Category: E. Jeffrey Ludwig

209025.png

Student Activism Destabilizes Society


The latest issue of the Harvard Graduate School of Education magazine focuses on “student activism.”  This activism rubric is a euphemism for student disturbance, student malaise, student ingratitude, student impulsivity, distracted student hypermoralism, and acting out of their unconscious death wish and free-floating libidinous unrest.  Abusing the constitutional right of freedom of assembly, students step far outside the boundaries of their experience and competencies to demonstrate, threaten, condemn, and sometimes destroy the social order as well as the dreams and property of others. Freedom to disagree and publicly express said disagreement becomes an excuse for screaming, foul language, hysterical episodes, making ugly faces, and feverish gesticulations, and in many ways acting like deranged morons.  Moreover, it is increasingly common for conservative speakers not to be allowed on campuses or to be met with raucous demonstrations when they are allowed to appear.  The line between freedom of assembly/peaceful protests and campus “demonstrations,” antifa mayhem, and Ferguson or Baltimore riots and looting is still somewhat intact, but that line is increasingly frayed, tattered, and diluted. 

The capstone article in the magazine is entitled, “Student Activism 2.0.”  Like Howard Zinn’s Peoples’ History of the United States, which is a widely used textbook in college American History courses, or such progressive tomes for high schools as The Americans (1360 pages), published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, this article focuses on activism (sic) as the quintessence of American democracy.  Activism to its left-wing supporters reveals the flaws not only of U.S. history but of contemporary patriotism which is deemed by the activists to be too resistant to seeing the massive flaws of American culture, and has mistakenly brought the USA to the point of even thinking of itself as exceptional.  Their main thought is that we are so deeply flawed that we barely deserve to exist, let alone consider ourselves to be moral or just. 

Further, these student activists, immature, unstable, and easily manipulated, see themselves as advocates for “the people.”  “The people” for them are all those on the well-known progressive list:  homosexuals, people of color but especially blacks and Hispanics as opposed to Asians, workers, the elderly, transgenders, women, students, people who are HIV positive, native Americans, illegal immigrants, high school dropouts, incarcerated felons, and drug addicts.  For the progressive activists, these are not only people with needs to be addressed, but these groups are “the people” who have been dispossessed by our selfish society. They are victimized groups and support for them is a natural extension of the populism that began with the farmers in the 19th century as well as with women in the suffragette movement.  To their ahistorical minds nurtured on progressive propaganda, populism extended through progressivism through the New Deal up to the present.  Thus, they consider themselves the true populists.   For this reason, they are doubly enraged that they are now facing a conservative backlash that claims to be the “new populism.”  They are incensed. They ask: weren’t we the ones originally against the robber barons, the capitalist moguls of the 19th century who were ripping off Americans and destroying society while claiming to build it?  Are we not the ones who, in that same tradition, descry the top 1% or .1% who are the contemporary heirs of the robber barons?

However, a new populism is emerging, and it makes their blood boil.  It is a populism that realizes that Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and other scions — despite their limitations and biases — did in fact build this country into the mega-economic superpower it is. The new populism identifies with workers who, despite certain areas of mistreatment, had found a measure of economic security and opportunity in America that they never knew in the entire history of post-industrial growth.  But those workers who had risen to new levels of economic security and opportunities have seen themselves over recent decades as increasingly dispossessed in the name of a progressive, elitist globalism.  The old populism/progressivism has morphed into a system for dispossessing the workers and telling them to shut up, get into a job retraining program or move to a more prosperous area of the country.  The students thus have become pawns in the leftist/globalist challenge to American prosperity.  Their rage is being stoked as they are persuaded to think that they are the true voices of “the people,” but in fact they are against the interests of the people.

The workers are now the new populists who do not identify with the ruthless and immature outbursts of student indignation with its leftist/progressive face.  Thus, ironically, the socialist New Deal forgotten man referred to by President Franklin D. Roosevelt is now the forgotten man referred to by President Donald Trump in our present political and economic renaissance. Further, there is a vast middle class which, despite the extreme bias of the textbooks often being used in our high schools and colleges, is mainstream. It is composed of small business owners, managers, stockholders, pension fund managers, white collar workers, independent professionals, and creative thinkers and writers who are immersed in a spirit of gratitude for the USA, and not in a spirit of wounded victimization.  Real grievances of course must be addressed, but is it constructive or even decent to spend one’s life picking at the scabs of so-called injustice and reopening wounds?

The author of the Harvard article revels in reviewing the history of student protests.  To him, student protests are where the rubber meets the road.  Young people are finding a voice to express their concerns about significant social issues, and their voices point the way to a better future for all.  He completely avoids any reference to the excessive hostility that has emerged in these protests, especially since the 1960s.  He avoids asking the extent to which student protests are manipulated events by political zealots in the Democratic Party or other organizations that have an interest in destabilizing our society.  He fails to consider the psychology of these protests and the extent to which they mask inner student helplessness and fear of the future.  He fails to consider the sense of individual isolation that is bred by the student generation’s engrossment in virtual reality leading to collective expression and its attendant excesses.  The sense of alienation and anomie described so beautifully by David Riesman, Nathan Glazer, and Reuel Denney in their book The Lonely Crowd published in 1950 is so much deeper and more far-reaching today than it was then.  The social isolates of the 1950s would be borderline deranged today. 

In short, idolization of protests and public expressions of outrage are outrageously devoid of perspective.  Perspective is necessary for balanced thinking and balanced living.  And balance is necessary for maturity and wisdom to flourish.  These in turn produce real problem solving at the highest level.

E. Jeffrey Ludwig has taught at Harvard, Penn State, Juniata College, City University of New York, and Boston State College, and was selected numerous times for inclusion in Who’s Who Among America’s High School Teachers.  He is author of The Catastrophic Decline of America’s Public High Schools, and is a born again Christian.

The latest issue of the Harvard Graduate School of Education magazine focuses on “student activism.”  This activism rubric is a euphemism for student disturbance, student malaise, student ingratitude, student impulsivity, distracted student hypermoralism, and acting out of their unconscious death wish and free-floating libidinous unrest.  Abusing the constitutional right of freedom of assembly, students step far outside the boundaries of their experience and competencies to demonstrate, threaten, condemn, and sometimes destroy the social order as well as the dreams and property of others. Freedom to disagree and publicly express said disagreement becomes an excuse for screaming, foul language, hysterical episodes, making ugly faces, and feverish gesticulations, and in many ways acting like deranged morons.  Moreover, it is increasingly common for conservative speakers not to be allowed on campuses or to be met with raucous demonstrations when they are allowed to appear.  The line between freedom of assembly/peaceful protests and campus “demonstrations,” antifa mayhem, and Ferguson or Baltimore riots and looting is still somewhat intact, but that line is increasingly frayed, tattered, and diluted. 

The capstone article in the magazine is entitled, “Student Activism 2.0.”  Like Howard Zinn’s Peoples’ History of the United States, which is a widely used textbook in college American History courses, or such progressive tomes for high schools as The Americans (1360 pages), published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, this article focuses on activism (sic) as the quintessence of American democracy.  Activism to its left-wing supporters reveals the flaws not only of U.S. history but of contemporary patriotism which is deemed by the activists to be too resistant to seeing the massive flaws of American culture, and has mistakenly brought the USA to the point of even thinking of itself as exceptional.  Their main thought is that we are so deeply flawed that we barely deserve to exist, let alone consider ourselves to be moral or just. 

Further, these student activists, immature, unstable, and easily manipulated, see themselves as advocates for “the people.”  “The people” for them are all those on the well-known progressive list:  homosexuals, people of color but especially blacks and Hispanics as opposed to Asians, workers, the elderly, transgenders, women, students, people who are HIV positive, native Americans, illegal immigrants, high school dropouts, incarcerated felons, and drug addicts.  For the progressive activists, these are not only people with needs to be addressed, but these groups are “the people” who have been dispossessed by our selfish society. They are victimized groups and support for them is a natural extension of the populism that began with the farmers in the 19th century as well as with women in the suffragette movement.  To their ahistorical minds nurtured on progressive propaganda, populism extended through progressivism through the New Deal up to the present.  Thus, they consider themselves the true populists.   For this reason, they are doubly enraged that they are now facing a conservative backlash that claims to be the “new populism.”  They are incensed. They ask: weren’t we the ones originally against the robber barons, the capitalist moguls of the 19th century who were ripping off Americans and destroying society while claiming to build it?  Are we not the ones who, in that same tradition, descry the top 1% or .1% who are the contemporary heirs of the robber barons?

However, a new populism is emerging, and it makes their blood boil.  It is a populism that realizes that Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and other scions — despite their limitations and biases — did in fact build this country into the mega-economic superpower it is. The new populism identifies with workers who, despite certain areas of mistreatment, had found a measure of economic security and opportunity in America that they never knew in the entire history of post-industrial growth.  But those workers who had risen to new levels of economic security and opportunities have seen themselves over recent decades as increasingly dispossessed in the name of a progressive, elitist globalism.  The old populism/progressivism has morphed into a system for dispossessing the workers and telling them to shut up, get into a job retraining program or move to a more prosperous area of the country.  The students thus have become pawns in the leftist/globalist challenge to American prosperity.  Their rage is being stoked as they are persuaded to think that they are the true voices of “the people,” but in fact they are against the interests of the people.

The workers are now the new populists who do not identify with the ruthless and immature outbursts of student indignation with its leftist/progressive face.  Thus, ironically, the socialist New Deal forgotten man referred to by President Franklin D. Roosevelt is now the forgotten man referred to by President Donald Trump in our present political and economic renaissance. Further, there is a vast middle class which, despite the extreme bias of the textbooks often being used in our high schools and colleges, is mainstream. It is composed of small business owners, managers, stockholders, pension fund managers, white collar workers, independent professionals, and creative thinkers and writers who are immersed in a spirit of gratitude for the USA, and not in a spirit of wounded victimization.  Real grievances of course must be addressed, but is it constructive or even decent to spend one’s life picking at the scabs of so-called injustice and reopening wounds?

The author of the Harvard article revels in reviewing the history of student protests.  To him, student protests are where the rubber meets the road.  Young people are finding a voice to express their concerns about significant social issues, and their voices point the way to a better future for all.  He completely avoids any reference to the excessive hostility that has emerged in these protests, especially since the 1960s.  He avoids asking the extent to which student protests are manipulated events by political zealots in the Democratic Party or other organizations that have an interest in destabilizing our society.  He fails to consider the psychology of these protests and the extent to which they mask inner student helplessness and fear of the future.  He fails to consider the sense of individual isolation that is bred by the student generation’s engrossment in virtual reality leading to collective expression and its attendant excesses.  The sense of alienation and anomie described so beautifully by David Riesman, Nathan Glazer, and Reuel Denney in their book The Lonely Crowd published in 1950 is so much deeper and more far-reaching today than it was then.  The social isolates of the 1950s would be borderline deranged today. 

In short, idolization of protests and public expressions of outrage are outrageously devoid of perspective.  Perspective is necessary for balanced thinking and balanced living.  And balance is necessary for maturity and wisdom to flourish.  These in turn produce real problem solving at the highest level.

E. Jeffrey Ludwig has taught at Harvard, Penn State, Juniata College, City University of New York, and Boston State College, and was selected numerous times for inclusion in Who’s Who Among America’s High School Teachers.  He is author of The Catastrophic Decline of America’s Public High Schools, and is a born again Christian.



Source link

207716.jpg

We Must Fight for Family Values


Our culture is increasingly pushing against the family as the bedrock institution of civilization.  Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed that the family is a “bourgeois institution” premised on the inequalities of the capitalist system.  This teaching is disgusting and wretched in the deepest sense.  It must be persistently and openly repudiated.  Bernie Sanders and some stupid lady who just won a primary in New York City openly proclaim socialism, but all their critics can say to their vision of more free programs for the populace is “where will the money come from?”  The implications for our families of their socialist-communist vision is never at the forefront of the voiced objections to them, even by the conservative media. 

Yet the preservation of the family is more important than even the serious matter of whether the country is or is not impoverished.  My grandparents were dirt poor from a foreign country, and America did not yet have any safety net, but they had a strong sense of family, a strong commitment to family values.  Because of those values, they survived and even thrived, as did their children and grandchildren.  It was their family values that allowed their progress.

We are on the brink of a family catastrophe in this country.

The threat to the integrity of the family in America is entirely because of the leftward trend of our politics during the past half-century, combined with a tremendous decline in faith in God.  Since the era of the 1960s – the anti-Vietnam War movement; the sexual revolution; prayer taken out of the schools; millions dead from abortions; the drug subculture epidemic; the explosion of perversions of all kinds; identity politics instead of trans-ethnic unity (the melting pot); and above all heightened divorce rates, non-marital cohabitation, children born out of the bonds of holy matrimony, and stagnant or declining educational competencies.  Our leftward drift has brought us to this point of disunity, chaos, moral relativism, and utter contempt for the foundational values of our country.

This writer taught in the New York Public High Schools for over twenty years.  In one high school, two weeks after I arrived, when it became known that I had a more conservative outlook and was an evangelical Christian (how shocking!), one of the teachers stood close to me and said, “I just want you to know that communism collapsed in the USSR, but it is alive and well in this high school.”  Another teacher, regularly and blithely, handed out copies of a communist newspaper to students.  Still another teacher spent an entire month in his Advanced Placement European History course teaching the Communist Manifesto.  When the students complained to the department chairperson, nothing was done. 

Although Howard Zinn’s bestselling college textbook on American history entitled The People’s History of the United States is not on the list of textbooks that can be bought by the New York public schools, many teachers of American history photocopy sections of that book for distribution in their courses as supplementary reading.  By so doing, they are advancing Zinn’s communist view of American history.  But one of the most popular approved textbooks is The Americans, a veritable digest of left-wing activities (Zinn lite) and published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.  Although teachers are not allowed to promote a specific candidate or political point of view in the schools, it is so common, and so uniformly approved in the bluest of blue subcultures known as New York City, that these “forbidden polemics” are routinely promoted.  When this writer expressed to his leftist colleagues that the teaching platform was not a bully platform, and that teachers should try not to let their biases totally control their teaching, the leftists declared that it is impossible to offset one’s biases and that trying to offset one’s bias is itself a bias in favor of a more conservative ideology than theirs.

In many high schools in New York City, girls are routinely given slips to go have abortions without parental permission.  Condoms are distributed by the schools.  The days of going to the drugstore to purchase your own are over.  Thus, the schools are literally promoting fornication.  For over 30 years, sex ed teachers have been telling students how to put condoms on cucumbers and bananas.  This writer was covering a class as a substitute and glanced at a sex education textbook on the teacher’s desk.  One section told the students they should be tolerant of that remnant of students who still believed they should wait to have sex until they are married.  This implied that their view is now a minority view but that this pro-wedlock minority should not be harassed or ridiculed.  How generous and commendable!  The unity of love, sex, and marriage was not advanced in any way.  The relation of sex to reproduction – i.e., the ultimate purpose of human sexuality – was not included in the book. 

One high school where I worked had a yearly event called Senior Cross-Dressing Day, where senior male students, if they so desired (and many did), would come to the school dressed as females with wigs, dresses, make-up, polished nails, bras, and other accoutrements such as necklaces or bracelets.  In a way, it was a mockery of drag queens, homosexuals, and cross-dressers.  In another sense, it was a purely prurient activity that not only went against the school dress code (yes, the school on “normal days” had a dress code), but was guaranteed to have shocked most of the freshmen boys and girls and to have offended students of every religion in the school (in NYC, that includes Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and Jews).

No parental permission is required in any of these cases.  The premise of this article is that these activities are anti-family because they put sex on a pedestal outside the context of family.  For most of the twentieth century, the rule of in loco parentis (in place of the parents) prevailed.  Schools were to acknowledge that it was the parents who imparted values to their children, not the schools.  Those values were, by definition, family values.  Now the schools have become places were values are imparted, and the parents sometimes, and sometimes not, are asked to sign a permission slip for their children to participate in modern society.  The values projected are anti-family.

The engine of the anti-family agenda in our society and in our schools is the Marxist agenda that has gained traction and momentum since the 1960s.  The central tenet of that agenda is that government (“the people”), not private individuals, should own the means of production.  That agenda has seen various add-ons such as identity politics; the sexual revolution that repudiates the sex-love-marriage unity; the increasing legitimization of drugs and various dissipations; and attacks on the philosophical ideas and ideals of individual rights and an eternal, God-given moral law.  These add-ons to classical Marxism may be called cultural Marxism.  Those of us who are professed deplorables and people of faith must pray, speak, vote, and organize against these destructive trends.

E. Jeffrey Ludwig is a prolific online writer of conservative articles and has authored the volume The Catastrophic Decline of America’s Public High Schools: New York City, A Case Study, available at www.amazon.com.  He has been listed multiple times in Who’s Who Among America’s High School Teachers.  At present, he teaches philosophy in New York City.

Our culture is increasingly pushing against the family as the bedrock institution of civilization.  Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed that the family is a “bourgeois institution” premised on the inequalities of the capitalist system.  This teaching is disgusting and wretched in the deepest sense.  It must be persistently and openly repudiated.  Bernie Sanders and some stupid lady who just won a primary in New York City openly proclaim socialism, but all their critics can say to their vision of more free programs for the populace is “where will the money come from?”  The implications for our families of their socialist-communist vision is never at the forefront of the voiced objections to them, even by the conservative media. 

Yet the preservation of the family is more important than even the serious matter of whether the country is or is not impoverished.  My grandparents were dirt poor from a foreign country, and America did not yet have any safety net, but they had a strong sense of family, a strong commitment to family values.  Because of those values, they survived and even thrived, as did their children and grandchildren.  It was their family values that allowed their progress.

We are on the brink of a family catastrophe in this country.

The threat to the integrity of the family in America is entirely because of the leftward trend of our politics during the past half-century, combined with a tremendous decline in faith in God.  Since the era of the 1960s – the anti-Vietnam War movement; the sexual revolution; prayer taken out of the schools; millions dead from abortions; the drug subculture epidemic; the explosion of perversions of all kinds; identity politics instead of trans-ethnic unity (the melting pot); and above all heightened divorce rates, non-marital cohabitation, children born out of the bonds of holy matrimony, and stagnant or declining educational competencies.  Our leftward drift has brought us to this point of disunity, chaos, moral relativism, and utter contempt for the foundational values of our country.

This writer taught in the New York Public High Schools for over twenty years.  In one high school, two weeks after I arrived, when it became known that I had a more conservative outlook and was an evangelical Christian (how shocking!), one of the teachers stood close to me and said, “I just want you to know that communism collapsed in the USSR, but it is alive and well in this high school.”  Another teacher, regularly and blithely, handed out copies of a communist newspaper to students.  Still another teacher spent an entire month in his Advanced Placement European History course teaching the Communist Manifesto.  When the students complained to the department chairperson, nothing was done. 

Although Howard Zinn’s bestselling college textbook on American history entitled The People’s History of the United States is not on the list of textbooks that can be bought by the New York public schools, many teachers of American history photocopy sections of that book for distribution in their courses as supplementary reading.  By so doing, they are advancing Zinn’s communist view of American history.  But one of the most popular approved textbooks is The Americans, a veritable digest of left-wing activities (Zinn lite) and published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.  Although teachers are not allowed to promote a specific candidate or political point of view in the schools, it is so common, and so uniformly approved in the bluest of blue subcultures known as New York City, that these “forbidden polemics” are routinely promoted.  When this writer expressed to his leftist colleagues that the teaching platform was not a bully platform, and that teachers should try not to let their biases totally control their teaching, the leftists declared that it is impossible to offset one’s biases and that trying to offset one’s bias is itself a bias in favor of a more conservative ideology than theirs.

In many high schools in New York City, girls are routinely given slips to go have abortions without parental permission.  Condoms are distributed by the schools.  The days of going to the drugstore to purchase your own are over.  Thus, the schools are literally promoting fornication.  For over 30 years, sex ed teachers have been telling students how to put condoms on cucumbers and bananas.  This writer was covering a class as a substitute and glanced at a sex education textbook on the teacher’s desk.  One section told the students they should be tolerant of that remnant of students who still believed they should wait to have sex until they are married.  This implied that their view is now a minority view but that this pro-wedlock minority should not be harassed or ridiculed.  How generous and commendable!  The unity of love, sex, and marriage was not advanced in any way.  The relation of sex to reproduction – i.e., the ultimate purpose of human sexuality – was not included in the book. 

One high school where I worked had a yearly event called Senior Cross-Dressing Day, where senior male students, if they so desired (and many did), would come to the school dressed as females with wigs, dresses, make-up, polished nails, bras, and other accoutrements such as necklaces or bracelets.  In a way, it was a mockery of drag queens, homosexuals, and cross-dressers.  In another sense, it was a purely prurient activity that not only went against the school dress code (yes, the school on “normal days” had a dress code), but was guaranteed to have shocked most of the freshmen boys and girls and to have offended students of every religion in the school (in NYC, that includes Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and Jews).

No parental permission is required in any of these cases.  The premise of this article is that these activities are anti-family because they put sex on a pedestal outside the context of family.  For most of the twentieth century, the rule of in loco parentis (in place of the parents) prevailed.  Schools were to acknowledge that it was the parents who imparted values to their children, not the schools.  Those values were, by definition, family values.  Now the schools have become places were values are imparted, and the parents sometimes, and sometimes not, are asked to sign a permission slip for their children to participate in modern society.  The values projected are anti-family.

The engine of the anti-family agenda in our society and in our schools is the Marxist agenda that has gained traction and momentum since the 1960s.  The central tenet of that agenda is that government (“the people”), not private individuals, should own the means of production.  That agenda has seen various add-ons such as identity politics; the sexual revolution that repudiates the sex-love-marriage unity; the increasing legitimization of drugs and various dissipations; and attacks on the philosophical ideas and ideals of individual rights and an eternal, God-given moral law.  These add-ons to classical Marxism may be called cultural Marxism.  Those of us who are professed deplorables and people of faith must pray, speak, vote, and organize against these destructive trends.

E. Jeffrey Ludwig is a prolific online writer of conservative articles and has authored the volume The Catastrophic Decline of America’s Public High Schools: New York City, A Case Study, available at www.amazon.com.  He has been listed multiple times in Who’s Who Among America’s High School Teachers.  At present, he teaches philosophy in New York City.



Source link

Boeing's Role in the Iran Nuclear Deal Must Be Investigated


A good business deal should not be built upon a potential existential threat to the U.S., our beloved country.  With Boeing involved so soon after the 2015 P5+1 deal with Iran (more commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal) was completed, it is reasonable to ask if this nongovernmental entity played an informal, yet crucial, role behind the scenes in the P5+1 negotiations.  Is it ethical or even legal for a non-governmental entity to have such a role?  Is it possible that “the deal” was pushed through without being considered a treaty requiring two-thirds approval by the U.S. Senate in part or totally because of the involvement of Boeing?

Let’s consider what has happened since “the deal” was completed.  Only three jetliners of the Boeing order for 80 planes to Iran have so far been delivered.  There are questions about what will happen with the sanctions as Trump reviews the deal.  One report says the deal will go through anyway; another report says it will not.  Iran undoubtedly despises the infidel Boeing executive elite, but Boeing knows that the mullahs of Iran need those planes if they want to participate in the prosperity of the elite megalomaniacs running our world.

What about the other players in the P5+1 backing the transfer of so many billions to Iran, which billions make possible the purchase of these jetliners?

We see that Russia has accelerated its program of designing jets for Boeing.  There are multiple design centers in Russia.  Further, Boeing is deeply involved with the design of jetliners in both Russia and Ukraine.  In fact, recently a number of Ukrainian designers of jets were reportedly unhappy with working in Moscow and transferred back to become part of a huge design center in Ukraine.  Boeing kept a low profile after this move to Ukraine in order not to offend Russia, which is a big supplier of titanium needed for the production of jetliners.  But get this: the Boeing company in Ukraine is a wholly owned subsidiary of two U.S. Boeing companies!  Boeing has a global penetration that is truly incredible.

Boeing itself makes no attempt to conceal its longstanding and extensive relationship with Russia going back to long before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.  At its website, Boeing states: “The Boeing Company has maintained a cooperative relationship with Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) since the era of the former Soviet Union[.] … Boeing and Russia have long-term partnerships in multiple areas, including aviation, metallurgy, space, engineering and information technology (IT)[.] … Boeing employees in Russia/CIS work in airplane and services sales, marketing, legal, communications and finance at the Boeing Design Center, the Technical Research Center in Moscow and in field services at various sites.”  Boeing prides itself on having a “relationship” going back even to the era of full-blown communism in USSR.  Does this not raise many red flags about the priorities of this business?  About its concern for our citizens as well as citizens of other countries?

Let’s look briefly at Boeing’s relationship with Great Britain, another one of the P5+1 countries.  Boeing reports, “Today the UK remains a critically important market, supplier base and a source of some of the world’s most inventive technology[.] … In 2016 Boeing spent £2.1 billion with more than 250 UK suppliers.”  Do you think Great Britain wants to do anything to jeopardize so many billions of pounds sterling of cash flow into their country?

We can in turn consider the role of Boeing in the German economy.  Boeing spent nearly $1.3 billion in Germany in 2016 and has 600 employees there, and another 12,000 depend on income from supplying Boeing.  Further, as recently as Nov. 2017, Boeing signed a massive deal with a German company to provide parts for Chinook heavy-duty helicopters.  Do I have to connect the dots?  Money from the Iranian deal is helping fund Boeing expansion in Ukraine, Russia, Germany, and Great Britain.

What about France and China, the remaining two players in the six-country deal with Iran?  As recently as November of this past year, Boeing has agreed to sell $37 billion’s worth of jets to the People’s Republic of China.  Even as early as 2009, Boeing was boasting that it had a robust business relationship with the PRC and had sold it over 800 jets.  And while I do not wish to shock any of the readers of this piece, it must be asked if you think any business on a large scale moves forward via governmental approvals in the PRC without tremendous amounts of bribery.

Of the six countries involved in the deal with Iran, it appears that France has the weakest relationship with Boeing with only 40 Boeing employees, and France is the world headquarters for Boeing’s largest competitor, Airbus.  Therefore, we are not surprised to learn that France’s response to the deal with Iran was the most guarded and tentative of all the P5+1 countries.

So, if this deal centered on the role of Boeing in dealing with the six countries, why was the U.S. the key country in the negotiations?  Why were we the key to success for all parties?  The answer is this: we were the key players in the P5+1 deal because we had all that Iranian money frozen since 1979, when we froze Iranian assets after our people were held hostage by the new government of Ayatollah Khomeini?  That money would then be used to incentivize Boeing not only to provide planes for Iran, but to expand its operations in the other negotiating countries.

Since Boeing so far has proved to be the largest potential beneficiary of the Iran deal, and is a company with pervasive international financial clout, is it not reasonable to assume that Boeing was the eighth player in this complex negotiation: P5+1+Iran+Boeing?  The U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations should be convened to investigate any possible participation by Boeing in the negotiations leading up to the deal which jeopardizes the future security of the USA, Europe, Israel, and even other Middle Eastern Arab-Muslim countries.  However, the reader should know that the Chair of the Senate Committee is Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who was instrumental in not having “the deal” voted on in the Senate as a treaty.  Therefore, it would be best to write to Rep. Ed Boyce (R-Calif.) to promote these needed hearings.  Boeing is a non-governmental entity and is not authorized in any way to protect our citizens from enemies foreign or domestic.

A good business deal should not be built upon a potential existential threat to the U.S., our beloved country.  With Boeing involved so soon after the 2015 P5+1 deal with Iran (more commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal) was completed, it is reasonable to ask if this nongovernmental entity played an informal, yet crucial, role behind the scenes in the P5+1 negotiations.  Is it ethical or even legal for a non-governmental entity to have such a role?  Is it possible that “the deal” was pushed through without being considered a treaty requiring two-thirds approval by the U.S. Senate in part or totally because of the involvement of Boeing?

Let’s consider what has happened since “the deal” was completed.  Only three jetliners of the Boeing order for 80 planes to Iran have so far been delivered.  There are questions about what will happen with the sanctions as Trump reviews the deal.  One report says the deal will go through anyway; another report says it will not.  Iran undoubtedly despises the infidel Boeing executive elite, but Boeing knows that the mullahs of Iran need those planes if they want to participate in the prosperity of the elite megalomaniacs running our world.

What about the other players in the P5+1 backing the transfer of so many billions to Iran, which billions make possible the purchase of these jetliners?

We see that Russia has accelerated its program of designing jets for Boeing.  There are multiple design centers in Russia.  Further, Boeing is deeply involved with the design of jetliners in both Russia and Ukraine.  In fact, recently a number of Ukrainian designers of jets were reportedly unhappy with working in Moscow and transferred back to become part of a huge design center in Ukraine.  Boeing kept a low profile after this move to Ukraine in order not to offend Russia, which is a big supplier of titanium needed for the production of jetliners.  But get this: the Boeing company in Ukraine is a wholly owned subsidiary of two U.S. Boeing companies!  Boeing has a global penetration that is truly incredible.

Boeing itself makes no attempt to conceal its longstanding and extensive relationship with Russia going back to long before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.  At its website, Boeing states: “The Boeing Company has maintained a cooperative relationship with Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) since the era of the former Soviet Union[.] … Boeing and Russia have long-term partnerships in multiple areas, including aviation, metallurgy, space, engineering and information technology (IT)[.] … Boeing employees in Russia/CIS work in airplane and services sales, marketing, legal, communications and finance at the Boeing Design Center, the Technical Research Center in Moscow and in field services at various sites.”  Boeing prides itself on having a “relationship” going back even to the era of full-blown communism in USSR.  Does this not raise many red flags about the priorities of this business?  About its concern for our citizens as well as citizens of other countries?

Let’s look briefly at Boeing’s relationship with Great Britain, another one of the P5+1 countries.  Boeing reports, “Today the UK remains a critically important market, supplier base and a source of some of the world’s most inventive technology[.] … In 2016 Boeing spent £2.1 billion with more than 250 UK suppliers.”  Do you think Great Britain wants to do anything to jeopardize so many billions of pounds sterling of cash flow into their country?

We can in turn consider the role of Boeing in the German economy.  Boeing spent nearly $1.3 billion in Germany in 2016 and has 600 employees there, and another 12,000 depend on income from supplying Boeing.  Further, as recently as Nov. 2017, Boeing signed a massive deal with a German company to provide parts for Chinook heavy-duty helicopters.  Do I have to connect the dots?  Money from the Iranian deal is helping fund Boeing expansion in Ukraine, Russia, Germany, and Great Britain.

What about France and China, the remaining two players in the six-country deal with Iran?  As recently as November of this past year, Boeing has agreed to sell $37 billion’s worth of jets to the People’s Republic of China.  Even as early as 2009, Boeing was boasting that it had a robust business relationship with the PRC and had sold it over 800 jets.  And while I do not wish to shock any of the readers of this piece, it must be asked if you think any business on a large scale moves forward via governmental approvals in the PRC without tremendous amounts of bribery.

Of the six countries involved in the deal with Iran, it appears that France has the weakest relationship with Boeing with only 40 Boeing employees, and France is the world headquarters for Boeing’s largest competitor, Airbus.  Therefore, we are not surprised to learn that France’s response to the deal with Iran was the most guarded and tentative of all the P5+1 countries.

So, if this deal centered on the role of Boeing in dealing with the six countries, why was the U.S. the key country in the negotiations?  Why were we the key to success for all parties?  The answer is this: we were the key players in the P5+1 deal because we had all that Iranian money frozen since 1979, when we froze Iranian assets after our people were held hostage by the new government of Ayatollah Khomeini?  That money would then be used to incentivize Boeing not only to provide planes for Iran, but to expand its operations in the other negotiating countries.

Since Boeing so far has proved to be the largest potential beneficiary of the Iran deal, and is a company with pervasive international financial clout, is it not reasonable to assume that Boeing was the eighth player in this complex negotiation: P5+1+Iran+Boeing?  The U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations should be convened to investigate any possible participation by Boeing in the negotiations leading up to the deal which jeopardizes the future security of the USA, Europe, Israel, and even other Middle Eastern Arab-Muslim countries.  However, the reader should know that the Chair of the Senate Committee is Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who was instrumental in not having “the deal” voted on in the Senate as a treaty.  Therefore, it would be best to write to Rep. Ed Boyce (R-Calif.) to promote these needed hearings.  Boeing is a non-governmental entity and is not authorized in any way to protect our citizens from enemies foreign or domestic.



Source link

Boeing's Role in P5+1 Deal Must Be Investigated


A good business deal should not be built upon a potential existential threat to the U.S., our beloved country.  With Boeing involved so soon after the 2015 P5+1 deal with Iran (more commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal) was completed, it is reasonable to ask if this nongovernmental entity played an informal, yet crucial, role behind the scenes in the P5+1 negotiations.  Is it ethical or even legal for a non-governmental entity to have such a role?  Is it possible that “the deal” was pushed through without being considered a treaty requiring two-thirds approval by the U.S. Senate in part or totally because of the involvement of Boeing?

Let’s consider what has happened since “the deal” was completed.  Only three jetliners of the Boeing order for 80 planes to Iran have so far been delivered.  There are questions about what will happen with the sanctions as Trump reviews the deal.  One report says the deal will go through anyway; another report says it will not.  Iran undoubtedly despises the infidel Boeing executive elite, but Boeing knows that the mullahs of Iran need those planes if they want to participate in the prosperity of the elite megalomaniacs running our world.

What about the other players in the P5+1 backing the transfer of so many billions to Iran, which billions make possible the purchase of these jetliners?

We see that Russia has accelerated its program of designing jets for Boeing.  There are multiple design centers in Russia.  Further, Boeing is deeply involved with the design of jetliners in both Russia and Ukraine.  In fact, recently a number of Ukrainian designers of jets were reportedly unhappy with working in Moscow and transferred back to become part of a huge design center in Ukraine.  Boeing kept a low profile after this move to Ukraine in order not to offend Russia, which is a big supplier of titanium needed for the production of jetliners.  But get this: the Boeing company in Ukraine is a wholly owned subsidiary of two U.S. Boeing companies!  Boeing has a global penetration that is truly incredible.

Boeing itself makes no attempt to conceal its longstanding and extensive relationship with Russia going back to long before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.  At its website, Boeing states: “The Boeing Company has maintained a cooperative relationship with Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) since the era of the former Soviet Union[.] … Boeing and Russia have long-term partnerships in multiple areas, including aviation, metallurgy, space, engineering and information technology (IT)[.] … Boeing employees in Russia/CIS work in airplane and services sales, marketing, legal, communications and finance at the Boeing Design Center, the Technical Research Center in Moscow and in field services at various sites.”  Boeing prides itself on having a “relationship” going back even to the era of full-blown communism in USSR.  Does this not raise many red flags about the priorities of this business?  About its concern for our citizens as well as citizens of other countries?

Let’s look briefly at Boeing’s relationship with Great Britain, another one of the P5+1 countries.  Boeing reports, “Today the UK remains a critically important market, supplier base and a source of some of the world’s most inventive technology[.] … In 2016 Boeing spent £2.1 billion with more than 250 UK suppliers.”  Do you think Great Britain wants to do anything to jeopardize so many billions of pounds sterling of cash flow into their country?

We can in turn consider the role of Boeing in the German economy.  Boeing spent nearly $1.3 billion in Germany in 2016 and has 600 employees there, and another 12,000 depend on income from supplying Boeing.  Further, as recently as Nov. 2017, Boeing signed a massive deal with a German company to provide parts for Chinook heavy-duty helicopters.  Do I have to connect the dots?  Money from the Iranian deal is helping fund Boeing expansion in Ukraine, Russia, Germany, and Great Britain.

What about France and China, the remaining two players in the six-country deal with Iran?  As recently as November of this past year, Boeing has agreed to sell $37 billion’s worth of jets to the People’s Republic of China.  Even as early as 2009, Boeing was boasting that it had a robust business relationship with the PRC and had sold it over 800 jets.  And while I do not wish to shock any of the readers of this piece, it must be asked if you think any business on a large scale moves forward via governmental approvals in the PRC without tremendous amounts of bribery.

Of the six countries involved in the deal with Iran, it appears that France has the weakest relationship with Boeing with only 40 Boeing employees, and France is the world headquarters for Boeing’s largest competitor, Airbus.  Therefore, we are not surprised to learn that France’s response to the deal with Iran was the most guarded and tentative of all the P5+1 countries.

So, if this deal centered on the role of Boeing in dealing with the six countries, why was the U.S. the key country in the negotiations?  Why were we the key to success for all parties?  The answer is this: we were the key players in the P5+1 deal because we had all that Iranian money frozen since 1979, when we froze Iranian assets after our people were held hostage by the new government of Ayatollah Khomeini?  That money would then be used to incentivize Boeing not only to provide planes for Iran, but to expand its operations in the other negotiating countries.

Since Boeing so far has proved to be the largest potential beneficiary of the Iran deal, and is a company with pervasive international financial clout, is it not reasonable to assume that Boeing was the eighth player in this complex negotiation: P5+1+Iran+Boeing?  The U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations should be convened to investigate any possible participation by Boeing in the negotiations leading up to the deal which jeopardizes the future security of the USA, Europe, Israel, and even other Middle Eastern Arab-Muslim countries.  However, the reader should know that the Chair of the Senate Committee is Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who was instrumental in not having “the deal” voted on in the Senate as a treaty.  Therefore, it would be best to write to Rep. Ed Boyce (R-Calif.) to promote these needed hearings.  Boeing is a non-governmental entity and is not authorized in any way to protect our citizens from enemies foreign or domestic.

A good business deal should not be built upon a potential existential threat to the U.S., our beloved country.  With Boeing involved so soon after the 2015 P5+1 deal with Iran (more commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal) was completed, it is reasonable to ask if this nongovernmental entity played an informal, yet crucial, role behind the scenes in the P5+1 negotiations.  Is it ethical or even legal for a non-governmental entity to have such a role?  Is it possible that “the deal” was pushed through without being considered a treaty requiring two-thirds approval by the U.S. Senate in part or totally because of the involvement of Boeing?

Let’s consider what has happened since “the deal” was completed.  Only three jetliners of the Boeing order for 80 planes to Iran have so far been delivered.  There are questions about what will happen with the sanctions as Trump reviews the deal.  One report says the deal will go through anyway; another report says it will not.  Iran undoubtedly despises the infidel Boeing executive elite, but Boeing knows that the mullahs of Iran need those planes if they want to participate in the prosperity of the elite megalomaniacs running our world.

What about the other players in the P5+1 backing the transfer of so many billions to Iran, which billions make possible the purchase of these jetliners?

We see that Russia has accelerated its program of designing jets for Boeing.  There are multiple design centers in Russia.  Further, Boeing is deeply involved with the design of jetliners in both Russia and Ukraine.  In fact, recently a number of Ukrainian designers of jets were reportedly unhappy with working in Moscow and transferred back to become part of a huge design center in Ukraine.  Boeing kept a low profile after this move to Ukraine in order not to offend Russia, which is a big supplier of titanium needed for the production of jetliners.  But get this: the Boeing company in Ukraine is a wholly owned subsidiary of two U.S. Boeing companies!  Boeing has a global penetration that is truly incredible.

Boeing itself makes no attempt to conceal its longstanding and extensive relationship with Russia going back to long before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.  At its website, Boeing states: “The Boeing Company has maintained a cooperative relationship with Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) since the era of the former Soviet Union[.] … Boeing and Russia have long-term partnerships in multiple areas, including aviation, metallurgy, space, engineering and information technology (IT)[.] … Boeing employees in Russia/CIS work in airplane and services sales, marketing, legal, communications and finance at the Boeing Design Center, the Technical Research Center in Moscow and in field services at various sites.”  Boeing prides itself on having a “relationship” going back even to the era of full-blown communism in USSR.  Does this not raise many red flags about the priorities of this business?  About its concern for our citizens as well as citizens of other countries?

Let’s look briefly at Boeing’s relationship with Great Britain, another one of the P5+1 countries.  Boeing reports, “Today the UK remains a critically important market, supplier base and a source of some of the world’s most inventive technology[.] … In 2016 Boeing spent £2.1 billion with more than 250 UK suppliers.”  Do you think Great Britain wants to do anything to jeopardize so many billions of pounds sterling of cash flow into their country?

We can in turn consider the role of Boeing in the German economy.  Boeing spent nearly $1.3 billion in Germany in 2016 and has 600 employees there, and another 12,000 depend on income from supplying Boeing.  Further, as recently as Nov. 2017, Boeing signed a massive deal with a German company to provide parts for Chinook heavy-duty helicopters.  Do I have to connect the dots?  Money from the Iranian deal is helping fund Boeing expansion in Ukraine, Russia, Germany, and Great Britain.

What about France and China, the remaining two players in the six-country deal with Iran?  As recently as November of this past year, Boeing has agreed to sell $37 billion’s worth of jets to the People’s Republic of China.  Even as early as 2009, Boeing was boasting that it had a robust business relationship with the PRC and had sold it over 800 jets.  And while I do not wish to shock any of the readers of this piece, it must be asked if you think any business on a large scale moves forward via governmental approvals in the PRC without tremendous amounts of bribery.

Of the six countries involved in the deal with Iran, it appears that France has the weakest relationship with Boeing with only 40 Boeing employees, and France is the world headquarters for Boeing’s largest competitor, Airbus.  Therefore, we are not surprised to learn that France’s response to the deal with Iran was the most guarded and tentative of all the P5+1 countries.

So, if this deal centered on the role of Boeing in dealing with the six countries, why was the U.S. the key country in the negotiations?  Why were we the key to success for all parties?  The answer is this: we were the key players in the P5+1 deal because we had all that Iranian money frozen since 1979, when we froze Iranian assets after our people were held hostage by the new government of Ayatollah Khomeini?  That money would then be used to incentivize Boeing not only to provide planes for Iran, but to expand its operations in the other negotiating countries.

Since Boeing so far has proved to be the largest potential beneficiary of the Iran deal, and is a company with pervasive international financial clout, is it not reasonable to assume that Boeing was the eighth player in this complex negotiation: P5+1+Iran+Boeing?  The U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations should be convened to investigate any possible participation by Boeing in the negotiations leading up to the deal which jeopardizes the future security of the USA, Europe, Israel, and even other Middle Eastern Arab-Muslim countries.  However, the reader should know that the Chair of the Senate Committee is Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who was instrumental in not having “the deal” voted on in the Senate as a treaty.  Therefore, it would be best to write to Rep. Ed Boyce (R-Calif.) to promote these needed hearings.  Boeing is a non-governmental entity and is not authorized in any way to protect our citizens from enemies foreign or domestic.



Source link

Harvard Conference 'of Color' an Exercise in Hating Whitey


Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education held its Annual Alumni of Color Conference earlier this month in Cambridge, Mass.  These annual conferences are distinguished by their radical perspective, wherein the USA is depicted as a racist society in need of a complete restructuring. 

This year’s program had an even more extreme, left-wing theme than those of earlier conferences.  The passionate theme this year was “Grappling with Antiquated Systems and Designing Alternatives to Capitalism, Systemic Oppression, and Monolithic Identities.”  The intent is to eliminate any possibility of accommodation with the status quo.   It is clearly an anarchist-communist declaration of war. 

Before looking at the three rubrics under which this theme went forward, it might be useful to consider the incredible hypocrisy of this theme being advanced at Harvard University.  These people are seeking an alternative to capitalism.  However, Harvard University is far and away the most highly endowed of all universities in the USA, with an endowment of over $35 billion.  During the year 2015 alone, Harvard alumni giving topped $650 million.  The very students, alumni, and professors organizing this conference are the direct beneficiaries of these resources.  Capitalism has enabled these endowment funds to flow into the coffers of Harvard, yet the organizers of the conference wish to repudiate capitalism as a model for ongoing progress.

Chapter 1 | Radicalize

Chapter one is rooted in the term ‘Radical.’  We intentionally chose this word for two purposes.  First, when we think of the term ‘radical,’ the word ‘change’ automatically comes to mind.  In a reductionist era of Trump, radical change and movements are key to our survival as leaders and educators of color.  Our second purpose recognizes that ‘radical’ also refers to the idea that people of color are mathematically ‘rooted’ in oppression by design[.] … We won’t be able to provide substantive and sustainable alternatives, unless we look these oppressive systems in the face, name them, dissect them, and know exactly how they were designed in order to dismantle them.

The rhetoric of this rubric is pathetic.  “Reductionist era” is an empty phrase, since there is no reference as to what is “reduced.”  We are told that “radical” refers to the mathematical rooting of people of color.  One wonders if the writer is referring to square roots, plant roots, or the root of a tooth.  The entire paragraph comprises puffed up language.  To quote Shakespeare’s Macbeth, it is “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” 

But the writer really does not care about language.  The writer has an in-your-face mentality (“look these oppressive systems in the face, name them…”).  Some people are going to be called to account by this conference, and guess what: if you are white, you might expect to be one of them.  Elizabeth Barrett Browning asked, “How do I love thee?  Let me count the ways.”  The conference organizers put the white folk on notice by suggesting, “Let me count the ways you oppress me.”

Chapter Two | Reimagine:

Chapter Two is entitled ‘Reimagine,’ inspired by our nation’s desperate need for ‘radical imagination.’  Radical imagination is the ability to re-imagine the world, life, and social institutions not as they are but as they could and should be[.] … This chapter is about drawing on the past, telling different stories from different perspectives about how the world came to be the way it is, remembering the power and importance of yesterday’s struggles and honoring the way they live on in the present.

Again, the reader is struck by the sophomoric language of this rubric.  The writer believes that its language is soaring, but like a glider that fails to catch the wind, it comes crashing down by the weight of its humdrum prose.  In the first part, imagination is linked abstractly to radicalization.  Imagine a world run by haters like the ones who organized this conference – people who will steal your hard-earned cash and give it to a person of color and laugh in your face.  I can see their grinning faces saying, “I have a Harvard degree – haha, haha – and I’m taking your unimaginative dollar bills and your unimaginative job and your unimaginative vote and putting them all in the shredder.  From now on, you’re old news.  And if you don’t like it, then go get some Imagination.”  You see, dear reader, the “I” in imagination stands for the ego, and this pure, ahistorical ego fails to appreciate stuff like “natural rights” (of every individual), freedom (my responsibility in a universe of choices), and equality (a person not “of color” has just as much justification to live his or her life as a person of color).

Chapter 3 | Reconstruct

Our final chapter of this conference dives into ‘Reconstruction.’  The idea to recreate is the perfect coalescence after defining and rethinking how to approach these antiquated systems of oppression.  To reconstruct is to take the planning done from day 1-2 and build something tangible and actionable, a prototype idea ready to permeate our respective communities[.] … The US is already entrenched in a complicit nightmare for people of color and marginalized communities.  ‘Reconstruct’ is a commitment to staying woke, or rather, staying awake through the praxis of action.

The author of this paragraph catches his misuse of the words “to staying woke” by saying “or rather, staying awake” but fails to edit out “to staying woke.”  He wants the reader to know that despite his affiliation with Harvard, he is still a citizen of the street.  Correct English is all part of that “white privilege” that is so oppressive and to be despised.  Further, the vapid prose throughout the rubrics continues with reference “to take the planning done from day 1-2 and build something … actionable[.]”  The reader must ask, “What planning?”  There was no mention of planning, but only of destroying oppression and the economic system, and then of imagining something into existence. 

Planning?  That is an archaic concept introduced by the oppressors who seek, through their plans, to mislead their people into such horrible concepts as K-12 education; cures and therapies for heart problems and cancer; social security; a minimum wage for the unskilled; freedom to look for one’s own dwelling, business start-up, or job; promotion at regular intervals for the committed and skilled employees; pensions; highways with the wonderful opportunities to travel and live where one pleases; and engaging with others to worship God in spirit and truth.  Planning?  Is that not a favorite term of white, European civilization?  Harvard thinks it is better to imagine, dream, and to drive the oppressors into the sea rather than get involved with the uptight white world of planning.  Planning is for the sycophants among the oppressed peoples, not for the macho in-your-face fighters against oppression.

From the above summary, we can see that this conference just past was another splenetic exercise in railing against the so-called oppressors who are white and capitalistic.  The tone of the rubrics describing the conference is more vitriolic and more sophomoric than in previous conferences.  The language used represents the dumbing down of Harvard at the same time as the social justice warriors intensify their shrill rhetoric.

Image: Meihe Chen via Wikimedia Commons.

Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education held its Annual Alumni of Color Conference earlier this month in Cambridge, Mass.  These annual conferences are distinguished by their radical perspective, wherein the USA is depicted as a racist society in need of a complete restructuring. 

This year’s program had an even more extreme, left-wing theme than those of earlier conferences.  The passionate theme this year was “Grappling with Antiquated Systems and Designing Alternatives to Capitalism, Systemic Oppression, and Monolithic Identities.”  The intent is to eliminate any possibility of accommodation with the status quo.   It is clearly an anarchist-communist declaration of war. 

Before looking at the three rubrics under which this theme went forward, it might be useful to consider the incredible hypocrisy of this theme being advanced at Harvard University.  These people are seeking an alternative to capitalism.  However, Harvard University is far and away the most highly endowed of all universities in the USA, with an endowment of over $35 billion.  During the year 2015 alone, Harvard alumni giving topped $650 million.  The very students, alumni, and professors organizing this conference are the direct beneficiaries of these resources.  Capitalism has enabled these endowment funds to flow into the coffers of Harvard, yet the organizers of the conference wish to repudiate capitalism as a model for ongoing progress.

Chapter 1 | Radicalize

Chapter one is rooted in the term ‘Radical.’  We intentionally chose this word for two purposes.  First, when we think of the term ‘radical,’ the word ‘change’ automatically comes to mind.  In a reductionist era of Trump, radical change and movements are key to our survival as leaders and educators of color.  Our second purpose recognizes that ‘radical’ also refers to the idea that people of color are mathematically ‘rooted’ in oppression by design[.] … We won’t be able to provide substantive and sustainable alternatives, unless we look these oppressive systems in the face, name them, dissect them, and know exactly how they were designed in order to dismantle them.

The rhetoric of this rubric is pathetic.  “Reductionist era” is an empty phrase, since there is no reference as to what is “reduced.”  We are told that “radical” refers to the mathematical rooting of people of color.  One wonders if the writer is referring to square roots, plant roots, or the root of a tooth.  The entire paragraph comprises puffed up language.  To quote Shakespeare’s Macbeth, it is “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” 

But the writer really does not care about language.  The writer has an in-your-face mentality (“look these oppressive systems in the face, name them…”).  Some people are going to be called to account by this conference, and guess what: if you are white, you might expect to be one of them.  Elizabeth Barrett Browning asked, “How do I love thee?  Let me count the ways.”  The conference organizers put the white folk on notice by suggesting, “Let me count the ways you oppress me.”

Chapter Two | Reimagine:

Chapter Two is entitled ‘Reimagine,’ inspired by our nation’s desperate need for ‘radical imagination.’  Radical imagination is the ability to re-imagine the world, life, and social institutions not as they are but as they could and should be[.] … This chapter is about drawing on the past, telling different stories from different perspectives about how the world came to be the way it is, remembering the power and importance of yesterday’s struggles and honoring the way they live on in the present.

Again, the reader is struck by the sophomoric language of this rubric.  The writer believes that its language is soaring, but like a glider that fails to catch the wind, it comes crashing down by the weight of its humdrum prose.  In the first part, imagination is linked abstractly to radicalization.  Imagine a world run by haters like the ones who organized this conference – people who will steal your hard-earned cash and give it to a person of color and laugh in your face.  I can see their grinning faces saying, “I have a Harvard degree – haha, haha – and I’m taking your unimaginative dollar bills and your unimaginative job and your unimaginative vote and putting them all in the shredder.  From now on, you’re old news.  And if you don’t like it, then go get some Imagination.”  You see, dear reader, the “I” in imagination stands for the ego, and this pure, ahistorical ego fails to appreciate stuff like “natural rights” (of every individual), freedom (my responsibility in a universe of choices), and equality (a person not “of color” has just as much justification to live his or her life as a person of color).

Chapter 3 | Reconstruct

Our final chapter of this conference dives into ‘Reconstruction.’  The idea to recreate is the perfect coalescence after defining and rethinking how to approach these antiquated systems of oppression.  To reconstruct is to take the planning done from day 1-2 and build something tangible and actionable, a prototype idea ready to permeate our respective communities[.] … The US is already entrenched in a complicit nightmare for people of color and marginalized communities.  ‘Reconstruct’ is a commitment to staying woke, or rather, staying awake through the praxis of action.

The author of this paragraph catches his misuse of the words “to staying woke” by saying “or rather, staying awake” but fails to edit out “to staying woke.”  He wants the reader to know that despite his affiliation with Harvard, he is still a citizen of the street.  Correct English is all part of that “white privilege” that is so oppressive and to be despised.  Further, the vapid prose throughout the rubrics continues with reference “to take the planning done from day 1-2 and build something … actionable[.]”  The reader must ask, “What planning?”  There was no mention of planning, but only of destroying oppression and the economic system, and then of imagining something into existence. 

Planning?  That is an archaic concept introduced by the oppressors who seek, through their plans, to mislead their people into such horrible concepts as K-12 education; cures and therapies for heart problems and cancer; social security; a minimum wage for the unskilled; freedom to look for one’s own dwelling, business start-up, or job; promotion at regular intervals for the committed and skilled employees; pensions; highways with the wonderful opportunities to travel and live where one pleases; and engaging with others to worship God in spirit and truth.  Planning?  Is that not a favorite term of white, European civilization?  Harvard thinks it is better to imagine, dream, and to drive the oppressors into the sea rather than get involved with the uptight white world of planning.  Planning is for the sycophants among the oppressed peoples, not for the macho in-your-face fighters against oppression.

From the above summary, we can see that this conference just past was another splenetic exercise in railing against the so-called oppressors who are white and capitalistic.  The tone of the rubrics describing the conference is more vitriolic and more sophomoric than in previous conferences.  The language used represents the dumbing down of Harvard at the same time as the social justice warriors intensify their shrill rhetoric.

Image: Meihe Chen via Wikimedia Commons.



Source link

The USA Needs a 'Return to Normalcy' Now More than in 1920


In a speech preceding his run for the presidency in May 1920, Warren G. Harding stated, “America’s present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation, but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality.”  History textbooks typically portray Pres. Harding as a lackluster individual surrounded by corruption during his presidency, notably the Teapot Dome scandal.  Nevertheless, the above words carry a hopeful message far beyond the sycophantic appeals to the public we often hear from today’s office-seekers and office-holders.

Let us then consider some of the antinomies in the above comments and apply them to today’s sociopolitical and economic landscape.  Harding notes particularly the “need for healing, not heroics … need for adjustment, not agitation … not nostrums, but normalcy.”

The Democrats increasingly portray the USA as a land of exploitation.  It is a land of broken promises and broken dreams, not a land of opportunity, as more naïve generations believed.  For Democrats, ours is a land of betrayal and selfishness, as well as racial and sexual exploitation.  The entire culture is a megalomaniacal drama created in the image of “toxic masculinity” to benefit white, heterosexual males – typically waving the banner of Christianity – in the fight for cultural hegemony.  Now is the time to right the wrongs inflicted upon us by these selfish-to-the-core, rotten people like the elitist Founding Fathers; the aggressive, selfish, maniacal, genocidal pioneers who settled the West; the aristocratic 1% of plantation-owners in the South who gave us slavery; and the 1% today who give us wage slavery and a declining middle class.

Further, the rotten capitalists built the economy on the backs of immigrants – who were treated like scum and exploited – and took us into war after war, beginning with the Spanish-American War of 1898 through the present U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  These wars were imperialistic ventures unleashed upon an unsuspecting populace to further develop the financial interests of the top 1%, or even the top 0.1%, and appease their infinite greed.  Class warfare, racial warfare, and warfare against the fairer sex by denying them full participation in our political and economic life must be incessantly waged.  The entire #metoo movement is intended to feed and enlarge this negative myth of our society.

Warfare on these fronts require heroics, or if not heroics then at least heroic posturing.  Public cries of indignation abound within the rhetoric of the Democrats.  They are cries for more struggle against the powers that be, against the status quo, against the nation-state in favor of a global vision, against federalism and states’ right in the name of national unity or the “general welfare.”  They dispute even the legal results of the 2016 presidential election, with a feigned indignation, as though that election was stolen from the majority by collusion with the Russians or by bogus and outdated laws that deny the rightful claims of the majority.

The majority, they say, voted for an old lady totally committed to all the dispossessed groups and subgroups of society.  She is a person of smarts, class, and experience.  Her heroism is on display to all, as she survived all attempts by the white, male, Christian, sexist hegemonic conspiracy to destroy her career.  As a lawyer, proactive first lady, senator, and secretary of state, she has proven herself to be a towering, heroic figure.  She is to be assumed sufficiently steadfast against the various tyrannies that beset our culture.  She is heroic.  She is a political Wonder Woman.  She wears the pantsuit in the family.  Her mistakes are merely part of her needed survival strategy in a world hostile to all she represents.

How can one argue against support of this hellish “ice queen”?  Harding has the answer.  Today, just as America after WWI, after the throes of big government introduced by the War Production Board, by the Federal Reserve, and by the Federal Income Tax, America needed a “return to normalcy.”  During the ten years preceding Harding, we see a realignment of our institutions in the direction of empowering the federal government with new powers never envisioned by the Founders, a betrayal of the previous 100-plus years of U.S. history.  If the answer he proposed then was valid, how much more is it valid today?  If H.C., the heroic old lady of the Democrats, and other surging demagogues among the Democrats are standing tall on the idea of a big government and global government as needed to right hundreds of years of wrongs, then do we not need a return to normalcy more than ever before?

This writer grew up in a working-class neighborhood in Philadelphia.  All the families on my block were intact – moms and dads and their children.  The residents were poorly educated, but the families were intact, and they owned their own small row houses, TVs, and cars.  The men worked, and the women raised the kids.  Were those women ignorant, exploited females?  That is a rhetorical question.  The wives and moms were smart, tough, determined, purposeful, joyful, engaged human beings.  The men lived and died for their kids and their wives, loving, protective, forceful, good, friendly, good-humored, articulate, and warm.  My father made out income taxes for his fellow bus drivers for a small fee.  The men came to our homes, including his black co-workers.  They sat in our living room as my dad filled out their tax forms.  Meanwhile, how many black working people were sitting in the living room of the elitist Clintons?  Or the Rodhams?  Protestants, Catholics, and Jews went to the same public schools, where reading from the Psalms every day was allowed, and sometimes prayer.  This was before these were ruled illegal by a corrupt judiciary.

This snapshot from my past is one photo of normalcy to which we must return.  Millions of other snapshots of normalcy could be collected.  The freak show of modern life with its turmoil and loss of freedoms needs to make a right turn at the next intersection and re-engage with those millions of normal snapshots from the lives of normal people.  The old lady Ivy League-style heroism of Madame Pantsuit is not needed.  It is based on perpetual conflict within the body politic, a conflict that does not have to exist.  It is a conflict perpetuated by Madame Pantsuit and her ilk.  It is concocted by the pointy heads of racial conflict, of class warfare, and of intersex competition.

Instead, love is needed as well as unity of groups and the hope that abides in a normalized unity.  We need to adjust to each other, just as members of a unified family learn to accept each other, warts and all, with a benign and good-humored tolerance or, even, enjoyment of the others’ flaws.  Mrs. Pantsuit is not a heroine, nor are others who portray themselves in similar fashion – i.e., as survivors in the bogus struggle to defend the underdogs and exploited.  Fighting so-called inequities is now a form of iniquity.  We need to be neo-Hardingites – strike a healing note, and downplay disunity and the increasing government size that is justified as the cure for that disunity.

In a speech preceding his run for the presidency in May 1920, Warren G. Harding stated, “America’s present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation, but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality.”  History textbooks typically portray Pres. Harding as a lackluster individual surrounded by corruption during his presidency, notably the Teapot Dome scandal.  Nevertheless, the above words carry a hopeful message far beyond the sycophantic appeals to the public we often hear from today’s office-seekers and office-holders.

Let us then consider some of the antinomies in the above comments and apply them to today’s sociopolitical and economic landscape.  Harding notes particularly the “need for healing, not heroics … need for adjustment, not agitation … not nostrums, but normalcy.”

The Democrats increasingly portray the USA as a land of exploitation.  It is a land of broken promises and broken dreams, not a land of opportunity, as more naïve generations believed.  For Democrats, ours is a land of betrayal and selfishness, as well as racial and sexual exploitation.  The entire culture is a megalomaniacal drama created in the image of “toxic masculinity” to benefit white, heterosexual males – typically waving the banner of Christianity – in the fight for cultural hegemony.  Now is the time to right the wrongs inflicted upon us by these selfish-to-the-core, rotten people like the elitist Founding Fathers; the aggressive, selfish, maniacal, genocidal pioneers who settled the West; the aristocratic 1% of plantation-owners in the South who gave us slavery; and the 1% today who give us wage slavery and a declining middle class.

Further, the rotten capitalists built the economy on the backs of immigrants – who were treated like scum and exploited – and took us into war after war, beginning with the Spanish-American War of 1898 through the present U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  These wars were imperialistic ventures unleashed upon an unsuspecting populace to further develop the financial interests of the top 1%, or even the top 0.1%, and appease their infinite greed.  Class warfare, racial warfare, and warfare against the fairer sex by denying them full participation in our political and economic life must be incessantly waged.  The entire #metoo movement is intended to feed and enlarge this negative myth of our society.

Warfare on these fronts require heroics, or if not heroics then at least heroic posturing.  Public cries of indignation abound within the rhetoric of the Democrats.  They are cries for more struggle against the powers that be, against the status quo, against the nation-state in favor of a global vision, against federalism and states’ right in the name of national unity or the “general welfare.”  They dispute even the legal results of the 2016 presidential election, with a feigned indignation, as though that election was stolen from the majority by collusion with the Russians or by bogus and outdated laws that deny the rightful claims of the majority.

The majority, they say, voted for an old lady totally committed to all the dispossessed groups and subgroups of society.  She is a person of smarts, class, and experience.  Her heroism is on display to all, as she survived all attempts by the white, male, Christian, sexist hegemonic conspiracy to destroy her career.  As a lawyer, proactive first lady, senator, and secretary of state, she has proven herself to be a towering, heroic figure.  She is to be assumed sufficiently steadfast against the various tyrannies that beset our culture.  She is heroic.  She is a political Wonder Woman.  She wears the pantsuit in the family.  Her mistakes are merely part of her needed survival strategy in a world hostile to all she represents.

How can one argue against support of this hellish “ice queen”?  Harding has the answer.  Today, just as America after WWI, after the throes of big government introduced by the War Production Board, by the Federal Reserve, and by the Federal Income Tax, America needed a “return to normalcy.”  During the ten years preceding Harding, we see a realignment of our institutions in the direction of empowering the federal government with new powers never envisioned by the Founders, a betrayal of the previous 100-plus years of U.S. history.  If the answer he proposed then was valid, how much more is it valid today?  If H.C., the heroic old lady of the Democrats, and other surging demagogues among the Democrats are standing tall on the idea of a big government and global government as needed to right hundreds of years of wrongs, then do we not need a return to normalcy more than ever before?

This writer grew up in a working-class neighborhood in Philadelphia.  All the families on my block were intact – moms and dads and their children.  The residents were poorly educated, but the families were intact, and they owned their own small row houses, TVs, and cars.  The men worked, and the women raised the kids.  Were those women ignorant, exploited females?  That is a rhetorical question.  The wives and moms were smart, tough, determined, purposeful, joyful, engaged human beings.  The men lived and died for their kids and their wives, loving, protective, forceful, good, friendly, good-humored, articulate, and warm.  My father made out income taxes for his fellow bus drivers for a small fee.  The men came to our homes, including his black co-workers.  They sat in our living room as my dad filled out their tax forms.  Meanwhile, how many black working people were sitting in the living room of the elitist Clintons?  Or the Rodhams?  Protestants, Catholics, and Jews went to the same public schools, where reading from the Psalms every day was allowed, and sometimes prayer.  This was before these were ruled illegal by a corrupt judiciary.

This snapshot from my past is one photo of normalcy to which we must return.  Millions of other snapshots of normalcy could be collected.  The freak show of modern life with its turmoil and loss of freedoms needs to make a right turn at the next intersection and re-engage with those millions of normal snapshots from the lives of normal people.  The old lady Ivy League-style heroism of Madame Pantsuit is not needed.  It is based on perpetual conflict within the body politic, a conflict that does not have to exist.  It is a conflict perpetuated by Madame Pantsuit and her ilk.  It is concocted by the pointy heads of racial conflict, of class warfare, and of intersex competition.

Instead, love is needed as well as unity of groups and the hope that abides in a normalized unity.  We need to adjust to each other, just as members of a unified family learn to accept each other, warts and all, with a benign and good-humored tolerance or, even, enjoyment of the others’ flaws.  Mrs. Pantsuit is not a heroine, nor are others who portray themselves in similar fashion – i.e., as survivors in the bogus struggle to defend the underdogs and exploited.  Fighting so-called inequities is now a form of iniquity.  We need to be neo-Hardingites – strike a healing note, and downplay disunity and the increasing government size that is justified as the cure for that disunity.



Source link

Sadiq Khan Squelches Freedom of Thought and Expression


Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim mayor of London,  will be speaking at a conference of technology executives in Austin, Texas.  The gist of his remarks has been announced.  It is a speech advocating a troika of control, condemnation, and confiscation.  The control he requests is that the masters of the internet bar anti-Islamic comments and threats.  His condemnation is of President Donald Trump for his tweets (especially those in support of Britain First), which have proven to be an encouragement to those with an anti-Islamic agenda.  And he suggests that the big technology firms be taxed not on the basis of profits, but on the basis of revenue if the anti-Islamic messages continue on the internet, thus threatening confiscation if his “advice” is not taken.  He has expressed delight at Germany’s hate speech laws, advocated and advanced by Angela Merkel.

Mr. Khan comes out of a cultural mindset that does not understand the idea of the marketplace of ideas, independent thought, individualism, and the Anglo-American tradition of liberty within the context of law.  You see, there are hundreds of millions, if not billions of people who want to be told what to say and even what to think.  Thinking is a burden for them.  It’s not just a matter of wanting to “go along to get along.”  No.  The exercise of thinking for themselves, and having fewer pressures and controls on their speech, behavior, and especially mentality, is too much pressure for them.  It’s a level of responsibility they cannot cope with.  Why can’t they cope?  Here is where metaphysics hits practical day-by-day exigencies.

To exercise one’s freedom responsibly, one needs the grace of God and the enlightenment from on high that one finds in the Holy Scripture (Old and New Testaments).  In our culture, although not all persons were evangelical, Protestant Christians nonetheless cultivated that norm of free thinking from the time when the central influence on the colonies and the United States was God-centered.  Thus, certain patterns and habits of respect and thinking became engrained among even the non-Bible-believing population.  Even the non-Christian Aristotle, living in 4th-century B.C. Greece, knew about the importance of habit and about the importance of forming virtuous habits by the proper use of reason.  He advocated a balanced approach (“hexis”) and implied that our freedom (and happiness) lies in our balanced use of reason.  Thus, the Christian implication of a divinely based freedom was written into our Declaration of Independence (“endowed by our Creator”) along with the rationalistic, virtue-oriented “pursuit of happiness,” which was the purpose of life (“telos”) for Aristotle.

That foundation has become diluted, plus we have increasing numbers of people from cultures where that type of free, responsible, independent thought was never cultivated.  Mr. Khan is from one of those cultures and sub-cultures.  In the Islamic worldview, taqiyya (deception) is a legitimate part of jihad.  It is a way of resisting the infidels.  He is speaking the language of liberalism in order to move forward an illiberal agenda.  Jamie Glazov has characterized this trend beautifully in his volume United in Hate, where he describes in detail the mindset of the left as it converges with the goals of the Islamists in perpetuating an ongoing crisis in the West.  Dr. Glazov appeals to the unconscious Freudian death wish as a deep unifying force in this seeming convergence of interests (each expecting to ultimately dispense with the other faction at the right time).

The leftist nihilism not only is parallel to the suicidal “death wish” of the terrorists of Islam, but provides a deep sense of complementary identity between the two groups or movements.  Both groups hate individualism, romantic love, humor, good cheer, and people finding satisfaction in life.  For the leftist believers, the happiness of the regular folks living under capitalist systems is a “false consciousness,” whereas for the Islamists, Western civilization’s joy in the life of the individual and the family is an offense to God (conceived as Allah).

Yes, the Islamic mindset is far from both the Christian and the Greek mindsets that gave birth to our unique culture.  I guess all that jihad talk by the so-called right is exaggerated.  It’s all driven by a bunch of mean-spirited xenophobes, right?  We’ve had them before in the U.S.  They were called the “Know Nothings” in the 1840s and 1850s.  Later, the so-called xenophobes were responsible for those Palmer Raids in the early 1920s.  It’s the same misanthropic thread.  Or is it?

Could it be possible that the U.S. is facing an unprecedented political and cultural threat?  Could the evidence be mounting that a sinister Islamic Trojan horse is being promoted by a fifth column of leftists determined to undermine whatever stability is left in the U.S. of A?

But Islam and Mayor Khan are not the only elements that want to silence free choice (free speech is only one aspect of free choice in the context of a free market and a free mentality).  There is a ubiquitous and chaotic trend that runs across many groups that cannot bear the weight of responsibility that comes with freedom.  Thus, as atheism grows, the relationship with Almighty God through His Son by the power of the Holy Spirit fades from the equation.  Not only sin, but grace becomes an alien term.  Rationality is declared an enemy of freedom and is put in the service of a deterministic social science by the so-called truth-seekers in academia.  

Hence, even the learned ones in our universities increasingly cannot handle diversity of opinion.  The word “veritas” (truth) in Harvard’s motto becomes another part of the thought control mindset.  That means that it is not sufficient for them to disagree with other ideas and values; rather, they must outlaw those ideas and values, squelch them.  Mayor Khan of London is one such squelcher.

Image: mc_london_002 via Flickr.

Sadiq Khan, the first Muslim mayor of London,  will be speaking at a conference of technology executives in Austin, Texas.  The gist of his remarks has been announced.  It is a speech advocating a troika of control, condemnation, and confiscation.  The control he requests is that the masters of the internet bar anti-Islamic comments and threats.  His condemnation is of President Donald Trump for his tweets (especially those in support of Britain First), which have proven to be an encouragement to those with an anti-Islamic agenda.  And he suggests that the big technology firms be taxed not on the basis of profits, but on the basis of revenue if the anti-Islamic messages continue on the internet, thus threatening confiscation if his “advice” is not taken.  He has expressed delight at Germany’s hate speech laws, advocated and advanced by Angela Merkel.

Mr. Khan comes out of a cultural mindset that does not understand the idea of the marketplace of ideas, independent thought, individualism, and the Anglo-American tradition of liberty within the context of law.  You see, there are hundreds of millions, if not billions of people who want to be told what to say and even what to think.  Thinking is a burden for them.  It’s not just a matter of wanting to “go along to get along.”  No.  The exercise of thinking for themselves, and having fewer pressures and controls on their speech, behavior, and especially mentality, is too much pressure for them.  It’s a level of responsibility they cannot cope with.  Why can’t they cope?  Here is where metaphysics hits practical day-by-day exigencies.

To exercise one’s freedom responsibly, one needs the grace of God and the enlightenment from on high that one finds in the Holy Scripture (Old and New Testaments).  In our culture, although not all persons were evangelical, Protestant Christians nonetheless cultivated that norm of free thinking from the time when the central influence on the colonies and the United States was God-centered.  Thus, certain patterns and habits of respect and thinking became engrained among even the non-Bible-believing population.  Even the non-Christian Aristotle, living in 4th-century B.C. Greece, knew about the importance of habit and about the importance of forming virtuous habits by the proper use of reason.  He advocated a balanced approach (“hexis”) and implied that our freedom (and happiness) lies in our balanced use of reason.  Thus, the Christian implication of a divinely based freedom was written into our Declaration of Independence (“endowed by our Creator”) along with the rationalistic, virtue-oriented “pursuit of happiness,” which was the purpose of life (“telos”) for Aristotle.

That foundation has become diluted, plus we have increasing numbers of people from cultures where that type of free, responsible, independent thought was never cultivated.  Mr. Khan is from one of those cultures and sub-cultures.  In the Islamic worldview, taqiyya (deception) is a legitimate part of jihad.  It is a way of resisting the infidels.  He is speaking the language of liberalism in order to move forward an illiberal agenda.  Jamie Glazov has characterized this trend beautifully in his volume United in Hate, where he describes in detail the mindset of the left as it converges with the goals of the Islamists in perpetuating an ongoing crisis in the West.  Dr. Glazov appeals to the unconscious Freudian death wish as a deep unifying force in this seeming convergence of interests (each expecting to ultimately dispense with the other faction at the right time).

The leftist nihilism not only is parallel to the suicidal “death wish” of the terrorists of Islam, but provides a deep sense of complementary identity between the two groups or movements.  Both groups hate individualism, romantic love, humor, good cheer, and people finding satisfaction in life.  For the leftist believers, the happiness of the regular folks living under capitalist systems is a “false consciousness,” whereas for the Islamists, Western civilization’s joy in the life of the individual and the family is an offense to God (conceived as Allah).

Yes, the Islamic mindset is far from both the Christian and the Greek mindsets that gave birth to our unique culture.  I guess all that jihad talk by the so-called right is exaggerated.  It’s all driven by a bunch of mean-spirited xenophobes, right?  We’ve had them before in the U.S.  They were called the “Know Nothings” in the 1840s and 1850s.  Later, the so-called xenophobes were responsible for those Palmer Raids in the early 1920s.  It’s the same misanthropic thread.  Or is it?

Could it be possible that the U.S. is facing an unprecedented political and cultural threat?  Could the evidence be mounting that a sinister Islamic Trojan horse is being promoted by a fifth column of leftists determined to undermine whatever stability is left in the U.S. of A?

But Islam and Mayor Khan are not the only elements that want to silence free choice (free speech is only one aspect of free choice in the context of a free market and a free mentality).  There is a ubiquitous and chaotic trend that runs across many groups that cannot bear the weight of responsibility that comes with freedom.  Thus, as atheism grows, the relationship with Almighty God through His Son by the power of the Holy Spirit fades from the equation.  Not only sin, but grace becomes an alien term.  Rationality is declared an enemy of freedom and is put in the service of a deterministic social science by the so-called truth-seekers in academia.  

Hence, even the learned ones in our universities increasingly cannot handle diversity of opinion.  The word “veritas” (truth) in Harvard’s motto becomes another part of the thought control mindset.  That means that it is not sufficient for them to disagree with other ideas and values; rather, they must outlaw those ideas and values, squelch them.  Mayor Khan of London is one such squelcher.

Image: mc_london_002 via Flickr.



Source link

Russian Investigation Offers a Ludicrous Indictment


The malicious but ludicrous Russian collusion investigation is now winding down. The Democrats and the Justice Department are trying to exit with face-saving grace despite colossal failure to prove their assertion against Trump and his team, which assertion was in fact bogus from the beginning.  Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced with tepid fanfare that thirteen Russians are being indicted for attempting to interfere with the U.S. presidential election. It was a ho-hum moment intended to suggest that the magnificent obsession of the left with election meddling has somehow born fruit.

Rosenstein noted that the Russians had posted 176,000 tweets in ten weeks, and that 50,258 accounts had been created and tweeted a million times.  The tweets presumably were slanted with anti-Hillary bias. The “interference” began during the nomination season, and the Russians, according to Rosenstein (the reader will please excuse my skepticism) preferred Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump.  To put this tweet threat in perspective, the reader should know that there are 500 million tweets on average generated every day on Twitter.  If the total number of Russian tweets were concentrated on one day that would still only come to .00352% of all the tweets on that day. If it were one million tweets over a five-month period, that would come to .0000235% of all tweets over that period.  What an impact those tweets must have had!

Rosenstein also informed us that the massive Russian interference generated 129 real world events that drew 340,000 Facebook users.  If we look at the number of mobile active Facebook users for December 2016, we see that there were 1.74 billion.  Thus, the Russians commandeered .000195402% of the Facebook users for that one month.  Again, we can see how incredibly destructive such a program must have been.  The figures are so ludicrous that one can only wonder why the Russians ever believed that they could have a significant impact.  And, looking at the stats, we must be drawn to the conclusion that the Democrats have not only been making a mountain out of a mole hill, but have been making a veritable Mt. Everest out of an ant hill.

In order to come up with these picayune charges, the Mueller investigation spent $6.7 million dollars of our money during his first 4.5 months. Further, the indictment against the Russky-13 (Vladimir Putin will, we are certain, put those 13 individuals on the first plane out of Moscow with Washington DC as its destination) states, “Defendants conspired to obstruct the lawful functions of the United States government through fraud and deceit, including by making expenditures in connection with the 2016 U.S. presidential election without proper regulatory disclosure….”   However, as noted by The New American, “America is no stranger to spending money to interfere with foreign elections. In the last Israeli election, the Obama State Department funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money to the opposition of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that the State Department and a group called One Voice coordinated political activities — including the building of a voter database, the training of activists, and the hiring of a political consulting firm tied to President Obama himself.”

Further, as all informed students of history know, the U.S. had a significant role in installing the former Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi. Further, under President Ronald Reagan, we made significant deals with the Contras in Nicaragua, and President Bill Clinton arranged for $10 billion from the International Monetary fund to be put in the hands of Boris Yeltsin.  How indignant can we be when our hands have become dirtied in the same trough?

The intent of the indictments is clearly to save face and to justify an unjustifiable attempt to impugn the integrity and lawfulness of the Trump presidency.

But the mockers and the malicious ones will never give up, even as these indictments are, it seems to this writer, the climax of the ridiculous and disgusting play we have witnessed since November 2016.  Now we are moving into the denouement phase of the play as all the players appraise the extent of their justification of this investigation, and try to capture some face-saving elements from their obvious failure.

Rep. Adam Schiff has his feet firmly planted in the malice of his intentions. He has stated that whether or not Mueller determines that President Trump’s collusion reaches the level of being a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, there was sufficient collusion to warrant Trump’s being called “unpatriotic” or “immoral.”  Obviously, the name-calling will not end. But the creepy labeling is an exercise in futility.  We the people now see through the travesty of these accusations and this investigation, and desire to move on to make America great again.

The malicious but ludicrous Russian collusion investigation is now winding down. The Democrats and the Justice Department are trying to exit with face-saving grace despite colossal failure to prove their assertion against Trump and his team, which assertion was in fact bogus from the beginning.  Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced with tepid fanfare that thirteen Russians are being indicted for attempting to interfere with the U.S. presidential election. It was a ho-hum moment intended to suggest that the magnificent obsession of the left with election meddling has somehow born fruit.

Rosenstein noted that the Russians had posted 176,000 tweets in ten weeks, and that 50,258 accounts had been created and tweeted a million times.  The tweets presumably were slanted with anti-Hillary bias. The “interference” began during the nomination season, and the Russians, according to Rosenstein (the reader will please excuse my skepticism) preferred Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump.  To put this tweet threat in perspective, the reader should know that there are 500 million tweets on average generated every day on Twitter.  If the total number of Russian tweets were concentrated on one day that would still only come to .00352% of all the tweets on that day. If it were one million tweets over a five-month period, that would come to .0000235% of all tweets over that period.  What an impact those tweets must have had!

Rosenstein also informed us that the massive Russian interference generated 129 real world events that drew 340,000 Facebook users.  If we look at the number of mobile active Facebook users for December 2016, we see that there were 1.74 billion.  Thus, the Russians commandeered .000195402% of the Facebook users for that one month.  Again, we can see how incredibly destructive such a program must have been.  The figures are so ludicrous that one can only wonder why the Russians ever believed that they could have a significant impact.  And, looking at the stats, we must be drawn to the conclusion that the Democrats have not only been making a mountain out of a mole hill, but have been making a veritable Mt. Everest out of an ant hill.

In order to come up with these picayune charges, the Mueller investigation spent $6.7 million dollars of our money during his first 4.5 months. Further, the indictment against the Russky-13 (Vladimir Putin will, we are certain, put those 13 individuals on the first plane out of Moscow with Washington DC as its destination) states, “Defendants conspired to obstruct the lawful functions of the United States government through fraud and deceit, including by making expenditures in connection with the 2016 U.S. presidential election without proper regulatory disclosure….”   However, as noted by The New American, “America is no stranger to spending money to interfere with foreign elections. In the last Israeli election, the Obama State Department funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer money to the opposition of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that the State Department and a group called One Voice coordinated political activities — including the building of a voter database, the training of activists, and the hiring of a political consulting firm tied to President Obama himself.”

Further, as all informed students of history know, the U.S. had a significant role in installing the former Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi. Further, under President Ronald Reagan, we made significant deals with the Contras in Nicaragua, and President Bill Clinton arranged for $10 billion from the International Monetary fund to be put in the hands of Boris Yeltsin.  How indignant can we be when our hands have become dirtied in the same trough?

The intent of the indictments is clearly to save face and to justify an unjustifiable attempt to impugn the integrity and lawfulness of the Trump presidency.

But the mockers and the malicious ones will never give up, even as these indictments are, it seems to this writer, the climax of the ridiculous and disgusting play we have witnessed since November 2016.  Now we are moving into the denouement phase of the play as all the players appraise the extent of their justification of this investigation, and try to capture some face-saving elements from their obvious failure.

Rep. Adam Schiff has his feet firmly planted in the malice of his intentions. He has stated that whether or not Mueller determines that President Trump’s collusion reaches the level of being a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, there was sufficient collusion to warrant Trump’s being called “unpatriotic” or “immoral.”  Obviously, the name-calling will not end. But the creepy labeling is an exercise in futility.  We the people now see through the travesty of these accusations and this investigation, and desire to move on to make America great again.



Source link

Using Nullification To Destroy Federalism


Animosity reigns supreme among Democrats who now are anything but “the loyal opposition.” The intention to disrupt, undermine, insult, reject, and vilify anything and everything about President Donald Trump’s person, his programs, and his policies is there for all to see. Character assassination is but one dimension of the attack on this administration. Ridicule on late night talk/comedy shows is standard and has been standard throughout the President’s first year in office. Incessant conversations about the investigation into the bogus “Russia collusion” has been allotted more than 80% of news and discussion time on major media outlets.

But lately, with the failure to make collusion stick, the failure to make Trump’s mental health disqualification stick, the failure to make his breaking of the emoluments clause of the Constitution stick, and the failure to make his supposed womanizing and #metoo wrongdoings stick, the disloyal opposition is now clinging to the charge of racism for his having reversed President Obama’s executive order regarding DACA for a class of persons living within our borders. That has also been linked to his intense beefing up of federal law enforcement Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to find, arrest, and deport criminals who are in this country illegally.

In other words, the so-called “Dreamers,” who are here illegally are being defended along with other illegals who, in addition to being illegals, are also criminals. And this is all under the name of diversity. Trump is being characterized as a pathological xenophobe. This enforcement is presumably motivated by his hate and the hate of his supporters for non-white peoples, especially Hispanics. And this pervasive and obsessive anti-Latino tendency is reinforced by an additional dimension of his mindset, and that of his Christian, conservative, dumb, working-class mindsets, by Islamophobia.

All we dumb deplorables tend to see the USA as not the land of the free, home of the brave, as we like to claim. Rather, we have dark motives of trying to maintain white Christian superiority and this ethnic hegemony has existed in a mean way for a long time. This rejection is always appended with the suffix “phobia.” Phobias are fears, but not merely fears. They are irrational fears. The irrationality thus dovetails nicely with the narrative of a mental health imbalance and threat from both the President and his supporters throughout the culture.

Various governors and big city mayors have recently taken the step of declaring themselves to be sanctuary cities or sanctuary states. California has passed laws forbidding citizens from cooperating with federal law enforcement in finding and capturing illegal persons. The state has two new laws that took effect in 2018, AB 450 and SB 54, that protect illegal aliens. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, addressing rumors of raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, [stated] “It’s important, given these rumors out there, to let people and more specifically employers know that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws [they will be prosecuted].”

This radical step of nullification of federal law by the Democrats is part of a long history of nullification that has been embraced by Democrats, and before them by the Democratic-Republicans at the end of the 18th century. In 1798 and 1799, the Virginia Resolution, written by James Madison, and the Kentucky Resolution written by Thomas Jefferson were passed and claimed the right of those states to nullify (not obey) various provisions of the federal Alien and Sedition Acts. They believed the Alien Act was a political power play by the Federalists to delay voting for immigrants who would probably vote Democratic-Republican.

(Do I need to point out parallel motives by the Democrats today in their “protection” of the illegals, even the criminals? They are maneuvering for illegals to be able to vote even though they are not citizens, and of course this would add to the entrenchment of Democratic Party power in California and elsewhere.)

In 1832, there was another nullification crisis whereby South Carolina, under the leadership of Sen. John C. Calhoun, a Democrat, claimed it had the right to nullify and would nullify the federal tariff act passed under Andrew Jackson. Jackson was enraged by South Carolina’s nerve in challenging the tariff because the Constitution clearly gives the federal government the authority to impose tariffs (just as it gives our federal government the authority to control immigration policy and to enforce that policy). Nullification seemed just a breath away from secession. However, the “great compromiser,” Henry Clay, stepped into the issue, and a new bill was passed which provided for a gradual reduction of the tariff over a ten-year period. Both President Jackson and Calhoun got on board with the compromise and further strife was averted.

Then, of course, the cataclysmic nullification came after the election of President Abraham Lincoln. The South with its feverish and unreasonable expectation regarding the rights of the governed in our republic, did not seek merely to nullify a law but sought to nullify the results of a federal election for President. The slaveholders were typically Democrats. No law had been passed to either abolish or restrict slavery, but Lincoln’s victory in 1860 was perceived as such a dire threat by Southern leaders that they took the step of firing on Fort Sumter, a federal facility located in South Carolina. This act of nullification led directly to our Civil War.

The Democrats have been masters of nullification. The judicial system has been bombarded with cases that challenged states rights regarding abortion, homosexual marriage, prayer in the public schools, and police practices by state and local governments. In the past 50-60 years, the federal courts have been used to nullify states rights.

A few years ago, when Arizona tried to execute strict enforcement laws against illegals, the Democrats were up in arms. This was taken to court, and it was determined that some of the measures taken by the Republicans and by Gov. Jan Brewer were outside the purview of state authority because immigration enforcement was strictly under federal supervision. By trying to provide a safer and more lawful environment, she was lambasted as a vile nullifier of federal authority. One of my colleagues at the time literally compared Arizona to North Korea, asserting that it was acting ruthlessly and unlawfully. Also in Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio was persecuted for his supposed overstepping of his authority.

Now we have the Democrats in California and elsewhere with their “sanctuary city” and “sanctuary state” movement on the search and destroy path of nullification of legitimate federal authority. They are shaking their fists in Jeff Sessions’ face more defiantly than Jan Brewer or Joe Arpaio ever did against the laxity of the feds under Obama. The Democrats are at war with the very system of federalism that is our system of governance. They are nullifying federal rights when they should be supporting them, as required by the U.S. Constitution. This is surely a despicable attack on our legal system and the foundations of our republic. Nullification has been going on for a long time, but it has been weaponized by the Democrats to destroy the institutions we love.

Animosity reigns supreme among Democrats who now are anything but “the loyal opposition.” The intention to disrupt, undermine, insult, reject, and vilify anything and everything about President Donald Trump’s person, his programs, and his policies is there for all to see. Character assassination is but one dimension of the attack on this administration. Ridicule on late night talk/comedy shows is standard and has been standard throughout the President’s first year in office. Incessant conversations about the investigation into the bogus “Russia collusion” has been allotted more than 80% of news and discussion time on major media outlets.

But lately, with the failure to make collusion stick, the failure to make Trump’s mental health disqualification stick, the failure to make his breaking of the emoluments clause of the Constitution stick, and the failure to make his supposed womanizing and #metoo wrongdoings stick, the disloyal opposition is now clinging to the charge of racism for his having reversed President Obama’s executive order regarding DACA for a class of persons living within our borders. That has also been linked to his intense beefing up of federal law enforcement Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to find, arrest, and deport criminals who are in this country illegally.

In other words, the so-called “Dreamers,” who are here illegally are being defended along with other illegals who, in addition to being illegals, are also criminals. And this is all under the name of diversity. Trump is being characterized as a pathological xenophobe. This enforcement is presumably motivated by his hate and the hate of his supporters for non-white peoples, especially Hispanics. And this pervasive and obsessive anti-Latino tendency is reinforced by an additional dimension of his mindset, and that of his Christian, conservative, dumb, working-class mindsets, by Islamophobia.

All we dumb deplorables tend to see the USA as not the land of the free, home of the brave, as we like to claim. Rather, we have dark motives of trying to maintain white Christian superiority and this ethnic hegemony has existed in a mean way for a long time. This rejection is always appended with the suffix “phobia.” Phobias are fears, but not merely fears. They are irrational fears. The irrationality thus dovetails nicely with the narrative of a mental health imbalance and threat from both the President and his supporters throughout the culture.

Various governors and big city mayors have recently taken the step of declaring themselves to be sanctuary cities or sanctuary states. California has passed laws forbidding citizens from cooperating with federal law enforcement in finding and capturing illegal persons. The state has two new laws that took effect in 2018, AB 450 and SB 54, that protect illegal aliens. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, addressing rumors of raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, [stated] “It’s important, given these rumors out there, to let people and more specifically employers know that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws [they will be prosecuted].”

This radical step of nullification of federal law by the Democrats is part of a long history of nullification that has been embraced by Democrats, and before them by the Democratic-Republicans at the end of the 18th century. In 1798 and 1799, the Virginia Resolution, written by James Madison, and the Kentucky Resolution written by Thomas Jefferson were passed and claimed the right of those states to nullify (not obey) various provisions of the federal Alien and Sedition Acts. They believed the Alien Act was a political power play by the Federalists to delay voting for immigrants who would probably vote Democratic-Republican.

(Do I need to point out parallel motives by the Democrats today in their “protection” of the illegals, even the criminals? They are maneuvering for illegals to be able to vote even though they are not citizens, and of course this would add to the entrenchment of Democratic Party power in California and elsewhere.)

In 1832, there was another nullification crisis whereby South Carolina, under the leadership of Sen. John C. Calhoun, a Democrat, claimed it had the right to nullify and would nullify the federal tariff act passed under Andrew Jackson. Jackson was enraged by South Carolina’s nerve in challenging the tariff because the Constitution clearly gives the federal government the authority to impose tariffs (just as it gives our federal government the authority to control immigration policy and to enforce that policy). Nullification seemed just a breath away from secession. However, the “great compromiser,” Henry Clay, stepped into the issue, and a new bill was passed which provided for a gradual reduction of the tariff over a ten-year period. Both President Jackson and Calhoun got on board with the compromise and further strife was averted.

Then, of course, the cataclysmic nullification came after the election of President Abraham Lincoln. The South with its feverish and unreasonable expectation regarding the rights of the governed in our republic, did not seek merely to nullify a law but sought to nullify the results of a federal election for President. The slaveholders were typically Democrats. No law had been passed to either abolish or restrict slavery, but Lincoln’s victory in 1860 was perceived as such a dire threat by Southern leaders that they took the step of firing on Fort Sumter, a federal facility located in South Carolina. This act of nullification led directly to our Civil War.

The Democrats have been masters of nullification. The judicial system has been bombarded with cases that challenged states rights regarding abortion, homosexual marriage, prayer in the public schools, and police practices by state and local governments. In the past 50-60 years, the federal courts have been used to nullify states rights.

A few years ago, when Arizona tried to execute strict enforcement laws against illegals, the Democrats were up in arms. This was taken to court, and it was determined that some of the measures taken by the Republicans and by Gov. Jan Brewer were outside the purview of state authority because immigration enforcement was strictly under federal supervision. By trying to provide a safer and more lawful environment, she was lambasted as a vile nullifier of federal authority. One of my colleagues at the time literally compared Arizona to North Korea, asserting that it was acting ruthlessly and unlawfully. Also in Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio was persecuted for his supposed overstepping of his authority.

Now we have the Democrats in California and elsewhere with their “sanctuary city” and “sanctuary state” movement on the search and destroy path of nullification of legitimate federal authority. They are shaking their fists in Jeff Sessions’ face more defiantly than Jan Brewer or Joe Arpaio ever did against the laxity of the feds under Obama. The Democrats are at war with the very system of federalism that is our system of governance. They are nullifying federal rights when they should be supporting them, as required by the U.S. Constitution. This is surely a despicable attack on our legal system and the foundations of our republic. Nullification has been going on for a long time, but it has been weaponized by the Democrats to destroy the institutions we love.



Source link

The Left's False Vision of Economics and Morality


Commentaries by the left repeatedly emphasize the words “fairness,” “morality,” “equality,” “community,” and “the poor.”  According to the left, morality and fairness are economic concepts, not biblically based, divinely approved commands.  Morality and fairness are undermined by “disparity.”  The rich, and possibly those awful, fanatical, and outrageously hypocritical conservative Christians, are disrupting “community” (sometimes referred to as the “global village”).  Without the distractions of Christians and conservatives, there would be much more social coherence, fairness, community, and even better weather!

But there’s even more: get rid of income inequality, put more constraints on the rich, stop America’s love of autos and such wasteful stuff as wanting to be warm in the winter (remote control over home thermostats is on the horizon), and we would have a more healthy, unified, and good society and world.

Wait.  There’s more: subjugate the conservatives and religionists, the pro-lifers and the heterosexual lobby, and then you’ll have a “free society” without ignorant hypocrites.  We are oppressed and beleaguered by that crowd of country bumpkins who go to NASCAR races and cling to their religion and their guns (oh, my – the Second Amendment has to go, too!).

Let us squash once and for all those dead and superficial thoughts from the white, elitist, Protestant, racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, self-centered, hypocritical American past.  (What a horrible place this country has always been!)  Let’s get over the 18th- and 19th- century ideals and move on to the future with a “new” corporate-government alliance, where the government part of the alliance assures and controls that the common good is adhered to.

Wall Street can be and will be replaced with a more knowing and enlightened elite.  The government will restore balance and a vision of the greatest good for the greatest number.  Utilitarianism tweaked with a Marxist sense of the radical disconnect between the exploiters and the exploited will replace laissez-faire ideas.  We will move from the present mixed economy to a new stage of a controlled mixed economy, with more control and less “mix.”

According to the hyped and hyper left, now having its epicenter not in the Socialist Party or the Progressive Workers’ Party, but in the Democratic Party, if we could get out of the mindset of the past, we can really advance the modern cause of security, not liberty.  To the left, the nation-state is an excrescence.  Globalism and one-world government are the preferred format, and that is where we are going and must be going.  Further, individual liberty is an illusion in a world controlled by capitalist greed.  We can be in tune with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, which affirms the goal of “Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person,” not “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

With the Marxist principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” applying in North America as well as around the world, poverty would belong to history.

By listening to the sweet tones of the dialectic materialist vision, we can allow ourselves to be drawn into a new religious vision, a religious vision without God.  Science will be put in the service of people – not in the service of a race to the patent office, the banks, or the pharmaceutical companies.  The technology of warfare will be eliminated.  This is the true “peace on earth and good will toward man.”  One can almost hear the demonic, derisive laughter of the atheistic left as it contemplates belief in the “Prince of Peace.”

Day and night, they reflect on the selfishness of reactionary minds, which keeps them from catching this vision.

However, the truth is the opposite of this egregiously distorted vision.  The rich getting richer is not the cause of the poor getting poorer.  The middle class did not arise in this country because the rich were (first) less rich, nor is poverty a result of increased wealth either in the middle classes or among the rich.  The rise of a managerial class or middle class can be traced to large-scale industrialization just as much as the proletariat can be traced to that period.  Land grant colleges were created to increase the numbers of scientifically trained experts (middle class) in agriculture, and later in engineering.

Colleges were founded by industrious and wealthy Protestants to provide advanced education for ministers (middle class).  Public education gave rise to the normal school movement to turn out sufficient numbers of teachers (middle class) for the increased student population.  Andrew Carnegie and others were benefactors of society (Carnegie founded and funded the New York Public Library system).  Thousands and tens of thousands of small businesses contributed to the building of the railroads, the steel industry, automobiles, ship-building, tool and die, meat-packing and processing, and the construction of skyscrapers and subways in our urban centers.  (The subways of NYC, by the way, were built and financed privately when they were created.)  Never mind the millions of mom-and-pop hardware, grocery, jewelry, barrel-making, blacksmithing, carriage-making, dry goods, etc. businesses.

The idea of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer expresses resentment for the rich and is a ploy of demagogues rather than a significant or useful economic concept.  The drumbeat of class warfare is a bottomless pit.  It can and will turn around and bite everyone, not only the top 1% or top 0.1%.   The top 1% already pays 60% of the taxes.  What’s fair about that?  Can I rob a bank or shoplift with the thought “they have so much; they’ll never miss what I take”?  Robin Hood was a criminal.  I have prospered because of my students, but does that mean part of my income should be taken and redistributed directly to my students each year?  Let’s think through the implication of some of these ideas from the pseudo-egalitarian lexicon.

How often has this writer heard leftists criticize Christians for not living up to biblical standards of morality?  However, while Christ expressed a preference for the poor, Christian morality based largely on the morality given by God to the Israelites in the Old Testament does not put the wealth of the faithful in opposition to true morality.  Many biblical heroes from Abraham to David to Solomon were among the super-rich of their times.  The problem with wealth is not that the wealthy have the money, but that they are too absorbed by their wealth and thus resist true, God-centered morality.  That is the true meaning of “You cannot love God and mammon, too” (Luke 16:13).

The Judeo-Christian standard of morality is a standard of righteousness based on the commandments of God!  It is wrong to steal, not to be in the top 1%.  It is wrong to seduce your neighbor’s wife, not to be in the top 0.1%.  Until this is understood and accepted, there will be a tendency among various circles of people to confuse wealth with criminality (unless your name is Kennedy or Clinton), to confuse order imposed by government from above with true community based on caring (“love thy neighbor as thyself”), and to confuse rabble-rousing with reason.

Commentaries by the left repeatedly emphasize the words “fairness,” “morality,” “equality,” “community,” and “the poor.”  According to the left, morality and fairness are economic concepts, not biblically based, divinely approved commands.  Morality and fairness are undermined by “disparity.”  The rich, and possibly those awful, fanatical, and outrageously hypocritical conservative Christians, are disrupting “community” (sometimes referred to as the “global village”).  Without the distractions of Christians and conservatives, there would be much more social coherence, fairness, community, and even better weather!

But there’s even more: get rid of income inequality, put more constraints on the rich, stop America’s love of autos and such wasteful stuff as wanting to be warm in the winter (remote control over home thermostats is on the horizon), and we would have a more healthy, unified, and good society and world.

Wait.  There’s more: subjugate the conservatives and religionists, the pro-lifers and the heterosexual lobby, and then you’ll have a “free society” without ignorant hypocrites.  We are oppressed and beleaguered by that crowd of country bumpkins who go to NASCAR races and cling to their religion and their guns (oh, my – the Second Amendment has to go, too!).

Let us squash once and for all those dead and superficial thoughts from the white, elitist, Protestant, racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, self-centered, hypocritical American past.  (What a horrible place this country has always been!)  Let’s get over the 18th- and 19th- century ideals and move on to the future with a “new” corporate-government alliance, where the government part of the alliance assures and controls that the common good is adhered to.

Wall Street can be and will be replaced with a more knowing and enlightened elite.  The government will restore balance and a vision of the greatest good for the greatest number.  Utilitarianism tweaked with a Marxist sense of the radical disconnect between the exploiters and the exploited will replace laissez-faire ideas.  We will move from the present mixed economy to a new stage of a controlled mixed economy, with more control and less “mix.”

According to the hyped and hyper left, now having its epicenter not in the Socialist Party or the Progressive Workers’ Party, but in the Democratic Party, if we could get out of the mindset of the past, we can really advance the modern cause of security, not liberty.  To the left, the nation-state is an excrescence.  Globalism and one-world government are the preferred format, and that is where we are going and must be going.  Further, individual liberty is an illusion in a world controlled by capitalist greed.  We can be in tune with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, which affirms the goal of “Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person,” not “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

With the Marxist principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” applying in North America as well as around the world, poverty would belong to history.

By listening to the sweet tones of the dialectic materialist vision, we can allow ourselves to be drawn into a new religious vision, a religious vision without God.  Science will be put in the service of people – not in the service of a race to the patent office, the banks, or the pharmaceutical companies.  The technology of warfare will be eliminated.  This is the true “peace on earth and good will toward man.”  One can almost hear the demonic, derisive laughter of the atheistic left as it contemplates belief in the “Prince of Peace.”

Day and night, they reflect on the selfishness of reactionary minds, which keeps them from catching this vision.

However, the truth is the opposite of this egregiously distorted vision.  The rich getting richer is not the cause of the poor getting poorer.  The middle class did not arise in this country because the rich were (first) less rich, nor is poverty a result of increased wealth either in the middle classes or among the rich.  The rise of a managerial class or middle class can be traced to large-scale industrialization just as much as the proletariat can be traced to that period.  Land grant colleges were created to increase the numbers of scientifically trained experts (middle class) in agriculture, and later in engineering.

Colleges were founded by industrious and wealthy Protestants to provide advanced education for ministers (middle class).  Public education gave rise to the normal school movement to turn out sufficient numbers of teachers (middle class) for the increased student population.  Andrew Carnegie and others were benefactors of society (Carnegie founded and funded the New York Public Library system).  Thousands and tens of thousands of small businesses contributed to the building of the railroads, the steel industry, automobiles, ship-building, tool and die, meat-packing and processing, and the construction of skyscrapers and subways in our urban centers.  (The subways of NYC, by the way, were built and financed privately when they were created.)  Never mind the millions of mom-and-pop hardware, grocery, jewelry, barrel-making, blacksmithing, carriage-making, dry goods, etc. businesses.

The idea of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer expresses resentment for the rich and is a ploy of demagogues rather than a significant or useful economic concept.  The drumbeat of class warfare is a bottomless pit.  It can and will turn around and bite everyone, not only the top 1% or top 0.1%.   The top 1% already pays 60% of the taxes.  What’s fair about that?  Can I rob a bank or shoplift with the thought “they have so much; they’ll never miss what I take”?  Robin Hood was a criminal.  I have prospered because of my students, but does that mean part of my income should be taken and redistributed directly to my students each year?  Let’s think through the implication of some of these ideas from the pseudo-egalitarian lexicon.

How often has this writer heard leftists criticize Christians for not living up to biblical standards of morality?  However, while Christ expressed a preference for the poor, Christian morality based largely on the morality given by God to the Israelites in the Old Testament does not put the wealth of the faithful in opposition to true morality.  Many biblical heroes from Abraham to David to Solomon were among the super-rich of their times.  The problem with wealth is not that the wealthy have the money, but that they are too absorbed by their wealth and thus resist true, God-centered morality.  That is the true meaning of “You cannot love God and mammon, too” (Luke 16:13).

The Judeo-Christian standard of morality is a standard of righteousness based on the commandments of God!  It is wrong to steal, not to be in the top 1%.  It is wrong to seduce your neighbor’s wife, not to be in the top 0.1%.  Until this is understood and accepted, there will be a tendency among various circles of people to confuse wealth with criminality (unless your name is Kennedy or Clinton), to confuse order imposed by government from above with true community based on caring (“love thy neighbor as thyself”), and to confuse rabble-rousing with reason.



Source link