Folklore Keeps Plowing On

by

Gadfly

           Folklore need not be true, merely plausible.  If it’s a good story, it will replicate within a culture, essentially shaping and possibly defining the culture.  Why is this important?

On October 30, 2008, an individual running for the most powerful position in the world, remarked that he and his followers were a mere five days away from fundamentally transforming America.  Without specifics, the transformation was all about hope and change.  What did the change involve?  Nobody really knew, but it was a good story.  Eventually the change came to light.  Dr. Paul Kengor captured it well in his commentary, “How Obama Made Good on His Promise to Fundamentally Transform U.S.A.”  America has been transformed.

In an interview with Charlie Rose (before he was outed and put out to pasture by the #MeToo cohort), Obama was asked what his biggest mistake was in his first term of office.  He answered that the nature of the office “is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.”  This story telling included lionizing Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Black Lives Matter while demonizing the top 1% in America (“If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that”) and Christians (“And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.  In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”).

Peter Wehner rebutted the Crusades-related “high horse” comment in his commentary, “Get Off Your High Horse, Mr. Obama.”  Much of what modern Americans know about the Crusades is folklore.  In a book review of Jonathan Riley-Smith’s book Crusades, Christianity, and Islam, Thomas Madden observed: “It was Runciman [an untrained historian] who called the Crusades ‘a long act of intolerance in the name of God, which is a sin against the Holy Ghost.’ The pity of it is that Runciman and the other popular writers simply write better stories than the professional historians.”

            So how does the folklore keep plowing on in America today?  One major example is The New York Times “1619 project.”  Speaking to a choir audience, a Times’ editor bemoaned the failure of the Russia collusion project; thus, they felt compelled to make the case for Trump racism in an attempt to defeat him in the 2020 election.  This year, 2019, they assert is the 400^th anniversary of the birth of racist America.  Their research revealed that the first black slave arrived in 1619.  I do not dispute this fact.  Yet, the Times’ story does not tell a more complete one.  If one reviews the history of slavery, it lasted several millennia and had little to do with the color of one’s skin.

 

In 1619, America was a British colony.  The slave trade from Africa involved much more than America.  As the table below reveals, America, as a British colony, represented 2.7% of the nearly 11 million slaves transported via the Atlantic slave trade.

As the British colony, called America, matured and realized its citizens preferred liberty and individual sovereignty over rule of subjects by a King, they severed their bond with the British monarchy in 1776 (157 years after the first slave arrived in the British colony called America).  Language in the Declaration of Independence declared “all men are created equal.”  There were no racial or ethnic qualifiers in the Declaration.  Wrestling with the issue of the international institution of slavery that the new nation of America inherited, language in the Constitution was also very carefully worded in order to accommodate a transition away from slavery.  In defense of our Founders, a recent book, No Property in Man:  Slavery and Anti-Slavery at the Nation’s Founding, by Princeton scholar Sean Wilentz, provides a compelling analysis of the language.  Peter C. Myers provides an excellent review of the book in a Claremont Book Review article, “Vindicating the Constitution.”

Less than 80 years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified, America entered into a civil war to set all men free.  The cost was well over 600,000 casualties to pay for the sin of slavery.  Many would argue this cost met or exceeded just reparations.  How many other nations in the table above sacrificed that many humans on the altar of reparations?

 

Today, we again hear political candidates calling for reparations.  Not a single individual in America today is or has ever been a slave.  Nor has any individual in America today owned or ever have owned a slave.  If the definition of justice is to give to a person what is due to them, then after 154 years since the end of the Civil War how would reparations in America be just?

There certainly are individuals who harbor hatred towards others for bigoted reasons.  This does not represent America as a whole.  And for those who believe Trump falls in this category, they distort what he actually says and does or simply repeat mainstream media folklore.  For example, Trump is not anti-immigration (he’s married to an immigrant).  He is against illegal immigration.  He believes in the rule of law, even to the point of honoring federal injunctions to his executive orders.  Trump didn’t criticize Colin Kaepernick because he is black.  He criticized him because he’s unpatriotic and visibly insulted a national symbol for which millions of fellow Americans have died protecting.

 

Folklore can feed bigoted hatred.  Unfortunately, when someone in America aspires to the Office of the Presidency and pushes false folklore, such as institutional racism in America, we should call them out.  This includes The New York Times, which is clearly demonstrating it may be the modern-day version of The Daily Worker, which aggressively advanced propaganda (which, in turn, became folklore among the rank and file) in support of Soviet Communism.

America has been a beacon for other nations because it was known as a free and just society.  America has no slaves (with the exception of the sex trade industry); but with the ever-powerful administrative state, many Americans are now experiencing characteristics of serfdom where political elite determine how much of our income we get to keep and how to redistribute wealth.

Truth will set us free from the chains of illusions and delusions.  And there can be no justice without truth. Folklore is not an advocate of truth.  Yet, it keeps plowing on. 

An Open Letter to Service Academy Superintendents

Dear General/Admiral,

            Although the thrust of this letter applies mostly to the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), themes apply to all of the Service Academies.

Two matters prompted this letter:  the USAFA Superintendent’s Mitchell Hall balcony speech and West Point’s Spenser Rapone.  The USAFA Superintendent mentioned to all those in attendance during his speech that “this is our institution.”  I agree.  This is why I am compelled to write to you.  As a graduate, the purpose for my letter is to express concern about the Academy culture and its perceived departure from the core values of integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all that we do.  I contend this is happening because Academy leaders are losing focus on an American warrior ethos and its essence in the profession of arms.

    

American Warrior Ethos

Academy cultures should be grounded in an American warrior ethos.  The singular and unique concept of an American warrior ethos is that it does not beget warmongering; rather, it stands watch for threats against liberty and justice and defends against tyranny.  Beyond armed conflict, an American warrior ethos represents a morally responsible citizen who understands the central idea of American liberty, remains apolitical in light of cultural evolution, and is prepared to do the right thing for justice over injustice.

Profession of Arms

In terms of the profession of arms, professionalism calls for a commitment to standards of excellence that requires integrity and service before self.  The four-year class system was originally designed to inculcate this understanding.  The academies have sacrificed this aspect of the warrior ethos in favor of individualism and feel-good support between the classes.  As I have discovered in recent discussions with sponsored cadets, friendships are more important than honor.   This is not to deny the importance of authentic friendship.  A warrior ethos requires honor and toughness that chooses justice over injustice and that has the capacity and commitment to tolerate great adversity.  In the USAFA balcony speech, to suggest diversity as the Academy’s central value merely mimics prevailing political correctness.  I will discuss this at greater length later.  For now, however, in terms of professionalism and the capacity to endure adversity, should there be any surprise that America’s Navy Seal Team 6 has earned such a noble reputation?

National Character and Leadership Symposium

Developing American military leaders of character, firmly grounded in the Air Force core values (integrity, service before self, and excellence in all that we do) in support of a warrior ethos, is important enough that former graduate Classes have invested in this process through financial support of the annual National Character and Leadership Symposium (NCLS).  Each year, the Academy planners invite an interesting set of speakers based on a symposium theme.  Listening to the stories of courage, valor and endurance, and interacting with the story-tellers makes a powerful impression on cadets and challenges their understanding of truth and justice in a free society.

 

How might the Academy experience in general and the NCLS in particular restore a warrior ethos in the profession of arms?

The Issue

    

Let me begin with the Academy’s mission.  “The mission of the United States Air Force Academy is to educate, train, and inspire men and women to become leaders of character, motivated to lead the United States Air Force in service to our nation.”^[1]  Service to our nation implies possible combat and a corresponding need for a warrior ethos.  A warrior ethos represents a set of virtues.  Virtues such as temperance, prudence, courage, fortitude, loyalty, obedience, and so forth have long been understood[2] to be critical in achieving victory in a just war.   Thus, the cultivation of these virtues should be the central feature of the Academy experience; moral decision-making and ethical behavior require virtue, especially when wielding great destructive power in a just war.

 

In the mid-1800s, Alexis de Tocqueville recognized virtuous behavior as a uniquely American trait and called this phenomenon “habits of the heart.” What is the basis of the virtue that shapes and compels morally responsible behavior, whether as a husband or wife, father or mother, neighbor, or a warrior?  This is not a new societal need or phenomenon.  We had virtuous people defeat an oppressive world class power in order to found a new nation based on a creed that all persons are created equal and that they are endowed by a Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.  We had virtuous people fight a civil war with the cost of over 600,000 casualties to overcome the sin of slavery.  We had virtuous people liberating oppressed people in two great world wars, and so forth.  These great endeavors were no accident.  They represented our American creed and clearly demonstrated “habits of the heart.”  These virtues were taught by parents, ministers, coaches, and teachers.[3] This teaching was grounded in philosophy and America’s historical Judeo-Christian tradition.[4]  I do not think it a stretch to claim that our yearning for truth (whether philosophical or theological) benefits from a deep and enduring tradition.  Tradition implies time-tested approximations of truth.  Without truth there can be no knowledge or justice.

   

Implications

            America is experiencing a cultural evolution in terms of moral values and the source and legitimacy of those values.  One week the mainstream media celebrates Hugh Hefner for championing the sexual revolution.  A week later, Harvey Weinstein becomes a national scapegoat for a lack of restraint during this revolution.  With the influx of secular humanism,[5] developing great momentum in the 1960s, motivations for serving in our armed forces have become somewhat blurry.  There are a growing number of individuals permeating American society and its institutions who have no need for accountability to a greater power, to include our Service Academies.  For many, service has become more of a career than a calling, and the moral compass is moral relativism, a central feature of secular humanism—whatever it takes to advance.  A recent presentation by the new Director for Strategic Communication demonstrated the Academy’s effort to “brand” the institution.  Nowhere in this presentation was there any mention of a warrior ethos.  It looked like a pitch for recruiting students to a prestigious campus that (a) appeals to their individualism, (b) pays homage to technology (as prophesied in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World) , and (c) just so happens to require uniforms.

As another example of moral relativism, I want to address a recent event that is somewhat delicate.  Having been a “tree in the forest” for 34 years and now retired and a relative outside observer, I now see the Academy through hearsay and what I read or hear in the news.  So, I hope the observation and feedback I am now offering may be received with an open mind.

 

I first became aware of racial slurs at the Academy Prep School through our local news media.  It went viral.  My first questions were:  Who would write such things?  Why would they do it?  Who photographed the writing and posted it to social media?  The “hands up, don’t shoot” meme immediately came to mind--a false report[6] that many still believe to be true, perpetuating a lot of the racial tension that currently exists.

 

Once the P-School slurs went viral, it appears the USAFA Superintendent was compelled to address the issue.  I respect the swiftness and tone of moral authority (and it was widely praised among my contemporaries).  The short speech[7] also went viral (posted on YouTube by the Academy; as well as generating activity mostly on CNN as well as CBS and NBC[8]).  The emphasis on diversity as a mandated value reflects more political correctness than a simple civic virtue of respect for human dignity.  Many people know that “the value of diversity” incorporates behaviors or life styles that are not consistent with other traditional values, which sets up a moral conflict for many of these individuals.  Unfortunately, organizations that promote traditional family values, for instance, are labeled “hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  To overcome this conflict, the institution established policies of “zero tolerance” regarding discriminatory (and sexual harassment) behavior.  While the First Amendment protects free speech, even when it is contrary to public sentiment, it is the policy that restricts such behavior.  When young Americans voluntarily choose to join the military, they understand that they give up some freedom to become a member of the profession of arms.  Commanders have no choice in enforcing such policy.  Those who willfully violate the policy are held accountable.  To “moralize” beyond this point (which, in my opinion, the balcony speech clearly did), risks implying one’s own biases when it comes to “political values.”  This is a fundamental violation of the apolitical nature of America’s warrior ethos.

The command “if you can’t treat someone with respect and dignity, get out” made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.  This command essentially proclaimed “there are limits to diversity, and if you do not understand what those limits are, then I do not respect you and I will not treat you with dignity.”  The Superintendent drummed up the national backdrop of Charlottesville, Ferguson, the NFL, and so forth.  These national icons have now become the bellwether landmarks for political correctness.  The national narrative in these cases is not consistent with actual truth.  The narrative is based more on folklore and what special interest groups want to believe.  And, as the USAFA Superintendent discovered during his interviews with CNN, this particular episode was nicely teed up to criticize our commander-in-chief.  For members of the military, public contempt for the commander-in-chief is a court-martial offense (this is more serious than violating a “zero tolerance” policy).  The balcony speech and CNN interviews essentially achieved this end.

 

More seriously, the balcony speech reminded me of F.A. Hayek’s warning in a chapter with the title, “The End of Truth” in his book, The Road to Serfdom.  Here is what Hayek observed during the regimes of Russian and European totalitarianism in the early 1900s:

 

The most effective way of making everybody serve the single system of ends toward which the social plan is directed is to make everybody believe in those ends.  To make a totalitarian system function efficiently, it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends.  It is essential that the people should come to regard them as their own ends.  Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs, a generally accepted creed which makes the individuals as far as possible act spontaneously in the way the planner wants [italics added for emphasis])

I hope many of our leaders will take the time to more deeply reflect on this particular event, within the context of the national narrative and the Academy's "new environment" designed to shape these young men and women into leaders of character, in order to realize that we can also project slurs against those young men and women who bring traditional worldviews from a cross section of society. Slurs are pejorative words.  While we are very careful not to use the N-word, our politically correct society has developed a whole new set of slurs to demean those individuals that are not welcome in the diversity club:  evangelical, racist, xenophobe, Islamaphobe, misogynist, extremist,[9] and so forth.

 

Regarding the P-School slurs, we now know the answers to my questions about who would do such a thing, why would they do it, and who would upload images to social media.[10] With this new information and the Superintendent’s reluctance to mollify his balcony performance, this episode now joins the “hands up, don’t shoot” folklore.

Was the balcony speech a missed opportunity to truly advance respect for human dignity in the unique American pluralistic society?  There is too much “anti-America” vitriol sucking the oxygen out of the room.  Combined with a rabid press that is hell-bent on destroying the current President (over 90% coverage is negative; and arguably, he represents a threat to socialist ideology/forces), our nation needs courageous leaders to keep our fledgling leaders focused on the idea of America.

What would have been the balcony speech impact had the perceived “wrong-doing” been rebuked without demeaning others?  It is understood that individuals who have violated policy will be held accountable.  This then could have been an unemotional segue to reflecting on what makes America the “shining city on a hill,”[11] or to comprehend what 28-year-old Abraham Lincoln understood in his speech at the Springfield Young Men’s Lyceum[12] (especially in light of the Superintendent’s references to Ferguson, Charlottesville, and the NFL).  This approach is not without precedent.  For example, a month before the end of the American Revolutionary War, General Washington was made aware of a widely circulated anonymous letter complaining that officers had not been paid for the nearly eight years of waging war.  The anonymous author encouraged officers to leave their posts and even to consider a military coup.  On March 16, 1783, Washington assembled his officers to address the issue.  While rebuking the anonymous letter, he did not demean the officers.  He inspired them to stay the course.  Eric Metaxas observes in his book, If You Can Keep It:  The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty, “Washington’s language is a far cry from anything we hear today.  I am not referring to his lofty and ennobling style of speech…But far more important is his use of specific words and phrases like ‘reputation,’ ‘patient virtue,’ ‘dignity,’ ‘glory,’ and ‘sacred honor.’”  Since our Academies play a critical role in producing leaders of character, understanding the occasional strategic opportunities our institutional leaders have to inspire these young men and women toward excellence is also critical.

Speaking of diverse worldviews, many Americans have either lost an understanding of, or have not been exposed to, the founders’ idea of America (i.e., individual liberty, limited government, private property, and a capitalistic free market) and how it was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  Amazingly, a year ago, during a conversation with a Fourth Classman, I asked what he knew about communism.  He responded, “What is it?”  I explained that when I was a 4-degree (freshman), I was anticipating combat in Vietnam against the spread of communism (i.e., an ideology based on collective liberty, a strong central government, no private property, and a government-controlled economy); and that for most of my 30-year career, I was prepared for the possibility of a large-scale or thermonuclear war against the communist threat of the Soviet Union (and the Warsaw Pact) during what has been called the Cold War.  I described the hundreds of millions killed under Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, and other communist leaders.  Now, we read about Army Second Lieutenant Spencer Rapone,[13] an open communist at West Point and now serving on active duty.[14]  In my own experience as an academic, our public schools and universities have a very strong undercurrent of Marxist thinking, centered on Marx and Engels’ 1848 Communist Manifesto calling for the liberation of the oppressed.  It also demands erasing history.  Marx wrote, “In bourgeois society, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.”[15] History has recorded the dangers of this thinking; yet, (a) our younger generations have not been exposed to it (e.g., 1 in 5 Millennials think Joseph Stalin was a hero[16]) and (b) we allow its expression because of our tolerance for the freedoms codified in our First Amendment.  In the spirit of “selectively” celebrating diversity, we are allowing our society to become vulnerable to what our commissioning oath refers to as a domestic threat.

 

            America (and the Western world) faces a potentially existential foreign and domestic threat:  militant Islamism.  To call this out risks being labeled an Islamophobe because it is not deemed “politically correct.”  Despite the advance of secular humanism, our nation still places a premium on tolerance of religious pluralism, to include atheism.  Given this liberty, addressing the Islamic sacred texts and their use in justifying violent jihad mandates a national level conversation.  Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser,^[17] a champion for modernizing Islam for moderate Muslims in reconciliation with a secular government, was nominated as a guest speaker for the 2018 NCLS; yet was not accepted.  Dr. Jasser, at the risk of personal threats, has had the courage to advance reforms that are consistent with a secular constitutional republic.  Is it possible that a “presumed religious” speaker was deemed incongruent with a secular humanist approach to teaching moral foundations and ethical orientations?  How does a moral nation deal with a militant religion if it refuses to examine it?  Is there not some room for reason in understanding and managing an apparent conflict of values?

 

I contend the NCLS speaker selection has been skewed by a heightened sensitivity toward “diversity-oriented” speakers with a reluctance to entertain religious liberty speakers.  For example, I infer from that pattern of speaker selections that the current Center for Character and Leadership Development (CCLD) faculty and staff represent a secular humanist perspective.  Their focus is based on theory and empirical evidence from psychology and sociology disciplines.  They appear to consider philosophical and religious perspectives as too metaphysical and obsolete.  Yet, we ignore the actual evidence of a militant Islamism (see for example the data collected on over 32,000 separate attacks since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/).

A Way Forward

      

Our Service Academies should not represent a regression to the mean in terms of societal values.  This would be incongruent with the core value of striving for excellence in all that we do.  The goal for character development is to produce leaders with impact within the Air Force and their communities as citizens.  Acknowledging the role of philosophy or religion in our society is not a violation of the so-called “Establishment Clause.”  While USAFA has addressed legitimate instances of proselytizing, it comes in different forms, to include “religious” by an evangelical Commandant of Cadets and the “anti-religious” by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.  There is no evidence of an institutional attempt to “establish” a religion.  To the contrary, there may be an unwitting institutional reaction (i.e., capitulation to anti-religious threats) to eliminate philosophy and religion as legitimate sources of moral development.  Within 10 years following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, religion was deliberately and methodically removed from the entire society in submission to a Marxist philosophy.  On the other hand, Nazism in Germany initially justified societal reforms in the name of religion^[18] before morphing into an atheistic totalitarian regime, possibly reflecting similar justifications for violent Islamic jihad.  How does a free nation facilitate the essential character development to avoid these manifestations if it does not have the courage and capacity to examine the dynamics that led to these totalitarian regimes? Even before such an examination, it is absolutely critical that our future leaders be solidly grounded in our own history and the principles and concepts related to a Constitutional Republic.

Conclusion

            The Academy in general and the NCLS in particular have incredible potential to be exemplars in character development.  Those involved in its planning have a moral duty to encourage content that does not unnecessarily constrain the full range of inquiry that underwrites character development.  Character development demands critical thinking in response to a full set of ideas—from the bizarre to the brilliant.  We owe it to current and future American generations to expand the range of inquiry through a classical liberal arts education, to include mathematics, science, history, literature, religion, philosophy, and so forth.  This is the essential grounding that shapes and inspires the American warrior ethos—and the singular purpose of a Service Academy.

Very respectfully,

Gadfly     

---

[1] https://www.usafa.edu/about/mission/

[2] See for example, James H. Toner, True Faith and Allegiance:  The Burden of Military Ethics, (Lexington, KY:  The University Press of Kentucky, 1995).

[3] See for example, Training Manual 2000-25, Citizenship, November 30, 1928.  Retrieved on August 30, 2017 from http://constitution.org/mil/tm/tm_2000-25/tm_2000-25.pdf

[4] Gallup has polled Americans regarding religious affiliation every year since 1948.  In 1956, with 99% of surveyed Americans affiliated with the Judeo-Christian tradition--71% Protestant, 25% Catholic, 3% Jewish.  For the actual data, see Gallup Poll on Religion.  Retrieved on August 30, 2017 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx 

[5] Here is a definition of secular humanism:  “humanism, with regard in particular to the belief that humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment without belief in God.”  See also material from the Council for Secular Humanism retrieved on October 16, 2017 from https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/3260.  This may explain the 27% drop in those affiliating with the Judeo-Christian tradition since 1956.

[6] See for example, Michelle Ye Hee Lee, ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” Did Not Happen in Ferguson, The Washington Post, March 19, 2015, retrieved on October 16, 2017 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/19/hands-up-dont-shoot-did-not-happen-in-ferguson/?utm_term=.22a95f12e8f8

[7] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfjZ1otkS3o

[8] See for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FcqzDLMhBI, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23Z1p5gChFA, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnVtWUnBPIE, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23Z1p5gChFA, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oinwPwCLG14, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0wZZ2LsysY, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnV4OPpBUj4, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWBwXUAMbs, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN6lK0Vh84k  

[9] See Ayn Rand, “Extremism,” or the Art of Smearing, an essay originally published in 1964 in the Objectivist Newsletter and later in Capitalism:  The Unknown Ideal.  Retrieved on November 8, 2017 from https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1964/09/01/extremism-or-the-art-of-smearing/page1

[10] See Samantha Schmidt, A Black Student Wrote those Racist Messages that Shook the Air Force Academy, School Says, The Washington Post, November 8, 2017.  Retrieved on November 8 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/08/a-black-student-wrote-those-racist-messages-that-shook-the-air-force-academy/

[11] A metaphor first introduced by Puritan John Winthrop in a 1630 sermon, “A Model of Christian Charity: while sailing to America aboard a ship named Arbella.

[12] See Lyceum Address, retrieved November 8, 2017 from http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm

[13] See Mark Alexander, West Point Digs Deeper Hole on Cadet Communist, The Patriot Post, October 12, 2017.  Retrieved on October 30, 2017 from https://patriotpost.us/articles/51824

[14] Partial motivation for this letter came from a letter by LTC (USA, retired, USMA ’97) Robert M. Heffington to his class, retrieved on October 16, 2017 from https://www.scribd.com/document/361328800/Former-West-Point-professor-Robert-Heffington-s-open-letter-signed

[15] See Jon Miltimore, 5 Things Marx Wanted to Abolish (Besides Private Property), Foundation for Economic Freedom, October 31, 2017.  Retrieved on October 31, 2017 from https://fee.org/articles/5-things-marx-wanted-to-abolish-besides-private-property/

[16] See Jarrett Stepman, Millennials Are Clueless About Communism. Here’s Why That’s a Problem, The Daily Signal, November 3, 2017.  Retrieved on November 3, 2017 from http://dailysignal.com/2017/11/03/millennials-clueless-communism-heres-thats-problem/

[17] M. Zuhdi Jasser, A Battle for the Soul of Islam:  An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith.  New York, NY:  Simon & Schuster Threshold Editions, 2012.

[18] Susannah Heschel, The Aryan Jesus:  Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany.  Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 2010.

Dear Hillary Supporter

If you can read this and have an open mind, then there is hope . . . please read the following.

Congratulations on your impending achievement.  If Hillary is elected, it will place America on the threshold of Orwell’s 1984.  How’s that for progress on behalf of the progressive movement?

Progressivism is socialism.  Throughout the recent past, socialism endeavored to defeat its opponent:  advocates of individual liberty, limited government, and a free market. Socialists believe in collective liberty, a strong central government in the form of statism, and a government-controlled economy.  As the evidence of history tells us, socialism is not sustainable.  It inevitably morphs into in the form of communism or fascism (yes, that’s right—fascism is a far left manifestation of left of center socialism).

Have you wondered why the left-of-center modern liberal now prefers to be called a progressive?  It’s a seductive term.  Many of my good friends who claim to be progressive think it means an advocate for progress, a better education, a better quality of life, and so forth.  Progress in this case is a noun.  American progressives believe in progress as a verb, to progress toward utopia this side of eternity, which is very consistent with Marxist socialism.  Nobel prize-winner Joseph Schumpeter shared this observation in his book, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy: 

In one important sense, Marxism is a religion.  To the believer it presents, first, a system of ultimate ends that embody the meaning of life and are absolute standards by which to judge events and actions [e.g., the anthropomorphic explanation for climate change]; and, secondly, a guide to those ends which implies a plan of salvation and the indication of the evil from which mankind, or a chosen section of mankind, is to be saved.  We may specify still further:  Marxist socialism also belongs to that subgroup which promises paradise on this side of the grave (1950, p. 5).

To drive home the religious essence of Marxist socialism, Schumpeter went on to say:

The religious quality of Marxism also explains a characteristic attitude of the orthodox Marxist toward opponents.  To him, as to any believer in a Faith, the opponent is not merely in error but in sin.  Dissent is disapproved of not only intellectually but morally.  There cannot be any excuse for it once the Message has been revealed (1950, p. 5).

So, is there any evidence of this thinking in America?  Absolutely!  Let me offer some examples.

First, progressives, starting with Ted Kennedy, pushed for open borders with the assumption that the Democrat Party would win over more constituents thanks to generous government subsidies.  When the Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona attempted to enforce federal laws dealing with illegal immigrants, he was sued for this by Obama’s Justice Department.  In this case, it is a sin to enforce federal law.  Many of these illegal immigrants ended up in inner cities run by Democrats-- modern slave plantations.

Second, Dinesh D’Souza, a legal immigrant from India and naturalized American citizen is now a felon without the right to vote.  D’Souza’s mistake?  He contributed more than the law allowed to a political campaign—in the range of $20,000 above the limit.  The candidate was a friend and there was no quid pro quo.  This contribution pales when looking at the millions of dollars given to campaigns of other candidates.  Check out the millions to Clinton’s campaign at OpenSecrets.org.    But, this was not D’Souza’s real crime.  His crime was exercising his First Amendment right to criticize Democrats and the Obama regime.  In his book, Hillary’s America:  The Secret History of the Democratic Party, D’Souza said:

   … I spent eight months in overnight captivity [federal prison in San Diego, CA] for my sins against the Obama administration.  My crime was exceeding the campaign finance laws by giving $20,000 over the campaign finance limit to a college pal of mine who was running for the U.S. Senate.  I didn’t do it to get anything in return; I did it simply to help an old friend.  For this, I found myself at the receiving end of the full force of the U.S. government.

But, since no one in American history has been prosecuted—let alone incarcerated—for doing what I did, I should be allowed to suspect that my real crime was in exposing President Obama in my film 2016:  Obama’s America and my books The Roots of Obama’s Rage and Obama’s America.  Obama hated my film, vituperatively attacking it on his website barackobama.com, and a few months later, the FBI was knocking on my door (2016, p. 23).

Third, when Catherine Engelbrecht applied to the IRS for 501c(3) status for her organization, True the Vote, she was harassed by not only the IRS, but four other federal agencies.  See her testimony here.  This case was related to a full throated effort by the IRS to suppress the conservative voice.  Lois Learner of the IRS pleaded the Fifth Amendment and destroyed evidence.  She has since retired with a full federal pension.

Fourth, the progressive’s new religion, climate change, is justification for a modern inquisition.  Democratic attorneys general now seek prosecution of those who are “nonbelievers” or deniers.  It is inconsequential that these deniers acknowledge climate change.  The sin is that they disagree with the science in terms of causes (i.e., anthropomorphic related to the use of fossil fuels).  For background on the case against Exxon Mobile see here.

Fifth, many Democrats have no problem lying, denying, or engaging in any other means of obfuscation.  Clinton was a staff member of the Democrat-led U.S. House Judiciary Committee that investigated Watergate and pushed for impeachment of Richard Nixon.  This was a great victory for the Democrat Party—the party of intellectual and moral superiority.  We have since learned that Clinton was fired for dishonest practices.  But, this is nothing compared to the broader collusion that took place among political partisans within the judiciary.  A recent book by Geoff Shepard, The Real Watergate Scandal:  Collusion, Conspiracy, and the Plot that Brought Nixon Down, builds a disturbing case based on newly released documents of illegal collusion.  Prosecutors colluded with judges (trial and appellate) to deny Nixon and his aides due process under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.  This was payback.  As Shepard argues, it was Nixon, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee that led the investigation and eventual prosecution of Alger Hiss for spying.  This action inflamed east coast Democrats because, not only was Hiss a member of the Harvard club, he was also a darling of the Democrat Party.  But, since the Watergate scandal took place over 40 years ago, Hillary supporters would be inclined to say, “What difference does it make?”

Sixth, dirty tricks that are either illegal or bordering on illegal are fully condoned by Democrats.  For a disturbing example, view a Project Veritas investigative piece here.  As expected here is the reaction from the White House.  This is consistent with the pattern to diminish the truth revealed in other investigations, such as selling baby body parts under the umbrella of Planned Parenthood.  Snopes, in an attempt to debunk the credibility of Project Veritas by citing liberal media sources, does not refute any of the evidence provided in their investigations.  Lie, deny, obfuscate.  Trump is demonized for locker room banter 11 years ago.  He did not deny it and apologized for it.

Seventh, while the mainstream media only acknowledges Wikileaks references about the Clinton Foundation, there is much more to be understood.  Peter Schweizer presents disturbing evidence of pay for play in his book Clinton Cash.  The book is summarized in a free, hour-long documentary here.
  
          Finally, the progressive media intentionally distorts reality—similar to scenes in Orwell’s 1984.  Perhaps one of the most egregious images was the one created to make it look like Trump was mocking a disabled reporter.  This is not what happened.  With a little research, the truth paints a completely different picture.  See the evidence here.  Or, the media downplays reality as a shield for their progressive champion.  Wikileaks reveals the real story in this case, where, on behalf of Clinton, Podesta explained how progressives infiltrated the Catholic Church with “supposed Catholic organizations.”  Read a disturbing summary of these efforts here.

I could go on and on.  But, hopefully this is enough to appeal to your capacity to reason.  Progressives claim to be open-minded.  Yet, when confronted with facts contrary to their preferred narrative, they typically will not take the time to examine them.  So, they tend to be mired in myth and folklore created by the progressive conditioners that have sufficiently conditioned them.  C. S. Lewis wrote about this dynamic in The Abolition of Man.

If you are one of the few with an open mind to have gotten this far and still support Hillary after reading these arguments, I can only conclude that you are so thoroughly duped that you are beyond recognizing the truth; or that you don’t care about the truth; or, that you are as corrupt as Hillary and beyond redemption.  If Hillary gets elected, may God have mercy on all of us for allowing a once Judeo-Christian grounded America to slouch into a secular-humanistic and tyrannical oligarchy.

Folklore, ISIL, and the Unkempt Bed

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, let's play the game of “Jeopardy.” Here is the answer to the question:  folklore, ISIL (i.e., the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant), and the unkempt bed.[1]

IM (An American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Beautiful set of metaphors, Gadfly.  The question is:  How will objective historians (which eliminates any Howard Zinn disciple) characterize candidate, then President, Obama’s policy agenda?

Old Gadfly:  Bingo, IM.

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  What a clever yet meaningful way to evaluate the context and unanticipated consequences of getting caught trying to transform America by deceptively engineering public sentiment.

Old Gadfly:  AM, your perception of the meaning of those related metaphors appears to be moving in the right direction.  Let’s unpack some of the assertions in your comment, such as “deceptively engineering public sentiment,” “unanticipated consequences,” and “getting caught.”

AM:  Engineering public sentiment refers to the folklore concept.  Dictionary.com defines folklore as “1.  The traditional beliefs, legends, customs, etc., of a people; lore of a people.  2.  The study of such lore.  3.  A body of widely held but false or unsubstantiated beliefs.”  In this regard, candidate Obama argued that he had superior judgment when it came to understanding the Middle East, diminishing his predecessor in the process.  As President Obama, he argued that he had decimated al Qaeda leadership and that al Qaeda was on the run.  He pulled the wool over the eyes of the American public by lying about the Benghazi attack to win an election.  Yes, I know it seems harsh to use the “lie” word.  But even the word “quibble” does not even come close to mollifying a deliberate attempt to deceive the American public; and, remember, the four Americans were mere speed bumps on his way to a second-term.  Just so there is no doubt, Dictionary.com defines a lie as, “A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.”  Dictionary.com defines quibble as, “An instance of the use of ambiguous, prevaricating, or irrelevant language or arguments to evade a point at issue.”

IM:  So, technically, Susan Rice quibbled on the Sunday morning talk shows and Secretary of State (at the time) Hillary Clinton quibbled when she shouted, “What difference does it make?”  Interestingly, Alan Colmes authored an article in the Huffington Post attempting to perpetuate the folklore of this deplorable Benghazi incident.  There seems to be tremendous resistance among the folklore subscribers to any contrary evidence, as we discussed in our “Connecting the Dots” conversation.

AM: As a matter of scale to drive home the dishonorable nature of these deceitful behaviors, Gadfly and I personally know of Service Academy cadets who were dismissed from the institution for simple quibbling.  Obvious lies and quibbles reek of hypocrisy when members of our armed forces observe their commander-in-chief getting away with far worse.

Old Gadfly:  Good point, AM.  Now, explain the unanticipated consequences.

AM:  ISIL epitomizes the cascading failures of a feckless foreign policy.  Obama and his disciples suffer from what I call ILOC.  The ILOC phenomenon was inspired by a fighter pilot phenomenon known as GLOC, which is an acronym for G force-induced loss of consciousness.

IM:  Help me out, AM.  What’s a G-force?

AM:  “G” refers to gravity, and fighter pilots can experience “G forces," or "Gs” in excess of 8 times the force of gravity when maneuvering a fighter in a dog fight, causing blood to pool in their lower legs and feet.  A 200-pound pilot weighs 1,600 pounds when pulling 8 Gs.  Depending upon the duration of the high G-force maneuver, the lower leg pooling of blood leads to hypoxia and can result in loss of consciousness.

IM:  Thanks.  I think I now see where you are going with ILOC.

AM:  Good, in this case ILOC stands for ideology-induced loss of [national] consciousness.  In other words, ideology now competes with what once constituted the American consciousness before someone decided to transform what that used to mean.

Old Gadfly:  My good friend, Dennis Haugh, developed the best definition I have ever read about what it means to be an American:  “A well-rounded individual who in time of competition or crisis will use his unique talents to the best effect possible. When the competition or crisis is over, he will return to being a responsible individual. He is NOT a member of 'the Borg'.”  (Dennis’ reference to the Borg refers to the Star Trek concept of a collective mind hive into which all individuals eventually assimilate).

IM:  Powerful definition.  We have observed nearly six years of deliberate attempts to fundamentally transform that meaning, that sense of American consciousness.

Old Gadfly:  AM, what did you mean by “getting caught.”

AM:  The meaning refers to the unkempt bed.  Because of Obama’s ILOC, American foreign policy is a disaster.

          Old Gadfly:  Yet, the unkempt bed is similar to the secular proverb, “you made your bed, you sleep in it.”  Unfortunately, it is not Obama who has to sleep in it.  Americans and the entire international community have to “sleep in it.”  

---

[1] I want to thank my good friend D.K. who inspired me earlier this week to better understand the role motifs and folklore play even in modern, civilized culture.