The statist assault upon the republic has been relentless since the founding. The constitutional order has been threatened from the right by national statists like Hamilton and Lincoln, and from the left by progressives like Wilson and FDR. But despite the vicissitudes of fortune that have tested the mettle of the American people, under no other government in the history of the republic has the fate of a people been more in doubt.

The Constitution is tattered, the justice system is co-opted, the economy is largely nationalized, private property is obsolete, the currency is debauched, the debt is skyrocketing, the schools are indoctrination centers, the universities are propaganda mills, the news media are absent, national security is compromised, our wars overseas are stalling, the election system is fraudulent, the government is unrepentantly corrupt, the party system is broken, and the free speech necessary to alert our fellow citizens is being stifled by political correctness.

How did we arrive to the precipice of national ruin, and what is the ultimate solution to the challenges that confront those who prize liberty?

No political or economic system is ideal, the American system of government included. But at least in years past the American republic was designed to succeed. The political, economic, and educational systems now appear intended to demoralize those who prize liberty and freedom, those values that nurtured the United States in its historic rise over two centuries from fledgling alliance of former British colonies to powerful leader of the free world.

Some on the left would make it out that conservatives are rubes who pine for the halcyon days of slavery and more restricted suffrage, but these relics of the past are anathema to the views of those who respect the founding. Conservatives recognize that the kernel of political and true economic emancipation could always be found at the heart of America's constitutional order. Thus the developments over the course of two centuries that progressives claim are the fruits of their "struggle" against the unjust American system are actually the natural and logical consequences of The Declaration of Independence and the ratification and enshrinement of The United States Constitution.

The reversals of the founders' vision of a political system of organized liberty mounted nearly from the start. The Alien and Sedition Acts, the chartering of a central bank in direct contravention of the ruling of the Constitutional convention, and the suppression of rebellions all posed threats to the furtherance of a government founded on freedom. The War Between the States, counter-intuitive as it may be for some to grasp, may have freed the slaves, but it crushed State's Rights and cleared the path to oppressive centralized government. The Tenth Amendment is now such a foreign notion that when used as an objection to the encroachment of state power, one might be brandished a radical extremist by the "federal" government.

The turn of the twentieth century reversed the trend of national power statism to progressive statism. From the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to the progressive income tax authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment, two planks of the Communist Manifesto, it was a smooth transition to the proto-fascism of the FDR-era through the Johnson administration. When Nixon closed the gold window in 1971, and authorized fiat currency, the ability of the government to manipulate the economy for political ends became virtually unbounded. Within two generations' time, the national debt mounted to the point of overwhelming the economy, all underwritten by the socialist mandate for the government to right the supposed injustice of requiring that people actually work for a living.

The political economy of the United States is now structurally distorted beyond recognition through the malinvestment that comes with the Fed's easy credit policies and the flooding of the market with money during economic downturns. Over the last thirty years, industries have been pushed overseas due to the highest corporate taxes in the world; this has exacerbated the inflation that comes through monetary expansion, which can be demonstrated by rising commodity prices like gold. The economy, between the bloated civil service and the government (which are net consumers and not producers) and the increase of the debt load for each family above $100,000 on average, is now cited at about 70% consumption. It doesn't take a Harvard economics degree to see that the fundamental political economy of the United States is literally unsustainable. This is irrefutably by design.

It is time for the American conservative to face a few hard truths. It is irrelevant whether the progressive believes himself to be a friend of the working class or a liberator of men or an erector of utopias or the usherer in of a new world order of perpetual peace and universal "social justice." The effect of progressive policies are exactly like those that would be designed by the worst enemy of freedom, liberty, prosperity, and success of the United States imaginable. If a general one hundred years ago was faced with the task of destroying the United States, the crown jewel of the Enlightenment and the nemesis of tyranny and oppression around the world, he could literally do no better (or worse) than the progressive Fabian socialist has done incrementally from within. Again, the damage to the country has been wrought by design, as can be clearly and unmistakably gleaned from the leftist tracts of a Marx, a Gramsci, a Horkheimer, or an Alinsky.

It is now beyond the point of arguing with indoctrinated neomarxists, who are literally unequipped to fathom the conservative's warning that the country is headed toward ruin and not toward millenarian rapture and on into a socialist paradise. Their consciences are carefully conditioned to react to all rational judgment as necessarily discriminatory or unjust. The progressive's views revolve around empathy and compassion, which are resistant to any rational arguments, which require a recognition of reality. The insertion of facts, evidence, and history into an argument with a leftist is like throwing a stone into a raging river; it will only appear from the perspective of the leftist as a barrier to progress, and in any event the fluidity of his mind will find a way to circumvent it.

The conservative must face the fact that he has now become the radical, the same kind of radical as our founding fathers were. The left has proceeded from the assumption of "the ends justify the means," and has approached the coercive apparatus of government with an instrumental rationality in order to effect its utopian vision. The legal system is a tool to the left; the education system is a tool to the left; the media is a tool to the left; and so forth; all institutions are seen as potential power for them to be seized for the cause. Conservatives believe in honoring institutions and thus refrain from utilizing their potential power to accomplish the vision of liberty, freedom, and individual rights.

This must change. We must see institutions in this country as more than sacred traditions to be preserved. We must see institutions as a means to power, with the battle cry of going on the offensive in the name of liberty. All manifestations of injustice and unfreedom must be attacked and swept away.

It is time to go to war with the left in a way that it can understand. There is no more time for civility and free discourse with the left, the way the left has gotten used to; the value that will be propagated will be liberty and freedom. There is no more "agree to disagree." It is the way of freedom or the highway. No longer should the university be permitted to capitalize on freedom to teach unfreedom; no longer should the lawyer be able to seize property in the interest of violating property; no longer will the left be permitted to take liberty with violating our liberties. This is not dogmatism, this is taking a principled stand in defense of freedom.

No, now is time for the leftists to be criminalized and exposed as parasites upon the system that has nurtured them. The leftists must be seen as the ultimate of hypocrites, infiltrators who tells pretty lies and who manipulate the institutions of society in order to achieve their grandiose and narcissistic goal of perfecting the world.

We must ourselves found, support, and co-opt institutions to propagate and inculcate the values of liberty and freedom in our culture. We must go on the offensive and attack the left intellectually. We must no longer tolerate the left's misuse of freedom to institute unfreedom. We must be relentless and we must be bold. Our founding fathers, the nation's first radicals, would do no less.

The American people are slowly being stripped of their sovereignty and prepped for submission to a world government. The process may take several generations, but there can be no doubt that this is the ineluctable outcome the statists in the government have pre-determined. The individual, in the fullest sense, must take a stand with his fellow patriots against the state if this grave threat to freedom is to be thrown back.

The lubrication for the integration of the United States into the machinery of the new internationalist world order is moral relativism, and by extension, cultural relativism, which hold that there are no appreciable differences between the moral systems of nations. Moral relativism at the individual-societal level is destructive of a man's ability to judge (or to use Evan Sayet's term to "discriminate") what values are conducive to his life and success. Cultural relativism attempts to suppress the resistance of peoples to the idea of unification in a supra-national world government.

The program for the internationalist vision is two-fold: first, the annihilation of "dogmatic" (meaning unyielding) religious and moral values; and second, reprogramming.

In the state-run education system, people are not taught true critical thinking skills; and those academic subjects conducive to developing them (specifically, mathematics and science) are limited to the most rudimentary and superficial of expositions. Furthermore, the core curriculum of reading and writing is grounded in the post-modernist, that is to say, subjectivist school of literary criticism, which is corrosive of traditional social norms; while the key aspect of writing is not communication to others and therefore a recognition of the external world (and thus the development of one's identity through the process of reflecting on one's external environment), but rather is a self-indulgent exercise in "expression" with little or no standards exercised upon the writer.

The effect of the educational program of the left (that is to say of the State and in turn of the internationalist elite - in a Trotskyist hierarchy of "fusion") is the fueling of a narcissism complex; the leftist program feeds a sense of alienation in individuals and subsequently makes them pliable towards "joinerism," or the willingness to join (triumphal or salvationist) mass movements to fill a barely perceptible void in their lives (one that they are not mentally equipped to critically analyze). Ironically, this has the additional effect of irrational self-confidence in one's cause, and no amount of reasoning or persuasion can deter the devout collectivist-altruist, ninety-nine times out of a hundred. (In contrast, conservative intellectuals cannot have the same charge of being "doctrinaire" levied against them, as they have to thoroughly know both sides of any argument.) The label of "narcissism" is further substantiated by the behavior of collectivist-altruists, which tends to be as "selfish" as any other person's, if not more so (because they tend to take that which does not belong to them, rather than offer goods and services in exchange for capital). The feel-goodism of the leftist is usually carried out at someone else's expense.

The leftist program of emptying the minds of individuals can be equated to reformatting the hard drives of computers (though this is an imperfect analogy because the reprogramming is done simultaneously with the reformatting). The goal of the left is to foster a worldview that holds that all judgment is by nature morally reprehensible, and the worst sin a person can commit is to "act in full" as an independent, self-actualized human being. (This is why Nietzsche is just as instructive a man of the left to study as Marx). Men that cannot be manipulated are the perpetual thorns in the side of the leftist; and they treat them as such, ostracizing them, ridiculing them, and belittling them as narrow-minded or "selfish" rubes every opportunity they get.

Reinforcing this program of "emptying" the culture is reprogramming using mass indoctrination and propaganda. This entails everything from historical revisionism to the reinforcement of leftist (non-) values in the media. It is important to realize that this program need not be a coordinated effort; the beauty of ideological subversion is that if one is oblivious to the power of philosophy to animate the mind and thus to provoke certain responses and actions, no "conspiracy" <i>per se</i> is needed.

The basically nihilistic, morally relativistic propaganda in the media is further reinforced by two other factors, one controlled by the left, the other not fully controlled. The first factor is a culture war that seeks to dishonor religion, to promote a culture of death, to decry and to defile the economic system, and to create as much perceived chaos as possible. This generally provokes a radical and by turns reactionary environment unless carefully managed. This is why Fabian socialism has been a much more successful means of subverting the United States than radical socialism (we can observe this with the current turn in public sentiment against the radical socialist-meets-pragmatist President Obama.) The second factor, which the left only partly controls (but one that it most certainly wants to dominate) is the means of mass communication. (President Obama's recent comment in China regarding his desire to control information so that he "doesn't have to listen to criticism" is not as much of a joke as he lets on.)

So are leftists insidious men and women looking to enslave their fellow human beings? No. They tend to be useful idiots for aspiring oligarchs, who are truly shrewd but obviously cannot control all the variables. So how are seemingly bright and otherwise ingenious men and women manipulated in such fashion? The answer lay in philosophy. First of all, academics in America tend to be "half-baked" intellectuals (as KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov intimates in one of his videos) who have a one-sided reading of history, economics, and politics. Secondly, social scientists have persuaded themselves that they are true "scientists," even as they abstract away all the biology and individuality of human beings and replace people with numbers or immerse them in collectivist organizing principles. The idea that mankind can be "managed" by a scientific-technocratic elite intrigues intellectuals, who nonetheless tend to hold to the mystical transcendental collectivist vision of marxists and neomarxists. The internationalist vision of marxism is remarkably robust and resilient, even emotionally nurturing to its adherents; this is the case even as marxists have ceased to convince themselves that it is "scientific."

The attraction of intellectuals to marxism is perhaps no better summarized that in Schumpeter's masterwork <i>Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy</i>:

"Thus the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, the American Civil War, the World War of 1914, the French Frondes, the great French Revolution, the revolutions of 1830 and 1848, English free trade, the labor movement as a whole as well as any of its particular manifestations, colonial expansion, institutional changes, the national and party politics of every time and country - all this enters the domain of Marxian economics which claims to find theoretical explanations in terms of class warfare, of attempts at and revolt against exploitation, of accumulation and of qualitative change in the capital structure, of changes in the rate of surplus value and in the rate of profit. No longer has the economist to be content with giving technical answers to technical questions; instead he teaches humanity the hidden meaning of its struggles...No - politics itself is being determined by the structure of the state of the economic process and becomes a conductor of effects as completely within the range of economic theory as any purchase or sale.

Once more, nothing is easier to understand than the fascination exerted by a synthesis which does for us just this. It is particularly understandable in the young and in those intellectual denizens of our newspaper world to whom the gods seem to have granted the gift of eternal youth. Panting with impatience to have their innings, longing to save the world from something or other, disgusted with textbooks of undescribable tedium, dissatisfied emotionally and intellectually, unable to achieve synthesis by their own effort, they find what they crave for in Marx. There it is, the key to all the most intimate secrets, the magic wand that marshals both great events and small." (HarperPerennial, 47)

It is clear to intellectuals themselves that pure Marxism (or to use the <i>nouveau</i> phrase - "vulgar" Marxism) has outlived its usefulness as a "scientific" theory of everything; yet the power of its vision is held aloft by neomarxist balloons in the sky, even as the foundation has crumbled. The left is willing to lie to everyone, including themselves, to perpetuate their fantasies; this is a phenomenon that men of learning and genuflection have seen before, and one that strikes any sober person as extremely dangerous.

The theoretical keystone to understanding how marxism is conducive to fostering an international oligarchy instead of worldwide liberation is two-fold. The first is the recognition that property is essentially command over the usage of land, labor, or resources (including "capital"; but one must be careful here to recognize that what we call "capital" can be fiat issued by governments to signify mutual debt - a very communistic notion in and of itself). The second is that every political system tends towards oligarchy; this is because every order requires leadership and organization. The control over the instrument of coercion that is government tends towards co-optation and manipulation for personal gain. Even spontaneous orders, like those found in nations that respect liberty, still require protection by a class of specialists. This is what is meant by the Jeffersonian phrase, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

How do we judge if a moral system is deleterious of liberty? The method and standard of judging the rightness or wrongness of any moral position is to ask how it affects the individual. Not society, not the transcendental "greater good," not even the nation. America exists as a nation to defend liberty, liberty does not exist to serve the nation.

The individualist has a very specific view of totalitarian or collectivist movements of <i>any</i> kind. It can rightly and steadfastly be held that there has been no nation in world history that has respected individual rights as America has that has also committed mass atrocities, enslaved foreign peoples, or has tolerated the slavery of its own people for any appreciable time on any appreciable scale compared to those of collectivist or authoritarian regimes. This is a truth that cannot be bludgeoned away by doctrinaire marxists for any man of historical vision. The tradition of individual rights and liberty should be preserved by the American people in the face of tyranny finally arriving to its shores; even if quietly and even if by cover of treason.

Throughout history, few great leaders have ascended to power and fundamentally transformed their nations. The irony is that these great leaders did not change the peoples in their charge from ignorant, unproductive, and cowardly masses into an intelligent, vigorous, and virtuous citizenry. Rather they presided over the death knells of once civilized societies collapsing into tumult and ignominy.

Once a nation demands to be fundamentally transformed by a great leader it is already far beyond hope. Once a charismatic leader can manipulate a population beyond the norms or laws of a people, the people are already lost. This is because a great nation cannot be defined by a great leader, but only by the great people who inhabit it. Truly great people drive the economy, lead the military, and teach the people honestly and accurately about the cultural legacy of their forefathers.

If a charismatic leader comes to power and accrues all glory in the nation for the successes of the people, while shirking all blame for the nation's failures, and the people still adore him, the nation is doomed. For this is a nation that has lost its pride, its competitiveness, its rugged individualistic spirit. A demoralized people look to the great leader to save them from themselves, out of some sense of desperation or guilt, and they crave redemption - whether it be in the eyes of a national or a global audience.

But the transformative political figure of world history cannot just arrive on the scene from the actor's gallery like a deus ex machina, solving the problems of a people. The destiny of a nation can be found in the errors and misdeeds of previous generations. The positive great leader in history is very rarely a "transformative" figure, he is a reflection of the people; he is not only the leader that the people "deserve," but the one that they have selected for themselves. Winston Churchill was a great leader not because he was "above" the British people during World War II, but because he stood with them; one might say his steel and resolve was iconic of the British people. Metaphorically, one might say he was the British people.

The transformative figure, on the other hand, is nearly always the deliverer of doom to a failed people; his actions to save a people from themselves inevitably results in chaos, increasing tyranny, oppression, and if any proud people remain (be they even three percent), civil war.

For example, Peter the Great is often held aloft as a transformative figure in Russian history, But for all his European-style modernization, he was still a despot when all was said and done. Catherine the Great was little better. Though being friends with men of the Enlightenment like Denis Diderot, the rise of the truly transformative figure Napoleon Bonaparte shocked the lady of Holstein-Gottorp back to her monarchic sensibilities.

Whether it be Attila the Hun transforming the Eurasian map, one will find Gothic tribes fleeing to a crumbling Rome; if one in turn considers the sack of Rome by Alaric the Visigoth in 410 AD, one will find a demoralized empire from rampant corruption by elites. The key thing to remember is that the transformative political figures of world history tend nearly always to be those who deliver doom to an already failed people.

The notable exception to this rule are the founding fathers of the United States. A small minority of the British colonies of America, these men fought to lift themselves out of oppression and tyranny, and founded a political order that would provide the environment where men would have every opportunity to be great, if they so chose. The Constitution they enshrined put people's lives in their own hands under the condition of liberty; it also put considerable political power in the hands of states and small communities, so men to a great degree could solve their own problems.

Thus when one thinks of the transformative figures of American history, one cannot fail to think of men like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington. But one must recall that even as George Washington was offered the presidency for a third term, he famously deferred; this was as if to say that the people themselves were the only ones who could decide if they were to remain free.

So - two hundred years later we are graced with the presidency of one who prior to his election declared, pompously, that "we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

The United States of America. The first nation in world history to enshrine liberty as a mandate. The nation that adopted a Constitution that vowed to eradicate the importation of slavery in two generations' time. The United States that experienced one of the bloodiest wars in world history largely over the issue of freedom for slaves. The United States that helped win World War I, granted women's suffrage, played a role in defeating the Nazis and the Japanese, and freed every major nation it occupied during wartime. The United States that faced down a bloody imperialistic police state for nearly half a century, accelerating its implosion. The United States that became the most prosperous, most generous, most righteous force for humanity in world history. The United States that shed blood but asked for no oil in the wars following the acts of September 11th. That United States.

The presumptuous newcomer to the world stage and the American political scene may truly believe himself to be a transformative figure; but his ego is vastly out of proportion to his sense of history if this is to be the case. As he continues to delude himself that he is a historical figure who should be imbued with dictatorial powers to undo the problems that government itself largely created, he will find that he is wielding a sledgehammer to swat 300 million flies. Each action by government will be too late, too strong, or too expensive, and thus government will unleash more anxiety, more unforeseen consequences, and will do more damage. The president will ask for trillions in funds for more programs to allay the masses, but he will do nothing but further dislocate the economy and eventually, collapse it.

Obama surely sees himself as America's first truly transformative figure. Let us do our utmost not only to survive him, but to reverse America's course toward greatness by re-establishing liberty as its guiding precept. Then it will be left up to our children to decide if they are to be great.

The blood feud between the left and right is reaching a crescendo, and as an unrepentant individualist one can only cringe at the direction the country is heading. While it would be presumptuous to say that political polarization in this country is unprecedented in its divisiveness (this is a country that experience one of the bloodiest civil wars in world history), one gets the sense that things could get really ugly.

How can one make this claim? Because the division now cannot be boiled down to issues like slavery or tariffs (thus opening up a possibility for compromise), but is about a fundamental clash of worldviews.

The social conservative right and the progressive left are embroiled in a battle for hearts and minds. The battlefields cannot be walked upon like the ones at Fredericksburg or Appomattox. This makes power struggles between the left and right exceedingly dangerous, tending more toward social chaos then organized conventional civil war; this is because one does not even know who the enemy is by sight or by location.  Since both sides see the government as an aegis to promote its agenda, they are wont to turn the government into an instrument of oppression in a country fairly evenly divided. This is why both sides will only escalate the political polarization by creating and aggravating grievances through the misuse of government.

It is not the job of the government to promote a Christian culture. Many people think that government has to at least safeguard a Christian culture. This is wrong. The government's job is to make it safe for there to be a Christian culture by defending individual rights. By consistently applying the rule of law, cultures not consistent with individual rights are prevented from arising or getting a foothold due to the operation of a vigorous justice system with a clear mandate.

Currently, the schools and universities are using taxpayer funds to promote other cultures under the guise of "multiculturalism." This is not about fairness or diversity at all, it is about eroding mainstream (a marxist might say bourgeois) culture and especially Christian culture. In this sense, the social conservative right feels threatened by the progressive agenda and wants government to defend Christian values. But two wrongs do not make a right. Neither Christians nor anti-Christians (not referring to atheists but more to anti-theists, to coin a term) should use government to defend religion or anti-religion, since both are matters of faith.

What the government can do in this world is defend individual rights, including freedom of conscience. This should be non-negotiable. That is why hate crimes legislation is so dangerous. It purports that a crime can be rooted in thoughts and not actions. This sets a dangerous precedent. The point of law is that it is universally applicable. When law becomes arbitrary in any sense, it is no longer law but fiat (not saying that judges and magistrates are dispensable in interpreting the law; obviously, reality is complex and ethical and moral issues require interpretation).

Law cannot be controlled by the citizenry in a constitutional republic if it is made to serve supernatural or collectivist agendas. Rules and evidence can only be consistently and thus justly applied to the law in an order predicated on the assumption of objective reality.

A consistent, stable and political order is needed in order for there to be personal freedom and the ability for individuals to adapt to their environments. People should be allowed to flourish or fail according to their own actions, while allowing for for the role of chance. One of the greatest mistakes of the progressive is in believing he can unnaturally control the anomalies of human life without unleashing unforeseen consequences in the spontaneous social and political order (in the Aristotelian vision these are one and the same; yet this is possible modernly only at the Jeffersonian level of the polity).

The political order should not be founded on promoting the public good or national greatness; this is the fatal philosophical error of the progressive and the social conservative, respectively. The just government is the one that uses coercion to protect individuals; not to force them to sacrifice on others' behalf.

Coerced altruism is one of the deadliest evil of our time, and one that is responsible for hundreds of millions of violent deaths throughout history. From the French Revolution to the Great Leap Forward, nationalism, socialism, and by extension, communism, are the political orders of systematic martyrdom for the greater good. When by the force of these systems' perverse internal logic things go awry, unimaginable chaos, ensuing oppression, and implosion are the inevitable results.

The President stood up, made the sign of the O and, switching on the synthetic music, let loose the soft indefatigable beating of drums and a choir of instruments–near-wind and super-string–that plangently repeated and repeated the brief and unescapably haunting melody of the first Solidarity Hymn. Again, again–and it was not the ear that heard the pulsing rhythm, it was the midriff; the wail and clang of those recurring harmonies haunted, not the mind, but the yearning bowels of compassion.

The President made another sign of the O and sat down. The service had begun. The dedicated soma tablets were placed in the centre of the table. The loving cup of strawberry ice-cream soma was passed from hand to hand and, with the formula, "I drink to my annihilation," twelve times quaffed. Then to the accompaniment of the synthetic orchestra the First Solidarity Hymn was sung.

"Øbama, we are twelve; oh, make us one,
Like drops within the Social River,
Oh, make us now together run
As swiftly as thy shining Flivver."

Twelve yearning stanzas. And then the loving cup was passed a second time. "I drink to the Greater Being" was now the formula. All drank. Tirelessly the music played. The drums beat. The crying and clashing of the harmonies were an obsession in the melted bowels. The Second Solidarity Hymn was sung.

"Come, Greater Being, Social Friend,
Annihilating Twelve-in-One!
We long to die, for when we end,
Our larger life has but begun."

Again twelve stanzas. By this time the soma had begun to work. Eyes shone, cheeks were flushed, the inner light of universal benevolence broke out on every face in happy, friendly smiles. Even Ezra felt himself a little melted. When Ariana Rothschild turned and beamed at him, he did his best to beam back. But the eyebrow, that black two-in-one–alas, it was still there; he couldn't ignore it, couldn't, however hard he tried. The melting hadn't gone far enough. Perhaps if he had been sitting between Rachael and Joanna … For the third time the loving cup went round; "I drink to the imminence of His Coming," said Ariana Rothschild, whose turn it happened to be to initiate the circular rite. Her tone was loud, exultant. She drank and passed the cup to Ezra. "I drink to the imminence of His Coming," he repeated, with a sincere attempt to feel that the coming was imminent; but the eyebrow continued to haunt him, and the Coming, so far as he was concerned, was horribly remote. He drank and handed the cup to Peggy Deterding. "It'll be a failure again," he said to himself. "I know it will." But he went on doing his best to beam.

The loving cup had made its circuit. Lifting his hand, the President gave a signal; the chorus broke out into the Third Solidarity Hymn.

"Feel how the Greater Being comes!
Rejoice and, in rejoicings, die!
Melt in the music of the drums!
For I am you and you are I."

As verse succeeded verse the voices thrilled with an ever intenser excitement. The sense of the Coming's imminence was like an electric tension in the air. The President switched off the music and, with the final note of the final stanza, there was absolute silence–the silence of stretched expectancy, quivering and creeping with a galvanic life. The President reached out his hand; and suddenly a Voice, a deep strong Voice, more musical than any merely human voice, richer, warmer, more vibrant with love and yearning and compassion, a wonderful, mysterious, supernatural Voice spoke from above their heads. Very slowly, "Oh, Øbama, Øbama, Øbama," it said diminishingly and on a descending scale. A sensation of warmth radiated thrillingly out from the solar plexus to every extremity of the bodies of those who listened; tears came into their eyes; their hearts, their bowels seemed to move within them, as though with an independent life. "Øbama!" they were melting, "Øbama!" dissolved, dissolved. Then, in another tone, suddenly, startlingly. "Listen!" trumpeted the voice. "Listen!" They listened. After a pause, sunk to a whisper, but a whisper, somehow, more penetrating than the loudest cry. "The feet of the Greater Being," it went on, and repeated the words: "The feet of the Greater Being." The whisper almost expired. "The feet of the Greater Being are on the stairs." And once more there was silence; and the expectancy, momentarily relaxed, was stretched again, tauter, tauter, almost to the tearing point. The feet of the Greater Being–oh, they heard them, they heard them, coming softly down the stairs, coming nearer and nearer down the invisible stairs. The feet of the Greater Being. And suddenly the tearing point was reached. Her eyes staring, her lips parted. Ariana Rothschild sprang to her feet.

"I hear him," she cried. "I hear him."

"He's coming," shouted Moulitsas Engels.

"Yes, he's coming, I hear him." Rachael Bradlaugh and Tom Kawaguchi rose simultaneously to their feet.

"Oh, oh, oh!" Maureen inarticulately testified.

"He's coming!" yelled Jim Liebowitz.

The President leaned forward and, with a touch, released a delirium of cymbals and blown brass, a fever of tom-tomming.

"Oh, he's coming!" screamed Peggy Deterding. "Aie!" and it was as though she were having her throat cut.

Feeling that it was time for him to do something, Ezra also jumped up and shouted: "I hear him; He's coming." But it wasn't true. He heard nothing and, for him, nobody was coming. Nobody–in spite of the music, in spite of the mounting excitement. But he waved his arms, he shouted with the best of them; and when the others began to jig and stamp and shuffle, he also jigged and shuffled.

Round they went, a circular procession of dancers, each with hands on the hips of the dancer preceding, round and round, shouting in unison, stamping to the rhythm of the music with their feet, beating it, beating it out with hands on the buttocks in front; twelve pairs of hands beating as one; as one, twelve buttocks slabbily resounding. Twelve as one, twelve as one. "I hear Him, I hear Him coming." The music quickened; faster beat the feet, faster, faster fell the rhythmic hands. And all at once a great synthetic bass boomed out the words which announced the approaching atonement and final consummation of solidarity, the coming of the Twelve-in-One, the incarnation of the Greater Being. "Orgy-porgy," it sang, while the tom-toms continued to beat their feverish tattoo:

"Orgy-porgy, One and fun,
Kiss the girls and make them One.
Boys at One with girls at peace;
Orgy-porgy gives release."

"Orgy-porgy," the dancers caught up the liturgical refrain, "Orgy-porgy, One and fun, kiss the girls …" And as they sang, the lights began slowly to fade–to fade and at the same time to grow warmer, richer, redder, until at last they were dancing in the crimson twilight of an Embryo Store. "Orgy-porgy …" In their blood-coloured and foetal darkness the dancers continued for a while to circulate, to beat and beat out the indefatigable rhythm. "Orgy-porgy …" Then the circle wavered, broke, fell in partial disintegration on the ring of couches which surrounded–circle enclosing circle–the table and its planetary chairs. "Orgy-porgy …" Tenderly the deep Voice crooned and cooed; in the red twilight it was as though some enormous black dove were hovering benevolently over the now prone or supine dancers.

They were standing on the roof; Big Paul had just sung eleven. The night was calm and warm.

"Wasn't it wonderful?" said Rachael Bradlaugh. "Wasn't it simply wonderful?" She looked at Ezra with an expression of rapture, but of rapture in which there was no trace of agitation or excitement–for to be excited is still to be unsatisfied. Hers was the calm ecstasy of achieved consummation, the peace, not of mere vacant satiety and nothingness, but of balanced life, of energies at rest and in equilibrium. A rich and living peace. For the Solidarity Service had given as well as taken, drawn off only to replenish. She was full, she was made perfect, she was still more than merely herself. "Didn't you think it was wonderful?" she insisted, looking into Ezra's face with those supernaturally shining eyes.

"Yes, I thought it was wonderful," he lied and looked away; the sight of her transfigured face was at once an accusation and an ironical reminder of his own separateness. He was as miserably isolated now as he had been when the service began–more isolated by reason of his unreplenished emptiness, his dead satiety. Separate and unatoned, while the others were being fused into the Greater Being; alone even in Ariana's embrace–much more alone, indeed, more hopelessly himself than he had ever been in his life before. He had emerged from that crimson twilight into the common electric glare with a self-consciousness intensified to the pitch of agony. He was utterly miserable, and perhaps (her shining eyes accused him), perhaps it was his own fault. "Quite wonderful," he repeated; but the only thing he could think of was Ariana's eyebrow.

Adapted from Alduous Huxley's Brave New World.

President Barack Obama, Chairing the 33rd Communist International held at the "United Nations" this week, delivered a speech in which he declared a Third Economic Bill of Rights:

"It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans for a new global restructuring and to determine the strategy for the procurement of ever-lasting service from the people and the establishment of a World standard of living more inflated even than any Washington politician or Hollywood actor might currently enjoy.

We brothers in poverty and equality cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living that we imagine may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-tenth or one five hundredth or one ten thousandth or one three millionth — is independent, self-reliant, unappreciative, and resistant to change.

This Social Democracy had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain government-granted political privileges—among them the privilege of non-offensive speech, a heel-licking press, home-sequestered worship, trial by consensus, and the security that comes from non-stop surveillance, random searches, and confiscatory seizures. These were our privileges of servitude and obeisance.

As our nation has declined in pride and vigor, however—as our hollowed-out economy imploded—these political privileges proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of unimaginable prosperity.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true social freedom cannot exist without dependence and government empowerment. Independent men are not free men. People who are hungry for freedom and seek a job outside of the bounds of government are the stuff of which fascist dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a Third Bill of Rights under which a new basis of service and security can be established for all—regardless of station, race, creed, sexuality, gender, ethnicity, girth, skin tone, or transgender status.

Among these are:

The right to an unproductive job in one of the departments or services or offices or bureaus or agencies of the government;

The right to earn enough to eat take-out Chinese every night, to buy an expensive overcoat, and to spend 95% of one's time being entertained;

The right of every bureaucrat to monitor and to regulate at a rate that will give him or her or it and the community an unbelievably fantastic existence;

The right of every policeman, large and small, to oppress in an atmosphere of freedom from resistance;

The right of every community to enlist every child in the service of the greater good;

The right of doctors and nurses to provide medical care to anyone with any illness or perceived illness, from heart attacks to hangnails, regardless of nationality, without rationing and without respect to cost in terms of time, manpower, and technology;

The right to adequate insurance from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, unemployment, and death;

The right to an education adequate enough to be informed of one's own self-interest.

All of these rights spell happiness. And after this war is won, and all the casualties of human opposition removed from our eyes and the history books, we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of servitude and sacrifice.

We must be prepared to give up our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor, and even our country itself, to ascend to our rightful station as firsts among equals; and to realize the honor the world for whom we sacrifice has prepared for us, to join the ranks of the dependent and the oppressed, to march every forward, in harmony with the all-knowing and all-good State, to the very end of history.

The following article is reprinted here in full due to its immense value in the war against the statists, who are attempting to realize the disintegration of every traditional American institution in this nation. It is well-written and authoritative.

A full understanding of the implications of the content of the following article separates the foot soldier in the war of ideas from the general.

Read, digest, inquire, and refer to trustworthy dictionaries or encyclopedias for any unknown words or ideas. Not comprehending a word or idea from time to time happens to us all.

After reading the article in full, which may take some intellectual effort, you may wonder how we can reverse the insidious and destructive trend of cultural marxism in America and its attendant vehicles Gramscianism and Alinskyite tactics.

But before we get to the solution, we must recognize the last piece in the puzzle to understanding the nature of the threat to this nation, which is quite simply The Federal Reserve System. Read or watch online the lecture of "The Creature from Jekyll Island" or the documentary "From Freedom to Fascism." Explore the works of Austrian School economists like F.A. Hayek, who wrote "The Road to Serfdom," or Ludwig von Mises, who wrote "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis," or Frederic Bastiat, who wrote "The Law," or read a history of American macro-finance such as Murray Rothbard's "A History of Money and Banking in the United States," or Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom."

But these works are all about diagnosing the problems. What we need is a root cure. And this comes from one woman: Ayn Rand.

Quite simply and ultimately the solution to our nation's problems is Ayn Rand's Objectivism. Rand's is the ONLY philosophy that can reverse the path we are on. I cannot emphasize this enough.

Some of Rand's ideas may seem counter-intuitive. Please make sure to read works on her most controversial ideas, such as "selfishness." She has written an entire work on this subject entitled, "The Virtue of Selfishness."

Remember, we have been trained to be unselfish since kindergarten, but a full appreciation of the self is crucial for rationality. Rationality is not destructive because it does not imply non-cooperation; it implies cooperation based on self-interest; this is fine because capitalism is not a zero-sum economic system, but a sum-gain economic system. Freedom and capitalism are our only ways out of this mess.

About the Frankfurt School
Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson CDR USN (Ret.)
Copyright August 1999

Who in America today is at work destroying our traditions, our family bonds, our religious beginnings, our reinforcing institutions, indeed, our entire culture? What is it that is changing our American civilization?

Suppose you were to learn that nearly all of the observations made in this series of essays are completely consistent with a 'design' -- that is a concept, a way of thinking, and a process for bringing it about. And suppose one could identify a small core group of people who designed just such a concept and thought through the process of infusing it into a culture. Wouldn't you be interested in at least learning about such a core group? Wouldn't you want to know who they were, what they thought, and how they conjured up a process for bringing their thoughts into action? For Americans with even a smidgeon of curiosity, the answer should be a resounding yes!

Just such a core group did, indeed, exist. History identifies a small group of German intellectuals who devised concepts, processes, and action plans which conform very closely to what Americans presently observe every day in their culture. Observations, such as those made in this series of essays, can be directly traced to the work of this core group of intellectuals. They were members of the Frankfurt School, formed in Germany in 1923. They were the forebears of what some proclaim as 'cultural Marxism,' a radical social movement that has transformed American culture. It is more commonly known today as 'political correctness.'

'Cultural Marxism' and 'critical theory' are concepts developed by a group of German intellectuals, who, in 1923, founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University. The Institute, modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, became known as the Frankfurt School [1]. In 1933, when the Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled to the United States. While here, they migrated to major U.S. universities (Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley). These intellectual Marxists included Herbert Marcuse, who coined the phrase, 'make love, not war,' during the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations.

By promoting the dialectic of 'negative' criticism, that is, pointing out the rational contradictions in a society's belief system, the Frankfurt School 'revolutionaries' dreamed of a utopia where their rules governed [2]. "Their Critical Theory had to contain a strongly imaginative, even utopian strain, which transcends the limits of reality." Its tenets would never be subject to experimental evidence. The pure logic of their thoughts would be incontrovertible. As a precursor to today's 'postmodernism' in the intellectual academic community, [3] "...it recognized that disinterested scientific research was impossible in a society in which men were themselves not yet autonomous...the researcher was always part of the social object he was attempting to study." This, of course, is the concept which led to the current fetish for the rewriting of history, and the vogue for our universities' law, English literature, and humanities disciplines -- deconstruction.

Critical theory rejected the ideal of Western Civilization in the age of modern science, that is, the verification or falsifying [4] of theory by experimental evidence. Only the superior mind was able to fashion the 'truths' from observation of the evidence. There would be no need to test these hypotheses against everyday experience.

The Frankfurt school studied the 'authoritarian personality' which became synonymous with the male, the patriarchal head of the American family. A modern utopia would be constructed by these idealistic intellectuals by 'turning Western civilization' upside down. This utopia would be a product of their imagination, a product not susceptible to criticism on the basis of the examination of evidence. This 'revolution' would be accomplished by fomenting a very quiet, subtle and slowly spreading 'cultural Marxism' which would apply to culture the principles of Karl Marx bolstered by the modern psychological tools of Sigmund Freud. Thus, 'cultural Marxism' became a marriage of Marx and Freud aimed at producing a 'quiet' revolution in the United States of America. This 'quiet' revolution has occurred in America over the past 30 years. While America slept!

What is 'cultural Marxism?' Why should it even be considered when the world's vast experiment with the economic theory of Karl Marx has recently gone down to defeat with the disintegration of Soviet communism? Didn't America win the Cold War against the spread of communism? The answer is a resounding 'yes, BUT. We won the 55-year Cold War but, while winning it abroad, we have failed to understand that an intellectual elite has subtly but systematically and surely converted the economic theory of Marx to culture in American society. And they did it while we were busy winning the Cold War abroad. They introduced 'cultural Marxism' into the mainstream of American life over a period of thirty years, while our attention was diverted elsewhere.

The vehicle for this introduction was the idealistic Boomer elite, those young middle-class and well-to-do college students who became the vanguard of America's counter-culture revolution of the mid-1960s -- those draft-dodging, pot-smoking, hippies who demonstrated against the Vietnam War and who fomented the destructive (to women) 'women's liberation' movement. These New Totalitarians [5] are now in power as they have come to middle-age and control every public institution in our nation. But that is getting ahead of the story.

The cauldron for implementing this witches brew were the elites of the Boomer generation. They are the current 'foot soldiers' of the original Frankfurt School gurus. The counter-culture revolution of the 1960s was set in motion and guided intellectually by the 'cultural Marxists' of the Frankfurt School -- Herbert Marcuse, Eric Fromm, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Wilhelm Reich, and others [6,7]. Its influence is now felt in nearly every institution in the United States. The elite Boomers, throwbacks to the dangerous idealist Transcendental generation of the mid-1800s, are the 'agents of change,' who have introduced 'cultural Marxism' into American life.

William S. Lind relates [8] that 'cultural Marxism' is an ideology with deep roots. It did not begin with the counter-culture revolution in the mid-1960s. Its roots go back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci [9]. These roots, over time, spread to the writings of Herbert Marcuse.

Herbert Marcuse was one of the most prominent Frankfurt School promoters of Critical Theory's social revolution among college and university students in the 1960s. It is instructive to review what he has written on the subject:
"One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including the morality of existing society

... there is one thing we can say with complete assurance. The traditional idea of revolution and the traditional strategy of revolution have ended. These ideas are old-fashioned

... what we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system."

This sentiment was first expressed by the early 20th century Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci.

Gramsci, a young communist who died in one of Mussolini's prisons in 1937 at the age of 46, conjured up the notion of a 'quiet' revolution that could be diffused throughout a culture -- over a period of time -- to destroy it from within. He was the first to suggest that the application of psychology to break the traditions, beliefs, morals, and will of a people could be accomplished quietly and without the possibility of resistance. He deduced that "The civilized world had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2,000 years..." and a culture based on this religion could only be captured from within.

Gramsci insisted that alliances with non-Communist leftist groups would be essential to Communist victory. In our time, these would include radical feminist groups, extremist environmental organizations, so-called civil rights movements, anti-police associations, internationalist-minded groups, liberal church denominations, and others. Working together, these groups could create a united front working for the destructive transformation of the old Judeo-Christian culture of the West.

By winning 'cultural hegemony,' Gramsci pointed out that they could control the deepest wellsprings of human thought -- through the medium of mass psychology. Indeed, men could be made to 'love their servitude.' In terms of the gospel of the Frankfurt School, resistance to 'cultural Marxism' could be completely negated by placing the resister in a psychic 'iron cage.' The tools of mass psychology could be applied to produce this result.

The essential nature of Antonio Gramsci's revolutionary strategy is reflected in a 1990s book [10] by the American Boomer author, Charles A. Reich, 'The Greening of America.' "There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual and the culture, and it will change the political structure as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence. This is the revolution of the New Generation." Of course this New Generation would be Reich's elite Boomer generation. And the mantra for these New Age 'foot soldiers' of the Frankfurt School prophets, would be 'have the courage to change [11].'

The Frankfurt School theorized that the 'authoritarian personality' is a product of the patriarchal family. This idea is in turn directly connected to Frederich Engels' 'The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State,' which promotes matriarchy. Furthermore, it was Karl Marx who wrote about the radical notion of a 'community of women' in the Communist manifesto. And it was Karl Marx who wrote disparagingly about the idea that the family was the basic unit of society in 'The German Ideology' of 1845.

'The Authoritarian personality,' studied by the Frankfurt School in the 1940s and 1950s in America, prepared the way for the subsequent warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Herbert Marcuse and his band of social revolutionaries under the guise of 'women's liberation' and the New Left movement in the 1960s. The evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality is intended to mean emasculation of the American male is provided by Abraham Maslow, founder of Third Force Humanist Psychology and a promoter of the psychotherapeutic classroom, who wrote that, '...the next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to general humanness.' The Marxist revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded in accomplishing much of their agenda.

But how can we claim the 'causes' of the breakdown of our schools, our universities, indeed, the very fiber of our culture were a product of a tiny group of intellectuals who immigrated from Germany in 1933? Given all of the special-interest groups involved in these activities, how can we trace these 'causes' to the Frankfurt school? Look at some of the evidence.

As an example, postmodern reconstruction of the history of Western Civilization (now prevalent in our universities) has its roots in the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School. This rewriting of history by the postmodern scholars in America has only recently come under attack. Keith Windschuttle, in his book, 'Killing of History,' has severely criticized the rush to 'relativism' by historiographers. What is truly astonishing, however, is that 'relativism' has largely supplanted the pursuit of truth as a goal in historical study [12]. George G. Iggers' recently published book, 'Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge,' reminds us of the now famous line by Hayden White, a postmodernist, "Historical narratives...are verbal fictions, the contents of which are more invented than found." He quotes other postmodernists, mostly non- historians, who [13] "...reinforce the proposition that truth and reality are primarily authoritarian weapons of our times." We now recognize the source of this postmodern assault -- the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School who became experts in criticizing the 'authoritarian personality' in American culture.

Herbert London refutes White's proposition by observing, "...if history is largely invention, who can say with authority that the American Revolution came before the French Revolution?" He observes that evidence has takmen a back seat to inventiveness. He thus cuts right to the chase -- the inventions of postmodernism, which are cutting successive generations of Americans off from their culture and their history, evolved directly from the 'cultural Marxist' scholars of the Frankfurt School.
How did this situation come about in America's universities? Gertrude Himmelfarb has observed [14] that it slipped past those traditional academics almost unobserved until it was too late. It occurred so 'quietly' that when they 'looked up,' postmodernism was upon them with a vengeance. "They were surrounded by a tidal wave of faddish multicultural subjects such as radical feminism, deconstructed relativism as history and other courses" which undermine the perpetuation of Western Civilization. Indeed, this tidal wave slipped by just as Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School had envisioned -- a 'quiet' revolution. A revolution that could not be resisted by force.

It is of interest to note that the 'sensitivity training' techniques used in our public schools over the past 30 years and which are now employed by the U.S. military to educate the troops about 'sexual harassment' were developed during World War II and thereafter by Kurt Lewin [15] and his proteges. One of them, Abraham Maslow, was a member of the Frankfurt school and the author [16] of 'The Art of Facilitation' which is a manual used during such 'sensitivity' training. Thereby teachers were indoctrinated not to teach but to 'facilitate.' This manual describes the techniques developed by Kurt Lewin and others to change a person's world view via participation in small-group encounter sessions. Teachers were to become amateur group therapists. The classroom became the center of self-examination, therapeutic circles where children (and later on, military [17] personnel) talked about their own subjective feelings. This technique was designed to convince children they were the sole authority in their own lives.

It is important to realize that this movement, 'cultural Marxism,' exists, understand where it came from, and what its objectives were -- the complete destruction of Western Civilization in America. That is, these 'cultural Marxists' aimed to destroy, slowly but surely from the bottom up, the entire fabric of American Civilization.

By the end of World War II, almost all the original Frankfurt School members had become American citizens. This meant the beginning of a new English-speaking audience for the school. Now the focus was on American forms of authoritarianism. With this shift in subject matter came a subtle change in the center of the Institute's work. In America, authoritarianism appeared in different forms than its European counterpart. Instead of terror or coercion, more gentle forms of enforced conformism had been developed. According to Martin Jay, [18] "Perhaps the most effective of these were to be found in the cultural field. American mass culture thus became one of the central concerns of the Frankfurt School in the 1940s."

Since the 1940s, subtle changes appeared in the Frankfurt School's descriptions of their work. For example, the opposite of the 'authoritarian personality' was no longer the 'revolutionary,' as it had been in previous studies aimed at Europeans. In America, it was now the 'democratic' who opposed the 'authoritarian personality.' Thus, their language matched more closely the liberal [19] "...New Deal rather than Marxist or radical.." language. Education for tolerance, rather than praxis for revolutionary change, was the ostensible goal of their research. They were cleverly merging their language with the mainstream of liberal left thought in America while maintaining their 'cultural Marxist' objectives.

Toleration had never been an end in itself for the Frankfurt School, and yet the non-authoritarian (utopian) personality, insofar as it was defined, was posited as a person with a non-dogmatic tolerance for diversity [20]. This thought is dominant in today's power elite of the Boomer generation, the New Totalitarians.

One of the basic tenets of Critical Theory was the necessity to break down the contemporary family. The Institute scholars preached that [21] "...Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change." The 'generation gap' of the 1960s and the 'gender gap' of the 1990s are two aspects of the attempt by the elite Boomers (taking a page out of 'cultural Marxism') to transform American culture into their 'Marxist' utopia.

The transformation of American culture envisioned by the 'cultural Marxists' is based on matriarchal theory. That is, they propose transforming American culture into a female-dominated one. This is a direct throwback to Wilhelm Reich, a Frankfurt School member who considered matriarchal theory in psychoanalytic terms. In 1933, he wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of 'natural society.'

Eric Fromm, another charter member of the Institute, was also one of the most active advocates of matriarchal theory. Fromm was especially taken with the idea that all love and altruistic feelings were ultimately derived from the maternal love necessitated by the extended period of human pregnancy and postnatal care. "Love was thus not dependent on sexuality, as Freud had supposed. In fact, sex was more often tied to hatred and destruction. Masculinity and femininity [22] were not reflections of 'essential' sexual differences, as the romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined." This dogma was the precedent for today's radical feminist pronouncements appearing in nearly every major newspaper and TV program, including the television newscasts. For these current day radicals, male and female roles result from cultural indoctrination in America -- an indoctrination carried out by the male patriarchy to the detriment of women. Nature plays no role in this matter.

But in terms of destruction and disintegration, Critical Theory absorbed by the 'change agents' and other social revolutionaries has led them to declare their intent to restructure America. As they proclaim, this means their activities have been directed toward the disintegration of the traditional white male power structure. As anyone with eyes to view present-day television and motion pictures can confirm, this has been largely achieved. In other words, Critical Theory, as applied mass psychology, brought forth a 'quiet' psychic revolution which facilitated an actual physical revolution that has become visible everywhere in the United States of America.

It was the destructive criticism of the primary elements of American culture that inspired the 1960s counter-culture revolution. As the name implies, this false 'spiritual awakening' by the idealist Boomers in their coming-of-age years was an effort to transform the prevailing culture into an inverted or opposite kind of culture that is a necessary prelude to social revolution. Now that these elite Boomers are in positions of power in the United States, they are completing their work of destroying every institution that has been built up over 200 years of American history. Their aim is to destroy any vestige of the Anglo-American path [23] taken by Western Civilization in forming the unique American culture.

Most Americans do not yet realize that they are being led by social revolutionaries who think in terms of the destruction of the existing social order in order to create a new social order in the world. These revolutionaries are the New Age elite Boomers, the New Totalitarians [24]. They now control every public institution in the United States of America. Their 'quiet' revolution, beginning with the counter-culture revolution of their youth, is nearly complete. It was based on the intellectual foundation of the 'cultural Marxists' of the Frankfurt School. Its completion depends on keeping the American male in his psychic 'iron cage.'

The confluence of radical feminism and 'cultural Marxism' within the span of a single generation, that of the elite Boomers (possibly the most dangerous [25] generation in America's history), has imposed this yoke on the American male. It remains to be seen whether or not he will continue his 'voluntary submission' to a future of slavery in a new American matriarchy, the precursor to a state of complete anarchy.

If we allow this subversion of American values and interests to continue, we will (in future generations) lose all that our ancestors suffered and died for. We are forewarned. A reading of history -- it is all in mainstream historical accounts -- tells us that we are about to lose the most precious thing we have -- our individual freedoms.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:

1) Raehn, Raymond V., "The Historical Roots of 'Political Correctness,'" Free Congress Foundation, Number 44, June 1997.
2) Jay, Martin, "The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950," pp. 77, University of California Press, 1973.
3) Ibid, pp. 81.
4) Ibid, pp. 82.
5) Atkinson, Gerald L., "The New Totalitarians: Bosnia as a Mirror of America's Future," Atkinson Associates Press, 1996.
6) Jay, Martin, "The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950," University of California Press, 1973.
7) Wiggershaus, Rolf, "The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance," The MIT Press, 1994.
8) Lind, William S., "What is 'Political Correctness?," Essays on our Times, Free Congress Foundation, Number 43, March 1997.
9) Ibid.
10) Reich, Charles A., "The Greening of America," Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1995.
11) A phrase commonly heard during the 1992 Presidential campaign.
12) London, Herbert, "Discipline of history under assault," The Washington Times, 26 October 1997.
13) Ibid.
14) Himmelfarb, Gertrude, Panel on 'Academic Reform: Internal Sources,' National Association of Scholars, NAS Sixth General Conference, 3-5 May 1996.
15) Marrow, Alfred Jay, "The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin," Teachers College Press, new York, 1977. Kurt Lewin was a primary figure in the wartime research that was later translated into the techniques used today in 'sensitivity training.'
16) Raehn, Raymond V., "Critical Theory: A Special Research Report, 1 April 1996.
17) Editorial, "The crying of the admirals," The Washington Times, 3 November 1995. The U.S. Naval Academy has added female 'role models' to the faculty. In August 1994, the Academy placed a new emphasis on conflict resolution and consciousness-raising. "As 'Lean On Me' started playing, Master Chief Liz Johns gave the plebes her final orders: stand in a circle, sway to the music, sing along, and hug. From the circle came the sharp sniffle of sobs. The future admirals of America were crying."
18) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 172.
19) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 227.
20) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 248.
21) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 135.
22) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 95.
23) Vazsonyi, Balint, "America's Thirty Years War: Who is Winning?," Regnery, 1998.
24) Ibid, Atkinson, Gerald L.
25) Strauss, William and Howe, Neil, "Generations: The History of America's Future -- 1584 to 2069," pp. 382, William Morrow & Company, 1991. "We can foresee a full range of possible outcomes, from stirring achievement to apocalyptic tragedy...Boomers can best serve civilization by restraining themselves (or by letting themselves be restrained by others) until their twilight years, when their spiritual energy would find expression not in midlife leadership [for which they are not equipped], but in elder stewardship."

The Objectivist Ayn Rand wrote a lot about the Aristotelian Law of Identity - where A is A - and the associated (Platonic) "Law of Non-Contradiction," where a thing must be what it is and it cannot be something else. Liberals believe in subjectivism, or solipsism, that way they don't have to be held accountable by reality.

In the progressives' world there is no such thing as contradiction - only "false choices." One could even say that Marxist theory (based on Hegelian theory) wars against the notion of non-contradiction by posing that thesis and anti-thesis are united in a synthesis.

Yet things are not this way. Either there is objective reality or everything is as a dream, with no causation (like Hume argued) and no consequences (as the Frankfurt School would have us believe). It cannot be that there is a half-way objective reality and half-way a dream that are synthesized. Ontologically speaking, it is either one way or the other. Either there is a real world that exists independent of our minds that we perceive, or everything is an illusion of the mind. The latter alternative is impossible, because a universe cannot be the unity of one mind, the product of a self-generated illusion with no external causes. This idea is non-sensical.

Thus all progressive arguments, based on post-modernism, post-structuralism, subjectivism, intrinsicism, solipsism, radical skepticism, and pure idealism, rest on feet of clay because these ideologies' ontological assumptions are simply wrong or even absurd.

Note: Occasionally you will get the pseudo-intellectual who holds up the Wave-Particle Theory of Light as an example of how the Law of Non-Contradiction is incorrect. Yet light is a phenomenon that we perceive in a distinctly human fashion; we receive and interpret sense-data using our eyes. Our minds thus use concepts to describe the sense-data we refer to as "light." But even if we explain light's behavior as exhibiting characteristics of a wave in some circumstances and as a particle in other circumstances, we should not conclude that light is both two different phenomena at the same time - simply because our apprehension of its behavior at the sub-atomic level is only indirectly observable and not fully understood. Ultra-violet and infra-red light are not directly perceivable, but since some physicists' rationality indicated to them that these types of light must exist (in the wave spectrum) they invented instruments to detect these other wave-lengths.

An excellent supplementary example of how rationality can guide our interpretation of sense-data, and actually our discovery of new forms of sense-data, is the history of the concept of the atom. The idea that material reality is composed of miniscule discrete units was first formulated in ancient Greece by Leucippus and his student Democritus. The concept of the atom was confirmed empirically much later using electron microscopes.

The formulation of the related concept of the molecule was developed in the early 19th century by such physicists as Avogadro. Recently the structure of molecules was confirmed empirically by the "evil" corporation IBM.

[A special thanks to ReaganX for helping me to appreciate such ideas as I attempt to relate here as accurately as I can.]

The Democrats have pursued their agenda in heavy-handed fashion since Obama took office in the false belief that they have received a mandate from the American people to fundamentally transform this country. The flaw in the Democrats' reasoning is that they merely defeated the Republicans, they have not defeated the American people.

Let us be clear. The Republicans are not standing in the way of the Democrats' agenda. The Republicans couldn't organize an ice cream social let alone a nationwide resistance movement. The taxpayers are simply tired of being taken for a ride by Democrats who cannot fulfill their promises of the past, let alone their grandiose promises of the future.

The New Deal, The War on Poverty, The Great Society, all cast in utopian language, have driven our nation further into debt and the poor further into indignity and dependency. If the progressives would only give the market a chance to operate, with true competition for insurance companies extending across state lines, they would see costs go down. If the government would cut taxes across the board, including taxes on health insurance, employment would go up, and the twelve million or so who want insurance but can't afford it would have a better chance to obtain it.

But it is so obvious that you cannot miss it that progressives have never cared about costs; they only care about their utopian vision and the means of reaching it of complete control of government, economy, and society. The Democrats' progressive constituents do not see how they are playing right into the statists' hands, and trading one of the best economic and political systems in the world for a fabricated dream inculcated in their minds since the earliest days of their youth.

Progressives simply do not understand why all Americans do not share their beautiful vision of the future, and why everyone will not unite with them to achieve it. Anyone who wants to work for himself (or herself) and only to support his family must be evil, selfish and greedy. Anyone who does not want to participate must be lazy, ignorant, and apathetic. Anyone who actually opposes them must be an extremist, filled with hate, and indoctrinated by corporate-controlled talk radio hosts.

The progressive base needs to come out of denial and recognize that the ones who are out in full force against the statists are the same ones who have foot the bill for the government's false promises of the past. Those opposed to them are people who work real jobs and want simply to keep nearly all their money and to be left alone by the state. But unfortunately many progressives cannot remove themselves from their deep-seated illusions and thus will not leave their fellow Americans alone; and for that they are now going to see how "astro-turfed" the anger of the American people really is.

While progressives may not understand why the Democrats do not force through their ambitious agenda, since they have supposedly received a "mandate" by election, the Democrat leadership knows how dangerous it is to further rouse the American people opposed to them. The Democrats know they have Republicans beat, or essentially complicit in their designs; but they know also that if they press their demands on Americans too strongly, they will unleash a tempest that may very well sweep all of them out of power.

With the Congress and the White House controlled by radicals, and the Supreme Court silent on our rights' daily usurpation, the American people are now the final check on statism. Let there be no doubt; without our opposition the government would fully and unquestionably opt for a totalitarian government that controls every aspect of our lives. The years under Obama will thus be our last stand against totalitarian government. The future of our nation and our children is in our hands.

There is a popular narrative out there that Obama is an incompetent community organizer; or to the mass delusional, a benevolent young man who just wants hope and change.  Yet Obama is not a political novice, nor is he benevolent. He is systematically dismantling this country. Period. No apologies to the Koolaid drinkers.

I am compelled to provide evidence:

Consider this: EVERYTHING THAT MAKES THIS COUNTRY STRONG AND GREAT, THIS GOVERNMENT IS DOING THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

1. Financial stability - Gone. The government (hereafter "they") is piling up foreign and domestic debt as fast as possible. They are destroying the dollar. They are financing the Chinese.

2. The War on Terror - Weakening by the day. Obama is attacking the CIA; threatening to shut down Guantanamo; and assuming a weak force posture, including through talks of unilateral nuclear disarmament.

3. Domestic opposition to leftism - Being incrementally squelched; they are erasing videos; blacklisting links; threatening to shut down talk radio; discussing the regulation of the Internet, including giving the President "emergency powers" to shut it down; and are keeping America's best and brightest overseas to purposefully keep from dealing with them here (read the DHS report on returning veterans being probable "right-wing extremists").

4. Energy security - Restricted natural gas, oil drilling, strangling the economy with a million regulations. No oil refineries in last thirty years. Obama admitted to wanting to put coal industry out of business.

5. Abortion - Promotes culture of death; decreases replacement rate of population.

Name a policy, any policy. The Obama administration is doing the exact opposite of what is best for this country.

If you were a socialist or even a communist looking to overthrow the United States government, what would you do?

You might:

1. Run a candidate for president with an obscure background

........(see here; here; here; here; and now here)

2. Select a candidate whose race deflects criticism from his (socialist) positions

........(see here; here; here; here; here and the follow-up here; relatedly, here; especially here and now here; and less seriously, here)

3. Make sure that the candidate is eloquent and articulate, but unable to think independently or "off-teleprompter"

........(see here; here; and most recently, here)

4. The candidate should be cool and confident;

........(here; here; and especially here)

but he should have malignant narcissistic personality should the public turn on him

........(see here; here; here; and especially here)

5. Obtain the support of communist organizations

........(see here; here; here; and additionally here)

6. Decry any labels of socialist ), communist, and Marxist as "unfair"

........(see here, here; here?; comically here and its debunking here and here; and especially see here)

7. Demonize and attack anyone who exposes your candidate as a socialist

........(see here; here; here; and here)

8. Use labor unions and community activists to engage in voter fraud if necessary to secure election victory

........(see here; here; and especially here)

9. Use the media to herald your "post-racial" and "post-political" candidate as a "savior"

........(see here; here; video here; books here, and here)

10. Have the media hide a radical voting record;

......(also here, here, and here)

history of attendance in a black radical church;

....... (also here, here, and here)

and describe him as a moderate(also here, here, and laughably here)

11. Surround the candidate with communist advisers;

.......(see here, here, here, here; and about his communist background here, here, and especially here)

and Machiavellian thugs

.......(see here, here, here, and here)

12. Procure favor from Wall Street, which is allowed to loot the public treasury upon election

........(see here; here; here; here; here; here; here; and especially video here)

13. Gain the support of strong labor unions like UAW by insulating employment from a market downturn through the nationalization of industry

.......(see here; here; and here)

14. Upon election, pass a huge spending bill that pays off political cronies

.......(see first here; then here; here; here; and especially here)

15. Move to eventually nationalize the banks so that the government directly controls the issuance (or non-issuance) of credit

.......(see here, here, and here and now here)

16. Have the Fed pump more currency into the money supply than the down market can handle; leading at first to a Wall Street stock rise, but eventually to massive inflation and the destruction of the dollar as the global currency of choice

......(see here, here, especially here and here and here)

17. Increase unemployment and government dependency to ensure a political stranglehold on the government

......(see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and especially here)

18. Put thousands of Republican-donating auto dealers out of business, protect Democrat donors

.......(see here, here, here, here, here, and here)

19. Pass a "cash for clunkers" program, which is corporate welfare (mostly for the Japanese!) and which puts thousands more Americans in debt, while adding to the budget crisis

.......(see here, here, here, here, here, and here)

20. Grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants to add a huge voting demographic

.......(see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here)

21. Pass a gigantic new government-run healthcare program that will eventually lead to control over nearly one-sixth of the United States economy and the life and death of each citizen

.......(see here, here, here, and especially here and here...etc....)

22. Give millions of illegal immigrants access to this "free" government-run (or taxpayer-subsidized) healthcare

.......(see here!, here?, and here)

23. Contract community organizers to perform the census and count illegal immigrants; this will give the Democrats de facto around 32 seats in the People's House

......(see here, here, here, here, and especially here and especially video here)

24. Propose more "voluntarism" to build up a "domestic emergency force" that is "just as well-funded and well-equipped" as the military

.......(see here, video here and here, and especially here)

25. Build a patron-client network of "green jobs," and appoint a criminal communist to head its administration

.......(see here, here, here, here, and here)

26. Pass climate change tax legislation that will strangle the energy economy and which will drive up costs in every industry

......(see here, here, here, here, and video here)

27. Raise taxes and let tax cuts expire to assault businesses that are left

......(see here, here, and video here and then here, here, and finally here)

28. Continue to forbid the drilling for oil and gas by American companies in domestic territory; even as the government allows China to drill off-shore;

.......(see here and here)

subsidize drilling in other nations (like a Brazilian company whose largest stakeholder is George Soros)

......(see here! and here)

29. Build ties with dictatorial regimes across the globe; including with socialists in Latin America;

.......(see here; here; here, here, here;here, here, here; here, here, and here)

Islamists in the Middle East;

......(see first here; then here, here, here, here, here, here; here and here; here and here; here and here; here, here and video here; and on Israel here, here, here, and now here)

and communists in China

......(see here, here, and here)

30. Keep American troops, which are the most patriotic and dangerous of Americans, tied up in expensive wars overseas

......(see first here; then here, here, here, a great article here, and now here!)

31. Demoralize them by refuting that the goal of the wars is victory

.......(see here)

32. Ask for even more troops to be sent overseas

.......(see here)

33. Mobilize "emergency preparedness" teams to dispense vaccines (that are patented well in advance of an "crisis") to treat an overhyped "pandemic" such as swine flu

.........(see most recently here, then here, here, here, here, here)

34. Authorize the government to build large detainment camps to hold criminals/terrorists/political dissenters

.......(see here, here, here, see video here; and for background here (warning: chilling))

35. Propose an amendment to make the socialist president dictator for life

.......(see here, and here)

***Using a question as a premise for a thought experiment is not an invalid way for a political analyst or other informed citizen to seek to string together events and policies to form a discernible and predictable pattern (though one must anticipate and consider alternative hypotheses and weigh contradicting evidence very seriously). In Politics Among Nations (synopsis here), Hans Morgenthau, a former Secretary of the Treasury under FDR, explains how one can gain insight into the actions of a statesman by thinking like one:

We assume that statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power, and the evidence of history bears that assumption out. That assumption allows us to retrace and anticipate, as it were, the steps a statesman-past, present, or future has taken or will take on the political scene. We look over his shoulder when he writes his dispatches; we listen in on his conversation with other statesmen; we read and anticipate his very thoughts. Thinking in terms of interest defined as power, we think as he does, and as disinterested observers we understand his thoughts and actions perhaps better than he, the actor on the political scene, does himself.

It would be irresponsible to consider the results of a thought experiment as proof of one conclusion of another. The results are often intuitive and tendentious. The thought experiment thus comes with an important caveat. The process of answering a hypothetical question, however, may shed light on the future actions of a government or statesman and may help us to anticipate future policies or events.

Our country is under assault by the statist, who is employing the philosophy of progressivism to introduce regulations and restrictions that amount to the death of liberty by a thousand strokes. It is time for all Americans to understand the progressive mindset, and to convince fellow Americans that progressives represent a grave threat to the nation.

Many Americans are faintly able to detect that something is amiss. Yet they lack the philosophical firepower to defend themselves from the statists' exploitation. Educating these potential patriots requires a return to the founding, and a familiarization with the struggle for emancipation that stains our founding documents with the blood of courageous and enlightened men.

In our midst, however, are liars, ritual deceivers, and power usurpers who smile and hand Americans the rope by which they will hang the Republic. Backing these true believers are armies of "pragmatic" bureaucrats and dedicated and well-intentioned civil servants who will think no ill of a politician who provides for them a paycheck and a modicum of fleeting social security, even if purchased at the cost of our children's futures. To be receptive to the truth of our founding, it is important to know the enemies of freedom who are progressives, and the psyche that marks their peculiar and destructive worldview.

Progressives view themselves as members of the social avant-garde who radically oppose the world as it is. They intuitively pursue social justice and equality, but often do not realize the path of destruction they leave in their wake on what amounts to a hellish forced march to an ever-elusive utopia.

Progressives completely reject all facets of the world that they see around them. Every racial joke appears symptomatic of a bygone clash with slavery or civil rights; every sexually-charged comment on a woman's physique is interpreted as reflective of social indoctrination into adopting contrived gender roles; every pro-market supporter is seen as a product of the capitalist system and whose "false consciousness" transforms him into as much of an unthinking object as an IPOD or a bottle of Coca-Cola.

Dehumanization of the enemy is key to all forms of radicalization; and in regards to progressives, they are no exception to this rule.

The totalitarian mindset of progressives, who see institutionalized oppression everywhere, spur them to seek the obliteration of every institution that promotes social stability; from the family to the church to law enforcement to the U.S. military.

Progressives see the entire world up to this moment as plagued by exploitation, imperialist aggression, colonialism, war, oppression, and environmental degradation; all of which they link to the cold, materialist rationality they associate with the founders of the United States.

Progressives are driven by an austere fundamentalist mindset that does not let up and cannot be combated with evidence and reason; these aspects of mental life are characteristic of the world they seek to escape.

In many ways progressives see reality as a fearsome prison, and subjectivity as a means to both escape and to perpetually marginalize anyone who crashes in on their worldview. Therefore any conservative who argues on behalf of preserving those things he values as great about the United States is immediately reacted against by progressives as part-and-parcel of all those evil institutions of the world that they rightfully loathe.

The progressive will condemn the conservative for valuing anything about the United States or capitalism by reference to a given evil institution, whether it is of a contemporary or a bygone era; to the progressive, the conservative is by nature a "racist," "imperialist," "sexist," "neo-colonialist," "homophobe" or "Islamophobe"... rather than a freedom-lover, a peaceful citizen, a responsible, law-abiding taxpayer.

This conflationary guilt-by-association mentality of the progressive also leads to a source of ideological blindness and denial in regards to his unquestioning loyalty to the Democrat party. Being a Democrat is who the progressive is; to criticize the Democrat party would lead to a cognitive break that would result in an identity crisis. Conservatives on the other hand have no problem breaking with Republicans because they are people of ideas and principles rather than of power and transformational utopianism.

The source for much of the progressive's cognitive distortion lay in the deeply flawed worldview of marxism and its undergirding philosophy of dialectical materialism. The progressive's telological viewpoint is one that sees the world as progressing through stages of conflict, accumulating evils that will in the end burst through, miraculously, to spontaneously form a new and just world order.

Though the teleos of marxism has been largely discredited, there is residual faith in the "corrective" philosophy of neomarxism. The eternal hope of the left is that the breakthrough to a utopian world order is inevitable. This makes the progressive patient, calculating, and faithful.

What the progressives thus seek to do is to pull along what they perceive as the naturally occurring historical progression toward world crisis to its culmination: A "Hegelian moment" of spontaneous revolution and emancipation.

What lies on the other side of the "Hegelian moment" is a mystery to progressives. Harmony and cooperation is thought to reign; but just as likely is a retrenchment back into the dark ages; only this time it would be one of truly monumental proportions. A replay of the same struggle for intellectual enlightenment and emancipation that led to the founding of America might be carried out between the cursed rational few and a world techno-communist regime over the course of many unforeseeable millenia.

Thus it must be recognized that for all the progressive's claims to being highly educated, his faith-based, irrational disposition is more reflective of emotional conditioning than it is of a balanced, evidence-seeking, self-guided, and deliberative education.

If progressives were self-educated, they would surely appreciate that the Enlightenment grew out of the same chaos, war, and exploitation that they are so quick to condemn of the "American century."

The problems that plagued Europe from the collapse of the Roman Empire to the Reformation and Counter-Reformation did not spring from an overabundance of cold rationality and materialism, but rather a world of superstition, religious dogma, and monarchies founded on the divine right of rule.

By the end of the seventeenth century, Europe was exhausted from wars such as the low-intensity Hundred Years' War, the horrific Thirty Years' War, and the tulmultuous and bloody English Civil War. The decadence of Louis XIV and the concentrated power of other European absolutisms of the sixteenth through the eighteenth century provoked a crisis and a need for a true revolution of thinking.

A group of scholars arose to meet the challenges of a world in crisis. These were men of a classically inspired sense of rationality who decided to put their passions aside to pursue the hard and unyielding truth. They hoped that they would provide the wisdom so desperately needed for political orders to thrive without tyranny and eventual self-destruction. These were the men of the Enlightenment.

Such men include Baron de Montesquieu, who is widely credited in the modern age with articulating the governmental principle of separation of powers. John Locke demolished the assumptions undergirding the rule of divine right. Spinoza sought an ethical and political philosophy that was in accordance with Nature's God, rather than with mystical abstraction. These were men intimately familiar with state oppression, and who articulated potent legal and philosophical safeguards to discredit, abolish, and forestall tyranny wherever it might be found.

In the late eighteenth century, men of self-learning and reason in a burgeoning colonial alliance forged a resistance to the empire that lorded over them. These men had no interest in defeating their imperial masters to found or preserve an oppressive order; this is self-evident to anyone with the curiosity to go outside their state-mandated curriculum and to investigate this for himself.

What these American founders performed was as close to a miracle as one can get without transversing into the realm of the miraculous; not only were these men victorious in defeating a world power in political revolution, upon winning their freedom they accomplished a philosophical revolution dedicated to the emancipation of the human mind.

These men who fought so hard to preserve the lives, liberty, and property of their posterity would demand us to arm ourselves to the teeth with a liberal philosophy that was actually in support of liberation. The claims of the statists that the control of our bodies, our wealth, our labor, and our minds is intended for our emancipation must be confronted mightily with the truth.

The bait-and-switch of tyranny delivered in the form of "economic emancipation" has been characteristic of every communist ruled nation in history; and for deep philosophical reasons having to do with the nature of men, this must be the case.

Property is not an enslaver; it is a barrier to state tyranny that sprung out of liberation and it is consistent with every man's right to sustain the means of his own existence. Marx summed up his entire philosophy with his call for the abolition of private property. This is surely not a call to a progressive future where men and women are free; that is to say, independent and able to cooperate without the entanglements of hostility and resentment that spring from mutual and vulnerable interdependence. As history has borne out time and time again, there is a natural disproportion of men not only in terms of talent; but also in terms of their disposition to work and to choose either to merely survive or to thrive. The different types of men should not be asked to share responsibility for bearing the burden of all; instead, men should be responsible for themselves and for forging their own futures in a naturally imperfect world.

Thus the intellectual progenitors of American conservatives stand in direct opposition to progressives. It must be understood that progressives are actually regressives; the return to a world without private property is one vaguely resembling pre-industrial, hunter-gatherer society. The evidence is that this is a world of barbarism and cruelty, and one that necessitates a dominant state in order to regulate it. Thus the regime the progressives lay out before us is one reflective of "hope" and "change" is one of mutual enslavement under a regulatory regime comprised of oligarchs and elites and not any form of "emancipation."

So now that we are familiar with the mindset of the progressives, what say the great minds of history on how to confront them and defeat them?

As Aristotle wrote: "Those who excel in virtue have the best right of all to rebel, but then they are of all men the least inclined to do so." We have the virtue of having supported this state with our taxes, which is to say, a portion of our lives. They owe it to us to explain how we have all the moral obligation and the politicians have all the moral license to do with us as they please. No justification, no taxation.

It is time to rise up. As Montesquieu wrote: “To become truly great, one has to stand with people, not above them.” The hypocrisy of the left's cries of "equality" has come to an end. It has been exposed as the watchword of corrupt, self-serving, oligarchical politicians who will not share our burden as fellow citizens, but rather dictate to us as our superiors. By what right do these citizens rule? By what authority?

Certainly not the Constitution of the United States. As Madison advised: "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." The Constitution is not a living, breathing document that can be amended by the statist by fiat. It is the source and well-spring of the Republic. The statists' pollution has made our nation's fountainhead brackish and stale. The only way to purify it is to restore the truth by restoring the Constitution as the Law of the Land.

The greatest emancipator of our founders, a man who helped secure the abolition of the importation of slavery in two generations' time of the Constitution's ratification, gave us the following clarion call for revolutionary patriots of all eras. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

But before tragedy and conflict afflict this nation, as unforeseen events lead to misunderstandings, which lead to action, reaction, reprisal, and resistance, it behooves us as citizens to refresh the tree of liberty philosophically.

We must re-engage the philosophy of our founding and spread the truth to our fellow citizens; not as Democrats versus Republicans, or vice versa, but as Americans who desire to live together in a future of peace and freedom. A world of enlightenment awaits. Are we up to the challenge?

Recommended Readings:
Aristotle - The Politics
Marcus Aurelius - The Meditations
Thomas Aquinas - Summa Theologica
Baron de Montesquieu - The Spirit of the Laws
John Locke - Two Treatises of Government
Baruch de Spinoza - Theologico-Politico Treatise
James Madison - United States Constitution; Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments; Federalist Papers, especially 10; 39; 51
Thomas Jefferson - The Declaration of Independence, Notes on Virginia, correspondence
Benjamin Franklin - Autobiography
Adam Smith - An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, The Theory of Moral Sentiments
David Ricardo - On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation
Edward Gibbon - The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America (Vols. I and II)
Frederic Bastiat - The Law; Economic Sophisms
F.A. Hayek - The Road to Serfdom
Murray Rothbard - A History of Money and Banking in the United States
Ludwig von Mises - Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis; Human Action: A Treatise on Economics; The Theory of Money and Credit
Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead; The Virtue of Selfishness
Milton Friedman - Capitalism and Freedom; A Monetary History of the United States

Dear Blue Dog Democrat coalition:

Thank you for taking the time to weigh carefully the monumental changes that are being proposed in the Quality Affordable Health Coverage for All Americans act. There is wide agreement that health care in the United States is overly expensive. Insurance companies have a vested interest in making profits at the expense of consumers.

It is also obvious that a drastic reform in one-sixth of the American economy could send shockwaves throughout the economy at a particularly vulnerable time. The uncertainty in the market has already led to a prolonged period of stagnation that threatens to lead to high inflation and more unemployment. Such an economy could be a repeat of the 1970s, which was referred to as "stagflation." History shows that the economy of President Carter led to the election of President Ronald Reagan, who was a two-term president.

In addition, there is the historical example of the early Clinton presidency, when Hillary Clinton attempted to dramatically reform the healthcare system. The unpopularity of the measures proposed, when digested by the American public, led in part to the 1994 overturning of the Congress from a Democrat-led to a Republican-led one.

I understand the counter-argument that there needs to be more competition in the market; what has been referred to as a "public option." In its current form, however, this proposed public option, when combined with other stipulations such as a phasing out of individual health insurance plans, would lead to a government takeover of management of the healthcare of 300 million Americans. Although it may be tempting to think that medical experts and government administrators can run the healthcare of Americans better than countless private doctors and hospitals, experience shows that a lack of competition in service providers would lead to decreasing standards in healthcare, including poorer service, lengthy waiting lists, and reduced options for medical procedures.

In theory it may sound like a good idea to dramatically reform healthcare, but it is better to work at the margins to lower costs. The way that doctors "max out" billing for Medicare patients; how litigators drive up costs with frivolous lawsuits, which are reflected in exorbitant malpractice insurance costs for doctors, and are passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices; and how states often mandate health insurance companies to carry coverage for many non-essential procedures drive up costs appreciably.

Although I know that the decision is up to the politicians in Washington, I can appeal to more than good conscience for a reason to vote against this bill. I can appeal to the ballot boxes in 2010 and 2012. Massive unemployment, economic disruption and stagnation, as well as micro-managing of life and death issues from Washington tend to be unpopular issues at election time.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue with you. Thank you and best regards,

Mail your opinion to: BlueDog@mail.house.gov

1. No term limits for Congressmen
2. Congressmen can vote their own raises
3. Inordinately generous perquisites and benefits packages for politicians
4. The Seventeenth Amendment - Did away with the election of Senators by the state senates; removed a check and balance from government
5. The Federal Reserve Bank allows politicians to whitewash economic problems with infusions of liquidity that lead inevitably to economic recessions and depressions
6. Debt-financed government spending
7. No proportional representation for minor parties (to foster more deliberation in Congress)
8. No "vote of no confidence" for opposition or "shadow government"
9. Rare impeachment of corrupt public officials
10. The abuse of the Necessary and Proper clause
11. The perversion of the Interstate Commerce Clause (such as in Wickard v. Filburn, 1942, which extended the regulatory powers of the federal government to include intrastate commerce)
12. The infraction of private property, as demonstrated best by eminent domain seizures
13. Taxes not on income, but on wages - a violation of the meaning of "income tax"
14. Graduated income taxes - punishing success
15. The destruction of Federalism after the Civil War
16. The dependence of the state governments on the federal government for financing
17. Centralized state-run education (and any state education for that matter)
18. The legislation of personal morality (drug usage, e.g.)
19. Firearms restrictions (instead of heavier gun crimes penalties, e.g.)
20. Lax voting regulations
21. Dishonest news media that assist government and vice versa (GE and MSNBC, e.g.)
22. The system of tenure in the universities
23. Unions artificially insulating workers from job performance pressures and inflating wages
24. Trial lawyers litigating frivolously and driving up prices, such as in the healthcare sector of the economy
25. The culture is saturated with intellectually uncurious people (see 17)

Many people believe that Obama is a national socialist, which is only partially true. National socialists believe in government control of the economy and in compensating the workers for their labor as they see fit. What Obama is, more accurately, is a global socialist, who seeks to redistribute the wealth from "oppressive" capitalist states (which is to say, successful states) to the poorer nations of the world.

What is important to bear in mind when attempting to make sense of Obama's economic policies is that his handicapping of America is intended. The G8, including President Obama, are all on board with trying to cut CO2 emissions by an alarming 80% by 2050 (though Waxman-Markey only targets 13% by 2020). Waxman-Markey would fertilize the economy for "green shoots" of ivy to sprout up all over the national economy to strangle productive business.

The question remains: Why? Why would the Obama administration get on board with such a Titanic of a bill? There are some hints that lie in the difference between what Obama says and does at home and abroad.

The recent speech by Obama in Ghana was extremely enlightening as a matter of where his heart lies in terms of economic policy. Obama admits in his speech that corruption and a predatory state stifle an economy. He also admits that there is no reason that Africans cannot have a sustainable economy, especially in agriculture. This is a huge admission by Obama that we are officially in a post-colonial era, and more importantly, that when the state gets out of the way people can be productive. Obama is basically advocating to the Africans the economic principles that made America great.

When you contrast these points with the way Obama is treating the American economy, including raising graduated income taxes on couples making over $250,000 and singles making over $200,000; supporting the cap-and-trade bill, which the WSJ described as the "largest tax in American history" and which would lay the basis for a patron-client state of government-provided "green jobs"; nationalizing failing and uncompetitive industries; rescuing banks that engaged in risky behavior; and generally choking the will to succeed by mandating thousands of disincentives to work hard and get ahead, as well as to invest for the long-term, I think what Obama's game is becomes pretty clear.

It is pay back time for: America's sordid past in the slave trade, which ended in 1808; for the enslavement of blacks, which the North partially went to war to end; for "greedy, selfish" capitalism, which was so horrendous it provided an engine for wealth and a market for countries all over the world; for the corporations for providing jobs to foreigners, jobs that would not otherwise exist; for the American "empire" of providing security to Western Europe during the Cold War; for keeping the sea lanes clear for international trade; and for deterring madmen like Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong-Il from attacking their neighbors.

Obama is a true believer in socialism - but on a global scale. As Obama put it in his Ghana speech:

As for America and the West, our commitment must be measured by more than just the dollars we spend. I have pledged substantial increases in our foreign assistance, which is in Africa's interest and America's. But the true sign of success is not whether we are a source of aid that helps people scrape by — it is whether we are partners in building the capacity for transformational change.

Obama seeks not just to redistribute the wealth of the (majority white) middle class and upper class to lower-class minorities, but from the wealthy "usurpers" in America to the poor countries of the world. Why these countries were poor before America was even a country, and have remained in their same impoverished state for millenia, apparently neither crosses the president's mind or is ignored. Obama's speech suggests the latter - and that even a skilled Chicago politician is not capable of holding the doublethink in one's mind that a corrupt oppressive government is bad for Africans, but somehow good for the United States. Obama's admission that the future is up to Africans to build, but somehow the path to prosperity and success for Americans runs through Washington is a contrast in philosophy too strong not to be part of some larger vision of cutting the U.S. down to size.