Karl Marx

Marxists believe that Marxism describes the true potential of human beings, and that this potential can be fulfilled in collective freedom after the Communist revolution has removed capitalism's constraints and subjugations of humanity.
“In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things."

“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world, Unite!" Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Communist Manifesto.

The Ever Changing, Changeless World

In a recent article, I made small references to the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. An acquaintance, after reading the article, complained that the Categorical Imperative, the part of which I was referencing, was both bullshit and flimflam. He then made the observation that I did not understand Kant in any case. As it turns out, he wrote his doctorial thesis on Kant. I concede to his admonitions.

It is interesting to note that the young Marx was an avid reader and proponent of both Kant and Voltaire as well. One might speculate whether Marx understood them either. The mature Marx departed from much of the ideology of Kant, making way for his own form of the dialectic, for which Engels gave him great praise.

All were social manipulators in their own way. All argued with the status quo concerning religion, social interrelation, economics, and moral perspective. They were the radicals of their day, whose time, effort, and energy were wholly directed toward contradiction. They were determined writers about the ideas of social class, organized religion, and the essence of moral behavior.

Central to Marxi’s thinking was the thesis of class struggle and revolution, a result of the glaring economic disparity between the have’s and have not’s of his day. Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto has been the bible for revolutionary radicals of every country and every decade since shortly after it was written. Like Mein Kampf it directs radicals in the aversion to and overthrow of the status quo.

In every age, class has inevitably immerged through one social dynamic or another. Over time the distance between classes grows, causing an ever increasing dislike of one for the other. Different seasons use different terms such as “the working class”, “minority”, “proletariat”, “whiteness”, “capitalist.” But all are directed at those who appear to be in control either by their wealth, status, or position of power. And each, as Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others who were revolutionaries have done, work tirelessly to overthrow the status quo. In many cases, it matters not what the establishment is, simply that it has to be changed. And this occurs as the “apparent” class chasm grows.

Obama offered up the maxim that America is the greatest country on earth, help me change it. I paraphrase, but the meaning is the same. This is certainly a Marxist contradiction, and though it seemed benign at the time, its meaning is becoming quite clear as the days unfold. As a community organizer, Obama worked in areas where poverty is prevalent, literacy is in question, and welfare is the norm. His background was steeped in Marxist principles as was that of many of those with whom he surrounded himself.

But history is rife with such radicalism. While America, at Obama’s insistence, is the greatest nation on earth, it, still, must be changed? Why? Because some have and some don’t? But is there not contradiction there as well?

Historically, and currently, many people in other nations do not have access to the “rule of law”, the liberty to chose one’s path, the means to advance one’s station through hard and productive work, freedom of speech, the right to self defense, and a free market economy. Yet the radical Marxists who have found their way into the government do not believe such liberties pertain to those for whom they speak. Interestingly enough, not one of them is in any way a part of the class they appear to represent. Why is that? Because they realize it is from that class they can manipulate, encourage, and pursue the necessary votes to gain admittance to the throne of power.

Alexis de Tocqueville recognized that something different was being created in America. It was not following the old and established authoritarian rule of Europe. While the founding fathers were slow, sometimes reluctant, to shed the ways (sometimes evils) of the past, through recognition of their faults, they overcame them. And now, in today’s America, anyone can prosper and live with dignity and liberty. Is it not simply a matter of determination? But that is only one way to power. There is another, and that other is through deceit.

One can build a platform that caters to the poor, the infirm, the supposed trodden upon, and the bleeding heart liberal. They need only find someone to blame, and they have. These principles worked for Marx, Hitler, Mao, et al. And once they gain that power, it is easy to gain more power by the usurpation of liberties, the appointment of radicals of like mind, and by the expansion of government filled with Marxists sympathizers.

Marx was, indeed, open about his aims. The Obama radicals remain anything but transparent about theirs.

The truth of the matter is that this is all a bit silly when one understands that we are, in fact, governed by the money changers, and the game we play is a bit laughable.

You cannot continue to deny that wolves are upon you and still expect your liberty to survive.

Immanuel Kant

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Immanuel Kant: Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals

God and Liberty

I am an agnostic. Modern day philosophers call that Soft Atheism. At the same time, I am a strong defender of Judeo-Christian values, public faith, the many icons and totems that represent our Judeo-Christian culture, and the principles those concepts instilled in the traditional American fabric.

People have the notion that all atheists are or can be immoral, since the absence of a deity means as well that there is no accountability, thus why the need for morals? Poppycock. Most people want to make a decent living, independent of authoritarian rule. They want the best for their families. Most see the benefit of morals, of a set of values, and of a way of life that promotes their and their family’s well being. I am lucky to live in such a society. I have no desire to change it, impede it, or overthrow it. I want my children and grandchildren to have at least the same quality of life that I have had, or better.

Judeo-Christian values are fundamental to America and to the quality of American life. Without them, it is suspect to say that one is an American. The nation was created to rid itself of the secular and authoritarian forms of government that existed in other countries. America is a republic and is thus based on the “rule of law.” Over the past 20 odd decades, most of those laws were made using Judeo-Christian values and common sense. Yet, over the past 50 years, the rule of law has become something quite different. Are we willing to sacrifice our children to the noble yet misguided ideals of socialism and fascism?

American Liberty has survived because of its God connection and concept. There is ample evidence of that claim. One need only study the founding principles and documents. The champions of Christianity are not always as moral as they should be, however, and hardly pious enough to throw stones at others. The cross we bear has many thorns: Slavery, our treatment of the American Indian, and the Mexicans of the Southwest are but a few. But do not mistake the actions of either individuals or governments as the authors of our founding principles. We cannot change the past, but we can affect the future.

There are individuals within and without the government who are intent on redefining and changing our founding principles. Consciously or unconsciously, those with power to affect change are not only corrupt, dictatorial, and authoritarian, but also intent on dealing the deck over and over in their favor. Money is their power. While they remain exempt from the efforts of private individuals, they at the same time force municipal and state governments to comply with their wishes: Do our bidding or lose out.

That same strategy is used day after day in the Obama administration. And with it, they increase the size and authority of government every day. The idea is easy enough to grasp. They do it for control. But of what? The lives and liberty of those citizens they now feel are their subjects. Requiring the approval of government is no different than controlling one’s liberty. We are told that some controls offer security. We are told that controls will offer better health care. We are told that spending taxpayers money will enhance our lives. We are told that controlling the environment will enhance our quality of life. We are told that giving up our 2nd amendment rights will result in less loss of life. We are not fools. We don’t mind being told. We don’t mind acting on those needs that we see need reformation. But we don’t want government controlling it. Nor was control the principle by which this country was founded.

Americans want to be left alone to act on their own decisions. To act on that which is a priori knowledge, i.e., known independently of experience, and which guides moral behavior through pure practical reason itself.

It has been tried in other countries and each time has failed. Socialism, communism, fascism, et al, have been miserable failures over the centuries. The commonality and irony was that each gave up the idea of certain principles of individual creativity, merit, and productivity through hard work. America struggled for decades to hold on to those concepts. Yet the new administration wants to control our lives by socialistic principles that undermine each of these. They are counter to American Judeo-Christian values and liberty.

Neither the courts, the state legislature, nor any of the 3 national branches of government have the right to subordinate or overturn a rule of law that is predicated on the liberty of its citizens.
Conservative values include limited government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and free-market economics. Each is predicated on and for individual liberty. And the premise for each is a strong Judeo-Christian value set.

The lure of easy money in hard times captured the votes of many of even the most conservative among us. Willing to sacrifice the future for the present, the nation turned yet another corner in an attempt to appease a progressive minority’s march against traditional values. As it seeks to weaken our religious heritage, so does it work tirelessly to undermine our liberty.

Laugh as you will at such dogma. You do yourself and your progeny a disfavor by denying who you are.

Van Jones and Family

America, A Country Controlled By Professional Activists

Anti-Racism for Global Justice is part of the Colours of Resistance network. COR is a grassroots network of people who consciously work to develop anti-racist, multiracial politics in the movement against global capitalism. We are committed to helping build an anti-racist, anti-imperialist, multiracial, feminist, queer and trans liberationist, anti-authoritarian movement against global capitalism. We are committed to integrating an anti-oppression framework and analysis into all of our work.

“For more comments about our work and a sampling of the list of organizations and campuses where we have done workshops, click here. “

Anti-Racism for Global Justice333 Valencia Street, Suite 325San Francisco, CA 94103415-431-4204 x 210ChrisCrass@mutualaid.org

Obama’s Czars are growing in numbers by the month. It is interesting, if not frightening, to look at their backgrounds, their beliefs, and the energy with which they approach their determination to change America. One such example is a black man who rose quickly to prominence within the community organizer movement. Van Jones is married to a white woman, is lauded by Leonardo DiCaprio, yet insists on decentering whiteness. It appears that Jones is doing just that on a very personal level. Although his group is fronted by “saving the environment organizations”, their theme, by some, is highly weighted by an insistence on the abolishment of the white race.

One cannot fault the supposed nobleness of their cause. Bringing people out from under the bonds of poverty appears to be a loving endeavor. But these people never talk about just how that is to be done. The answer is that they do it by tearing down everything that America is. Thence Obama’s campaign motto of Change?

Jones and those of his kind remain convinced that whites are racists, if often only on a subconscious level. They make no mention of minorities being so. I have worked with Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians all my life and had no particular feelings about them one way or the other, or for that matter, the whites around me. All could do the same job as I, and they could function in society without creating chaos. I have never met a man who was willing to work hard who did not succeed. Is that not enough? Well … no. Not according to the Anti-Racism for Global Justice group and other organizations like them.

People like Jones may be champions of the poor. They may be the priests of social change for the better. They may be honest. But they do not lead us beyond their own noses, for they know not the real and long-term consequences of their actions. Jones was appointed Czar over Green, his promise being that positively affecting the environment by going green will give people jobs, saving them from poverty. A noble undertaking. But there his noble endeavor breaks down.

Jones’ dream is gaining ground exponentially. Why? Because he now has the government behind him. It is one thing to try to help people, if help is what they need. It is quite another to have the government not only endorse your efforts to do so but to force and then enforce them on society as a whole.

I use Jones here only as example. I singled him out because he was brought to my attention. But when one begins researching the background of these Czars, one is suddenly stricken with a realization that is abhorrent to traditional America. The potential for encroachment, intrusion, and control over every American’s life begins to form an even stronger, unbreakable alliance with authoritarianism and fascism, approaching the ideology of either of two evils: The empowerment of weakness or its antithesis, the ideology and precursor to identity politics like those of early Marx, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. It is interesting to learn that although Jones’ young years were spent as an activist, Maoist, Marxist, and Communist, he has come to realize that what he works to accomplish can be done neither by organizers nor the government, but only by capitalist entrepreneurs.

Such movements always have one or more scapegoats, evils that are behind all that is bad to those who believe themselves to be oppressed. In this case those evils are whiteness, corporations, the wealthy, and capitalism. If they can level the playing field, reduce the wealth of the wealthy, reduce the poverty of the poor, and integrate the races into one, the world will be a better place.

But this assumes a world where everyone is equal in their views, their ability, or that they even care about this great utopia they hope to create. Some were simply criminals before they understood what Jones or the Anti-Racism for Global Justice group was all about. And were they to understand it fully, they would not care. Some simply don’t care about creating wealth or having any at all. Some simply don’t care about being benevolent, kind, charitable, or virtuous. They want something for nothing, and if the government will give it to them at someone else’s expense, great. If not, they will simply take it either through the force of a knife at a victim’s throat or the enforcement of their will by the government.

What they desire is to force their will on you. And if the government can be changed or made to enforce that will, they are more than happy to let them. No reasonable person in our society wants to revert to the days of slavery. Yet they seem willing to allow the government to become the thought police, the enforcers of someone’s will against another’s, to reduce your liberty by having to comply with regulations on social interaction, if not belief. It is one thing to dislike black people, quite another to make that a crime. And what is slavery but the complete control of another’s liberty to think, chose, and act as he wishes without victimizing someone else’s liberty.

As it happens, the new God Czar, Joshua DuBois, is just 26 years old, and is charged with domestic poverty, responsible fatherhood, reducing the need for abortion and preventing unintended pregnancy, and interreligious dialogue and cooperation. What does that mean, interreligious dialogue and cooperation? Will it mean that Christians must accept, for example, the Islamic faith or else … what? He will only accomplish what the administration wants by further reducing the liberty of American citizens through the forced acquiescence of America’s majority.

Would it be naïve to assume that hundreds of new regulations controlling people’s lives, their interpersonal relationships, commerce, wealth, decisions, religion, public faith, and the creation of huge staffs would be the outcome of these commissar’s power over our liberty? Government’s job is to protect liberty, not to mold it to their liking. Will it be Jones’ job to see that I become a good little communist, that I succumb to his ideology that decentering whiteness is good for America and the world, that capitalism is oppressive and must be overcome, and that protecting the environment is all about reducing poverty while cleaning up the atmosphere … and is he now in a position to force them on me?

What gave rise to these activists who produce nothing, but who contribute to America only by their dislike for it? I believe thinking people know the answer.

You can choose to ignore these thoughts. You can choose to deny that they exist. You can chose to believe that such things can’t happen in America. But such denial has no survival value.

Paul Tillich

PARADIGMS

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler


During the formative years of my formal education in philosophy and theology, I approached life, society, religion, and the search for a “rebirth of wonder” under the veil of a penniless depression. It was also during that pitiful sojourn that I discovered my savior, a first order autodidact. He, his wife, and two young sons became my family at the end of each day at the university. He attached plywood and tar paper to the outside of a humble gazebo behind his house, installed one light, a tiny bed, and a small desk. The remaining space was barely large enough to turn around. There was no heat. I often returned from the university at one in the morning, simply to spend less time in the near zero temperatures. I remember, having finally gotten to sleep, that when I moved, the sheets next to my body were fiercely cold, and I would awake with a start. They provided coffee, two meals a day, and with the few pennies I scraped together, I bought a cigarette rolling machine, paper, and two large tins of Prince Albert tobacco. I was a faithful but somewhat belligerent student until I ran into Carl Paul Reinhold Neibuhr, the author of the serenity prayer and a prince of American Protestant theology. While it was he who brought about my downfall, it was Paul Tillich (pictured above) who set me free:

“If faith is understood as belief that something is true, doubt is incompatible with the act of faith. If faith is understood as being ultimately concerned, doubt is a necessary element in it.”

My benefactor and I spent long hours discussing philosophy, religion, politics, economics, and history. He still haunts my space some 40 years hence, writing in a website The World According to Me. He remains a genius, seeming to gain more brain cells and knowledge with each passing year.

One such discussion centered around the concept of paradigms: A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, particularly in an intellectual discipline. And to this definition we apply the traditional American premise: Capitalistic economics, the fundamentals of individual liberty, and ecclesiastical piety together with those icons supporting a clear presence of Judeo-Christian public faith. To adjudicate them required the notion of governance and government. Yet the American paradigm is undergoing a shift, carrying us in a direction alien to the traditional values, mores, and moral ground upon which this country was found.

As of this writing, there is much furor over the Health Care Bill, the pros and cons of it, and the apparent anger of many who attend the town hall meetings. There are strong feelings on both sides about a bill that is both incomprehensible and gargantuan. Is health care reform needed? Is this bill the answer if it is? A young man recently told me that “big business is second only to government in corruption, greed, and dishonesty.” I suspect that is true. However, it appears that government now has power over business. Sometimes one does not see the forest for the trees. The fundamental argument is not with the Health Care Bill, although like any symptom, it might be good to eliminate it. The much deeper crisis is the expansion and direction of government. People whine over the prospect of the taxpayer having to pay back 54 trillion dollars of government spending. They will never have to pay it back. Common sense is often a prize possession. The crisis is not in the paying back in any case, it is in the power it gives government. The bailout and stimulus packages expand the government’s authority over business and the people employed by it. The appointment of Czars over many facets of American social interaction, economics, health, religion, and the environment expand not only government but its power, its authority, and its control over every citizen. The rule of law that forms the essence of our Republic is being adulterated and manipulated to please factions whose ideology is foreign to America’s founding principles.

That corruption, greed, and dishonesty are part and parcel of a capitalist economic system did not escape our founding fathers. Nor were they unaware of government collusion, alien to the rule of law and the documents they developed to curtail it.

That is not to say that people should not fear the Health Care Bill and Cap & Trade, for surely they should. The bigger fear is the cause: the government’s ever-increasing encroachment on the private sector and the people. Indeed, is it not naïve to believe that the government is the people and that our appointed representatives work for us? Certainly it is naïve, and it is so because the term “people” has no remaining meaning without being defined by the traditional paradigm. By, For, and Of the people is not simply a struggling paradigm, it has flown like so many leaves upon the wind, carried away by those who do not appreciate or understand its meaning, its relevance, or the consequences of its loss.

Not only is the government obese beyond comprehension, it struggles every day to inflate its size and exert its power over individual liberty. Be ever Vigilant is a phrase that has never been more necessary nor more poignant. Fight not the sore with band aids; fight with conviction its cause.

I invite you to read, once again, the quote at the beginning of this diatribe. While it appears caring and its promise noble, it was the precursor to one of the most evil and dominating powers the world has ever known. It was the “people” of the Reich who became as we, undefined, and with an ideology they did not comprehend.

May I remind you again that: All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. So, without further discourse, say baaa! to those sheep you find steadfastly chained by denial.

L. Scott Smith: America Unraveling

Jonah Goldberg: Liberal Fascism

The Mantra of “Change”


Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore defined as the enemy. I will argue that contemporary American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism. Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism.

The mind of human kind does not flow softly through the soul of society. Its rapids gut the sand below the rocks, digging ever-deeper holes. It will not leave well enough alone, but continuously attempts to fix that which is not broken. As ill equipped for social structure as man might be, America, for the past two hundred years, has accomplished more than any society in history. Among others, these successes have encompassed freedom, economic security, the exercise of Christian public faith, the willingness and struggles of our young to keep us free, and the potential to rise to the heights of our dreams.

Yet, for decades, its academicians, those among us who have proven themselves as intellectuals and gained tenure within our universities, have worked to destroy it. But they are not without dispute among the highly educated and thoughtful. L. Scott Smith’s book, American Unraveling, A Politically Incorrect Analysis of Public Faith and Culture, for example, demonstrates by exhaustive research the path of America’s deception by liberal ideology. Smith is a seminary-educated and ordained minister, doctor of philosophy, and a lawyer. He carefully explores and defines the state of our nation’s culture, exposes the theory of the “godless” Constitution, shows how the nation’s immigration policy and the multiculturalism it has spawned are erecting a “Tower of Babel”, explains why the formative principles of the philosophy of liberalism are logical gobbledygook, and how the United States Supreme court is galloping toward “krytocracy.”

One would think that common sense would prevail over the madness of nonsense. But the principles of the liberal left are not without nuance. On the fringes of its philosophy is the promise of utopia, illusive though it might be. As was shown by Jim Jones, David Koresh, Hitler, Mussolini, and a host of others of their ilk, the philosophy of tribal unity is fraught with an idealism that is difficult to dismiss. It can be shown to be loving, philanthropic, fair minded, and leveling. It punctuates racism, yet is steaming with it. As the traditional boundaries of morality, values, public faith, and economic health shrink, our government is taking full advantage of its weaknesses.

The government acts with impunity to regulate every aspect of our lives. There is reluctance to severe this occupation of our liberty. The actions taken by an administration of “change” are welcome by legions of people who do not understand their consequences. Many in the country did not vote for the ideals of progressive liberalism; they simply voted against the last administration. But what they unwittingly got was a progressive march toward socialism. But is it socialism or fascism? Does it matter? Most certainly it does, because fascism can be far more evil than socialism. The latter is the antithesis of capitalism and is marked by collectivism and the slippery slope toward communism. Fascism, on the other hand, leads to tyranny, repression, and dictatorship.

But America is rife with factions and enclaves that voted for a liberal identity. Not understanding the ideals of the American experiment, they were ripe to embrace the “touchy, feely” premise that liberalism preaches. It signifies hope to those who envision a relief from their economic woes that they see as oppression. It plays to the emotions of artists. It holds accountable what they see as the privileged white majority. It is the final solution to almost every fringe element in the country. How can liberal fascism be any worse than what America has supposedly dealt to these people? Oh, but it can and it will be.

Life without liberty is life without hope. As the tentacles of big government begin to squeeze freedom from its citizens with force, regulation, and social pressure, the vision of success, economic freedom, individual and public faith, the free exercise of will, and even the most mundane of life’s decisions will be monitored and directed by the government, the definition of which is no longer the people, but the purveyors of behemoth, bureaucratic paperwork. The bureaucratic machine is already immense, ambivalent, divisive, and so removed from social interaction and understanding that the lives of the many are being run by the misguided hegemony of the few. It is a cancerous cloth so tightly woven that cutting through it has become impossible.

Paraphrasing Goldberg, the individual will not have the right to not be healthy. The state will be obligated to force you to be healthy for your own good. Environmentalism will give license to moral bullying and intrusion. L.Scott Smith writes, “An essential goal of the traditionalist involves curtailing the excesses of liberalism, which has led to a self-seeking citizenry motivated by the material and enslaved to the secular.”

Morality will operate under a new and glorious paradigm of relativistic card shuffling. The playing field will be leveled along with merit outside the sponsoring goodness of government. And life will be the drool of mediocrity. At last the march toward social equilibrium will force us all into the holiness of the third world. Everyone will be happy in his or her own manufactured demise.

Be wary, for this was exactly the tactic of Hitler, Mussolini, and other fascistic regimes throughout history.

Denial is the emperor of sheep.