So, how did we get in this predicament? It’s a long story but I’ll provide you a short history. And, as they say, ‘if you don’t believe me, you can look it up” – just like I did during my graduate studies in various aspects of American history at two large, well respected universities – none in the intellectually compromised Ivy League – and through one of the National War Colleges.
The historian’s dilemma is that there is no way to actually know the time, place and people you are writing about. A most accurate description of any history is; “You have NO idea!” Time and place always change but one constant remains – human nature. For the heirs of all of the generations who suffered through the ages to create Western Civilization, the people we met in the Bible are as familiar as those we meet in Chaucer, Shakespeare, Fielding, Hawthorne,Irving, Dickens, Melville, Twain, O’Neil, Conrad, London, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Mitchell, Michener, Miller, Mailer, Greene, Amis, Updike, Warren, Roth, Faulkner, Hammett, Joyce, O’Conner, Vonnegut, Styron, le Carré, Tolstoy, Terkel, McMurtry, Wolfe, Geisel, etc.
History is the story of man in turmoil – conflict and consequence; tyranny and tolerance; cruelty and compassion. As a particular species of primate first gained the capacity to wonder WHY, so began the Epoch of Man. The species advanced in mental capacity to the point where curiosity led to the contemplation of its own existence (in a rational universe created by one Supreme Entity) and who then, first as families, then troops, then tribes, then communities, then societies, then civilizations – one of which was called Western Civilization – competed for scarce resources with other “human” groups.
Organizing for competition or conflict is who we humans are – it is our legacy. That will not change but, this organizing principle led eventually to manifest an intellectual, scientific and technological level that enabled a group of learned English colonists on the Eastern coast of North America to create (a word recalling and an homage to, the Creator) an operating manual for the most enlightened society imaginable. Our Founders tried to constrain this legacy as much as possible consistent with the other great legacy of evolution – free will and the liberty which animates it. Their efforts come to us as the Constitution of the United States.
The Drafters understood that a representative democracy, where the legislators must truthfully reflect the values of their constituents – especially faith-based values (either they surely will not get elected to office or, if elected, will be betrayed eventually by their dishonesty); values which, in America’s case, are the Judeo-Christian values of Western Civilization – literally thousands of years in the making.
They understood that nations cannot separate faith-based values and secular values and only allow secular values to enter the public square. That results in separate nations or one unstable nation. Neither can “democratic” nations separate faith-based values and secular values and only allow faith-based values to enter the public square. That results in Radical Islamic Terrorism – for example.
Jefferson was wrong. The Judeo-Christian values of Western Civilization inform and enlighten our legislators. So important was this consideration that the people demanded that the absolute, unrestricted freedom of religion receive the place of primacy as first among the rights guaranteed in their “Bill of Rights”. And, it is why there is no mention of the “separation of church and state” in the Constitution.
The Constitution did have one monumental flaw (fortunately the system was designed to eventually allow for its own correction) and during the last 100 years, a cabal of dispirit individuals has sought to manipulate this operating manual to suit their own nefarious purposes – perpetual power – not by changing the words of the manual but by changing the popular meanings and usage of the words through political control of academia, public education, the courts, the press and the information/entertainment industry.
By hiding their real motives to gain and wield power behind “new” words and “new” truths, the People would remain blissfully unaware of the actual state of affairs and can now be easily manipulated into support for a false reality.
But, a healthy republic calls for passionate discussion and debate, no matter the issue – and debate is predicated upon the availability of the truth to all participants in the process. Only now, a new conflict has arisen – truth v. power – in that this power – perpetual power – cannot coexist with the truth. Either the power must be diluted or the truth must be destroyed.
But, historical truth can be a cruel taskmaster. Some history is memorialized that should be overlooked and some history is forgotten when it should be memorialized. A non-political case in point: The race against time and the elements to deliver life-saving emergency medical supplies to Nome, Alaska in the winter of 1925.
Eleven teams of Alaskan sled-dogs headed west and covered 675 miles in 127 hours in temperatures sometimes -50 degrees Fahrenheit in the worst winter in 20 years, with ten teams covering about 60 miles each. Every school child in America knows the name Balto, the dependable lead dog that brought the serum into Nome, where the press reports of the arrival of the saving medicine were broadcast to a anxious world but, it was the tenth team that made the successful end possible.
Led by the incomparable Togo, the indomitable lead dog of Alaskan Leonhard Seppala who, after leaving Nome and heading east and, after meeting the team heading west, turned around and, in order to save time, fearlessly led his team onto the treacherous pack ice of the Bering Sea for a desperate eight-hour northerly dash back toward Nome in truly evil conditions of wind and snow.
As they fought their way into the 100mph gale they hit slick patches of glare ice. They slipped and fell, rose again and again on frostbitten feet and, following the unconquerable Togo, struggled on. For mile after grueling mile, bruised and battered and with no landmarks to guide him, Togo somehow kept his course through a veritable wall of wind – across 84 miles of open water.
The gale blown snow blasted the dogs’ faces like buckshot and some of the dogs began to stiffen up. Seppala had to stop and massage freezing muscles on Togo and others. Finally, spurred on by the barking of their relieving dog-team, they arrived at the site to turn over the serum to the next team. In the end, Togo’s team had covered a monumental 260 miles in a blinding blizzard on trackless sea ice since they left Nome!
It was Togo who was the real hero among heroes of the “Great Serum Run of 1925” yet almost nobody outside Alaska has ever heard of him. Now you have. He was a great lead dog for 16 years and, like all great leaders, what made him happiest was to get up each morning and lead his team again. We should be so lucky. In the pantheon of American heroes, Togo surely belongs and, even though the Iditarod Dog Sled Race allows us to remember him each year, history is still a cruel taskmaster.
This example provides us a cautionary tale (pun intended). It reminds us that the press gets the first draft of history and if the press is not up to the task or lacks the standards of curiosity, objectivity and accuracy, the truth suffers. When truth suffers in the press, distant history becomes distorted and when the peoples’ history becomes distorted, the society begins to fracture under the weight of dissonance and hypocrisy. We will see many examples in this treatise.
In this survey we meet, not grand conspirators with a grand plan, but an extraordinary and accidental confluence of a diverse yet strangely similar people, determined to deconstruct, in every sense of that word, American history – at its very zenith – when it was capable of leading the world into a second “Golden Age” – and to rebuild it to suit their micro-megalomaniacal sense of importance in order to satisfy their singular quests for relevance in a revolutionary post-war world that had passed them by.
Revolutionary is not an inadvertent adjective in this instance. It is used to evoke an appreciation of the spirit of the nation at its creation in 1789, when, in the immortal words of Baseball Hall of Famer Vin Scully; “… in the season where we have seen the improbable, the impossible has just happened” – that all things were considered possible, and the spirit of our nation in 1945 – when, again, all things were considered possible because we had again, accomplished the improbable.
These people incrementally, subversively, insidiously, nefariously and reprehensively, work individually and collectively to undermine and fundamentally change the very children we were raising and the structure of many vital and venerable American institutions from birth – if you made it that far – to end-of-life care and everything in between – the very institutions that enabled America to literally save the world from another Dark Age – so that the Constitutional Republic created and bequeathed to us by the founders – would now be unrecognizable.
I guarantee that you will not know most of what you will read here. Why not? Because elements within our society don’t want you to know what you need to know. Why? Because their victory depends upon your ignorance. Their success is reflected in the truth of the paragraph above. The information is readily accessible. All of the research and writing has been done. It’s just that nobody has read it because they have never been given the opportunity – in school, in the news, in literature or in entertainment. These elements prefer that their ideal of an “equal opportunity for equal outcomes” does not extend to the truth.
What is needed is a clear and cogent presentation of the evidence. Like an intelligence agency strives to connect-the-dots from varied sources to complete a picture of the enemy’s disposition, its intents, strengths and weaknesses, we must analyze the evidence of a domestic enemy called “organized ignorance” to determine how to defeat it and preserve the Constitution and our republic.
In order to accomplish these goals, beginning in the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and perfected to an art form in the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, these poseurs – persons who copy the attitude, speech, and/or mannerisms of a group or subculture, generally for attaining acceptability within the group or for popularity among various other groups – in this case political operatives, press, academics, judges, entertainers seeking status among social elites in order to be politically relevant -have wormed their way into positions of influence, by happenstance, accident and opportunism, to affect an uncoordinated, though sustained and comprehensive effort resulting in a compromised political system, judicial system, educational system, free and responsible press, entertainment industry and academia.
The ultimate result has been the “dumbing down” of America through selective and biased academic histories created by elite academics; overseen by the thoroughly compromised National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers; activist judges who hide behind the skirts of Lady Justice; of deceptive reporting (or non-reporting) of current events by self-appointed guardians of the elitist agenda; film and television fare marketed as true but based upon demonstrably false premises; and the virtual exclusion of non-elitist academics and intellectuals (call them conservatives) from college campuses across the country – resulting in a thoroughly compromised peer-review system and a collapse of academic standards.
Controlling the dissemination of factual truth and the ability of the People to obtain it, process it and use it – specifically at the ballot box – where all political power in a democracy ultimately resides – eventually leads to the collapse of the system itself because then, the most consummate liar wins. We are close to that point – if we have not already reached it.
Remember the “Obamaphone”? That’s not even the worst of it. Have you ever seen the “man-on-the-street” interviews on the late-night talk shows and on FoxNews? The lack of knowledge about history and current events is beyond appalling, yet the talk-shows portray it as comedy. It is tragedy in that it demonstrates the almost complete ignorance of the real world and the impossibility of these people ever casting an informed vote. Getting almost all of their information from social media, they are most knowledgeable about popular music, pop culture and marijuana – not exactly useful when it comes to civic responsibility. Just Google “Eyewitless News” and “Watters’ World”.
This prolonged ad hoc (for a particular purpose) campaign, propagandizing adherents from each succeeding generation (mostly from the nation’s elite universities where legacy admissions, rather than passionate curiosity, are a dubious tradition), has constituted an attack on the Constitution and the governing system it created – where power flows from the Creator to the People and then, selectively, to the various governments. This system depends upon the informed votes of its citizens – not the ignorant votes of a citizenry cynically manipulated through targeting of the most innocent among us, and disinformation campaigns to sustain the resulting ignorance – all perpetrated by the nation’s leading institutions of information – all for the benefit of self-appointed elites.
So, who is leading this attack on the perceived power structure dominated by old, European, white, male, Christian, heterosexual Americans. It is largely the old, rich, white, male, not especially Christian, not entirely straight, European-American progressive/liberal/Democrats who have presided over the politically correct indoctrination in the liberal arts institutions for the nation’s elite and the children of today’s politically favored groups (read mostly Northeastern, uber-expensive) – where academic masters are the gatekeepers to success in modern America.
Also involved: African-American professional race-baiters, extortionists and organizations which demand reparations for slavery; non-Cuban Hispanic groups, like La Raza, who claim the American Southwest for Mexico as Aztlán and feminist women’s groups who work tirelessly for abortion and “gay-marriage” while 75% of black babies and 35% of the rest of American babies are born into dysfunctional families.
Oh, do you think I exaggerate – that no group of randomly inspired, “informal” confederates of common cause, most of whom are Americans themselves, could possibly infiltrate into American society, unseen, intimidated by or ignored by the nation’s alleged watchdogs in the press/media, and carry out continual, isolated and nefarious plans over decades, whose combined effect is to undermine America’s social fabric with the intent to inflict such damage on the People that they become unable to function as the bastion of strength of Western Civilization and become ripe for an authoritarian takeover?
Oh, wait. That’s already happening – in Maryland, Massachusetts, Ft. Hood, TX, Tennessee, Oregon, San Bernardino, CA, Boston, Orlando and in virtually half of the United States over the past 13 years by a totally separate group of conspirators – Radical Islamic terrorists. See how easy it is!
Fortunately, this survey progresses from distant history to the present day, where we have a profound idea of time, place and people – where hidden motives and goals are discoverable – not new motives and aims but familiar, age-old ones that have followed us through the centuries – wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice and politics without principle. Sound familiar? These are, of course, Mahatma Gandhi’s “Seven Blunders of the World” that lead to chaos. Our purpose will then become – what can and should we do about it? So, let’s begin to answer that question by looking at my history.
My “Auntie Ayn” met my mother while doing early research for her most famous novel. My mother was a descendent of one of the first railroad magnates in America and the two of them hit it off immediately and became lifelong friends. My father grew up in Menlo Park, New Jersey, across the street from Thomas Edison’s famous lab. He even wintered in Florida with the great man and his band of “Vagabonds”. Eventually, he worked on Edison’s electric-train project at his Menlo Park facility. It was while he was working on this project that he met my mother.
I was born just after “the war” near New York City where my parents had settled when their wartime commitments had ended. Before that, just as recounted in the novel, they had lived for a time in an “invisible” city tucked away in a hidden valley, although this one was in Tennessee and it’s still there and I visit occasionally. You can too. Just as also recounted in the novel, they built unimaginable machines there.
Many times growing up we had a house full of people from that earlier era like Teller and Oppenheimer, Einstein, Kaiser, Eisenhower and Stevenson, Marshall, Baruch, Knudsen, Hemingway and others who would regale us with stories of the brilliant and famous people that they had met and worked with in the first half of the century – people like Morgan, Rockefeller, Firestone, both Carnegies, Ford, Vanderbilt, Frick, Mellon, Bell, Edison, Clemmons and Vail – before they all got together to “save the world”. By war’s end, of course, they had built the “arsenal of democracy” that changed the world forever. I developed my world view at their feet.
In the early ‘50s, as in the ‘30s, they were again being relegated to the back of the bus (a good analogy for the times) and the discussions often turned to their thoughts about who we “the People” were, how had we gotten to this point and what America was becoming with the Cold War beginning, with Korea, Senator Joe McCarthy, the Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, Henry Wallace, the Iron Curtain, the HUAC, women clamoring for a larger presence outside the home, the new middle class, the explosion of technology, etc.
When my mother and I went to see the Broadway musical “Annie” in the late 1970s, I can still remember her laughing out loud when President Roosevelt asked “Daddy Warbucks” to get his industrialist friends behind the recovery effort in the Great Depression. “It wasn’t Daddy Warbucks that Roosevelt called, it was Baruch and he called your father”, I remember her saying.
If my father did that, I am confident we can “save the world” again. We have won a revolution (1776-81), survived a rebellion (1861-65), overcome a reformation (1933-40) and it is now time to begin the restoration of our basic principles beginning with the truth.
Lincoln famously said of the Union in 1858 that “A house divided against itself cannot stand”. It took great armies, determined leaders and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in our bloodiest war to put our house back together under the Constitution. We are again divided, now philosophically rather than geographically, but the solution to the problem we face can and must still be found again in the Constitutional understanding of the Founders.
In fact, our third civil war is already in motion. I can hear the pipes faintly through the mist. The whispers are beginning up and down the line. The progressive/liberal/Democrat intelligentsia is already belittling their “enemy” with the predictable propaganda of “personal destruction” – particularly people of faith, especially Christians; believers in the inviobility of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights and those who are beginning to rally the People to the cause.
The coming battle can result in one of only two outcomes – a civilized resetting of the immutable principles of our constitutional republic or another kind of civil war, as tens of millions of Americans take back their country in a remarkably Constitutional manner – where those who believe passionately in principle overcome those who believe only in the wonder of the Wizard. Passion v. hot air – I’ll take my chances. (With apologies to L. Frank Baum). This entire survey will reflect the malignancy of this effort in the public square and the fatal prognosis that it requires unless it is excised from the body politic by a painful and difficult course of treatment.
The America that believes in the absolute centrality, uncertainty and inviolability of human life and liberty will never surrender their inalienable rights and immutable principles. The spirit of Patrick Henry is in the bones of America. “Give me liberty…” is not just a quote – it is at the core of what America is about. Victory will go to the passionate and so I have chosen to take up the call my “Auntie Ayn” sounded all those years ago and fight passionately for the country that I love.
Many Americans lament that they are merely the “little people”. Folks, we are “The People”. All worldly power resides in us. Stand up. Be counted. Don’t try and shout down or vote out the scalawags – throw them out. So, answering the call of legendary songwriter Kris Kristofferson, from his song Living Legend; “Tell the truth, my friend. Don’t it matter anymore?”, it is time, at the risk of being labeled sexist, to “man up” for the fight of our lives against an entrenched internal enemy. Are you ready to do your part to ensure the survival, success and supremacy of Ronald Reagan’s “shining city” on the hill?
With this as prologue, I begin my study of We, the People and how we arrived at this sorry point in our great history – a point that fully three out of four adult Americans believe we have indeed reached – an astounding percentage! But first, an explanation of the subtitle.
*Deconstruction is a favorite weapon of the progressive/liberal segment of American political society and has been used to justify the use of selective, random definitions for words used in (ultimately) political discourse. Is this cause for alarm? You bet it is!
Want proof? A classic example is the testimony, under oath, of Democrat President Bill Clinton during the inquiry into his sexual relationship with the White House intern Monica Lewinsky in the mid-1990s. In response to one question, Mr. Clinton said his answer would “depend upon what the definition of ‘is’ is.”
Prominent deconstructionist Niall Lucy points to the impossibility of defining the term at all (!!!???), stating:
“While in a sense it ‘is’ impossibly difficult to define, the impossibility has less to do with the adoption of a position or the assertion of a choice on deconstruction’s part than with the impossibility of every ‘is’ as such. Deconstruction begins, as it were, from a refusal of the authority or determining power of every ‘is’, or simply from a refusal of authority in general. While such refusal may indeed count as a position, it is not the case that deconstruction holds this as a sort of ‘preference'”. [Try saying that three times!]
Another classic example is the term “pro-choice” in the debate about abortion in America. Pro-choice advocates are exclusively pro-abortion advocates, violently oppose counseling centers for expectant mothers in any proximity to their abortion centers and will go to extraordinary lengths to protect the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood for example. Planned Parenthood’s primary function is providing abortions and selling human baby body parts to the highest bidder.
Fortunately, the Founders – the drafters of our Constitution – and the Ratifiers – did something never before done. They wrote a constitution. The English constitution was not a written document. What passed for their constitution was the body of Common Law, customs and traditions that had been developing since the time of the Magna Carta, signed by King John of England in 1215. The Americans had paid a high price for believing in that constitution. They would fix the problem.
What was singularly and uniquely important to both the Founders who, over the course of the summer months of 1787 in the stifling heat of Philadelphia, drafted the Constitution and the citizens who, after intense and raucous debate throughout the colonies, ratified it was that the words in it, describing in precise terms the federal government’s duties and responsibilities and the relationship between the federal and State governments and, most importantly, what was prohibited to the federal government. The fundamental and immutable characteristic of the entire document is not merely the perennially hotly debated topic of “original intent” – it was the precise definition, accepted meaning, general understanding, author’s intention and government implementation during the lifetimes of the founding generations – of the words that were drafted.
Subjecting the People’s words – their drafted definitions, meanings, understandings, intentions and implementations – to a process that allows simply for random meaning – without the historical context that extended for decades after the document was written – destroys the document and with it – America, as we know it.
So, “*Deconstruction (French: déconstruction) is a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary texts based on French philosopher Jacques Derrida’s 1967 work Of Grammatology. In the 1980s it was thrust upon a range of theoretical enterprises in the humanities and social sciences, including law, anthropology, historiography, linguistics, socio-linguistics, psychoanalysis, political theory, feminism, and gay and lesbian studies – not so coincidently, all of the popular topics of today’s progressive/ liberal social engineers.
“Deconstruction has had a major influence in academia, particularly in debates around epistemology (what distinguishes justified belief from opinion), ethics and the philosophy of language, among others.
Derrida started by stating that “from the moment that there is meaning there are nothing but signs. We think only in signs.” Also, following Ferdinand de Saussure, he considered language as a system of signs where words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words.
The contention is that “words have meaning only because of contrast-effects with other words…no word can acquire meaning in the way in which philosophers from Aristotle to Bertrand Russell argued – by being the unmediated expression of something non-linguistic (e.g., an emotion, a sense-datum, a physical object, an idea, a Platonic Form)”.
If this is so, Derrida contends, it means that any given concept is constituted in terms of its reciprocal de-limitation, e.g. being/nothing, one/multiple, true/false, fair/unfair, beauty/ugly, essence/existence, receptivity/spontaneity, autonomous/ heteronomous, transcendental/empirical, transcendent/imminent, mind/body, normal/abnormal, sovereign/beast, speech/writing, nature/culture, bachelor/married, man/woman, etc. [Make sense???]
Derrida argues that to be effective, deconstruction needs to create new terms, not to synthesize the concepts in opposition, but to mark their difference and eternal interplay. Deconstruction denotes the pursuing of the meaning of a text to the point of exposing the supposed contradictions and internal oppositions upon which it is founded – supposedly showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible. [Sam Adams would have loved this!]
Deconstruction generally tries to demonstrate that any text is not a discrete whole but contains several irreconcilable and contradictory meanings; that any text therefore has more than one interpretation; that the text itself links these interpretations inextricably; that the incompatibility of these interpretations is irreducible; and thus that an interpretative reading cannot go beyond a certain point. He insists that meaning is made possible by the relations of a word to other words within the network of structures that language is.
Between the late 1960s and the early 1980s many “thinkers” were influenced by deconstruction, including Paul de Man, Geoffrey Hartman, and J. Hillis Miller. This group came to be known as the Yale school and was especially influential in literary criticism. Several of these theorists were subsequently affiliated with the University of California Irvine. Miller has described deconstruction this way: “Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself.” [Its apparently solid ground is no rock, but thin air.]
Simply put, to deconstructionists, words have no set meaning – they can mean virtually anything one wants them to mean. Try running a railroad using this idea.
So, the intelligentsia who feed the Progressive/Liberal/Democrat Cabal, the PLDC, have come upon a method with which to contend that the words of the Constitution do not mean anything, or mean anything they might want them to mean and it is happening every day in ways that affect every American. It feeds the PLDC’s compulsion to deceive and deflect the People from the truth and their utter contempt for the Constitution – all in the pursuit of power and its accoutrements – at best.
To the Founders, truth was intrinsic (essential). It was the very foundation of the common law they grew up with. It became central in the writing of the Constitution.
Take, for example, the contention that abortion is not killing, it is “choice” – the deconstructed form of “abortion”; “no” doesn’t mean no in the 1st and 2nd Amendments – it means “maybe” – a deconstructed form of “no”; the President doesn’t have to see that “all” the laws are faithfully executed – it means “some” – a deconstructed from of “all”; eminent domain (the public taking of private property for public use) allows a public taking to be delivered to a private entity, a deconstructed violation of the 4th Amendment and the Supreme Court stating that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is a deconstructed “State”, just like New Jersey is a State; and so on.
One other issue which has fallen prey to deconstruction, which I will discuss later, is “diversity”. For the progressive liberals, “diversity” is the deconstructed form of “racial quotas”. No matter how it is described in the public square, it is the demand for all institutions to reflect the racial composition of the general population – that is, unless that institution already favors racial minorities – like college and professional athletics.
Unfortunately, diversity stops there. For instance, there is absolutely no desire for intellectual diversity on college campuses or in the press rooms of America’s newspapers or network news divisions. There, only progressive/liberal orthodoxy is allowed.
Anything and everything else is “unfair” – another deconstructed form, this one of the word “racist”. The fallacy of this view is that it is the pipeline of candidates for positions at these institutions that is the critical factor. If the pipeline doesn’t reflect the general population, then the pool of best candidates will not reflect it either.