Tuesday, May 29, 2012

The Biggest Mistakes in History Part 4

The next big mistake of the administration is one they inherited from the progressive movement.  It is also a mistake made by the entire country over many decades.  This is the mistake of being non-ideological.

In my previous post, I hinted at this mistake when I wrote:

“Bailouts are an ideologically-based idea that has been stripped of its ideological context by intellectuals in order to mainstream the idea that bailouts are merely rational thought.  This intellectual mind trick has a sinister influence on a society of people who do not realize that bailouts are essentially fascist/socialist in nature.  They are a piece of the puzzle that represents an effort to fool people into accepting dictatorship.  If you accept bailouts, you can accept more bailouts.  And you must also accept the way things are done by government.  You must accept political bribes, graft and unconstitutional acts.   You must accept the immoral as moral and you must learn to think of everything in reverse.  When you hear a lie, it is social truth.  When you tell the truth it is a capitalist lie.  When you accept higher taxes, you are engaging in order to solve problems.  When you cannot afford to live, it is Justice.  But don’t worry; our vital industries will continue to function and provide us with what we need.  Our sacrifice will save us.  That we can’t afford a car that does not work very well is an indication that our government is forcing us to be socially responsible (That is a lie too).”

To understand how a “stripped down” ideology affects people, consider the anti-business philosophy that the President preaches.  It is the philosophy that declares businesspeople are thieves and that doing business is a zero-sum game where every purchase is a loss to the buyer.  Because of this view, many people believe that businesspeople are evil.  And, without ever seeing a verified instance of this idea in their lives, they vote for any politician who claims he will protect them against greedy businesspeople.  The idea is a myth straight out of the prejudices fostered by Karl Marx. The President uses the same idea without its Marxist context and even declares he is not anti-business.  And here is the switch; a progressive can declare that he is non-ideological by keeping his Marxist ideology hidden.  This is an effort to make Marxist/collectivist/re-distributive views appear to be merely objective rather than expressions of a dangerously deadly ideology.  This is how people are fooled into voting for progressives, and today's progressives, the nastiest ever, are not only fooling you, they are deliberately trying to destroy you...unless you wake up. 

In fact, those who fall for this bait and switch have fooled themselves because they have never looked outside the movies for any real indication that businesspeople are thieves.  The result is that businesspeople keep providing them with products that improve their lives while their customers, seeking the best products, ignore the exacting kind of morality required to make those products.

This anti-ideology ideology that consists of declaring a Marxist premise, without referring to the Marxist context, enables the President to put into power people who can do virtually anything they want including lie, steal, probably even kill in the name of service to the United States of America (in fact, people are dying from starvation in this country because of the economic consequences of the President’s policies).

In order to convince you that non-ideology is a mistake and that I’m not just expressing an arbitrary decision because I don’t like the President, I’d like to point out that all political statements and acts take place within a wider ideological context.  Every act indicates the ideology that gives it life and whose premises argue for it.  And, conversely, ideologies can only be defined according to their fundamental characteristics and those characteristics must be operative in nature; they are expressed only by political acts and speech. 

There are only two basic types of ideology.  These are coercive ideologies (force) and liberty-based ideologies (freedom).  Because force and freedom are fundamental opposites when it comes to political systems, any political act must be either force or non-force; meaning coercive or non-coercive.  The two political opposites, the two opposing political ideologies are slavery versus freedom or force versus freedom.

A coercive ideology is defined by its operative principle, which is that the government has the right and the responsibility to rule or force people to act in ways that the government deems necessary.  These coercive systems, as history has shown, are monarchism, fascism, socialism and communism.  

Why is it important to define an ideology according to its operative fundamental principle?  The operative fundamental provides a powerful argument for the basic moral principles that each system requires.  If you know the operative fundamental principle of a system, you can save yourself lots of time determining whether the system is good or evil.  By knowing what such a system requires on a fundamental level, ideologically, you will be able to judge the words and actions of politicians and accept or reject them on that basis alone. 

For instance, during the war years of the last century, we knew we were fighting against an enemy that was evil.  Fascism exposed itself as amenable to collectivism which included racism and complete dominance by the government over the entire society.  For this reason, most Americans rejected fascism, not merely because of its racism but because it was coercive and rights-violating; it was totalitarian.  Yet, the morality that the Germans practiced, altruism, saw fascism as a better and more efficient system of government.  They felt that society needed a dominant leader who could act without the restrictions of a parliamentary system.  That leader, necessarily, had to have the right of summary judgment; the right to command and kill as he deemed necessary…without restriction.

The three key characteristics of fascism are:  collectivism, sacrifice and rule by government decree.  Socialism’s key characteristics are the same as fascism except that socialism seeks to implement government control of vital industries so that free individuals do not accumulate too much wealth.  Socialism adds a stronger anti-capitalist component (although fascism is also anti-capitalist), and in many respects is not too different from fascism.  Once again we see that the vital characteristic of socialism is also coercive government.  Communism is at the extreme range where government controls all aspects and all industries and again is based upon coercive powers.  Of course, monarchy is unlimited rule by a king who has the role of moral authority, usually through religion, and is considered the voice of God on earth.  Once again, the king’s key power is the ability to command and kill at will.

Consider that the ideologies, the philosophical defenses for fascism, socialism and communism are the same.  In order for society to operate efficiently, the argument goes; the government must have coercive powers.  Yet, each system is fraught with corruption.  In fact corruption is one of the key characteristics of each of these systems as history has shown.
Political System
Social System
Dominant Morality
Use of Force
Fascism
Collectivism
Sacrifice
One man engaged in government coercion to control the use and management of private property
Socialism
Collectivism
Sacrifice
Government coercion to nationalize, own and manage vital industries and re-distribute income
Communism
Collectivism
Sacrifice
Total government control of all aspects of society
Monarchy
Collectivism/Nationalism
Sacrifice
Total control by the king
Representative Republican or limited government
Individualism
Self-interest
Limited government restricted to protecting individual and property rights

If Americans knew the epistemological rules that govern the way they think as it relates to political systems and ideologies, they would be able to judge the pronouncements of politicians and college professors and decide whether any of them had a hidden agenda.  And since we live, for the most part, in a representative republic, we can vote these people out. 

If you have read any of the previous blog posts I've written, you will notice that the words of the President, the call to sacrifice, his anti-business rhetoric, his demands for new regulations, class warfare, racial divisions and his overt crony capitalism, expose the fact that he favors fascism.  If we know that fascism, in terms of fundamentals, is the selective use of force by government against citizens owning private property, then we know that fascism is the President’s ideological principle.  Though he claims to be offering rational solutions to the nation’s problems, he is in fact, offering us fascism.  His collectivism explains his class and racial warfare.  His morality of sacrifice explains his policies of re-distribution, crony capitalism, bailouts, stimulus programs and various other political “solutions”.  This is, by definition, and in fact, fascism.

There is nothing rational about fascism.  Yet Americans are being duped by the fact that the President does not honestly represent the ideology behind his policies, actions and solutions.  Were he to argue for fascism, we would surely reject him.  That is how he gets away with fooling people.

Let’s continue the analysis.  If coercion, and the ability to use force in an unlimited way, characterizes fascism, socialism and communism, then the opposite principle must characterize any system that is non-coercive.  Although there have been few examples of non-coercive systems, the best example is that of the United States of America.  As is known, the founders did an exhaustive analysis of political systems throughout history and, in their efforts to eliminate or control all potentially coercive elements in government, they created a representative system that limited and restricted the government’s ability to coerce and it sought to put into place certain measures that would make it difficult for a group of people to take over the government and turn it into a dictatorship within their lifetimes.  These included separation of powers, checks and balances, limited powers and a constitution that specifically defined what a government could not do.  A major principle of our government was the placement of Congress as the body closest to the people.  The House of Representatives is made up of a group of people each beholden to his or her constituents' freedoms and interests.  The result was a liberty-based society where people were free to do as they decided without the fear of being manipulated by other parties.  This system removed the anti-capitalist component found in dictatorship because it realized that people seeking to survive would create the best products to trade with others.  This liberated self-interest, made possible capital accumulation (because they realized that capital accumulation was good), made possible free trade (because they realized that zero-sum trades were the exception not the rule) and established property rights that the government could not violate (because they realized that property is central to civilization).

Today, if you analyze our present system, you will see that in many ways we are a representative republic that is drifting toward fascism at an alarming rate.  This fact is what created the Tea Party; but the real question is how did we get here?  I think the answer is found in our philosophical drift away from ideology.  The problem is non-ideology, the inability of people to define and translate into ideological terms, what our politicians are telling us and doing.  We have allowed them to hide their true political goals.  We are being educated to judge them according to the intentions of their actions but not according to their methods (coercion).  If we do not correct our thinking, their methods will lead to the opposite of their so-called intentions.  This is why bailouts don’t work, why stimulus doesn’t work, why re-distribution doesn’t work: their methods will not accomplish their intentions because we have not identified intellectually the actual system of government to which those methods belong.  It is time we let our representative government know they must change course and stop moving us down the road of fascism.

I think the cause of this intellectual drift away from ideology was the progressive movement.  It might surprise you that this movement during its genesis was essentially fascist in nature.  Many early progressives, including both Roosevelts, admired fascism tremendously and saw it as a very valuable tool for national leaders to get more done.  This was the same period during which the Nazis and other fascist regimes began to grow.  In fact, many American intellectuals saw Hitler’s ability to control the economy and build massive highway systems and factories and armaments as an indication that fascism was a very practical idea, a good way for the government to improve the economy.  They saw monetary inflation as Keynes saw it; as a way to create prosperity.  They saw regulation as a way to manipulate the various parts of the economy to ensure stability.  In short, they saw fascism as practical. 

In fact, during the period when the progressive left grew up, the later part of the 19th century and early 20th century, we saw the ascendency of politicians who “knew how to get things done”.  Men such as Herbert Hoover were powerful organizers and technocrats who were thought of as smart, efficient and certain of their course.  They were young, brash and commanding. They could control events through a powerful will to lead...like Hitler and Mussolini in a sense.  Fascism and socialism were both considered effective ways for government to manage economies; they were the wave of a new bright future and ideas whose time had come. 

Progressive intellectuals bemoaned the fact that they had to deal with parliamentary restrictions on what they could do. They wanted progress and resented having to get approval from large bodies of government  staffed by rich old men. They hated restrictions against interfering in the workings of the free market and they considered the Constitution to be a vestige of the past, no longer relevant because they, the progressives, had found better ways to get things done; not by leaving the people alone but by intelligently managing them, educating them and ensuring that they had the spirit of collective sacrifice and the social contract.  To deal with Constitutional restrictions, they floated trial balloons to see if they would pass and they propagandized (told lies) against capitalism.  They helped to create anti-trust that broke up big businesses and they vilified business tycoons in the press in order to create anti-capitalist prejudice among the people and justify the looting practices that they, not the tycoons, had in mind.

Many of them believed their own propaganda and thought of people as weak and unenlightened, amenable to manipulation by their betters.  At the same time, they bemoaned the pedestrian-level intelligence of the masses while at the same time knowing that they must change the selfish brutes into more docile servants of the whole.  They praised sacrifice and they created straw men out of conservatives while spewing an incessant anti-capitalist and anti-American global perspective.  Their first big success in 1908 was the institution of the income tax.  At first, the people thought they were just taxing the richest among them who had enough to fund the massive programs.  As time went on, it was the people who approved the income tax who began paying ever larger shares of their income to government.  Later, in 1935, the Social Security Act added another nail in the coffin for freedom.  Other successes came with the application of Antitrust Laws in 1914 (originally passed by Republicans) that helped them break up large trusts and gave the politicians virtual control over the economy.  Lots of protestations about the “public good” and helping the poor and other such propaganda enabled them to slowly advance their fascist and socialist agendas but without mentioning ideology.

They were not the first to do this, however.  The Fabian society in Britain was successful in fostering “socialist” programs piecemeal by asking for minor concessions from conservatives.  This helped them set the basic principle of government coercion which, once established, created the slippery slope that would eventually lead to Roosevelt’s New Deal and ObamaCare.  The Fabians sold their programs as necessary to solve the inequities of capitalism and to help the poor.  By shedding ideological labels and masquerading as “mainstream” politicians, the Fabians were able to advance socialist ideas without calling them socialist.  Instead, they were deemed “practical” solutions to the problem of industrialization and capitalism.  The public took such minor steps as “progressive” and thought that the Fabians had the right idea, to add some safeguards to society that would mitigate the harm done to people by acquisitive capitalists.  Through small coercive measures, that had little impact in the “macroeconomic sense”, they were able to bring Britain, over time, into socialism.  Progressives had struck gold when they realized that “non-ideological” ideology was working and that their goals could be met over time.

After the war, this approach seemed even more necessary.  The fascist governments that the progressives had admired before the war were now the losers and it was discovered that they were less than nice; they had, in fact, murdered millions and the labels, “fascism” and “socialism” were seen as the causes of the brutality.  To accomplish their goals of political success, post-war progressives had to shed ideology for good.  They did not change their ideologies however; they changed their labels and terminology.  They still wanted to control the economy because, like the European fascists before them, they saw it as a practical way to get things done.  So they advanced their ideas in “practical” terms, like the Fabians, pointing out problems caused by capitalism (by means of anti-capitalism) and then offering a mildly coercive solution that would be passed by Congress. 

No one likes being deceived and the recognition by many Americans that the progressives are up to no good, in ideological terms, is creating a serious backlash.  That the most vile and violent of the communist radicals of the 60s have managed to resurrect, without informing the people, the most vile forms of collectivism and totalitarianism, is not something sober thinking people will merely sit back and watch.  Most people know, unlike the President, that socialism and fascism don’t work and these clowns, the Soros types, the Ayers, the Sterns and the Rathkes are throwbacks to a time of violent revolution that the “Silent Majority” rejected years ago.  Yet, here they are, pretending to be “practical” thinkers with “practical” solutions.  Their days behind the scenes are numbered.  Well, we see through them and we know that their the ideologies of the past and their Alynsky tactics are merely the same philosophies that characterized the other street fighter, Hitler.  We know what the President and his supporters behind the scenes want: slavery.  And we are practical enough to avoid throwing out our semi-capitalist base and smart enough to resist the progressives’ efforts.  The coming election may be the first and last repudiation of the ideologies of fascism and socialism.  Good riddance.  There are still some heaps of rubble along the highway near Munich where they can spend their retirements.

The problem with non-ideology is that people who are non-ideological are no longer able to connect, in practical terms, their political ideas with the actual decline taking place around them.  As politicians clamor for more power, the decline of the economy, because of the anti-capitalism left over from the progressive era, continues unabated and forces them to blame all the problems of society on rich people and capitalism as did their forebears.  That the decline of the economy has always been the result of progressive tinkering in the economy was a lesson we did not learn.  It is the lesson about which the Tea Party is reminding people.  Our past inability to say, “This is fascism, and because so, we must not go this way,” leaves us in a position where progressives can declare, “Anyone who would call this fascism is an ignorant person who doesn’t understand history.”  I say, “Balderdash.”  We call it fascism because that is what it is and we know it because we do understand both history and cause and effect.

So why do I say it is a mistake for the administration to be non-ideological?  We have a choice in America because we are still free to think and express our dissent.  We are the last standing adults in the room, so to speak.  We have allowed the voices of non-ideology to imply that a wonderful future can be built by ignoring the ideological foundations of our ideas.  It is a fool's errand.  We are being led by people in the administration and the media who are averting their eyes from the devastating consequences of our government's fascist policies.  The President’s call for more sacrifice, higher taxes, bigger government programs, bailouts, violations of the sanctity of contract and law, more government regulations and almost daily violations of the Constitution are aspects of fascism.  Such measures always will be fascist in nature and the result will always be more suffering, fewer jobs, hunger, economic depression and poverty, possibly even death or prison for those of us who do not go along.  That we can see poverty today and not connect it with the fascism of today is a big mistake for many of us, both conservative and progressive alike.

Certainly, now, we know that Hitler’s fascism, his control of the German economy, did not work.  Beneath his short-term success was monetary easing that resulted in inflation, corruption and demoralization of the people.  With every day that inflation raged in Germany and with every day during the war, Germany weakened economically and eventually lost the war. The preparation for war had been based on a lie and the seeming strength of Germany was nothing but image-building and propaganda.  The Germans lost because fascism can never help a nation restore its pride; it can only destroy pride and turn the nation into a pariah and a land of rubble. 

It has been said, that German ideology made the people blind to the concentration camps in their midst.  Like horses with blinders, the Germans saw only the forward march into oblivion and none of the devastation that they were building.  Likewise, today, because of our non-ideology, some of us are unable to see that our concentration camps are being built by the daily cuts of fascist Executive Orders, fascist monetary easing and fascist inflation. 

The Germans were not informed that their sacrifice would cause their cities to be bombed and destroyed.  Nor were they told that fascism always exploits the people until their energies are spent.  They were taught to expect a bright and sunfilled future that never came.  We have time to stop the fascist disaster coming to us.  But in order to stop it, we must recognize that the methods we are using to accomplish our “intentions” are fascist in nature and that they will sap our rights and energy until there is nothing left but rubble.  Eventually, we’ll weaken and the world will gladly destroy us to rid itself of our once noble ideology.  They will blame our demise on freedom and then proceed to stumble after us into oblivion.

I think more people need to tell it like it is.  This is a fascist system and our biggest mistake as a nation, to paraphrase an old clich√©, is that we can’t see the forest of fascism for the trees of non-ideology.


No comments:

Post a Comment