Rahm and Hagel Sittin' in a Tree K.I.S.S.I.N.G

I wrote this article, right after the 2008 elections—Like many of the articles I wrote in the early days of my blog, it is no longer available for download. I am re-posting it now because I will be referring to it in an upcoming article and I want people to have it as a frame of reference.

 Thursday, November 20, 2008

America your country is about to change radically, and quickly. Rahm Emanuel President-elect Obama’s incoming White House Chief of Staff; while speaking to the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council, a gathering designed to gauge corporate opinion on the issues facing the new administration, makes some rather revealing remarks.

Emanuel makes the statement; “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” In making that statement, Rahm is letting the lacy fringe of his Hegelian slip show. Emanuel went on to say; “This crisis provides for us the opportunity to do things that you could not do before”

Rahm Emanuel is espousing the philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, a nineteenth century philosopher who influenced the thinking and actions of men like Marx, Engels, Mussolini and Hitler. With these simple statements, Emanuel gives us an insight into the philosophy undergirding the style of government we can expect from the next administration, and maybe a little insight into how we arrived at this point in American history.

Hegel’s philosophy is based on what is called triadic structure by people smarter than myself. You have a thesis (idea), antithesis (competing idea), synthesis (melding of the ideas or solution) Noted Author of books for children Shel Silverstein offers a brilliantly simple illustration:

How Not to Have to Dry the Dishes

If you have to dry the dishes, 
 Such an awful boring chore, 
 But if you have to dry the dishes, 
 'Stead of going to the store, 
 If you have to dry the dishes, 
 And you drop one on the floor, 
 Then maybe they won't let you dry the dishes anymore.

To give you an idea of how Hegel’s philosophy was used by Marx and communism, I offer the following excerpt from “The Worldly Philosophers” by Robert L. Heilbroner, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953, revealing the economic, political, spiritual, and social scope of the Hegelian Dialectic.

"Materialism by itself would reduce ideas to mere passive accompaniments of economic activity. That was not Marx's contention. For the new theory was dialectical as well as materialist: it envisaged change, constant and inherent change; and in that never-ending flux the ideas emanating from one period would help to shape another. "Men make their own history,” wrote Marx. But the dialectical--the changing--aspect of this theory of history did not depend merely on the interplay of ideas and social structures. There was another and far more powerful agent at work. The economic world itself was changing; the ultimate reality on which the structure of ideas was built was itself constantly in flux.”

Deft and covert hands utilized by minds that have formulated the ends before introducing the crisis often guide “Flux,” Hitler used his own Brown Shirts to spread chaos and violence throughout Berlin. He then offered himself as the solution to that chaos and when he was given the power to act by a compliant city, he simply ordered his men to stop spreading the chaos and violence. The denizens of Berlin being unaware of Hitler’s machinations, hailed him as a deliverer.

The reason the liberals have power today is the systematic application of the Hegelian dialectic. It was the economic crisis that swept the liberals into power. I submit that the crisis was cultivated by purposeful congressional inaction under the leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

With the increasing success of the surge and a lack of bad news from Iraq, (notice how the war is almost completely off the radar) it was clear that they could not win the White House on the anti-war platform that propelled them to Congressional power in 2006, especially since they hadn’t kept the promises they made to get the majority in the first place. Not to mention an approval rating lower than that of President Bush. It should also be noted that Rahm served on Freddie Mac’s Board of Directors not long before the collapse.

Before the Democratic congressional takeover the economy despite the work the mainstream media puts in to persuade the public otherwise, was going along swimmingly. We had six straight years of economic growth an average unemployment figure of 5.2 % with a low of 4.1% and record highs on the Dow.

 This crisis began with the collapse of the GSEs, a collapse that could have been avoided if the Democratic congress had acted according to the recommendations made by the President as early as 2001 and dealt with Freddie and Fannie.

Facts compiled from the White House official website

2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity."

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions.  Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options."  (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before. 

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years.  Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission.  The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start.  But the Senate has not acted.  And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."  (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says, "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully."  (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase. 

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much-needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further. 

• "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08) 


• "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)


• "Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)


June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

Yet the mainstream press has laid this crisis at the feet of President Bush. And an ill informed public has swallowed their story hook line and sinker, just as the people of Germany took Hitler’s bait.

The teachings of Hegel have been fashionably debated, embraced and implemented by the “intelligentsia” for over a century, particularly the politically radical and those with a penchant for socialism and fascism as Mr. Obama admits he shares an affinity for.

As my liberal friends are so fond of saying: “follow the money.” When it comes to Freddie and Fannie ask yourself; how is it that Barack Obama received $105,849 in just two years from Freddie and Fannie? The only recipients of higher contributions from Freddie and Fannie, where Chris Dodd at $133,900 and John Kerry at $111,000 It took them many more years to get that much from the GSEs. All of the top three are democrats, in fact of the top #10, 7 are Democrats Hillary was #4 at $75,550 the first Republican on the list shows up at #6 Robert Bennett At $61,499.

Make no mistake; the Democrat party’s agenda is radical. They and those who agree with them will stop at nothing to remake this country into one that matches they’re thinking and as we on the right know, liberal thinking does not suffer conflicting ideas gladly. We already see the stifling of debate on issues like climate change and intelligent design. As the high priestess of liberal fascism Arriana Huffington demonstrates in this video. Tucker Carlson is stunned as Arriana proves his point. 

(Video no longer available)

Arriana Huffington gives the surest example of anti-intellectualism that one could hope to find. This is the spirit that permeates the left. The left knows that if they are going to be able to solidify their power they cannot allow any contrasting light to shine on their flawed notions. The policies enacted as a result of the left’s spurious assertions are, and will be the hammers used to close the shackles about the limbs of an unaware people.

Digital Publius

Irony Thy Name is Iron Man

The first comic book my father bought for me was Captain America #117. My dad was a voracious reader, for pleasure and entertainment he particularly loved reading science fiction. He used to take me to a used bookstore named “Big Books” the place he copped what he was literarily jonesing for.

It was there that he purchased Cap 117 for me. He bought that particular comic because it featured a black superhero prominently on the cover named “The Falcon” —it was The Falcon’s first appearance. I was seven at the time and the comic was already a couple of years old and a tad dog-eared, but I loved it. I remember reading it that very evening while waiting at the laundry mat with my big sister.

Five years later when my father died, my family sold his collection of science fiction books back to Big Books on Cass Avenue, much to my consternation I might add. But today, Captain America is still my favorite superhero, (I’m emotionally fond of the Falcon as well) and that first comic lead to a lifetime love of comics and sci-fi that eventually lead to me actually becoming the co-owner of a small chain of comic book stores in Metro Detroit for ten years during the 80s and 90s. Which may make it seem odd for me to say, I am not at all looking forward to the new Iron Man movie.

Those who know me fairly well are quite aware that I hate just about every superhero movie made so far. But, I still look forward to them. And like the hapless fan boy I am, I zombie walk mindlessly to the theater (usually the very first day) to see them all. And then, some months later, I open my eyes in time to realize I am walking out of a store with the most expensive version of the movie’s Blu-Ray. (Again, usually the first day it goes on sale.)

So why do I not quiver with restless anticipation for Iron Man 3? Frankly, there is something subversive about Iron Man being produced by a Communist Chinese company. DMG, a Beijing headquartered multi-media concern, is the primary partner with Walt Disney/Marvel in this production, There is something rotten in the state of American film making.

In 1963 America, the year Iron Man was conceived by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and subsequently drawn by Don Heck in Tales of Suspense #39 and the Golden Avengers first outing—Iron Man and Tony Stark his alter ego, were the comic book exemplars, the vanguard of American/capitalist opposition to Communism.

It was a Red booby trap that injured Tony Stark’s heart in Vietnam leading to the birth of Iron Man. Stark’s company was the constant target of Red aggression. The Black Widow (Now an Avenger) was introduced as a Soviet spy and assassin, ever bent on capturing American weapons secrets, most often Iron Man’s armor. I never liked the Widow even after she defected.

Notably, Iron Man’s greatest enemy, the malicious “Mandarin”, was a backhanded swipe against Chinese communism. Though the Mandarin was half Chinese, he bore resentment towards The Red Chinese government because the commies usurped the power of his aristocratic Chinese family. The Mandarin aligned himself with the Reds only when it suited his purposes—the partnership, always fraught with distrust, the Reds feared the villain, even while they needed him.

While Captain America more often than not dealt with villains like the Red Skull and Baron Zemo, relics of fascist Germany seeking to reassert the Third Reich, Iron Man fought Communist villains like the Crimson Dynamo and the Titanium Man. The Red Chinese Radioactive Man was created to destroy Thor and the fiendish Yellow Claw led Chinese forces against American heroes in commie plot after commie plot.

So excuse me if I'm reticent in accepting a film portraying historically one of the most patriotic heroes in comicdom, produced by an entity springing from the same political culture that was quite often his deadliest antagonist. Just doesn’t smell right. A red star on a cap throughout my formative years meant enemy of my way of life.

This subversion is not limited to the latest film—for some inexplicable reason, the producers of the second Iron Man film thought it was cool to say that the Repulsor technology, the basis for Tony Stark’s power, was stolen from a Soviet scientist by his father Howard Stark. So much for pride in good old Yankee know how!

The Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt vehicle “Looper,” was also produced by DMG—it was revealed that the Chinese demanded references and elements of the story meant to take place in a future France, be changed instead to China, with the requisite communist red stars insinuated into the background.

Similar Sino-political weight has been brought to bear on films like Disney’s Kung Fu Panda 3 where every script change has to be vetted by the Red Chinese on pain of not being allowed access to the enormous Chinese market. I have no problem with American companies seeking to expand into a burgeoning market, but at the price of cultural integrity? I do take issue with that.

It seems particularly creepy that you have North Korean sabre rattling, with threats against America, a seemingly preposterous idea, yet escalating daily—when you again remember it was the Chinese that forced the film makers responsible for the remake of the cold war classic “Red Dawn” to delay the release of their film until they made the North Koreans the invaders of mainland U.S.A, forcing them to digitally replace every Chinese flag and uniform emblem with North Korea’s.

Well I don’t like it! Unfortunately, most of those born after the baby boom have no real understanding of what it was like living in a cold war world. Our youth can’t access the concept of communist/socialist subversion. We thought we won the cold war with the collapse of the Berlin Wall—that seems rather naïve in light of our growing fiscal and now artistic subservience.

I remembered an old series of sci-fi books featuring a character named Perry Rhodan, my father loved that series. I spent decades trying to find them in Metro Detroit’s used bookstores out of nostalgia for dad. Never could find the early books especially the first few.

For some reason I'd stopped going to Big Books after my dad died, so I'd never checked there. I happened to be driving down Cass Avenue one day just about a year ago and on a lark decided to stop and visit my dad’s old haunt.

Well it just so happened that the bookseller was a guy I knew from the comic book community. I asked about Perry Rhodan while we chatted. “Funny you should ask,” he said, “We have a set of the early ones that in the 20 years I’ve worked here, as far as I know, no one has ever so much as touched.”

Owing to my father’s penchant for buying second hand books, they often had the previous owners marks in them and for some reason I always thought it cool that someone would bother to have a stamp made up to discern their books. And sure enough, there was a mark I recognized.

                                                EX LIBRUS

                                                     D.G.D.

So not only had I finally found copies of Perry Rhodan from the time period I’d longed for, it appeared I was reacquiring my late father’s own copies, sold to that very store decades earlier. Pity the political and cultural integrity of our great nation can't be so perfectly restored.

Digital Publius

President Obama's Latest Loss Leader

I grew up in a home that by any measure would best be described as black nationalistic, politically, ideologically and spiritually. My father was a Muslim and he raised my sister and I as Muslims because Islam was a black man’s religion and Christianity was the white man’s religion and the vehicle used to oppress the black man.

Christianity is the white man’s religion, however I was assured that make no mistake, Christ himself was black as were all of the other men of the Bible. It never occurs to people who make spiritual decisions based on this reasoning that Christianity outdates Islam by some 600 years—and it was a Christian, African King, the Negus of Abyssinia, (Ethiopia) that kept the early Muslims from being slaughtered when they were forced to flee Mecca.

If Christianity is the white man’s religion, why was it being practiced for centuries all over Asia Minor and in Africa before being imported to and spreading across Europe? We know from Scripture that one of the very first converts to Christianity was an Ethiopian (Acts chapter 8) which makes sense when you consider that 600 years later, the king and that very country were in fact Christian.

Further, if Christ and all the other Biblical figures are black as proclaimed by black nationalists—I as a black man would be more inclined to reclaim what was mine, rather than adopt a faith whose existence contemporaneously is owed to a lie of omission used to curry the Negus’ favor in an act of Islamic self-preservation. (And thank God, I did choose Christ and I don’t care if He’s purple!)

Not to mention the fact that Islam’s earliest practitioners, Arabs from the Saudi Peninsula, were then and are still to this day the parties most responsible for trading in African slaves. Thankfully I am not inclined to choose my faith based on something as arbitrary as race. A rather silly notion in light of what the Holy Bible says on such matters.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: Acts 17:24-27

Rather makes the whole race thing silly doesn’t it?

Growing up in a black-centric home, I was fully immersed in all of the usual reading that such an upbringing entails—I was saturated with “From Superman to Man” and the history books penned by J.A. Rogers. Exposed to the writings of George G.M. James, the allegories of Ralph Ellison and Richard Wright… My interest in learning to fence came from stories of Chevalier de Saint-Georges and General Alexandre Dumas, fantasies of swashbuckling that ended with a torn lateral meniscus in my late thirties. There was no shortage of black history in my home.

One of my favorite giants of history has always been Harriet Tubman. She reminded me of my Granny—a tough little lady who brooked no insolence, taught me to cook and to behave myself. Perpetually aproned and in motion. With wire spectacles perched on her nose she regarded you and you were always happy when those eyes did not find you wanting. All this while being the sweetest creature to ever walk the earth in shoe leather.

That is how I imagined Harriet Tubman. The heroic eight years she spent as a conductor on the Underground Railroad and the life she lead afterwards should never be forgotten. I am very pleased the great lady is being recognized by having her memorial declared a national monument by President Obama. But the cynic in me can’t see this action as anything more than a political loss leader.

In commerce, a loss leader is a product or service offered as a device to get a customer into the store so you can sell them something of greater value. It is generally something that costs the business very little, but is significant enough to garner attention.

That is precisely what the Harriet Tubman announcement has done. It has gotten lots of Black folks excited, sparking tweets and status updates praising President Obama for taking a memorial that already exists and elevating it. Praising Harriet Tubman costs the President absolutely nothing in political capital, but it gives the illusion that he cares about black history and by extension his black constituents.

This reminds me of what is probably Harriet Tubman’s most famous quote: “I freed a thousand slaves I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” I can’t think of a time in history when that reflection is truer than it is today!

So many of the President’s apologists make excuses for why he doesn’t address the ills of the black community, “After all” they say, “he is not just the President of black people.” No he is not, but everyone who now says that in light of his perceived apathy towards the issues concerning black folks, were in their inward parts and amongst their own saying: “Now we’ll get some stuff done!” when the President was first elected.

Well if naming Harriet Tubman’s already existing memorial a national park is getting stuff done, more – power – to – you.

I’d prefer seeing President Obama support practical economic policies that would promote job growth! I’d like to see him cease advancing policies that increase the cost of energy, a promise he made on the campaign trail that he actually kept, though I wish he hadn’t, it is adversely affecting the poor a great deal more than the elites he surrounds himself with.

How about not denouncing policies that give urban youth access to better educational alternatives like school vouchers? This way the inner city kids can go to the same kinds of schools the President sends his daughters to. If you are allotting funds for each student's education, why not allow those funds to be spent in the school of the parents choice instead of condemning them to the never-changing liberal petrie dish that public schools have become?

Or perhaps he could take a trip once a month to an urban area and deliver a speech denouncing the self-destructive behavior decimating the black community. Maybe get in the face of urban youth and send them a message that you care by telling them the truth.

He could find time to do this if the President dialed back a few of those golf trips he takes every month. Tiger Woods and the rest of his fairway cronies are already set, they have the resources to isolate themselves from the communities that could benefit most from his attention!

That doesn’t appear to be the kind of venture the President is willing to risk his political capital on. Ah well, I suppose the inner city could always use another Rosa Parks Blvd.

Digital Publius

Join the Digital Publius community on FaceBook

Progressive...Really?

Progress.

Is there a nobler word?

Haven’t we all at some point stood back, chest expanded, beaming at the fruits of our labors with contented satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment. “Today I have made progress.” Man has always celebrated the relentless effort to improve, to advance.

 For the Roman Emperor Hadrian, the decisive Battle of Beitar, sounding the end of the Jewish rebellion and Hadrian’s subsequent renaming of Israel to Palestine meant progress. So progressive were those actions taken in 136 AD, we didn’t see the nation again called Israel for some 1800 years.

Likewise, when Adolf Hitler requested a situation report from his subordinates regarding his “Jewish problem,” they were able to report to him with confidence “Mein Führer we are making progress."  History augurs for progress being in the eye of the beholder–one man’s progress can be another’s tragic, even deadly set back.

“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Proverbs 14:12

Social “progress” is rarely benign. Especially when it springs from man’s ideas of right and wrong. This is why a morality derived form a source greater than man is capable of is necessary when plotting a society's course.

We know the Founders of our great nation understood this principal; it is the very reason why the United States of America has always been self-correcting. It was the basis for the institution of slavery for example ending after centuries of it’s practice in the Americas in such a relatively short time following the birth of our country.

God condemned slavery when He said, “thou shalt not kill, steal and covet.”

These are unavoidable activities when one participates in the trafficking of human beings. God also in no uncertain terms condemns slave traders.

The surest way to spot an unbelieving Bible scholar is by finding one who uses the ordinances imposed on the rebellious Israelites regarding slavery, to suggest the God of the Holy Bible advocates for the institution. You have to recognize you can’t condemn slavers without also condemning slavery.

When people study and understand the precepts of God in their entirety, you cannot argue for slavery with legitimacy from a Biblical perspective. That is why so many of the Founders made statements like:

"That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part." - John Jay

 And:

"Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity... It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men." - Benjamin Rush

This is the only conclusion drawn when you take in the breadth of the Holy Bible and the gospel message—and why it is when Americans return to Biblical truths, we get things inevitably right. It’s when we ignore those tenets we elect bad people and disastrous policy ensues.

The Democrats, the left in general, have co-opted the term “progressive” to brand their ideas and the course they would set for our nation. They’ve been frightfully successful at framing their ideology in a progressive light, due mostly to their allegiance with popular media. It doesn’t matter that everywhere their ideology rules, you find unprecedented failure in every measurable sense.

In the upcoming week, the nation’s highest court will be hearing arguments for and against the preservation of the Biblical/traditional definition of marriage. We therefore once more find ourselves standing at a moral precipice—will we stand with God? Or will we do what seems right to man and perpetuate spiritual bondage after having abandoned subjecting our fellows to physical slavery?

Notwithstanding the fact that the overwhelming majority of states after putting this issue to a popular vote have upheld the traditional definition of marriage, the unremitting left has sold many on the idea that holding such views will place you on the wrong side of history. They make these arguments with little patience for history actually playing out. Hence a drive for a federal solution decided in the courts, rather than leaving it to the will of the people.

I suppose the very idea of government of the people, by the people and for the people, not perishing from the earth, has itself ceased to be progressive. I have no problem ceding the term “progressive’ to the left, I’ve never appreciated adopting terms too often nebulously defined.

I think the right needs to coin and perpetuate it’s own conceptual brand to describe our philosophy, our worldview. I vote for the term “realist”! Let’s us who hold to Christian/Conservative/Republican ideology refer to ourselves as the “realist wing” of political discourse—How do you counter reality with any semblance of legitimacy?

I know from a realist’s point of view, following God always leads to being on the right side of history.

Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. Joshua 24:14,15

Digital Publius

U.S. Socialism and the Politics of Arms

If I may, I would like to play the socio-political theoretician. The modern American leftist dismisses the idea his beliefs are socialist and is able to get away with it, (much to the chagrin of sober-minded realists) because U.S. style socialism is a new species. Not unlike some heretofore undiscovered tree frog found enjoying flies in the Amazon. New coloring, different markings, yet still very much a frog.

Traditionally when one thinks of socialists, images of bearded men and hairy women—sweating in some dark Café, plotting to do away with the bourgeoisie come to mind. Or perhaps a figure, hunched over a camp fire in a jungle somewhere, (sweating) dressed in olive drab beside his comrades, inspiring the proletariat to rise up and overthrow their capitalist oppressors by force in a violent upheaval, ¡Viva la Revolución!

And that is the way it has happened in most of the places stricken with socialism. It begins with an intellectual degenerate, inspiring revolution amongst the lower classes in a society, who are then armed—socialism normally attacks from the bottom up.

In a society as powerful and throughout most of our history, incredibly prosperous like the United States, socialism cannot rely on the old ways. The old ways work well in underdeveloped nations, but in the West, a softer revolution was in order.

"You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept Communism outright; but we'll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won't have to fight you; we'll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands." ~ Nikita Khrushchev

Nikita was right in as much as we are all but completely there, he was wrong in that America is not awake. So well has the left's agenda worked in America, wakefulness is a state beyond reach for far too many people.

In America socialism doesn’t rise from the bottom, it is a pincer with power infecting the top of our society, manipulating the bottom. The pincer's target however is unchanged—the middle class, the true bourgeoisie.

The middle class in western societies controls the means of prosperity, the capital. Whether it manifests as goods, services…Or the most important capital of all, productive working people.

The middle class is not just the strata controlling capital, it is also the largest in the nation and the population most vested in maintaining stability. It is therefore the most frightening element in a society for socialists and therefore undermined at all cost.

For the socialist oligarchy on top, it is about power and maintaining power—For the lower strata it’s about envying what they have not achieved by their own energy, it is resentment, a destructive force readily and habitually used by the socialists on top. Grant entitlements and you will be loved, believed and rewarded with power. 

The leftist top is therefore vested in maintaining a sense of victimhood and entitlement in the lower classes. so the leftist elites work tirelessly to subvert the hard work of the middle class.

This is why the gun-control issue is so vitally important today. You see, leftists, socialists in general, are not at all against guns, not the ones on top at least. No ruling socialist is. It is important to arm the people, until you have reached your ends, then it is important to disarm the people, just in case enough of them do shake off their state of somnolence.

The elites have to keep the guns in the hands of those it controls. They cannot control the middle class, so the guns must be eliminated or at least reduced in the largest and least controllable strata. The strata standing in the way of complete control.

The leftists now control much of law enforcement and the military at the top, but in a more circumspect manner they also control the weapons on the bottom of society.

You see, crime is a part of that lower pincer exerting pressure on the middle. Criminals cannot be effected by gun laws, because they don’t obey them. The criminal, like law enforcement and the military, will always have access to firearms.

The poor who are not criminals, and a great deal of the gullible in every strata, are taught through liberal agitprop to hate guns. This is accepted by many of the poor even while they themselves are often the victims of the crimes they are most likely, due to circumstances to encounter personally.

The number of those guns on the bottom rises commensurate with the economic pressure exerted from the liberal’s failed economic policies at the top. Crime rises when those of already questionable character, react to fewer opportunities and choose destructive behavior.

Oppress the free market with out of control taxation and the threat of more of the same. Compound it with absurd regulations as a reaction to false science and woefully bad business models, all working to weaken job growth and reduce opportunity and voila, you increase your pool of victims/voters.

Tragically, the middle, the key to prosperity, is trapped between a government it fears is becoming too powerful and criminality growing ever larger and bolder. All while facing an assault on their ability to defend themselves with any level of equality from either point of the pincer.

Why are elements of the government working to undermine the group of American citizens least responsible for the misuse of firearms? Because that is what socialists do.

When I read the Vice President is quietly pressuring the state of Colorado to enact some of the strictest gun laws in the nation in order to have a state in the West, a state other than liberal bastions like, California, New York and Illinois comply with the President’s gun agenda, I am as always reminded of Scripture:

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Ephesians 5:11-16

Digital Publius