Monday, December 12, 2016

Illusion by Design

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Politics can be a dirty game.  Utopia has been bought and sold in blue States, and some of them, like California, are in the process of turning a deeper blue.  Utopia is an accepted truth in academia, the media, and the entertainment industry.  Even the lies have become the truth, as far as they are concerned.  The reality is, however, that when it comes to the Democrat Party, or should I say leftism in general, it is all actually just an illusion.  The progressives hide the truth in plain sight, and then shrouds the truth in lies.  Then, the leftists fuel other lies so well that they are accepted as being the undisputed truth.  Truth has become lies and lies have become the truth.

In Sanford D. Horwitt's "Let Them Call Me Rebel," a biography about Saul Alinsky, Horwitt wrote, " the spring of 1972, at Tulane University...students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations - a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration's Vietnam War policies. The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush's address. That's the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative - and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school. He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.' And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results."

Today's liberal left progressive Democrats are students of Saul Alinsky.  Hillary Clinton wrote her senior thesis using Alinsky as a role model.  Obama, too, was an Alinsky acolyte.  Like Alinsky, Obama became a community organizer using the thuggish tactics of Chicago politics.

Alinsky was all about being creative, fighting outside the rules, and doing so in a deceptive manner.

The deception of the liberal left, however, existed long before Alinsky took a stab at it.

The word "liberal", in fact, isn't even a term that belongs to the Left.  Prior to the 1900s, the classical liberals were constitutionalists who believed in the principles and philosophies of limited government, State Sovereignty, a free and dynamic economic market, and individualism.  The progressives were doing so poorly, they needed to re-brand themselves, so, why not steal the term that described their successful, but opposing, counterparts?

The big government types during the years following the U.S. Constitution did the same.

Alexander Hamilton, a hero of the liberal left to the point that they made a Broadway play about him, was the hard left statist of his time period.  He was labeled a monarchist, a nationalist and a utopionist.  And when it came time for the creation of political parties, his political party called for circumventing the Constitution, and expanding the powers of the federal government.

The constitutionalists who believed in the new system of limited authorities were called "federalists."  It was a popular concept that enabled a central government to be created, but one so limited that the States would be able to maintain their autonomy.  So, being a leftist, Alexander quickly realized that deception was going to be necessary.  Nobody would vote for a party who was known to desire bigger government, and an ever expanding one, at that.  So, Hamilton stole the word that meant the opposite of what he desired in order to conceal the true motives of his new political party.  It became the Federalist Party.

The Federalists (the party, not the constitutionalists) only enjoyed one presidency; John Adams.  Once their big government plans surfaced, largely due to the efforts of Jefferson's allies to expose them, the party lost any power it held, and by the 1820s it had faded off into the annals of history.

Attacking the Constitution from a big government point of view had failed.  The liberal left needed a new tactic.  A new ruse.  A new illusion.

The utopianists first retreated to the stronghold of the judiciary, where, once embedded, it would be difficult to dislodge them.

Then, as was already an ongoing battle that had led Madison to define Republic and Democracy in his Federalist Essays five times, in an effort to lead the country towards democracy the statists aimed to convince the voting populace that there is no difference between a Republic and a Democracy.

In history, democracy is a transitional government, one that always alters a system of freedom to a system of rule by elites.  In less than a few years after the death of the Federalist Party they had the country's citizenry demanding democracy, and a new candidate who ran on pure democracy and "the will of the people" emerged.  His name was Andrew Jackson (who is also known as the father of the Democratic Party).

In 1828 he won the presidency, and in 1832 he won it again.  Pro-slavery.  Pro-slaughter of the Indian population if they stood in the way.  Pro-pure democracy.  The perfect tool for the progression towards a system populated by ruling elites - an establishment of professional politicians.

While Abraham Lincoln was a member of the Republican Party, a party created out of the Whigs as the "anti-slavery" party, Lincoln himself was a bit of a progressive.  While I believe he was a good man in a very unenviable position, he used the dying breaths of slavery, as did his successors, to strengthen the power of the federal government.  It was because of Lincoln, and many of those early Republicans, that the United States saw the death of true State Sovereignty, and became the United States "is", rather than the United States "are", as they had been prior to the rise of the new, all-powerful, federal government.

With a solid precedent for executive power established, the Progressive Era quickly followed, an era largely influenced by the Fabian socialists in Europe.  The progressives did their damage, rampaging through the Constitution and reassigning the rule of law from the Constitution to the courts.  They used amendments to weaken the republic, and neutralize the power of the States.  From their lofty positions in the court system, they solidified their internal coup by using judicial opinion to justify and validate the seizure of federal power.  But, they masked the revolution with democracy, convincing the voters that it was all done in the name of "We the People," and the will of the people.

The communists, then, began to infiltrate, and they, too, understood that creeping incrementalism under the shadow of secrecy and deception was the rule of the day.  Like the utopianists and progressives before them, they injected socialism incrementally, in small doses, so that the public would not realize what was going on, and put a stop to it.

The State's voice was lost in the Senate, and the 14th Amendment was continuously used by the federal government as an excuse to dictate to the States its every centralized whim and desire.  If States refused to comply, extortion through unconstitutionally offered highway funds, and other federal funding, was used.  It was all legal and constitutional, the statists told us.  The courts said so.

Utopianist, collectivist, nationalist, statist, monarchist, socialist, communist, progressive, and now "liberal" - they really all mean the same thing.  They are different shades of the same monster.  Big government.  The question is, will we break the illusion, or fall further under its spell for centuries to come?

Alexander Tytler wrote that free systems last about 200 to 250 years.  We are at year 240.  We are an exceptional country, meaning we are the exception to the usual rule of authoritarianism that has plagued Europe, and most of the world, for the bulk of world history; and if we work to regain our Constitutional Republic, I suspect we can be an exception to Tytler's Cycle, and last another century, or so, with liberty. . . that is if we return to the original principles and philosophies of the United States Constitution, and if we teach the next generation to maintain our system of liberty.

We fight the impossible war that we can never win, but we must never lose.  Eternal vigilance.  Like the current of a river under a boat, the minions of leftism never cease their perpetual agenda towards the destruction of liberty.  The roar of the waterfall is in the distance.  The sign signifying the point of no return is within arm's length.  Do we have enough strength to begin rowing against the current?  And, do we have enough sense to teach the next generation how to row, as well?

To not save the republic is to lose liberty for a generation or two. . . or longer.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: