The Conservative Party Principles

The Conservative Party Principles

Monday, December 31, 2012

An Open Letter to Senator Marco Rubio on Gun Control

Sen. Rubio:

I hope that we can count on your support for upholding your oath of office and defend our 2nd. Amendment rights. This is not about semi-automatic weapons it is about who can have them. This is not about gun control but population control and we know it.

You people in the District of Corruption need to wake up and realize that We The People have had enough of you the tyrants. Your constant assault on our Liberties and Freedoms as defined by the Bill of Rights is not transmutable but finite. The last 4 words of the 2nd. Amendment reads as follows: "Shall Not Be Infringed" now what part of that statement don’t you and the rest of the DC ruling class elites comprehend.

Your direct defiance of your oath of office by signing legislation like NDAA 2012, the 2 debt ceiling increases, the refusal to investigate Fast & Furious, Benghazi, stimulus 1 & 2, QE1 2 3 3.5, et.al. I would run out of room just listing the criminal actions that have been committed that you and your colleagues have turned a blind eye to.                 

You incompetent assholes haven't passed a budget in going on 4+ years and you still can't because you are all too gutless to do what needs to be done. As I am writing this it is taking every ounce of restraint I can muster to keep from verbally chastising you for your actions and your co-conspirators who infest our government. You have spent me, my children and now my grandchildren into poverty and you come back for more. You and your cohorts gall is astounding!

And now the communist side of this coin wants to use the actions of a deranged lunatic created by their secular progressive humanist agenda to take my only defense against their miscreant bastard offspring that will take to the streets very shortly when this government succeeds in crashing this economy. And that is why they want them, WAKE UP Senator; you’re being played the fool!
Let me be perfectly clear on this with the military oath I took 2 months before you were born:

"I, Keith Westbrook, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
Tell the rest of your comrades we will not be: 1916 RUSSIA, 1932 GERMANY, 1946 CHINA, 1955 N. KOREA, 1976 CAMBODIA, etc.

Please feel free (I INSIST) in passing this along with the following sentiment on the subject:

"Molon Labe"                                                                                                                       

Dr. Keith C. Westbrook Ph.D.                                                                                       
Pres. Conservative Party – Florida                                                                                
P.O. Box 358968, Gainesville, Fl. 32635-8968                                                            
352-327-1151 fax:352-332-1699                                                  
http://www.conservativepartyfl.org/

Thursday, December 27, 2012

The Right to Bear Arms

A Guest Blog : By Larry N. Smith, M.D., F.A.C.S.                                                                                    President of the Institute of Gainesville.

The Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment. Much has been made of the Heller decision, but in the context of the history of the Second Amendment and the milieu in which it was written, it is easy to appreciate the strict constitutional interpretation whence came the 5-to-4 decision.

The right of law-abiding American citizens to bear arms was clearly outlined by Justice Scalia’s majority opinion, but this will not go unchallenged by those who side with the minority. Attempts at using the argument “for the good of public health” as a justifiable reason to limit or annul the Second Amendment must be tempered with a realistic understanding of the pathology of the public-health problem. This desire to “regulate” one amendment can only lead to the de-facto regulation of the other amendments.

Click Here to read the full publication.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Welfare: America’s Extortion Payments Payoff BIG for Democrats! AGAIN!

The Lyndon Johnson Great Society legislation and the massive Government bureaucracy it has created going forward, has finally born the fruit it was planted to sow 47 years ago. The extortion by the permanent welfare state is now in full blossom and the takers now outnumber the makers, the producers are now the “minority” in this country.

There are underlying conditions that extortion creates that destroy the payer as well as the payee. The payer obviously suffers the financial loss of money’s that were earned by producing in an open market economy. They also suffer the loss of dignity because they see that their production is only valued as long as it supports those who produce nothing. Their self esteem and self worth are diminished as they watch the fruit of their labor being treated with disdain and indignation, as if it is a penance for working hard and sacrificing.                       The underlying factors that they put forth to create success bear no justification of that success, “ You didn't build that business” is the overwhelming mentality of the unproductive moocher class that has become the supplicant to all government hand outs. In their minds you are only successful because of reasons that are unjust in theirs.             You stole it, you inherited it, you were the beneficiary of a state funded government program that allowed your success to happen. There is NO success if that govt. road didn’t exist or you weren't educated in a govt. school, or the over bearing over reaching govt. regulations didn’t provide a level playing field which allowed you to be successful.

From the Lips of the Commie in Chief!

The Marxist mentality of only the govt. can create prosperity for all by taking from those that can and giving to those that can’t or more correctly WON’T does create equality of outcome but not the one they profess, it breaks the will of the producers. This is now being demonstrated by how many producers are scaling back or even shutting their business’ down and looking for alternative opportunities to produce wealth and JOBS in other parts of the world or altogether getting out and staying out until this hits critical mass in the next few months to few years. There is no avoiding it, it is the desired outcome from the application of the democrats economic implosion principles as outlined by Marx in “Das Kapital” and other’s like Cloward / Pivens..

The flip side of course is even more distressing and is an even greater insight into the mentality that now permeates half of the population of this country. The govt. welfare state and the 50% of American households that now receive some form of govt. support. The most upsetting part of this societal shift and the greatest loss it has created is that it has successfully integrated a shift in the recipients perspective that it is a badge of honor now to say you are taking from someone else because you believe you deserve it because the govt. told you, you deserve it. From multi-generational welfare brood mares with their grandmothers indoctrinating their granddaughters into the welfare system; to:

I think this says it all!

And the saddest part of what is in this video is this person and millions like her derive their self worth by stealing from others to support their life style. They have no core value system other than one of you owe me, created from their lifetime of participation in govt. entitlement programs and the dependency mentality it creates. THEY ARE SLAVES AND DON”T EVEN SEE IT, OR AS LONG AS NOTHING IS REQUIRED OF THEM OTHER THAN THEIR VOTE EVERY 2 TO 4 YEARS THEY ARE WILLING TO SELL THEIR FREEDOM FOR A FREE RIDE.

This is a pathetic statement on what has been destroyed by progressive liberal policies and Democrat politics and what it has reduced the last few generations of Americans to, whining leaches with no understanding of the values of self worth, self determination and the self esteem created by ones productive efforts that are both emotionally and financially rewarded in a free market economy.

There was a long standing business management philosophy that people work as much for the self esteem of a job well done as the paycheck they received. I am sure that it is now an antiquated philosophy based on generational shifts from I will to who will for me. I am appalled every day when I see the constant bombardment of lies and false narratives that the leftist’s in this country in politics, academia, media, and journalism dump onto America like a tsunami and it is actually believed by a majority of the population. It is a sad state of affairs when the American population is lied to with regularity and they are either too stupid or too disengaged too say enough: and stand up and fight back.  It just is another re-enforcement to the success of the indoctrination policies that the liberal progressives have perfected for 100+ years.

And that is what has happened because of the extortion of welfare and the economic bondage it created has led to the loss of freedom, self esteem and the value of self worth. They are now on life support.                                                                                                                         And as more generations of  older Americans pass away and the values that we were taught by our parents and NOT THE NANNY STATE CRADLE TO GRAVE GOVT. that now exists in America disappear, so does Freedom and Justice For All.

AND WITH IT: LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!

In Freedom,                                                                                                                                                                   (while it lasts)

Dr. Keith C. Westbrook Ph.D                                                                                                                                   

Sunday, October 21, 2012

The Disconnect of the Progressive Liberal Socialist: aka. The Modern Democrat.

I have recently been engaged in running dialogue with several “useful idiots” over Mitt Romney’s recent speech at the Al Smith Dinner. And the disconnect displayed by several respondents to 1 simple statement I made that: “THIS is how an AMERICAN PRESIDENT ACTS!” has been if anything; enlightening to the mindset of these individuals.  The first comment I received was the following:

IT WAS WRITTEN FOR HIM, FAGGOT.

Zhadeix in reply to Keith Westbrook 1 day ago

And the descent into discourse continued at an accelerated rate from all sides with my help. The fact that my comment was based on the closing statement that Mr. Romney made was inconsequential to the discussion and completely missed by the zealous left.  And my response was less than cordial from that moment on.

I have for many months now into several years studied the “progressive/socialist” movement in this Country and written about it on numerous occasions. I have included in those dissertations, THOUSANDS of fact- checked reference's verifying the information contained within.  And throughout it all one glaring fact based truth is undeniably evident: NO GOOD HAS EVER COME FROM IT!

It is from a position of indifferent arrogance that the progressive socialist movement has not only stayed alive but prospered within academia and government in this Nation. The “intellectual elite” are entrenched in the belief that they, because of their devotion to so-called intellectual self-enlightenment are entitled to the greatest share of wealth and control over the rest of the populace. They along with progressive/liberal politicians have created the largest socialism indoctrination system outside the former Soviet Union and modern China.  We now have multiple generations of Americans who have no perception of anything in the way of  information that is not spoon fed to them by the media.                         It is structured propaganda  that the progressive movement created and I will prove it:

 

Ohio State students interviewed on Libya!

And the indoctrination is even more self evident in the following response:

Ohio State students interviewed on Obstruction in our Govt.

And as with the former Soviet Union and in China today as well as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and others, controlling the media narrative is imperative to controlling the population at large. If not for the 1st. Amendment where would this Republic be right now? Yet we have entire groups of “useful idiots” that side with a complete lie fabricated to hide the failing policies of this administration. We have an entire media that except for the  unwilling act of occasional journalism, has become the incestuous bedmate of progressive socialism, failing to see that throughout history the socialist govt. once empowered KILLED every teacher, journalist and elected official that they perceived a threat. The most recent example was the reign of terror by Pol Pot.

This has been in the making in America for 100 years now, starting with the Woodrow Wilson Administration and the first foray of the academic elite entering politics. His progressive policies were responsible for the largest growth of the government since the Civil War and reconstruction periods and created everything from the Federal Reserve to Income Tax. Under his administration with the help of a Democratically controlled House the federal govt. grew by 250% and also helped create legislation opening the door for union activism to proliferate without oversight.

The push back on progressivism by the massive over intrusion by Wilson’s Administration led to many years where the title of progressive was deemed an insult, mostly because of his views of the Founding Fathers and his desire to end the govt. that the Constitution of the United States formed, in favor of a more Parliamentarian style of govt..

The one thing that these progressive socialist’s realized was to affect change they had to change the perception of an entire Nation, and the best way, was to start early and work slowly through indoctrination methods. During Wilson’s administration he set in motion legislation that would fund schools, that started the erosion of state and local responsibility for education, which allowed for the federal govt. and not local school boards to set standards dictating curriculum.

And every 20 years or so from this administration forward we have had revisits to  progressive socialism:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Roosevelt expansion of  the federal govt. by any means necessary includes passing a record 3728 executive orders or almost 1 a day for 12 years! It was called the “New Deal” for a reason

Lyndon B. Johnson: a life long politician and political insider whose “Great Society” legislation has led to 47 years of constant federal govt. expansion at the cost of states rights. Historians argue that Johnson's presidency marked the peak of modern liberalism in the United States after the New Deal era.

Jimmy Carter: During Carter's term as President, two new cabinet-level departments were created: the Department of Energy and the Department of Education.

William Jefferson Clinton: During his presidency, Clinton advocated for a wide variety of legislation and programs, much of which was enacted into law or was implemented by the executive branch. Some of his policies, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and welfare reform, have been attributed to a centrist Third Way philosophy of governance, while on other issues his stance was left-of-center

Barack Hussein Obama: He is the first POTUS since Wilson to come from Academia with no other real background outside of instutionalized education, except for a brief stint in the Illinois state govt. and then 2 years as a Senator.

All of these individuals were all deemed by the media of their day as “intellectual elites”, including Clinton being a “Rhodes” scholar. All have presided over the greatest loss of individual freedoms in the name of the “common good” than all of the previous administrations COMBINED!

All have been the darlings of their bed fellows the media, which when the Constitution was written granting them the powers of the 4th estate, it was as a watchdog against the very actions that they now defend or try to obfuscate from the American people. But this relationship has only existed when it is a Democrat Administration.

I am old enough to remember quite accurately the media’s relentless pursuit of Nixon on Watergate and his involvement which led to his resignation. Their pursuit of Reagan in the Iran Contra Affair and the prosecution of Col. Oliver North. The relentless media attacks of every Republican administration for the last 100 years as compared to the media’s handling of Democrat administrations has been shameful. From Hoover-villes to the “New Deal” from the “great society” to Nixon's war( Vietnam which was escalated by Johnson)  and on and on it has become an exercise in futility to expect anyone in America, exposed to their diatribe, to remain anything but indoctrinated to their propaganda.

All of these media elites were educated and indoctrinated into this movement in the Academic environment. They now carry forward the “progressive socialist” message and agenda driving the narrative, instead of observing and reporting on it.

Progressive socialism is a cancer, it kills everything it infects, and like cancer it slowly destroys the body whole, until only radical treatment can have a chance of saving the patient. In any life threatening situation there is always an acceptable loss of tissue to justify saving a life. We have now reached that point in America’s future health, we must now cut the disease from the body to save the body whole.

America is finally awakening from her long sleep and the media is now more despised than unions. But we must continue to remove them further from infecting our Country.If we stopped supporting any company that supports any newspaper and all of the alphabet networks we could choke them to death from lack of funding. End their revenue resources and we end them. I have personally boycotted all major products that advertise on any network or media outlet. I do not miss them and neither does my wallet.

We must continue to remove the federal influence of govt. from our local education. I am a firm supporter of oaths of office to be given to teachers and administrators, like my military and fiduciary oath. Until their loyalty to the children’s education supplants socialist dogma and union manipulation we are faced with an ever declining education system teaching more about non-American values and globalism than the fundamentals of the 3R’s and about this Great Nation’s history.

My readers know one of my favorite sayings is it is time to cull the herd, it is from the John Wayne movie McClintock when he describes the “poor specimen” that is the territorial governor. The ‘useful idiots” go ballistic when I use it and I love seeing their heads explode yet they are the ones advocating creation of a government that will have just that power through Obamacare. Their stupidity knows no bounds!

In Freedom,

Dr. Keith C. Westbrook Ph.D.                                                                                                                                  

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Fixing the Economy Is Not Rocket Science

September 23, 2012

A Guest Blog From American Thinker:

By Karin McQuillan

Romney has five basic proposals for fixing the American economy that are sensible, practical, and believable.  Romney's goal of 4% economy growth is possible within four years.  It is not rocket science.

Romney has prioritized five key areas to reverse Democrat policies.  The number-one boost to economic growth is always energy.  Energy runs everything, and the price of energy affects everything.  The Obama administration's overspending by a trillion dollars a year has led to irresponsible printing and borrowing of money -- forty cents on every dollar Obama spends is borrowed.  Printing money raises the price of oil, because we have devalued our dollar, which makes everything manufactured or transported more expensive.  Devaluing the dollar is a hidden tax on families every time they fill up their cars, go to the grocery store, or turn on a light bulb.

But it is worse than that.  Obama, indeed any Democrat, cannot and will not allow America to become energy-wealthy, because Democrats' green voting base fears fossil fuel.  Obama is using the EPA to block fracking, to end the coal industry (which fuels half of our electricity), and to block off-shore drilling.  Romney will allow America to use our wealth of natural resources.  It can be done in the right places, with safe methods and proper regulation, but it must be done if we are to thrive.

We are talking about a lot of wealth.  Thanks to fracking, America could be producing more oil and natural gas energy on a daily basis than current U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Venezuela, Colombia, Algeria, Nigeria, and Russia combined.  The United States' combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth.

The impact of cheap energy boosts jobs in expanding circles.  Men with high school diplomas pull down $100,000 salaries in the oil and gas fields.  Next circle out: cheap natural gas has revived our steel industry, making American steel production globally competitive again.  Same for plastics and the chemical industry.  Healthy industries mean healthy towns, money for taxes, a sustainable social safety net.  A healthy country.

Excellent working-class jobs, cheap gas, lower consumer prices so the money in your paycheck goes much farther.  Using our energy resources is a huge win for every family and entirely, easily doable.

Energy alone is a reason to vote Republican.  Our economy will not survive if starved of affordable energy.

Romney's second target: start competing with China again in the global marketplace.  Romney hasn't given up on American manufacturing and export capability.  He will fight for us.  When Obama doubled down on government debt to China, he gave the Chinese more power to gut our economy.

Improving our exports is not rocket science.  President George Bush negotiated trade agreements with 16 countries, leading to the creation or support of 18 million jobs, with one third in manufacturing.  That's our unemployment crisis right there.

One of Romney's main stump speech talking points: the EU and China have negotiated 44 bilateral trade deals since Obama was elected.  Obama's new deals on America's behalf?  Zero.  Why?  Because another key Democrat voting bloc, the AFL-CIO, opposes trade agreements.

Romney will pursue trade actively, especially a major initiative, a free-trade zone with Latin America.  This is something the party might like to let Hispanic voters know about.  We can and will compete effectively to export manufactured goods.

Romney promises to reverse our longstanding passivity towards China.  He is breaking with all precedent here, Republican and Democrat.   He has a hard-hitting ad on Obama's loss of half a million jobs to China.  We are losing because we have agreed to compete in a rigged game.  Romney vows that that will stop.  As Romney says, "I don't see how you can have a trade relationship, on an open basis, with another nation if they're stealing a large part of what it is you sell."   Romney vows to fight for our manufacturing sector as no one ever has.

The number-three Romney policy: remove the burden of unnecessary government rules.  The super-explosion of government regulation under Obama is another self-inflicted wound on our economy, which gives jobs to bureaucrats and takes jobs from working class families.  The burden of Obama's regulations are estimated at $2 trillion, more than taxes.  This is money taken from creating new products and new jobs, from growing our economy.  It is also anti-democratic, giving bureaucrats arbitrary powers to write the rules and hand out favors to Obama's bundlers.

Obama sees businessmen as the enemy.  He has no guilt about crushing them with his regulations.  Government workers, who enforce Obama's four thousand new regs, are a key Democrat voting bloc.

The invisible cost of government regulation ($10,000 per employee) is deadly to jobs for ordinary people.  The yearly cost of regulation on a single manufacturing firm is $700,000, enough to stop small businessmen from going near the manufacturing sector.  They don't have the cash flow to pay staff to fill out a million dollars' worth of government forms.

Small and medium businesses grow most of our jobs.  Regulatory compliance sucks up their profit margin, and it sucks out the joy and energy that go into building your business.   When politicians increase rules, there are always special carve-outs for existing large corporations.  Goldman Sachs has 400 lawyers on staff, and a dozen lobbyists to help write the regs and comply with them.  Small business can't play in the billion-dollar lobbying market.

Romney understands this deep in his bones.  He will repeal many of the Obama administrations new regulations on his first day in the Oval Office.

Next, education.  It is not rocket science to know that if we keep doing the same things that fail with more money, it is not going to move us forward.  Education is a Romney priority.

Romney is proud of his record as governor of Massachusetts on education.   By the third year of his term, Massachusetts students ranked first nationally in both reading and math, the first state to reach this goal.  The 85% Democrat legislature tried to block charter schools, and Mitt vetoed the bill.  Black and Hispanic voters should be told about this over and over.

Last point in Romney's five-point plan for the economy is to tackle our debt and deficit.  Democrats demagogue these issues.  They are too cynical and self-interested to take on our bloated government and failing entitlement funding, both very serious problems.  "Taxing the rich their fair share" would pay for a few weeks of their irresponsible spending.

Romney's answer is the Tea Party principle: don't spend money you don't have.  He promises to balance the budget and cap the size of the government at 20% of GDP.

Democrats act like this is promising the moon.  Only for them, because they are blocked by their constituents from doing what is required.  We had one Republican governor after another at the RNC with boasting rights that in a few short years they'd turned billion-dollar deficits and looming bankruptcy into surpluses.  They had all lowered the tax burden on the middle class and were growing private-sector jobs in their states.  They had to challenge the powerful government unions to get it done.  Democrats can't do that.

It's true that the Republican establishment has an abysmal record on fiscal responsibility.  The difference between the two parties is that the Republican Party is at a historic moment of change.  A grassroots reformist movement for fiscal responsibility and limited government, the Tea Party, has influenced the Romney-Ryan ticket, so that it offers hope of a substantial change in the right direction.

Living within our means as a government is entirely possible.  Even fixing Social Security is not that complex.  We have to raise the retirement age a couple of years, and the problem is largely solved.  Romney and Ryan have a lot of good proposals with specifics that flesh out his promises.  This information is easy to find, but the politicized press doesn't want to report anything substantive on Romney.

Romney's case is simple.  With these five priorities, he can enable the American economy to grow by 4% a year again: use our energy wealth, increase trade agreements and take on China, improve education and job training so people can succeed in life, decrease stifling regulations, and balance the budget and reform entitlements. 

No Democrat can improve the economy because their political base demands special carve-outs at the expense of the common good.

Obama can't improve energy because the greens hate fossil fuels.  Obama can't improve trade because the AFL-CIO opposes trade agreements.  Obama can't improve education because the teachers unions fight school choice and accountability.  Obama can't shrink government because government bureaucrats and government unions are his biggest voting bloc.  Obama can't balance the budget and reform entitlements because the Democrat party relies on buying votes with government handouts.  Obama doesn't want to decrease the controlling power of the state, because he wants the government to intrude into every aspect of the economy and our lives.

The Democrats tell us that the problems facing Obama were unsolvable for anyone.  That is not true.  Much of our economic misery is self-imposed by our self-serving and ideological government.  Economic recovery is impossible for any Democrat administration.  Obama has sacrificed the common good to his need for votes from Democrat special interests: greens, labor unions, teachers' unions, government workers, and nanny-state extremists.

Romney can do it, and only Romney can do it.

Things look bleak right now, and too many pundits are telling us that the world has changed.  They tell us to get used to being less prosperous, less powerful, less secure, less influential.  Romney and Ryan inhabit another universe, one filled with common sense and purposeful action.  They have a lot of good, solid ideas on how to turn our economy back to 4% growth.  It is not too hard.  It will not even take that long.  But we have to begin.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/09/fixing_the_economy_is_not_rocket_science.html at September 23, 2012 - 09:02:43 AM CDT

Monday, September 17, 2012

Why Muslims Hate Hate Hate Us (They are Failures, We Are Weak)

A guest Post by: Whiskeysplace

A Conservative Look at Technology, Culture, Business, and How They Intersect.

With much of our embassies in flames (Cairo, Sanaa, Khartoum, Tunis, Benghazi) or threatened (London, Paris, Berlin), Americans are wondering “Why Do Muslims Hate Us?” Or perhaps why they hate hate hate us. Most also wonder what Obama’s plan or response will be (and we already know it: Sharia Surrender). But the real reasons are this: Muslims are failures, and they know it. We are weak, and they know that too. Muslim Failures plus American weakness = Burning Embassies and murdered Ambassadors. It is that simple.

No one has more reason to hate Russia and Putin than Muslims. The Second Chechen War may have led to as many as 40,000 Chechens killed. The now-dead Aslan Mashkodov claimed 200,000 Chechens died in both Chechen Wars. There is an ongoing insurgency still in Chechnya and related Caucuses Mountains Republics. In addition to that, Russia aided Khadaffi, and stood by him as he faced his ouster, to the dismay of the hard-line jihadists and Salafists who fought to get rid of Khadaffi. Not only that, but Russia under Putin has actively aided Bashir Assad, and his despotic regime, responsible for the deaths of thousands of Muslims, as Assad attempts to retain his Alawite (Sunnis do not consider them even Muslim) control as an Iranian Shia client state over Sunni jihadists backed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.

Not to mention the historic hatred for Russians over the invasion and degradation of Afghanistan, and the support for secular regimes such as Nasser’s, and the Assads, and Khadaffi. If there is any people and regime that should be hated and be the target of constant violence, it should be Russia and Putin.

And yet, after Beslan, it all ceased. Weak, and craven Boris Yeltsin, who spent most of his time getting drunk, intimidated no one. Weeks after the attack, Russian forces struck back at places like Grozny, leveling it. The Chechens and Muslims world-wide took their measure of Putin. And were AFRAID. Their fear was not limitless, however. They knew if they simply refrained from attacking Putin, they would be left alone. If they did not, and attacked them, they knew they would die very unpleasant deaths very soon.

The Chinese, ought to be second in line for Muslim hatred. After all, the Chinese are busy through mass Han Migration, into Uighur territory, erasing the Islamic religion, and Uighur culture, language, and heritage. So much so that riots and street fighting in places like XianXing broke out in 2010. Hui Muslims (ethnic Han Chinese Muslims) also face discrimination, limits on Mosques, general oppression. By all rights Muslims ought to be upset with China. Since Chinese media routinely depicts Hui and Uighur Muslims as barbaric idiots who need the strong hand of the Han to become civilized.

Why then, are not Chinese embassies ablaze with Russian ones?

Because the Chinese are also feared. Any guesses to the Chinese response if Al Qaeda had flown jetliners into Shanghai skyscrapers?

How soon would Kabul and Islamabad been turned into parking lots?

Alright, but what is the source of Muslim rage?

Failure. Failure of Muslims to achieve anything like the power and prosperity of the West. The riches and power of the West rest on its people, not its leaders who are generally asinine. Western peoples have many flaws. “Honey Boo Boo” and “Dancing With the Has Beens'” and “Celebrity Rehab” and singing/talent contest shows are one of them. But unlike most peoples most of the time in history, Western people get up and go to work. Where they use their brains, mostly, in doing basic things like making sure they have enough drilling pipe to drill an oil well, or measuring a window for an opening, or using a computer to diagnose an engine problem in a car.

This is not deep thinking along the lines of Bertrand Russell or Einstein. Not even fairly abstruse work like say, Linus Torvalds or Bill Joy. It is instead a simplistic but effective in mass quantities, thinking in mechanistic terms. Machines and tools behave in predictable ways, based on a Newtonian universe that is regular and predictable. Allah won’t suddenly make your saw restore instead of cut wood. Water does not suddenly flow uphill because a genie did it. You might watch and enjoy Harry Potter movies, but you don’t believe your co-worker put a spell on you.

Other nations and peoples have made the same jump. Japan, South Korea, and much of Coastal China has done so. Belief in magic, capricious gods, and the like has been replaced with a mechanistic belief in the universe operating in predictable and powerful ways. Taken in mass quantities, where nearly everyone operates that way, even for places largely devoid of wealth in the form of natural resources, wealth can quickly accumulate.

Muslims, pretty much all of them, that have any contact with the West (or Asia) understand this. But they cannot make the jump. Because unlike the Japanese, or Chinese, or Koreans, to do so would make them less than what they are. Their entire identity is built on magic, and magical thinking. To give that up would mean they’d stop being Muslim. And yet they WANT WANT WANT the wealth and power of the West. To live with dignity, and not in the dirt. To live long and healthy lives, not poor and powerless ones.

Other peoples have made the jump. And not through democracy and “freedom” either — but by changing how they operate. Meji Restoration Japan, South Korea until recently, and China now, are not exactly bywords of freedom. But again, this means ordinary people must behave as thought the universe is predictable and not ruled by magic and spells. A society’s wealth comes from the bottom up, not the ruler down.

Thus the Muslim rage. Anger that the West is wealthy, and they cannot have that wealth, considering the compromises. Muslims in isolated nations of the Sahel, for example, don’t rage against the West. They’ve barely heard of it. They are too busy lopping off limbs for thievery in Mali to care about what some Egyptian Copt in California put on Youtube. They’ve not even heard of Youtube. They live as most people have lived, in an endless and formless now. But most Muslims are well off enough, compared to history, to know and understand some of the West, having seen it on satellite TV, or living their themselves, in places like London or Paris or Berlin.

This is why, for example, obscure cartoons in an obscure Danish Newspaper generated so much violence. No nation has stayed out of the Middle East more than Denmark. It is tiny, less than six million Danes. They play effectively no part in the world save for exporting butter and beer. Denmark is not exactly friendly to Israel. But it is small, weak, and prone to appeasing Muslims.

Thus, a bunch of Salafists, who see political power through channeling Muslim rage at their inability to get rich, by (stopping being Muslim, essentially), ginned up “days of rage” and violence and killing against … Denmark. This requires three parts, of course.

Danish weakness. Check.

Salafist bloodthirsty ambition. Check.

Muslim rage at wanting what they can’t have (Western prosperity and stability). Check.

You can’t rent a mob if the mob is not disposed to be a mob in the first place. That’s why the Occupy Wall Street rabble is filled with rape, and assaults, and abuse, because the people are a mixture of degenerate trust-funders, permanent hippies, street kids, the homeless, and cheap thugs. All folks for whom violence is fun. The Tea Party, made up of mostly 50 years plus White women with their own small business, were models of propriety and decency, because for them, that’s how they live, and violence and thuggery represent not a good time but existential threats.

If you want to know why the Muslim mob is always a rabble, it is because they are one. They are as addicted to magical thinking, thuggery, and violence as your average Occupy Wall Street loser. And this writ large explains Muslims as a whole.

No, “not all Muslims are like that.” But most are. Those that are not, don’t get into street fights with those who are, either, but silently support them. Effectively, there is no difference between the 80% of Muslim men and women who live in constant rage because they want a middle class lifestyle but are not prepared to give up Allah and Genies to get it, and those 20% who have but remain silent out of fear their friends and relatives will kill them to keep believing in magic.

All of which leads to Obama’s response. Obama has bet it all on two prongs: Drone assassinations kept off the news by a captive, Obama-worshipping media, and hug-a-thug embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Far from the murder of Ambassador Stevens and four others being the “revenge of Khadaffi,” the murder was planned and carried out by the very people Obama helped: the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama reluctantly, but nevertheless visibly, helped remove Khadaffi. While it must be noted, Putin supported Khadaffi. Who did the Muslim Brotherhood attack? The Weak Obama rather than the FEARED Putin.

Then, Obama essentially ordered Mubarak to resign, handing the nation of Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood. This against the pleadings of both the Saudis and the Israelis, who saw the danger of empowering the Brotherhood.

Obama and his people argued that the Muslim Brotherhood represented most of the people (which was true). And that they would only be responsible if they had power, and that furthermore it was both futile and stupid to keep them out of power, because the ability of dictators to keep and hold power had eroded due to social media and rising commodity prices (no more bribes to keep the populace in check). Too bad they don’t endorse this for the White majority population at home, but nevermind for now.

Die Welt, has said Obama’s Middle East Policy Is In Ruins.

”US President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy is in ruins. Like no president before him, he tried to win over the Arab world. After some initial hesitation, he came out clearly on the side of the democratic revolutions. … In this context, he must accept the fact that he has snubbed old close allies such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Egyptian military. And now parts of the freed societies are turning against the country which helped bring them into being. Anti-Americanism in the Arab world has even increased to levels greater than in the Bush era. It’s a bitter outcome for Obama.”

“Obama was naive to believe that one only needed to adopt a new tone and show more respect in order to dispel deep-seated reservations about the free world. In practice, the policies of the Obama administration in the region were not as naive as they may have seemed at times, and the Americans have always been much more involved in the Middle East than the passive Europeans. But Washington has provided the image of a distracted superpower in the process of decline to the societies there. This image of weakness is being exploited by Salafists and al-Qaida, who are active in North Africa from Somalia to Mali.”

“One thing is clear: If jihadists believe they can attack American installations and kill an ambassador on the anniversary of Sept. 11, then America’s deterrent power has declined considerably. For a superpower, it is not enough just to want to be loved. You have to scare the bad guys to keep them in check.”

All of that has failed. Glenn Reynolds notes the coming Sharia (which has in fact already arrived).

When taking office, the President does not swear to create jobs. He does not swear to “grow the economy.” He does not swear to institute “fairness.” The only oath the President takes is this one:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

By sending — literally — brown shirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime of embarrassing the President of the United States and his administration, President Obama violated that oath. You can try to pretty this up (It’s just about possible probation violations! Sure.), or make excuses or draw distinctions, but that’s what’s happened. It is a betrayal of his duties as President, and a disgrace.

He won’t resign, of course. First, the President has the appreciation of free speech that one would expect from a Chicago Machine politician, which is to say, none. Second, he’s not getting any pressure. Indeed, the very press that went crazy over Ari Fleischer’s misrepresented remarks seems far less interested in the actions of an administration that I repeat, literally sent brown-shirted enforcers to launch a midnight knock on a filmmaker’s door.

But Obama’s behavior — and that of his enablers in the press — has laid down a marker for those who are paying attention. By these actions he is, I repeat, unfit to hold office. I hope and expect that the voters will agree in November.

Reynolds is likely to be disappointed. Most voters, particularly White women, will be happy to trade freedom and a bit of groveling, for a small respite.

The Cerritos man, an Egyptian Copt with a name I don’t recall and can’t pronounce, has been arrested by LA Sheriffs, ostensibly for “parole violations” but really for the “crime” of blasphemy against Islam. Already, we have Sharia. It is against the law, as it is enforced (though not written, yet) to criticize either Islam or Mohammed.

Obama already has his response. It is surrender. His whole being is tied up in not using the military except in highly limited Special Forces ways, or deniable drone attacks. This is the man who by his own admission, hung out with the radical feminists, the Marxists, the queer theorists, and the radical Muslims.” This is the man who said,

“Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” *

*Audacity of Hope, pg 261.

This is not a man who will stand up for freedom. Or the First Amendment. Rather, this is a man aching to institute Sharia. Obama grew up a Muslim, in Indonesia. He hung out with “Muslim Marxist Millionaires” in Steve Sailer’s language, during college at Occidental and Columbia. Even visiting Pakistan in the summer of 1987. Presumably not for the babes, bikinis, and beer.

This is a man who has a Plan B. Sharia. He can by Executive Order simply arrest and imprison the man who made the video, and do the same for any other man or woman who makes other videos, or movies, or books, or drawings, or any other thing, that Muslims anywhere at any time find offensive. Not the least of which is that this meets Obama’s Agenda:

Surrender Abroad. Tyranny at Home.

In order to keep Muslims happy and be consistent with his apology for America and groveling tour of the Muslim world, Obama will be forced to extradite this man. And others, who have posted burning the Koran, or putting bacon on it, and the like, on various social media. Of course it won’t stop there, because Muslims will demand more, and Obama’s whole agenda is based on groveling abroad (coupled with “surgical” drone strikes against AQ leaders that the media never reports). Weakness invites attack (as anyone entering puberty later in Junior High can attest). Strength repels it (as anyone having passed puberty in High School can verify).

And this ties in with Obama’s agenda, which is the agenda broadly of the elite in the West: destruction of the White Middle Class and its replacement by a broadly hereditary pseudo-meritocracy, a reconstruction of aristocracy with princes and kings and the like, all deeply attractive to women in particular, and offensive to most White men. For obvious gender reasons — women do well in aristocracies and men do poorly.

Broadly, the elites seek ever greater tyranny to suppress the White middle and working class, and enact a permanent aristocracy. This demands a police state, one based on constant surveillance, minuscule rules on every aspect of life, and constant humiliation. All of which is attractive to women (and again, repulsive to men) in that men require freedom of action (if nothing else, to compete for women) and women prefer to know in advance who the winning men are and who to avoid as the losers. A technology based, Sharia-enforced, police state is the best of all possible worlds for the elites. Leveraging a billion Muslims abroad and ones at home, to create surrender enforced by the New Vichy State. So says Ace of Spades.

Of course, Obama and his elite pals overestimate his abilities. According to Peter Brimelow at VDARE.com, Romney is getting 53% of the White Vote, based on the Sept. 9 Rasmussen polling. That’s worse than McCain’s 60%, and likely a result of White women still entranced with Obama. He’s Black, for White women that counts a lot. [Noticing things with your own eyes, you see a lot of Black Male/White Female couples, but very few White Male/Black Female couples.] “Once You Vote Black You Never Go Back” is not aimed at White guys, after all. So Obama is probably the favorite to win. Despite a lousy economy. Incomes in free-fall (and sure to get worse after Helicopter Ben Bernanke dumps money causing inflation and eroding savings after a liquidity trap). That is not surprising. The Story of O might have been published decades ago, but it never sat atop the best-seller lists for twenty weeks nor did it sell in supermarkets (I’ve seen it there myself).

After all, White women have their own rage. They were promised sexy men and all they got was a bunch of “White guys” who create wealth and stability. Who wants THAT?

No, “not all White women are like that.” I have not seen breakdowns of Obama’s current support, but CBS News noted in June that:

The president’s support has declined among both non-Hispanic white women and non-Hispanic white men, including college-educated non-Hispanic white Americans of both genders. He enjoys higher support among women from this group, with 41 percent expressing support, than men from this group, 34 percent of whom support him. In 2008, 47 percent of non-Hispanic white women and 41 percent of non-Hispanic white men supported Mr. Obama.

Logically, if Romney is only polling 53% among Whites, it must be because White women have embraced Obama. Maybe magically White guys have embraced him, but its likely that the near-half majority he got with White women slightly improved, versus the 40% or so he got from White men in 2008.

The only kicker might be the personal background of the late Ambassador Stevens. White women don’t care (because, they don’t and never have, ever) about random dead White guys. White women didn’t march and support Reginald Denny. Nor the families of the two dead British Tourists slain in Sarasota by a guy who looked like Obama’s son. Nor the family of Bob and Nancy Straight. Nor the two early teen White boys set on fire by Black boys. Why would they? It is not any more likely than romance/porn novels will feature men who do the cooking (Kitchen Bitch?) or child-care or are “supportive” and egalitarian.

Hillbuzz is reporting that Ambassador Stevens was sodomized, repeatedly, which has been reported by Libyan sources. It might or might not be true. Hillbuzz is also reporting that Ambassador Stevens was openly gay.

And THAT is a game-changer. One very bad for Obama.

White women don’t care (and again, why would they?) about random non-sexy/dominant White guys. About George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, yes very much. So too the Royal Princes, particularly the one that acts like an a’hole (women love love love a’holes). This is hard for most White guys to grasp. But there it is. They just don’t. (And again, this applies to most, not all, White women. Effectively there is no political difference).

About gay men, White women care very, very much. Its why gays are all over TV. Women Love Love Love them. Gay men are what every White woman would create out of the non-sexy, non-dominant White guy population. As Victoria Beckham (Posh Spice) said, she dislikes straight men save her husband, father, and brothers. Gay marriage is a winning proposition among the populace poll-wise 52% nationally, because White women love gays. Straight guys are not out there demanding marriage be “gayed up.” Rather White women just love gays, and that shows up in any entertainment aimed at them (such as HGTV, better known as “Home and Gay Television”). “House Hunters” and “House Hunters International” feature gay couples every third episode. Because the female audience (men don’t buy feminine health care products, just watch the ads) loves the gays.

IF Ambassador Stevens was openly gay, and IF he was repeatedly sodomized because of it, watch out. The bottom will fall out of Obama’s support among White women. Then he’ll have to go to Plan C. Alberto Fujimori time. A “Self-Coup.” Perhaps establishing Sharia as an emergency measure on national security grounds, and postponing elections on the same. After all, “he won.” And he can rule by fiat, essentially, with a pro-forma Supreme Court ruling.

That is why it is interesting to watch what is going on with the Libyan situation. To protect Hillary? Nope. Obama would be happy to throw HER under the bus, the State Dept. said it will answer no more questions about the subject. But if again, it is true that Stevens was gay, and was sodomized and killed because of it, White women will dump Obama big time. Its one thing if some anonymous White guy gets it, another if a gay man does.

Even if Obama ekes past the post, with phony votes and the majority again of White women as the “Once You Vote Black, You Never Go Back” candidate, White guys are not going to be happy. Because the dynamic will not end. Muslims will demand ever greater concessions, on more and more issues. Because they’ll still be angry at being failures. And there will still be lean and hungry men among the Salafists. And America will still be weak abroad and tyrannical at home. [The preferred stance of women in the US.]

That leaves most White guys with a raw deal. That they’re supposed to like. They’ll rebel. But internally, in ways not seen. A constant surveillance state can be blocked. Cell phones switched to illegal alien/drug dealer oriented pay as you go phones. Email proxied and encrypted. Or messages hidden. More and more mocking put out, on various media, with more and more reaction by Muslim mobs and Salafist manipulators pouncing on weakness. Then more and more internal rebellion. Infecting even the FBI, and the military, which are made up still mostly of men. If one ICE agent can shoot another over an argument, (this happened here in SoCal a number of months ago), so too can the most beta of males do things en masse illegally. Its happened before, naturally over booze, in Prohibition. Nearly everyone drank, the way nearly everyone lights up now.

Ratchet down the Sharia, and you get more and more rebellion. In Egypt, the Mubarak regime fell because the elderly Generals and Mubarak officials and Colonels had stolen everything there was to be stolen, leaving the Majors, Captains, Lieutenants, and non-commissioned officers let alone the enlisted men with nothing. There was no more cash to spread around, to maintain loyalty. Obama is already reaching that point and we’ve just begun the Sharia descent. Obama and Sharia are raw deals for most White guys, and they know it. He might eke past the post (or not if it turns out the Ambassador was GAY because White women love gays), but faces a constant internal rebellion that won’t end up well for him.

Friday, August 10, 2012

Millennial Communism

A Guest Blog by The Mises Institute:

[This article is excerpted from volume 2, chapter 10 of An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought:(http://mises.org/resources/5800/Austrian-Perspective-on-the-History-of-Economic-Thought) (1995).                                                                                            
An MP3 audio file of this chapter, narrated by Jeff Riggenbach, is available for download: (http://mises.org/media/6016/10-Marxs-Vision-of-Communism) .]
The key to the intricate and massive system of thought created by Karl Marx (1818–83) is at bottom a simple one: Karl Marx was a communist. A seemingly banal or trite statement set alongside Marxism's myriad of jargon-ridden concepts in philosophy, economics, history, culture, etc. Yet Marx's devotion to communism was his crucial point, far more central than the dialectic, the class struggle, the theory of surplus value, and all the rest. Communism was the goal, the great end, the desideratum, the ultimate end that would make the sufferings of mankind throughout history worthwhile. History is the history of suffering, of class struggle, of the exploitation of man by man. In the same way as the return of the Messiah, in Christian theology, would put an end to history and establish a new heaven and a new earth, so the establishment of communism would put an end to human history. And just as for postmillennial Christians, man, led by God's prophets and saints, would establish a Kingdom of God on earth (and, for premillennials, Jesus would have many human assistants in establishing such a Kingdom), so for Marx and other schools of communists, mankind, led by a vanguard of secular saints, would establish a secularized kingdom of heaven on earth.
In messianic religious movements, the millennium is invariably established by a mighty, violent upheaval, an Armageddon, a great apocalyptic war between good and evil. After this titanic conflict, a millennium, a new age, of peace and harmony, a reign of justice, would be established upon the earth.
Marx emphatically rejected those utopians who aimed to arrive at communism through a gradual and evolutionary process, through a steady advancement of the good. No, Marx harked back to the apocalyptics, the postmillennial coercive German and Dutch Anabaptists of the 16th century, to the millennial sects during the English Civil War, and to the various groups of premillennial Christians who foresaw a bloody Armageddon at the Last Days, before the millennium could be established. Indeed, since the immediatist postmils refused to wait for gradual goodness and sainthood to permeate among men, they joined the premils in believing that only a violent apocalyptic final struggle between good and evil, between saints and sinners, could establish the millennium. Violent, worldwide revolution, in Marx's version made by the oppressed proletariat, would be the instrument of the advent of his millennium, communism.
In fact, Marx, like the premils (or "millenarians") went further to hold that the reign of evil on earth would reach a peak just before the apocalypse. For Marx as for the millenarians, writes Ernest Tuveson, The evil of the world must proceed to its height before, in one great complete root-and branch upheaval, it would be swept away.…
Millenarian pessimism about the perfectibility of the existing world is crossed by a supreme optimism. History, the millenarian believes, so operates that, when evil has reached its height, the hopeless situation will be reversed. The original, the true harmonious state of society, in some kind of egalitarian order, will be reestablished.[1]
In contrast to the various groups of utopian socialists, and in common with religious messianists, Karl Marx did not sketch the features of his future communism in any detail. Not for Marx, for example, to spell out the number of people in his utopia, and the shape and location of their houses, the pattern of their cities. In the first place, there is a quintessentially crazy air to utopias that are mapped by their creators in precise detail. But more importantly, spelling out the details of one's ideal society removes the crucial element of awe and mystery from the allegedly inevitable world of the future. In the same way, science fiction movies lose their glamour and excitement when, in the second half of the film, the mysterious, powerful, and previously invisible monsters become concretized into slow-moving green blob-like creatures that have lost their mysterious aura and have become almost commonplace. But certain features are broadly alike in all visions of communism. Private property is eliminated, individualism goes by the board, individuality is flattened, all property is owned and controlled communally, and the individual units of the new collective organism are in some vague way equal to one another.
This millennialist emphasis on the collective is a long way from the orthodox Christian, Augustinian stress on the individual soul and his salvation. In orthodox, a millennial Christianity, the individual does or does not achieve salvation, until Jesus returns and puts an end to history, and ushers in the Day of Judgment. There is no millennium on earth; the Kingdom of God remains safely, and appropriately, in heaven. But millennialism's emphasis on achieving a Kingdom of God on earth inevitably stressed — especially in the required human agency of the postmillennialists — the inevitable collective march toward the Kingdom in and through history. In what we may call the "immediatist" version of postmil doctrine, as we have seen in Volume 1 in the Brethren of the Free Spirit, the coercive Anabaptists of the Reformation, in Christian communists and in a secularized version in Marxism, the object is to seize immediate power in a violent revolution, and to purge the world of sinners and heretics, i.e., all who are not followers of the sect in question, so as to establish the millennium, the precondition of Jesus's Second Advent. In contrast, the gradualist postmils, in less violent and precipitate fashion, who would seize control of most of the Protestant churches in the northern United States during the 19th century, wanted to use state power to coerce morality and virtue and then establish the Kingdom of God, not only in the United States, but throughout the world. As one historian penetratingly concludes about one of the most prominent postmil economists and social scientists of the late 19th century — a passage that could apply to the entire movement:
In [Richard T.] Ely's eyes, government was the God-given instrument through which we had to work. Its preeminence as a divine instrument was based on the post-Reformation abolition of the division between the sacred and the secular and on the State's power to implement ethical solutions to public problems. The same identification of sacred and secular … enabled Ely to both divinize the state and socialize Christianity: he thought of government as God's major instrument of redemption … [2]
Gradualists or immediatists, all millennialists have caused grave social and political trouble by "immanentizing the eschaton" — in the political philosopher Eric Voegelin's infelicitously worded but highly perceptive phrase. As an orthodox Christian, Voegelin believed that "the eschaton" — the Final Days, the Kingdom of God — must be kept strictly out of earthly matters and be confined to the otherworldly realms of heaven and hell. But to take the "eschaton" out of heaven and bring it down into the
processes of human history, is to create grave problems and consequences: consequences which Voegelin saw embodied in such immanent and messianic movements as Marxism and Nazism. In common with other utopian socialists and communists, Marx sought in communism the apotheosis of the collective species — mankind as one new super-being, in which the only meaning possessed by the individual is as a negligible particle of that collective organism. One incisive portrayal of Marxian collective organicism — what amounts to a celebration of the New Socialist Man to be created during the communizing process — was that of a top Bolshevik theoretician of the early 20th century, Alexander Alexandravich Bogdanov (1873–1928). Bogdanov, like Joachim of Fiore, spoke of "three ages" of human history: first was a religious, authoritarian society and a self-sufficient economy. Next came the "second age," an exchange economy, marked by diversity and the emergence of "autonomy" of the "individual human personality." But this individualism, at first progressive, later becomes an obstacle to progress as it hampers and "contradicts the unifying tendencies of the machine age." But then there will arise the third age, the final stage of history, communism, though not as with Joachim, an age of the Holy Spirit.         This last stage will be marked by a collective self-sufficient economy, and by the fusion of personal lives into one colossal whole, harmonious in the relations of its parts, systematically grouping all elements for one common struggle — struggle against the endless spontaneity of nature … An enormous mass of creative activity … is necessary in order to solve this task. It demands the forces not of man but of mankind — and only in working at this taskdoes mankind as such emerge.[3]
The acme of messianic communism appears in the frenzied three-volume phantasmagoria by the notable German blend of Christian messianist and Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist, Ernst Bloch (1885–1977). Bloch held that the "inner truth" of things could only be discovered after "a complete transformation of the universe, a grand apocalypse, the descent of the Messiah, a new heaven, and a new earth." As J.P. Stern writes in his review of Bloch's three-volume Principle of Hope, the book contains such remarkable declamations as Ubi Lenin, ibi Jerusalem ("Where Lenin is, there is Jerusalem"), and that "the Bolshevist fulfillment of Communism" is part and parcel of "the age-old fight for God." There is also more than a hint, in Bloch, that disease, nay even death itself, will be abolished upon the advent of communism.[4]
In contrast, there is no more eloquent championing of orthodox Christian individualism and revulsion against collectivism, than G.K. Chesterton's critique of the views of a leading Fabian socialist, Mrs. Annie Besant — in which Chesterton swats Mrs. Besant's pantheistic Buddhism: According to Mrs. Besant the universal Church is simply the universal Self. It is the doctrine that we are really all one person; that there are no real walls of individuality between man and man.… She does not tell us to love our neighbor; she tells us to be our neighbors … the intellectual abyss between Buddhism and Christianity is that, for the Buddhist or theosophist, personality is the fall of man, for the Christian it is the purpose of God, the whole point of his cosmic idea.[5]
Let us turn to some of the main features of communism. In the typical communal millennial future, an epoch of bliss and harmony, work, the necessity to labor, becomes deemphasized or disappears altogether. Labor, at least labor in order to maintain and advance one's living standards, does not ring true with very many people as a feature of utopia. Thus, in the vision of Joachim of Fiore, perhaps the first medieval millennialist, no work would be required to disturb the endless round of celebration and prayer, because mankind would have achieved the status of immaterial objects. If man were pure spirit, it is true that the economic problem — the problem of production and living standards — would necessarily disappear. Unfortunately, however, Marx, being an atheist and materialist, could not exactly fall back on a Fiore-like communism of pure spirit. How could solidly material human beings solve the problem of production and of maintaining and expanding their living standards?

There was method in Marx's refusal to treat the communist stage in any detail. His utopia was shadowy. On the one hand, Marx assumed and asserted that goods in the future communist society would be superabundant. If so, there would of course be no need to refer to the universal economic problem of
scarcity of means and resources as applied to ends. But by assuming away the problem, Marx bequeathed the puzzle to future generations, and Marxists have been split on the question: Will communism itself bring about this magical state of superabundance, or should we wait until capitalism brings superabundance before we establish communism? Generally, Marxist groups have solved this problem, not in theory but in practice (or "praxis"), by cleaving to whatever path would allow them either to conquer or to maintain their power. Thus Marxist vanguards or parties, on seeing an opportunity to seize power, have been invariably willing to skip the "stages of history" preordained by their Master and exercise their revolutionary will. On the other hand, Marxist elites already entrenched in power have prudentially put off the ultimate goal of communism ever further into a receding future. And so the Soviets were quick to stress hard work and gradualism in persevering toward the ultimate goal.[6]


There are several other probable reasons for Marx's failure to detail the features of ultimate communism, or, indeed, of the necessary stages to achieve it. 
First is that Marx had no interest in the economic features of his utopia; a simple question-begging assumption of unlimited abundance was enough. His main interest, as we shall see, was in the philosophic, indeed religious, aspects of communism.                                                                                              Second, communism for Marx was an inverted form of Hegel and his philosophy of history; it was the revolutionary end to Marx's neo-Hegelian version of "alienation" and of the "dialectic" process by which the aufhebung (transcendence) and negation of one historical stage is replaced by another and opposing one. In this case: the negation of the evil condition of private property and the division of labor, and the establishment of communism, in which man's unity with man and nature is achieved. To Marx, as to Hegel, history necessarily proceeds by this magical dialectic, in which one stage gives rise inevitably to a later and opposing stage. Except that to Marx, the "dialectic" is material rather than spiritual.[7] 

Marx never published his neo-Hegelian Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, in which the philosophic basis of Marxism was set forth, and one essay of which, "Private Property and Communism," contained Marx's fullest exposition of the communist society. One reason for his refusal to publish was that, in later decades, Hegelian philosophy had gone out of fashion, even in Germany, and Marx's followers were interested more in the economic and revolutionary aspects of Marxism.                                                                                                                                               

Comment on this article:
Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was dean of the Austrian School. He was an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher. See Murray N. Rothbard's article archives:                        (
http://mises.org/daily/author/299/Murray-N-Rothbard) .
This article is excerpted from volume 2, chapter 10 of An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought (
http://mises.org/resources/5800/Austrian-Perspective-on-the-History-of-Economic-Thought) (1995).                                                                                                                                                    An MP3 audio file of this chapter, narrated by Jeff Riggenbach, is available for download: (http://mises.org/media/6016/10-Marxs-Vision-of-Communism) .
You can subscribe to future articles by Murray N. Rothbard via this RSS feed (
http://mises.org/Feeds/articles.ashx? AuthorId=299) .
Copyright © 2012 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided full credit is given.

Notes:
[1] Ernest L. Tuveson, "The Millenarian Structure of The Communist Manifesto," in C.A. Patrides and Joseph Wittreich (eds), The Apocalypse: in English Renaissance Thought and Literature (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984), pp. 326–7. Tuveson speculates that Marx and Engels may have been
influenced by the outburst of millenarianism in England during the 1840s. On this phenomenon, particularly the flare-up in England and the US of the Millerites, who predicted the end of the world on 22 October 1844, see the classic work on modern millenarianism, Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of
Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800–1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970). See Tuveson, ibid., p. 340, n. 5.
[2] Jean B. Quandt, "Religion and Social Thought: The Secularization of Postmillennialism," American Quarterly, 25 (Oct. 1973), pp. 402–3. Actually, Ely, in common with many other postmils, was not all
that gradual, as he spoke of the New Jerusalem, "which we are all eagerly awaiting."
[3] Quoted in S.V. Utechin, "Philosophy and Society: Alexander Bogdanov," in Leopold Labedz (ed.). Revisionism: Essays on the History of Marxist Ideas (New York: Praeger, 1962), p. 122.
[4] J.P. Stern, "Marxism on Stilts: Review of Ernst Bloch, The Principle of Hope," The New Republic, 196 (9 March 1987), pp. 40, 42; Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), III, pp. 423–4.
[5] G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (New York: 1927), pp. 244–5. Quoted in Thomas Molnar, Utopia: the Perennial Heresy (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1964), p. 123.
[6] "The C.P.S.U. [Communist Party of the Soviet Union], being a party of scientific communism, advances and solves the problems of communist construction as the material and spiritual prerequisites for them become ready and mature, being guided by the fact that necessary stages of development must not be skipped over … ." Fundamentals of Marxism — Leninism (2nd rev. ed., Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1963), p. 662. Also see ibid., pp. 645–6, 666–7, 674–5.
[7] On alienation and the dialectic, see Chapter 11.

In Freedom,
Dr. Keith C. Westbrook Ph.D.
Pres. Conservative Party-Fl.                                                                                                            

Friday, July 13, 2012

Self Determination!

What makes the United States of America a truly Great Nation and why the left is bent on destroying it!

We hold these Truths to be Self Evident that all men are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights; that among these Rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to Secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men , deriving their just power from the Consent of the Governed!

That statement from the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is by far the cornerstone of  what is America and why it is Greater than any Nation before or current.  It is the fundamental expression of what would become the greatest experiment in self-determination in the history of this planet. A government where no outside forces were to influence its decisions on the fundamental Rights to be Alive and Live, To be Free to be yourself and choose your own destiny as long as it did not infringe on the Rights of others and to keep the Fruits of your own Labors.

The so-called educational elite who have spent decades lying and hiding the facts of our Nation and its remarkable formation of self governing, they have tried to obfuscate these rights by saying that man has enjoyed these rights before and it has failed as a form of government.                                                                         That is a lie because this Republic and its Bill of Rights and the aforementioned Declaration of Independence for the first time in the history of mankind allowed all of us who are blessed to be Americans the Right to keep our Property. Even as a serf or nobleman in feudal times the CROWN still owned it all. You were allowed to keep part of what you reaped from your labors only if the ruler was satisfied with your work. And he ordained who got what, when, where and why on his rule alone.

No where before in the history of this planet has any nation or country chosen a form of Government where a ruler or monarch or line of descendants or royal family or pre-ordained party or tribal leader or family elder was instituted to lead.  We would choose for ourselves from amongst ourselves who we would have guide the Nation. If you are familiar with the Constitution and its original intent it was never meant to give power to a ruler or a group of people who think they are more capable of determining your destiny than you are. It was meant to do just the opposite, limit their power and give US the governed the final say in our Republics management.

AND THE WORD MANAGEMENT IS CORRECT: WE OWN AMERICA NOT THE POLITICAL CLASS IN WASHINGTON DC OR U. N. HEADQUARTERS IN N.Y.C. OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN CAPITAL OR GLOBALIST GROUP!

Every single politician in this Country works for us yet they ignore us, mock us, besmirch us, deride us, insult us, degrade us and generally do whatever they feel like without fear of reprisal from us. And with good reason because many of them having acted this way for many years still get re-elected, just reinforcing their disgraceful behavior.

If you walked into any business in the world and found employees and managers acting this way you would never do business with them again.

And if you owned that business then you would fire every single useless miscreant that created the problem, yet we keep electing, re-electing and reinforcing their behavior by not punishing them.      

The population of this Country used to have a standing method of dealing with politicians who acted this way, they would physically remove them from their office and depending on the severity of their malfeasance either tar and feather or throw them in jail. (or under it)(my favorite was the stocks, they would throw their spoiled food at them while they sat in public view to be derided by their fellow citizens)

We have reached a time where the progressive socialist ruling class that has usurped power from us, has pushed our way of life and our very existence as a Republic. That we can still choose who to represent us, to the the very brink of extinction. We are now hanging by the proverbial thread of what once was a Nation that every freedom loving individual who could get here wanted to be here. A Nation that other Communist, Socialist, Marxist, Fascist, Statist countries had to and still do block their citizens from fleeing to. A Nation that before the ruling class destroyed with their progressive socialist agenda, has to limit the influx of new immigrants. Because even with all of our new problems they still see an opportunity that the left has not yet completely destroyed despite their best efforts and that is you can still keep the fruits of your own labor and own property.

It is past time that we exercise to the fullest the power of self-determination now, the progressive socialist ruling class in this country will do everything within and outside of their authority to continue the path we are on which is to destroy the political system in this Republic. And if you can’t figure out what they intend to replace it with I suggest you stop watching the regurgitated pabulum and propaganda talking points, shut off the reality TV and turn on the reality of what is happening all around you comrade or get used to that greeting!

In Freedom:

Dr. Keith C. Westbrook Ph.D.                                                                            President Conservative Party – Florida

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Fixing what's broke in our government!

What no Democrat or Republican will admit needs to be done or how to do it!

In listening to the latest back and forth from both sides with the Democrats lying and the GOP responding, it is obvious that neither side of this equation is willing or equipped to put forth the plan that we need to stop the progressive socialist utopian destruction of America. I have shown that since the "Great Society" legislation of 1965 the government has grown  464.4%  from  411 federal agencies and offices to 1909 federal agencies and offices while the population from the 1960 census to 2010 census  shows a population growth from 179,323,175 to 308,745,538. or 45.36%.
That is a growth differential of 409% yes our government has grown more than 4 1/2 times larger than it was in 1965 to perform the new duties it took away from the states. The federal government over the last 47 years under the umbrella of that legislation and the massive federal government build up has added more than 100,000 new laws and federal regulations to enforce it and its subsequent socialist utopian programs with only one intended net effect, keep the ruling classes ruling while subjugating our rights and freedoms. And to implement and manage them they created a vast departmental bureaucracy to control it and us that has been choking the life from this Republic. This massive federal bureaucracy must either be reduced or completely phased out or we will never recover completely and we will be forced to watch as we become the very thing they want us to be, subjects of a socialist Marxist state. ("we already are")
The 1500 agencies and offices that have been created since then have been adding trillions to the cost of government and are now so fiscally insolvent that we currently borrow 40 cents on every dollar just to pay their bills.
In 1965 the federal debt was $317,273,898,983.64.  That's billion with a B.                                                                                     
Today it is  15,728,863,898,758.00  that's trillion with a T.                                                              
Yes that is correct while our population has grown by 45% our debt per person has grown by 500%! Our debt thanks to the unchecked and unregulated growth of our federal government is 25 times more per man, woman and child even with the offset of the population growth. That is a staggering number almost 16 trillion dollars in less than 50 years with the democrats running the show for 40 of  them. The debt burden in 1965 for every man, woman and child was less than $2000, it is now $50,108.00 or 25 times more than it was before their legislation started us down the path to the progressive socialist utopian nightmare we are now living in.
There are other factors as well like the fact that it now costs business' more in regulatory expenses than their tax burden. In 2010 the tax burden to business' in both state and local taxes was 1.4 trillion dollars, the cost of compliance of federal regulations was 1.75 trillion. Yes we as Americans now absorb the expense of 3 TRILLION DOLLARS of pass thru costs from business' in America with 80% being federal tax and regulatory based.
The Federal Register is the document that compiles all the federal rules and regulations that businesses are required to comply with. As of 2010 the Federal Register was 81,405 pages long. Federal regulations serve as a hidden tax on the economy. Costs imposed by regulation do not end up on any Federal budget, nor do they add to the national deficit. However, 81,405 pages of regulations strain the economy by creating huge costs that business are obligated to meet.
To fix the problem we must start down sizing and eliminating multiple agencies and departments to match our population growth and actual regulatory needs not the political infrastructure created by the Democrats to enforce their socialist agenda onto America.
I would start by eliminating the departments of Education, Energy,Environmental Protection, Transportation, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Labor, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development and the General Services Administration and pass their operations and funding back to the states with the states keeping the tax funding they now send to Washington to be wasted and abused. I have identified these 10 agencies because they have all demonstrated extreme fiscal malfeasance and since their inception have all had a negative effect on every single area where they have imposed themselves. Since the Dept. of Ed. H.S. graduation rates and over all science and math scores are down over 40%, since the dept. of energy the cost of energy has increased 326% while the reduction in domestic energy production of all types has decreased by 29%.  I can continue this fact based performance evaluation for several thousand pages but it would only re-enforce their incompetence.
I would downsize all other agencies and offices that are not deemed necessary to carry out the Constitutional Responsibilities as defined by the Federalist papers to be necessary for the functioning of the government. I would eliminate the base line budgeting mechanisms and roll back spending to 2000 levels and then introduce a balanced budget amendment that only allows budgetary increases to match stated inflation based on preceding years inflation numbers.
All federal regulations enacted that have not been voted on by both houses and the POTUS will be suspended until reviewed for their cause and effect and any that can and should be the purview of the states shall be returned to the states for individual consideration and enforcement or annulment.  All future federal regulations must pass house over sight and be deemed necessary by the states affected by them.
End Presidential Executive orders and czars, all "cabinet posts" will be vetted and approved by both houses with majority vote rules in effect.
Now no where in this have I stated that Social Security or Medicare and Medicaid have to be eliminated or changed but they should be removed from their federal bureaucratic oversight and re-instituted as stand alone departments with both state and federal oversight shared and administered. Their fiscal mismanagement and the use of the sequestered funds being diverted to the general fund must not go unpunished and must be monitored by outside auditing agencies that are directly answerable to the voter, that is why state run auditors responsible for all of the accounting is necessary. Also an immediate return of all of the funds diverted from Social Security and the guilty parties forced to make restitution, even their heirs and beneficiaries should be held responsible just like any other fiduciary would be.
As the title indicated fixing what's broke in our government will take the effort of every American who believes in the Republic and the Constitution and its return to Rule of Law from rule of man.                                                                                                                                                Until we elect citizen statesmen in lieu of career politicians who are not part of the ruling class that is destroying us as the current 2 party system is, solutions based on the facts will not be presented and our decline will continue. 
In Freedom,
Dr. Keith C. Westbrook Ph.D.
President Conservative Party Florida

Blog Archive

About Me

My photo

Financial Services Professional specializing in health care risk mitigation and multi-layered retirment income planning.

Blood of Our ForeFathers

Blood of Our ForeFathers