NFL Kneel Protest Reasoning is Marxist and Destructive

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

A list of responses by NFL players has been circulating the email grapevine, and while I cannot confirm these are actual answers given by NFL players regarding why they are protesting by kneeling during the National Anthem, they seem like the likely answers that would be given.  That said, there are problems with each of the answers.

Let's discuss.

● "Pretty sure it's against Nazis - especially the white ones."

• The ridiculous idea that Trump or his supporters are "Nazis" is so incredible, it is hard to believe people actually believe that hogwash.  A Nazi, according to the American College Encyclopedic Dictionary published in 1959 (can't trust the dictionaries printed over the last decade, because many of the terms have been altered to fit political narratives), is as follows: 1. A member of the National Socialist German Workers party of Germany, which in 1933, under Adolf Hitler, obtained political control of the country, suppressing all opposition and establishing a dictatorship on the principles of one-party control over all cultural, economic, and political activities of the people, belief in the supremacy of Hitler as Fuhrer, anti-semitism, and the establishment of Germany by superior force as a dominant world power.  2.  One who holds similar views elsewhere.

The problem with the argument about Trumpster Nazis is that Trump and his supporters are calling for less federal control over the masses, not more control through socialism (like Democrats are calling for).  As for suppression of opposition and a push for one-party control over cultural, economic and political activities of the people, it has been the supporters of the Democratic Party (like Black Lives Matter, La Raza, and Antifa) who have been acting out violently, stopping any opposition from speaking at places like UC Berkeley, and have been doing things like forcing religious freedom into silence (Just the other day a court in Minnesota by judicial fiat is forcing a Christian couple to film a gay wedding or be fined or jailed for refusing to do so.  Could you imagine if a gay photographer or videographer who didn't want to film a Christian wedding was forced to do so by the courts?  In short, it's liberalism that is working to suppress its opposition, in this latest instance by way of the judiciary).  In California, through government force, the Democrats want to be able to jail people for using the wrong pronoun (he, she, or whatever else someone wants to be called)

Let's dig a little deeper, however, for the truth about if the NFL players are truly in danger because of the rise of oppressive white Nazis as a result of the election of Donald Trump.

Nazism is a form of fascism.  While this player's alleged quoate did not mention fascism, antifa and all kinds of celebrities (and left-wing political and media voices), have been calling Trump and his supporters fascists.

According to the same Encyclopedic Dictionary from 1959 I referred to regarding "Nazi," Fascism is defined as: 1. A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.), emphasizing an aggressive nationalism, and (often) anticommunist.  Fascism was established in Italy by Mussolini in 1922, whence its influence spread to Germany and elsewhere; it was dissolved in Italy in 1943.  2. The philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.

The Thorndike-Barnhart Comprehensive Desk Dictionary of 1951 explains a little better in its second definition of fascism: 2. Any system of government in which property is privately owned, but all industry and business is regulated by a strong national government.

According to the Democratic Party's own platform, they believe in controlling society and the culture by heavy federal regulations (and increasing regulations more so) regarding the wages of workers, the profits of private corporations, housing and home ownership, our retirement funds, manufacturing, energy, science, research, education, technology, small businesses, Wall Street and the financial system, higher taxation against those who have become wealthy as a result of success in industry and business, dictating through regulations the culture (regarding women, homsexuals and transgenders) by forcing society to comply with their ideas on how those issues should be treated, environmental issues, water, education at all levels, healthcare, prescription drugs, medical research, drugs, alcohol, mental health issues, end of life care, public health, guns, religion, and labor.  Meanwhile, the Republican Party platform and actions by the GOP has been all about reducing, rolling back, and eliminating intrusive government regulations against industry and business. 

Remember, fascism is all about an increase in regulations against industry and business.  So, based on that, don't the Democrats, and their leftist allies, have more in common with fascism than President Donald Trump and the Republican Party?

● "We're protesting America becoming capitalistic instead of equal."

• Equality in the manner that the NFL players making the above statement, as opposed to capitalism, is a Marxist construct.  When the Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, the phrase means equality in the eyes of God, not in the eyes of men.  So, we must ask ourselves a question.  Do we seek equality based on man’s definition, or God’s.

Instead of equality, the statement is actually about equity.  We have been convinced that if there is not an equality in results, we are somehow racist or bigoted.  Should equality apply at the start of the race, or at the end?  Should an A student give up part of the grade he or she worked hard for so that an F student can enjoy equality in the classroom at the end of the semester?  A society cannot practice liberty and man’s definition of equality simultaneously.  Equality seeks communitarianism.  Collectivism demands equality, and calls it civil rights.

The drive for equality should not be about forcing the culture to be color-blind, but to remove government from the culture so that we may strive to be self-reliant, personally responsible, and successful without governmental regulations forcing upon the citizenry their idea of collectivism, and without allowing the politicians to use social engineering through laws that promote preferential treatment, quotas, or limit our opportunities to reach for the incentives offered by a free market economy, regardless of who we are.
In other words, the greatest threat to our liberty is a government that believes it is its job to guarantee equality so that it can force society to treat us "equally."

The political opponents of the U.S. Constitution use terms like "fairness" and "justice" to promote their call for a collective, homogeneous society.  They reference the Declaration of Independence's language calling for the idea that "all men are created equal" without understanding what the phrase truly means.  On the surface the call for "fairness" and "equality" sounds wonderful, but the reality is that these concepts actually propose a society that is the opposite of what our American system of government was designed to promote. 

Biblical concepts of individualism and free-will are intertwined with the principles of liberty we find in the founding documents of the United States.  Our natural rights are God-given, and the concept of having an individual right to own property so that we may be fruitful as a result of our labors is biblical.  A free society requires that we have private ownership, and that our possessions are to be obtained as a result of our individual labors.  The Bible states, "Thou shalt not covet" and "Thou shalt not steal," confirming the concept of ownership.  Ownership requires individual assertiveness and innovation to be able to obtain the property.  A society that refuses to adhere to the commandments of Heaven, which includes liberty and the pursuit of happiness, becomes chaos. A society that eliminates the right of private property ownership becomes a tyranny. 

When governments call for "fairness" they are calling for equity.  God, however, made each of us different from each other.  We are not the same, nor were we ever intended to be so.  The reality is that in a free "capitalistic" system where our own individual skills and drive fuel our journey towards success or failure, there will be winners and losers.  There will be those who become wealthy, and those who don't.  For those who lose, however, in a truly free society those people will still have the equal opportunity to try again, without government interference, without government control, without government regulation. 

As the old saying goes, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."  It is not supposed to be, "If at first you don't succeed, head for the welfare line, or demand that government make everyone collectively equal by government mandate." 

In a communist system the concept of equality is front and center.  On the surface they proclaim it to mean that all men should be an equal king, but the reality is it means that all men should equally be peasants and slaves, save for a few who are politically powerful and wealthy and must rule with an iron fist so as to stamp out any momentary emergence of individuality, or independent thoughts of having hopes and dreams.
The goal of those calling for equality as defined by man is to make irrelevant all remnants of individuality, be it the individual sovereignty of the States, to the ability of the individual to influence their system through a representative government.  If the individual can be convinced that their individuality is a danger to their own happiness, they will be willing to relinquish their individualism, and hand over the keys to their pursuit of happiness to the government where a life of mediocrity is preferred. After all, being an individual can be a lot of hard work. As individuals, we work at a thankless job, pay payments on a massive mortgage, and balance the checkbook with not enough money in the coffers. These distractions, we are convinced by the statists, interferes with life.  The life of mediocrity is taught to be real freedom, when it is founded upon a desire for equity.  Democrats wish you to believe that anyone who desires more than a life of mediocrity orchestrated by a government that encourages dependency is greedy, and must be brought down to the level of everyone else. 

Freedom, after all, is considered to be selfish, according to the Marxists (communists, fascists, liberals and progressives).  Saul Alinsky, a Marxist radical, wrote, “The greatest enemy of individual freedom is the individual himself... People cannot be free unless they are willing to sacrifice some of their interests to guarantee the freedom of others. The price of democracy is the ongoing pursuit of the common good by all of the people.”
As Senator, Hillary Clinton said while talking to a group of wealthy Democrats, “Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you.  We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you.  We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” 

Another time during an economic policy speech in May of 2007 Hillary Clinton said, “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few.  Time to reject the idea of an 'on your own' society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.  I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society.” 

On July 13, 1813, John Adams wrote, "Inequalities of mind and body are so established by God Almighty in his constitution of human nature that no art or policy can ever plane them down to a level.  I have never read reasoning more absurd, sophistry more gross, in proof of the Athana­sian creed, or transubstantiation, than the subtle labors of Helvetius and Rousseau to demonstrate the nat­ural equality of mankind.  Jus cuique, the golden rule, do as you would be done by, is all the equality that can be supported or defended by reason or common sense." 

Helvetius and Rousseau were utopianists who were important cogs in the launch of the brutal and godless French Revolution that sought a "we're all in it together" kind of society that Mrs. Clinton called for, but instead wound up with a bloody totalitarian system that still haunts France to this day. 

On April 15, 1814, John Adams wrote to John Taylor of Virginia, "Inequalities are a part of the natural history of man. I believe that none but Helvetius will affirm, that all children are born with equal genius." 

We are all born equal in the eyes of God, therefore we are equal in our possession of Natural Rights.  We all have an equal right to pursue happiness, and to follow a moral path.  We, however, do not have equal powers and faculties.  We do not have an equal influence on society.  As a result of our labors we do not end up with an equal ownership of property and possessions.  If we were equal in each of those things, we would not have liberty, because government would be in place to make sure each of those things are equal. 

While the French decided to try and fashion their own revolution after the American Revolution, their cry for liberty failed because it refused to integrate important ingredients that were a part of the American Revolution.  France rejected God, and inserted the theory of man's definition of equality.  France, as a result, quenched liberty in blood. 

The American Revolution was kept under control by documents limiting the power of government, and because the Americans fought their revolution "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence."  The concept of liberty and a limited government through godly principles were followed by all of the new thirteen States. 

In France, the leadership subordinated the liberties of men to the power of a government, following a more democratic government immediately responsive to equalitarian mobs.
Equality leaves no choice, no uniqueness, and no incentive.  If all men are equal by nature, there can be no differences and no distinctions, and therefore, no liberty and no prosperity of any individual for any reason.   

Inequality creates freedom, the opportunity to pursue one's own religion, to learn according to one's own talents and capabilities, to work as hard as one desires and to seek the rewards that accompany those labors, to be virtuous or not, and to be as wealthy as one desires if their talents and hard work makes available such an opportunity. 

Equality of wealth makes all men poor.  Equality of religion destroys all religion.  Equality of labor and reward renders all incentives moot and unavailable.  Equality homogenizes so that there is no innovation or the opportunity to rise up in wealth.  Government imposed equality is full dependency upon government, which is bondage. . . which is slavery. 

Equality through government exists only in systems based on collectivism and despotism, both which are unconstitutional and contrary to the concept of liberty.  Equality in the eyes of God is hope, and the ability to seek one's own individuality in a system based on liberty.

So, shall we seek racial equality based on the definitions of men, or the definitions of God?

● "I'm protesting against Trump saying black lives don't matter."

• President Donald Trump never said "black lives don't matter."  He is surrounded by black pastors and personnel in his administration, and has always been a beacon of recognizing people by their talents and skills, rather than their color, ethnicity, or cultural heritage.  In 1986, Donald Trump, along with Muhammad Ali, and Rosa Parks, received the Ellis Island Medal of Honor for his work in inner-cities.  The problem is, when conservatives and Republicans say "all lives matter," black activists reject that as being racist.  In their minds, either black lives take precedence over all other lives, or you are a racist.  But, isn't demanding that one group's lives take precedence over other groups racist in its own right?

● "We're against global warming and the police."

• The discussion over man-made global warming has gone into a ridiculous spiral.  While there is no argument over whether or not the planet warms and cools over periods of time, the real question is whether or not human activity contributes greatly to the fluctuation of global temperatures.  Most scientists say that the concept of man-made climate change is untrue, unproven, and is motivated by a political agenda.

As for the second part of the statement, which should more specifically say "police brutality against blacks," like the concept of man-made global warming, according to the FBI, it's a myth.

In fact, statistics show that a black man is more likely to be struck by lightning, than be brutalized by a police officer or any color.

● "We're showing the world that we care about, ahh, things such as... such as...ahhhhh, freedom from suppression?"

• Freedom from suppression?  We just finished eight years of a black president, in the 2016 election one of the Republican candidates for President was a black neurosurgeon, and the football players kneeling are all very wealthy playing a kid's game with nobody and no thing getting in the way of their rise to stardom.  What suppression?  By the way, I think they meant oppression, but the answer is still the same.

● "Me and my fellow players are protesting the Constitution of Independence because of what it does to people of color."

• I think there is a confusion between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, but let's go with the Constitution.  I am sure that is what is meant here.

The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution eliminated slavery, calls for equal protection under the law, and for the ability to vote not to be hampered by race, color or previous condition of servitude.  The Constitution demands that the equal opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (from the Declaration of Independence) not be interfered with by government based on racist laws.  In the Twenty-Fourth Amendment the Constitution also outlaws "poll taxes," a tactic that was used by some districts to interfere with a black's ability to vote.  Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, written in 1787, led to the elimination of the Atlantic Slave Trade, and the 3/5s clause (also written in 1787) removed pro-slavery States' power to overwhelm the Congress with pro-slavery legislative domination - balancing out the Congress in the hopes of containing slavery, and eventually abolishing it.

In short, the idea that the Constitution is a racist or oppressive document is a false one. 

● "We are displaying our right to stand up by kneeling for our beliefs."

• If you are so oppressed, how is it you are able to display your right to protest in the manner that you are?  That said, while government cannot make laws limiting your right of political speech or assembly, if you work for a private company (such as the NFL) and your actions, while you are on the clock, cause a disruption in the services the company provides, or causes a loss of customers, the company has every right to tell you to either stand during the National Anthem, or you are fired.

While I am not expecting the NFL to go that far, if it did, I am sure the Canadian Football League would welcome you with open arms, and a smaller paycheck.

 ● "We are protesting Trump, because he, you know, keeping the black man down and sh*t."

• As stated a few sections earlier in this post, the "Trump is racist" card is a false one.  Nobody is keeping the black man down.  You football players, after all, are making a lot of money to play a kid's game.  Were you kept down?  In truth, what is keeping the black community down is the break up of the nuclear family, and dependency upon government benefit programs.  Therefore, since it is the Democrat Party that is behind the government dependency programs, it seems to me that the black community is angry with the wrong political party.

● "Myself is kneeling to show that just because I'm American don't mean I got to act like one."

• If you do not wish to be American, fine.  But, if the country is so lousy, there are plenty of other countries you can go live.  Go ahead and check out Venezuela, China, Russia or Cuba.  How about one of the Muslim countries?  Hell, even in Europe you would not be living as well as you do here in America playing football in the NFL.  By the way, as a military veteran who was willing to die for your right to act like a fool, I feel insulted by your indignation for my service.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary