____________________________________________________________
Let's
first review some important historical facts.
Theodore
Roosevelt, one our most popular and articulate Presidents, said at the very
beginning of the twentieth Century that our destiny as a nation was being
threatened. He excoriated some American intellectuals who were espousing what
they called "a new morality." Emphatically and without equivocation
he stated, "There are those who believe that a new modernity demands a new
morality. What they fail to consider is the harsh reality that there is no such
thing as a new morality. There is only one morality."
He
went on to state "There is only true Christian ethics over against which
stands the whole of paganism. If we are to fulfill our great destiny as a
people, then we must return to the old morality, the sole morality.”
Roosevelt
saw the beginnings of the moral and intellectual slippage and it bothered him
greatly. He saw some college academicians advocating a “new morality” embodying
atheism, evolution, and socialist materialism. Our twenty sixth president then
emphatically said, “All those blatant sham reformers, in the name of new
morality, preach the old, old vice and self indulgence which rotted out first,
the moral fiber and then even the external greatness of Greece and Rome.”
Tough
stuff, hardly what today's political liberal sophists would publicly say much
less believe. Not many paid attention to Roosevelt's prophetic warnings. The
ethics of these “new moralists” flowed primarily from the theories of two atheistic
authors; the now 150 year old, 1859 "scientific" evolutionary
theories of Charles Darwin; detailed in his book “Origin of Species,” and, the
1848 socialist "scientific" concepts in Karl Marx’s Das Kapital, and Communist Manifesto. Darwin and Karl's theories became quickly
the 'new thing" for a number of American academics who, not only accepted
as truth, but, quickly began to advocate as scientific fact to their students.
Over
the last 150 years, both Marx and Darwin have been thoroughly discredited and
debunked by modern science, logic and time. However, both fallacies were taking
hold at the turn of the 1900's. These “new moralists" were becoming
increasingly vocal on our college campuses and in the national labor union
movement. It didn't take long before they were demanding their “new
scientific" ideas should become implemented politically. They began their
maiden political voyage by attempting to elect their candidates under the
socialist banner. They were unsuccessful and their numbers and influence
remained small.
They,
at first, had made the mistake of trying to explain how their atheistic,
materialistic, and collectivist political schemes worked --- concepts such as
governmental ownership of all businesses and property. These were wild ideas at
the time --- diametrically opposite to the way Americans thought and therefore,
were not only rejected, but scoffed at. The vast majority of our citizens were
happy with personal liberty, ownership of private property, constitutional
government, free enterprise and politics implemented through the established
two party system.
Up to the beginning of the twentieth Century, the nation's ethics were decidedly Christian based --- 90% of the citizenry proudly called themselves Christians and approved of it being discussed in our public schools. Students were instructed on why and how the Constitution was written and who were the Godly men who did so. Students were instructed to memorized passages from their fore-fathers speeches and recite them before the class. Christmas carols were learned and joyfully sung in our public schools. Bible verses were memorized and recited in class. Even the United States Supreme Court, after years of voluminous study, declared in 1898 that America was decidedly a Christian nation.
Up to the beginning of the twentieth Century, the nation's ethics were decidedly Christian based --- 90% of the citizenry proudly called themselves Christians and approved of it being discussed in our public schools. Students were instructed on why and how the Constitution was written and who were the Godly men who did so. Students were instructed to memorized passages from their fore-fathers speeches and recite them before the class. Christmas carols were learned and joyfully sung in our public schools. Bible verses were memorized and recited in class. Even the United States Supreme Court, after years of voluminous study, declared in 1898 that America was decidedly a Christian nation.
Patrick
Henry emphatically stated, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that
this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on
religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of
other faiths have been offered asylum, prosperity, and freedom to worship
here.”
Americans became very comfortable with our good life, our two party system --- only a few ever thought about wanting to change it. "Why would anyone want anything else?" --- was the national attitude.
Americans became very comfortable with our good life, our two party system --- only a few ever thought about wanting to change it. "Why would anyone want anything else?" --- was the national attitude.
In
Europe however, the socialists were making some headway in the labor union
movement, promoting their Marxist, anti capitalist, hate the rich, divide the
wealth, propaganda. The English Fabian socialist movement grew and captured the
interest of some of the British intellectuals, such as Bertrand Russell and
George Bernard Shaw.
At
the turn of the twentieth century, a well organized radical by the name of
Lenin, put wheels under the international world socialist movement. He directed
a tiny minority of well organized communists in subverting and overthrowing the
Russia's Czarist government. He set up what was soon to become a socialist
dictatorship of the proletariat. In so doing, Lenin developed a financial base
and an international platform for the promotion of world socialism through
agitation, subversion, and propaganda. Lenin believed that if subversion worked
in capturing Russia, why not anywhere else? After the First World War, the
leftist movement wanted to become more politically active in the United States.
Lenin was an excellent organizer, and he and other socialist leaders such as
Norman Thomas, realized that it was an impossible task to sell their bad
tasting political medicine to the vast majority of Americans. Lenin wrote extensively
on how not to sell socialism, calling left-wingers who tried to explain
socialism an "infantile disorder." In essence, he told the faithful,
don't try to sell the details of how the socialist system works, if you do,
you'll scare people away. They will quickly see how all power is centralized in
the hands of a centralized government and in the hands of a powerful few. Just
tell the masses that socialism is wonderful and that it promises equality for
all. Safe your breath trying to explain how socialism works, make headway
condemning the inequities of capitalism.
Norman
Thomas, an early leader in the American socialist movement, promoted the
concept that Americans would "never knowingly adopt socialism but, under
the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program
until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it
happened." The socialist movement decided there were three areas of
extreme importance for them to penetrate and influence. Since human beings are
nothing more than graduate animals, all humans were just another accident of
nature. What they hear and read control all their actions so --- control the
avenues of mass communications and you can program the beasts to react like
Pavlov's dogs. That meant that the media, education and politics became their
prime areas of conquest.
The
left then wisely abandoned attempts to sell their socialist programs as a third
political party--- deciding that there was more fertile ground within the two
party system running as “liberals” and “progressives.” They soon found it
wasn't very difficult to do so --- as long as they kept their mouths shut on
the glories of socialism. At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the
Democrat’s had a weak national political party, eager for any new members. The
left seized the opportunity, registered as Democrats, called themselves
"progressives" and went to work within the Democrat party.
They
were well aware that both parties are open to any one who wants to join, with
no ideological strings attached --- no platform one must adhere to, no specific
issues one must accept to be a member. All one had to do was register to vote,
be of age, no felonious record and, if caring to run for office, have enough
money to file for candidacy. There is no political litmus test in either party
in order to be a member or a candidate. Socialists found it easy to register,
and run for office as a Democrat; just sublimate their ideology and then
campaign around any popular issue in order to get elected. Say what ever works
in order to win the office, then legislate as they jolly well please once
elected. The end justifies the means was their motto and moral guide, do
whatever it takes to win --- lying was never a problem unless caught.
