San Diego — Let me give you some dots to connect…
Obama announced and is openly pursuing a program to, in his words, “… fundamentally transform our country.” In this he has the lock-step support of followers who see him as a political messiah. This, however, is a very different goal than the founders had. They recognized a distinctly American character, also easily recognized by early visitors and writers such as Alexis De Touqueville, and sought via the Constitution and its amendments, to protect it, not to change it.
But following the popularity of the works of European writers such as with Rousseau, Godwin, and Marx, starting with Woodrow Wilson many in his party slowly transformed what had traditionally been the political philosophies of the so-called progressives, into something new, and something very, very different than the culture that was being protected by the Constitution or, for that matter, different than the one held by early liberals and progressives alike.
By the time we get through the years to Obama, we find a man who is openly contemptuous of that document and speaks openly about its fundamental flaws, but without the integrity (and with the hypocrisy) required to take an oath to adhere to it and defend it and actually do that instead of working diligently and brilliantly to obliterate it.
I have written before about his adherence to and support of the works of those early social writers just mentioned. I didn’t have to make anything up, I simply used his own writing and speeches and have shown where some phrases were lifted in their entirety.
To accommodate his dream utopia as formed and informed by his father and reverend and close associates during his philosophically formative years, one must first destroy the society from within. They all knew this and wrote about it since they all studied the works of John Maynard Keanes, the economic god of the left, who wrote that you could only do that economically and the way to do it was to “debauch the currency.” How to do that exactly was spelled out in the economic theories of Cloward and Pliven who were the mentors of the professors under who student Obama claims to have studied. And they are certainly the approaches that appear to be implemented and are playing out pretty much as predicted.
And so a very successful effort is being made to transform the culture, which means that before the new order can be instituted, the old order must be destroyed or at least crippled. There is a roadmap you can check to see if I’m speaking the truth here and it is from their own side. From these same authors, now synthesized in the writings of Saul Alinsky, another mentor for the president and his close friends, are clearly spelled out the strategies needed to make all of that happen. And the foremost is that the country must first of all tear itself apart. And to implement that strategy, Saul observes, the best approach is to set the people upon themselves in a great class war, just like Marx predicted and said was necessary. And then he tells how to do it.
But class war requires something that most Americans deplore and that only existed in the fringe elements because it was seriously discouraged by the founders and their philosophies. And that something is systemic, cultivated, institutionalized hatred. Of course there have always been examples one can point to of evil people wrapped in their own petty hatreds, but it was never a part of the official or sanctioned social fabric of our culture nor was it the social goals as outlined in the Constitution.
When evil was applied by or in the name of the government, and there is no denying that it was, it was an aberration and in direct conflict with the ethics, outlook, and morals embodied in the Constitution itself. If there was a flaw, it was that sometimes it was not crystal clear about how abhorrent some behaviors among its citizens were and how much violence the allowing of those behaviors to continue would someday do to the document itself because, for reasons of greed and personal power, some individuals got away with despicable acts in the name of the country. The real flaw was in the law makers who initiated or cowardly allowed such behavior to start or continue.
(A Quick “Aside:” if you want to argue that the great flaw was the allowance of Slavery, I would agree as would many of the founders. But in the short term the greater question was to have a country or not? Once established, then the provisions of the Constitution itself allowed that particular evil to be abolished. So the real message is that the Constitution provided the internal processes by which any “flaws” could be addressed without the kind of damage to the core document typical of trying to do an end run around it does. And since that “flaw” had been corrected 150 years prior, it could not have been the one or ones referenced by Obama.)
But it was not the Constitution that encouraged it; it was a really a violation of the Constitution that allowed it until corrected. You need to take the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as a single piece not two separate ones. The grievances spelled out in the Declaration form the “thou shalt not” actions that the Constitution sought to prohibit the government founded under it from doing. To understand the Constitution you must understand the grievances that inspired the Declaration. And then apply them to our own government since we did not want to allow a new government being created to fall into the same behaviors and patterns as the one we were about to shed. if you want to know how to interpret Constitutional provisions, especially in the Bill of Rights, you must read it in the context of the grievances set forth in the Declaration.
So now our leader wants us not to protect that founding document and its intentions but to transform it. And from reading all of those authors noted above, he knows how it can be accomplished. But part of the unintended consequences, known to him, but apparently not to his disciples, is that to do it you have to get people to hate one another. And the easiest arena in which to create that hate is the economic one where using the directives of Uncle Saul, one can easily manipulate emotions from jealousy, to envy… and ultimately to hate.
We all tend to focus our thoughts on the topic of hatred in different arenas than to look at our own government (unless talking about the bigots on the other side). Usually such discussions are centered around small fringe groups. Skin heads and neo-nazis, supremacists of all colors (and yes, bigotry is not limited to certain skin colors or races), all practice focused hatred but are generally not in large enough groups to have much overall effect.
We also sometimes think of hatred as the purview of religions and sometimes it is. Islam, the “religion of peace” for example, openly tells its followers, not, by the way, only a fanatical fringe but ANY follower who believes in the sacred words of the founder, to kill or convert all who are not Muslims and establish as a goal a world wide caliphate based on Islam. The only way you can get a normally peaceful people to engage in Jihad to exterminate others based only on their beliefs, is via carefully crafted hatred. And to do that you set up the chain: jealousy, envy… and finally hatred.
But that is anathema to all things American where our Constitution forbids us to ever establish a State Religion a la King Henry VIII or some Ayatolah. So how do we do it? It was remarkably simple we had to create a category of entitlements or people who were, for oner reason or another, entitled to something the others were not. We’re not talking about the natural rights spoken of in the Declaration or spelled out in the Constitution. We are instead talking about government created “rights” because in doing that we can create the class divisions needed to start the process.
The American character was originally based on self-sufficiency but also in concern for our neighbors. When one of our numbers fell on hard times we were expected to help them as best we could; not because it was mandated by the government and not through some government program, but because it was our individual responsibility.
And when the system was allowed to work unfettered, the rising economic tide lifted all boats and the few blind-sided by life were helped by private or faith-based charities. But as the social experiments of the utopians started to come into play, the rising numbers of needy, resulting from the heavy caps on the production sources, overwhelmed the natural system and, right on cue, the government stepped in to “save” the “less privileged” it had created and thereby started to create dependencies and with them the beginnings of a systemic jealousy and envy. And with dependencies comes the real currency of tyrants: power.
Greece is now showing us the natural results of this. Totally without money and utterly dependent on the largesse of their EU neighbors who have demanded, as a price for their help that Greece clean up its economic act, the now entitled and dependent citizens have turned on themselves and are rioting in the streets. Envy has segued into hatred. People are rioting to have a bankrupt government keep providing their entitlements even when there is no money and therefore are angry at the government and at the OTHER governments for not keeping the trough full to their liking.
Here, in the US, we are on the fringes of that (and in California may be looking over the edge). The Occupier Movement, driven by jealousy and envy and a complete disavowal of a “clean your own room or house first” approach, has evolved, predictably into a situation where envy and hatred are starting to merge. And who is supporting that? How to you get from envy to hatred? Convince the envious one that they are somehow entitled and are therefore somehow a victim.
The American character, as noted before, was initially predisposed to help one another in times of need. But the assumption was that such help was not a lifetime achievement award for galactic level laziness and at some point it would end and the person would return to productivity, leaving only the truly needy unable physically or mentally to care for themselves, that we had to collectively support. That lasted only until, with the government’s help and support, the numbers feeling victimized and entitled became unworkable.
The strategy is a simple one: keep the economic instability to a point where the progression of jealousy to envy to victimhood to hatred is maintained, then turn it around by skewing it so out of balance and in favor now of the entitled class that the productive people themselves now feel victimized by those clamoring to take from them the products of their own work, and now you have done it: you have everyone hating everyone else and a simple push, a simple match or spark, is all it will take to bring the system crashing down waiting for a charismatic leader to step in to “save” it.
Our world’s history is full of such saviors usually carried into power on the shoulders of academia and the various victims in an unlikely alliance. Stalin, Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, and before them all, Robespierre followed this historical progression.
So have we again reached critical mass? Have we reached the tipping point where a single match will set us all at each other’s throats making way for the latest messiah? Are we so far along and desperate to get our minds off of the situation we will fall for a war as the solution because we are so ignorant of the past that we will once again accept any jingoistic call to arms because we have been sold the old tale that our problems are NOT the fault of our own government but of someone else?
Will we be pushed into war with Iran to knowingly (on the part of the government) spike the price of oil which is critical to all of us and will make nearly everything more expensive to give us some external demon to hate?
Or will we simply be given a domestic demon in the form of someone from the other political persuasion that wants, oh horrors, to cut back on the entitlement gravy trough?
Right now the debt is about $1 million for every citizen. Can you expect to pay that back in your lifetime? No? Then who will get to do it? And if we keep debauching the fiat currency making each newly minted dollar worth less then the effective debt rises accordingly. If ever there was an arbitrarily created scenario for disaster we are staring it in the face.
The only question is, are we going to fall for it? Are we going to fall for the tactics to get us to hate each other and so take our eyes off the larger picture? Or are we going to stand, collectively, and say if this is the transformation desired by our leaders then NO THANK YOU! Instead, will we, as a people, prefer to recover the American Character as exemplified in the Declaration and Constitution?
instead of transforming it, are we more interested in trying to tweak and strengthen the areas that can profit from it by using the methodology spelled out in the document itself? Or are we interested in creating for the office of president, the precedence that allow anyone occupying it to transform the country in his own vision and as he sees fit without regard to little problems like the citizenry, the congress,… or the constitution?
This is the simple question facing you. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that ANY of those people vying for the office are likely to do the latter. But isn’t that what we OUGHT to be searching for and supporting? If we don’t, and don’t do it soon, it will not make any difference and we will, like the citizens of Russia, Germany, Spain, Italy, China, etc. look up one day and ask how this could have happened.
And the answer will be… us. We made it happen. We didn’t just allow it to happen, we MADE it happen.
I’m an old guy and sincerely hope I will not live to see that day.
N. DAVID KING's BLOG 