The Coming Revolution

8 02 2012

I have said for 15 years that the next American Revolution or Civil War will be started by the Left.  Today, more than ever, that belief has solidified and is fast becoming apparent.  I will go further and say this, February of 2012: In my opinion, the next elected President will either be George Washington or Joseph Stalin.  In surveying the field of candidates at this point, I see no George Washington.  However, “Joe” could already be in office and consolidating his power.

The Bolsheviks are inside the gates and the near objective is the death of “capitalism”.  Occupy Wall Streeter’s (OWS) are chanting for the death of capitalism.  (Heck, they’re chanting for the deaths of CEO’s, cops, and tea partiers, with some of them advocating the return of the guillotine.)  However, history proved the Bolsheviks to be mere pawns in the eventuality of Stalin’s rise to power against even Lenin’s wishes.  Although Lenin was a Marxist Bolshevik, he was not the authoritarian figure that Stalin sought to be and became after Lenin’s health declined.

Collectivism

There is an ideology that has been around in America for a long time now, but has never had the momentum and support from our institutions that it currently enjoys. That ideology is collectivism. It has existed in varying degrees around the world in political movements like socialism, communism, and fascism.  In its mild form it opposes capitalism, seeks to redistribute wealth, limit private property ownership, all through government regulation.    (“Social Justice” is another term that is frequently used by collectivists.) This is “social democracy”.  We are becoming very close to that now, if not already there.

Collectivism always puts the group needs before the needs/rights of the individual.  The ultimate in a secular collectivist society is Communism, where the government owns or controls everything from food production to education.  It manages information flow through news media, the arts, and academia.  The duty of each citizen is to the state. The natural result of this philosophy is the weak perish, and the middle class disappears. The ultimate goal of total equality is nearly met, and for all the rhetoric of “social justice”, well…everyone lives in poverty except the ruling elite.

Islam is another collectivist society in which the rights/needs of the individual are not important, but demands each citizen serve the collective in order to maintain it. The only practical difference between Islam and Communism is that Islam is a Theocracy, in which all aspects of life and society are controlled by the ideology, dispensed upon the collective, by the collective, if a theocratic government is not available. In Islam, once again, the ideal governmental system is a Theocracy in which the authoritarian government is Islam. Again, the middle class is virtually none existent, while the ruling elite prosper.

America, conversely, was never set up to be collectivist in its ideology.  The founding documents, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were designed to protect the rights of the individual from the state.  The stark difference from America and the rest of the world is that our Declaration points out that “all men are created equal” and are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers  in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” [Emphasis added]

See, America was never intended to be a “Top Down” authoritarian government. It is not a Democracy, where the mob rules, but a Representative Republic, governed by law instituted by the People, and Representatives of their own choosing.  In the words of Lincoln, “government of the People, by the People, and for the People.”

America has always been about the Liberty of Mankind to choose his own destiny, his responsibility to his God, and his duty to preserve these things for his descendants and his fellow citizens.  It has proven that the success of the collective depends upon the liberty of the individual. When the individual is allowed to prosper and flourish, the community prospers together.  That was the difference between the early Colonies of Jamestown and Plymouth. Jamestown had been a “collectivist” or communal endeavor in which all property was held in common and all needs came from the common purse, or storehouse.  This leads to the “freeloaders” who contribute little or nothing and consume as much as everyone else. Jamestown died.  Plymouth began as such but William Bradford recognized the flawed system and allotted a parcel of land to each family to provide for their own needs and any surplus could be sold or given to a neighbor.  Capitalism.

It is commonly misunderstood among the OWS crowd and many average Americans, that charity is squelched by capitalism.  Quite the contrary, capitalism begets charity, especially when the prosperous citizen believes in his Creator and therefore has a sense of duty to his fellow man which always results in a higher rate of contribution to community than an over reaching government taking from the prosperous and “redistributing the wealth” (as Mr. Obama would say) because the government requires its cut for inefficient administrative bureaucracy.

An authoritarian government can never create a benevolent citizenry.  It can only dispossess its citizens to meet its own needs.  A benevolent citizenry is created by allowing that society to prosper from within, to the point of plenty, when then by the dictates of conscience, not government, each person may choose charity, thereby raising the standard of living for all.  William Bradford proved it out.

The argument could easily be made that “Godless Capitalism” is evil.  I would not disagree; but would remind you that “Godless anything” is evil, including Godless Government, Godless Politicians, Godless Education, Godless Finance, and Godless Media.  But the striking thing here is this: Those who are decrying the evils of “Godless Capitalism” are of the very persuasion that ejected God from our institutions!!

Revolution Requires Chaos

If you haven’t picked up Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” by now, you simply must read it, although it will nearly be a review of the last 3 years.  Professor Barack Obama, our Chief Community Organizer taught Alinsky’s methods to his students.  Alinsky’s fundamental premise is found on page 116, “The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step towards community organization.”  He then advises the organizer, When you are labeled an “an agitator, they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict.”(p. 117)

Alinsky only left out one piece of the puzzle. What to do with what you break.  Breaking the targeted system is easy; rebuilding something that is productive isn’t.  But his acknowledgment at the beginning of the book should have given us a clue.  To: “…the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”

Speaking of Amahdinejad, the President of Iran has agreed with Alinsky that chaos is the way to get things done and he plans to instigate enough chaos to wake up the 12th Imam, so that Islam can enter its global glory.  Striking similarities here, if you ask me.

America stands at the most pivotal point in her history since the Kansas-Nebraska Act (which resulted in the Civil War).  We are polarized.  We are factionalized.  Our history has been rewritten to minimalize the importance of our Judeo-Christian foundation. Our institutions have been purged of morality that comes from that foundation. Our language is adulterated with vulgarities which are most commonplace in our youth.  Our youth have been hijacked by powers that redefine what family is and strip them of any faith in God that was instilled as a child, and replaced with a collectivist philosophy, “from each according to ability, to each according to need”. That’s Karl Marx, by the way.  It’s also most of the leadership in the current American Democrat Party, unions, our education system, and the media.

Chaos? I fear there will be more than anyone wants to see very soon.

Yes, Mr. Obama, I believe you have “fundamentally transformed America”. Made good on that campaign promise, “yes you did”, but you can’t take all the credit yourself. It’s been in the works for a long time.

The Historic lesson?  Collectivist revolutions always take you farther than you want to go.

The Spiritual lesson?  Godless revolutions always lead straight to Hell….

Where are you George?





Social Justice: A Key Philosophy of Islam

5 10 2011

What do Islamists, Socialists, Communists, Progressives and Greens all have in common?  The ideal of “Social Justice”.

This Utopian philosophical mainstay has been around for quite a while and had its modern roots in the “Social Gospel” espoused by the Episcopalian Church in the early 20th century.  Other similar variant philosophies such as “Liberation Theology” have come out of religious ideologies taught by Roman Catholic clergy in Latin America which merged Marxism with theological teachings of Utopian objectives.   The United Methodist Church has fully embraced “Social Justice” as one of its “Methods”, citing “It is a governmental responsibility to provide all citizens with health care.”    (Even the Green Party movement has as one of its “four pillars”, social justice as a basic tenet.)  I don’t recall Jesus Christ ever admonishing the government of Rome to provide social services to its subjects.  He did however, admonish His followers to provide for the poor…of their own initiative, not by compulsory government intervention.

Post Millennialism is an extra-Biblical doctrine in Christendom which says that in order for Jesus to return to Earth, Mankind must cleanse the world of all the social evils that plague the planet.   In other words, when we get it right, He will return.  Human nature is, of course, antithetical to that objective in light of the fact that all humans are sinful creatures; thus the need for redemption from the curse of death, visa vi the Savior.  Post-Millennialism is indeed an ingenious method to distract  “Christian” religious organizations who have “left their first love” and become diverted from proclaiming the Gospel of Christ to a lost and sinful world. It is a theological seed-bed for “Social Gospel” which is strictly a works based religious theology.  To quote Adrian Rogers, it is “religion working to make the world a better place to go to Hell from.”

The Social Gospel was the root of “Progressivism” in early 1900’s US politics, which became more Leftist each time it “reformed”.  Included in that early movement were names like Teddy Roosevelt,  Woodrow Wilson, FDR.

Socialists of the same era included Upton Sinclair, founder of the ACLU and California candidate for governor who wrote,

“The American People will take Socialism, but they won’t take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to “End Poverty in California” I got 879,000.”

Another noteworthy name in American Progressive/Socialist politics is Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and advocate of eugenics who was cited by Nazi’s at the Nuremberg Trials as foundational in developing their own programs of genocide and sterilization.  Planned Parenthood annually awards recipients worthy of her memory. Recipients include names such as Jane Fonda, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Ted Turner.

Today, Progressives are a large part of both the Green and Democrat parties, while raw Socialists, Marxists, Anarchists, and Communists pretty much make up the remainder of the two.  Just my opinion…(Heck, progressives are entrenched in the Republican Party as well. We call them “Moderates”.)

Today’s proponents of Social Justice are a mix of religious zealots, atheistic Leftist elites, and a smattering of environmentalist activists (most of these would qualify as religious zealots).  It is an ideology which has infiltrated American institutions from the schoolhouse, to the mainstream churches, to the media.

“Social justice” is one of the core values of Fethullah Gulen’s “Turkish Movement”.  The not so “moderate” Muslim Brotherhood also espouses social justice as a core value.  Stands to reason as this is one of the key principles of Islam.

You see in Islam, just as in Socialism, Progressivism, and Communism, it is the government’s/ruler’s responsibility to redistribute resources from those who have, or produce them, to those who have not.  As Marx put it, “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.”

Yes, “social justice” translates as “income and/or property redistribution”.   Now you know why Muslim’s vote Democrat.

This serves to explain the “unholy” alliance that has been made between the Left and Islamic activists in the West, especially in Canada and the United States.  The shared ideologies of  “solidarity”, “social justice,” and a common desire to smother capitalism and a free and open society, have consolidated the opponents of traditional American values into a deadly and powerful force that has found refuge in the highest offices in the land.

Aside from the long list of administrative appointments that our current President has given in sensitive positions (such as Department of Homeland Security) to at least one self-styled Communist, at least 3 Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, at least one open proponent of Sharia Law, and at least one documented socialist, (Not an exhaustive list, mind you; just a cursory perusal of Administration Staff) a recent poll indicates an overwhelming approval of the Obama Presidency among America’s Islamic community.

Pew Research Center released its latest polling data showing vast differences between the average American citizen and Muslim’s (American) satisfaction with the President.  Whereas in 2007, President Bush’s approval among U. S. Muslims was 15% and 69% disapproved, the 2011 data showed that only 14% disapproved of President Obama while an overwhelming 76% approved.

As Pew said in its own report, “Muslim-Americans clearly see a friend in Obama.”  You can read the Wall Street online article titled, “A Muslim President, After All”.  This is quite revealing in light of the Gallup approval rating for Obama at 42%, the lowest among Americans since he took office, with a disapproval rating of 50%.  His approval rating among American blacks (I refuse to hyphenate Americans) has dropped in the last 5 months from 83% to 58%, 18 points lower than that of America’s Islamic community.

So how is that religions and political ideologies that are so antithetically opposed to one another, such as Islam and atheistic Communism (or Progressivism) can cooperate so fully in their  political endeavors?   These forces have been at bloody odds for generations.

The “End Game” for both is the same.  There is an old (supposed) Arab proverb, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend“.  This is a doctrine that has been implemented by military powers throughout history and has been used by most.  The Western Alliance and Russia both used each other to defeat the Nazi’s in WW2.  It is no strange tool to politics.  In fact, it is nearly a prescribed strategy in politics.

The interesting thing about this modern scenario in America, is each ideological group believes they will come out in control in the end.  The basic premise is use the others to my advantage until our common enemy is vanquished, then I can overpower the other interests. It is classic Saul Alinsky.   The Leftist Elite are so arrogant, they believe they can “be nice” to Islam and help/use Islam to subvert the American system and culture, and afterward; when the objective is reached and America is “Fundamentally transformed” (as Mr. Obama so eloquently put it) then Islam will politely co-exist with the Socialists.  Laughable…

Every good Islamist and those who know Islam understand that “co-existence” is not in the Quranic vocabulary.  But the arrogance of the godless Humanists brings a strong delusion which renders the mind incapable of basic reasoning skills and the natural instinct of survival.  The principle of Abrogation, taught by Muhammad and attested to in Quran, does not allow Islam to “co-exist” with any government, culture, or religion. It must, by its very nature, dominate.

Someone is going to be very disappointed in “the enemy of his enemy” after the objective is accomplished.  There is no dhimmitude status afforded atheists.  There is no tolerance for intellectual dissension.  Only conversion or death.

Social Justice? To the Leftist Elite it’s a Utopian pipe dream.  To Islam? It is prescribed by Sharia. One needs only examine those countries where Sharia is enforced to see what a Utopian lifestyle is available there.  Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia…

Social Justice indeed.

I guess it depends on who is “defining the narrative”…Keep in mind the Islamic narrative in the United States is currently being defined by CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood.





Euramerika: Part 1; Statesman, Stupid, or Suicidal?

5 03 2010

This article first published Dec. 8,2009 under title of:

Statesmen, Stupid, or “Suicidal”

Revised March 1, 2010 and included as first in a series of articles entitled “Euramerika”.

I heard a radio talk show host a few months ago talking about the Liberals “End Game”. The question was, “What is their end game”? I thought about that for a while and I will share a few of those thoughts in this article…

The first nature of a politician is to compromise. Sometimes it is necessary in order to get legislation passed; perhaps as a politician you don’t get everything you wanted in a bill, but after wrangling and lots of discussion you decide that you can support the amendments of the opposition in order to pass a bill that contains the basics that you were in favor of for the benefit of your constituents. Consensus always comes by compromise. This is inherently how politics works, like it or not.

The second nature of a politician is self preservation. One cannot compromise too much without risking the support of the constituency in the next election. Very few individuals in the political realm will act without considering these consequences.

Then, on occasion in history, we have seen in a politician real statesmanship. That is, a wisdom and understanding of when compromise is acceptable in achieving a goal for “the greater good”, and when compromise is detrimental to society. When the dust settles, (perhaps years later) the statesman is vindicated and even though his constituency as well as many colleagues may have opposed him at the onset, he’s hailed a hero.  This type of politician, a true statesman, only comes along once every other generation or so. These would be men such as the American Founders.  Winston Churchill also comes to mind along with Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge and Margaret Thatcher. (I suppose I should say ‘Statesperson’ to be PC, but that’s another article.) I would even go so far as to throw Ronald Reagan in that classification, just as a recent example, though some of my readers may not agree. (Too bad, it’s my article and I have no pretense of being an “objective journalist”!)

My conundrum is, across the current political landscape, identifying the goal of the players;  “The end game”? What is the ultimate objective? My opinion…

I believe we are at a point in history in America that has been long awaited by some for perhaps as long as 100 years. The “Progressive Movement” that was so much of who Woodrow Wilson was, has come to the point of balance that is very near tipping. Once that balance shifts, there will be no return to America as we have known it. Perhaps it already has.

What possesses a politician to oppose his constituents on a matter? Statesmanship?  Yes, at times that has been the case. But have we suddenly morphed scores of new statesmen from formerly career politicians? I shall withhold my full reaction to that question at this juncture. Suffice to say, Not!

So if not ‘statesmanship’, then what, ‘stupidity’? Perhaps…“Stupid is as stupid does” you know. But I find it hard to believe there are that many stupid people who could get elected.

So if not statesmanship or stupidity, then what? Suicide? Now there’s a real possibility. Just think of them as “suicide voters”. The empire of Japan brought us the “Kamikaze”, the suicide pilot. Islam has brought us the “suicide bomber”. Now the Progressive movement has brought to America the “suicide politician”!

Does anyone really believe that if this Congress continues to act against their constituents’ loud opposition to the “Bailouts”, “Stimulus”, “ObamaCare”, and “Cap and Trade” that they can stand for re-election this year? Seriously, it is as if the mission of the legislation has become the objective and the people nothing more than a means to fulfill the objective. Not by consent of course, but as the piggy bank. (I believe it was Mrs. Thatcher who said, “The trouble with socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples’ money.”)

But that doesn’t work either. It goes against the second nature of preservation for a politician to sacrifice everything for nothing. However, there may be a few who could be persuaded by their leadership that their “run is done” anyway, and others may be “persuaded” to get on the bandwagon or suffer the (scandalous) consequences. (Reminiscent of the Gestapo of the 3rd Reich)

Then there is the true believer, the martyr, the “Jihadi warrior” who truly supports the objective. They are the leadership and faithful believers who march lock step toward the objective, no matter the price, some even believing that the rewards will be “Paradise” or at least a political payback or immunity. (Sorry boys, no 72 black-eyed virgins; only Nancy Pelosi!)

The objective?

Consider “Dissolution”. In order to “fundamentally change” anything you must change the fundamentals. That is, completely dissolve what you want to replace and begin again. It is a tactic that has been used by Revolutionaries for centuries.

Columnist Mark Steyn began his November 23 column “Happy Warrior” in National Review magazine by quoting the famous German poet and playwright, Bertolt Brecht, who after the East German uprising in 1953 wrote this: “Would it not be easier for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?”

Dissolve the people…yeah, that could work…like through pluralism, secularism, revisionist history, open borders, affirmative action, Darwinism, reparations, and class warfare!  The rules as well as the objective, the “end game”, were established a hundred years ago! A brief study of Woodrow Wilson reveals a philosophy akin to Karl Marx. Wilson with no help from the US Congress, was key in forming the League of Nations, later to become the UN. We all know what a smashing success that utopian idea has become.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Candidate Barak Obama did say he wanted to “fundamentally change America”.  I concede that we do have some problems, but the fundamentals are not among them. In fact, the problems we have are due to leaving the fundamentals behind and pursuing something that doesn’t exist, making it up as we go.

Obama also referred to himself, as have others such as Senator Clinton, as “Progressive” after the model of Woodrow Wilson and FDR. He then declared, “Our time has come!” Who’s time has come? “Ours” as in America’s, or “Ours” as in Progressives. Or was he speaking to someone else?

Brecht was of course, a Marxist. We call them “Progressives” today in Euramerika.








%d bloggers like this: