory system or method Marxism is ‘dead’ “ as an efficacious political doctrine it is simply ‘a caricature and a bogus form of religion.’
The editors go on to contradict the verdict that Marxism is ‘dead’ as follows:
But it is precisely the distinctive explanatory power of Marxist thought in many areas, and its capacity to generate not a religion, but a body of rational norms for a socialist society, which seems to many thinkers to make Marxism an enduring challenge to other modes of thought.
Consequently, it is safe to conclude from these two statements that
Marxism is not dead; but, Marxism is a body of rational norms that have been largely assimilated into modern social sciences.
Consequently, liberals and progressives are able to disassociate themselves and their ideas from the relationship between Marxism and totalitarian communism. Hence, they substitute phrases such as the rich should pay their fair share in taxes and inheritance taxes for wealth redistribution. Regardless of protests to the contrary, the statement Marxist leftist ideology, is in my opinion a statement of philosophical fact.
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 Hilary and progressives, Biblical Christians, among others, fill their basket of deplorables.
Hillary Clinton’s recent statement that “half of the Trump supporters are in a ‘basket of deplorables,’ [“deplorable basket] who are unredeemable and un-American,” revealed the true disdain that she, liberals, and progressives, have for Biblical Christians, evangelicals, and other conservatives. The room full of liberals, and progressives, who donated around $6 million to the Clinton campaign, laughed in raucous agreement with Clinton. When Clinton, progressives, and a large portion of the left put 20% to 30% of the people in the United States into a “deplorable basket,” they have created a de facto deplorable class. At least 20,000,000 to 40,000,000 Bible believing Christians and Evangelicals are, therefore, among those that progressives view as deplorable; and therefore, members of their Deplorable Class.
Biblical Christians, those in the “deplorable basket,” believe that people are spiritually drawn to God by faith and His grace into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, do His will, follow His way, and understand that the Bible is inspired and guarded by God. Consequently, Biblical Christians believe that the Bible defines marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman; and, therefore, that any sexual relationship outside the bonds of marriage between a man and woman is Biblically immoral. Additionally, the Biblical family is composed of a father a mother and their children. According to God’s plan, the Biblical, Christian family is one of two Holy institutions. The Biblical Christian Church is the second Holy institution ordained by God. In this family, children are taught to love, respect, and obey God. They are taught individual responsibility for their actions and their relationship with God and other people. In this family, children are taught the importance of sharing the need for a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Children are also taught that it is their responsibility to support themselves, their family, and those in their community in need of help and assistance. The father and mother in this family model Biblical Christian living and values for their children. Same-sex families do not fit the Biblical understanding of family. To the left, Hillary Clinton and her liberal progressive friends, the Biblical family is a homophobic institution. This means that to Hilary Clinton, the Democrat Party, progressives, and the left, we, and many other groups, fit in their deplorable basket.
Consequently, Hillary Clinton and the left resist the idea that Biblical families can have positive influence on our nation and society. As a result, they have an irrational fear of Biblical Christians and our values, evangelicals, and the Biblical family. The left is Christophobic. This is especially true for liberals and progressives.
According to Hillary Clinton and her wealthy liberal progressive donors on the left, Biblical Christians and Evangelicals fill the deplorable basket. To progressives, we compose the DEPLORABLE CLASS that they disdain.
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.
