At the end of every year, decade, or century we reminisce about the era that just concluded. We take pride in the accomplishments and are relieved that we survived the disasters. We celebrate the people that came into our lives and mourn the ones that have been taken from us. We look at the challenges that remain in front of us with a deceptive sense of normalcy. Our minds tell us that, yes there are still challenges and more work to be done, but humanity is evolving the natural way it should and the future is bright. Looking at things this way, you lose the sense of how much things have either improved or devolved. This is especially true of the younger generations who have little or no personal experience with prior eras.
But, do we ever analyze our current situation through the lens of history, or perform a multiple-point safety check as we would with our cars? Is our country in a healthy state or, are there conditions that have evolved in a very negative direction, causing significant risks? As in business, we need a baseline of metrics showing if we are improving or regressing. Examples of these metrics might be 1) how prepared are our students to enter the workforce? 2) are we spending money wisely? or 3) is our justice system being fairly applied? Regretfully, the answers are problematic, and dangers are growing dangers and need to be addressed.
This article focuses on a basic conflict facing America, “The Battle for Control of America”. We will analyze this power struggle through the lens of history, establish a baseline, and identify a multiple-point safety check to deal with it. And we will contemplate how good the country and even the world could be if these issues were resolved.
The Philosophic Debate about the optimal form of government
Life, throughout much of history was, as Hobbes reminded us, nasty, brutish and short. While royalty lived in luxury with servants and plenty to eat, the common people lived with the bare minimum. They had to deal with harsh weather, pandemics, wars, starvation, high taxes, criminals and even abusive governments. In Europe, kingdoms were the traditional forms of governments.
In a kingdom of yore, a royal family ruled the country with the King or Queen making all the final decisions. Control was passed to the first-born son or daughter of the previous King or Queen. The royal family, including Lords and Vassals, lived in luxury, all of which was designed to perpetuate their allegiance to the Crown. The Knights and Lords felt privileged to live above the peasants. Peasants were given only enough to keep them from revolting.
During the Age of Enlightenment (1600–1800) and the Industrial Revolution (1760–1840), Europe began to evolve away from kingdoms and toward democratic societies. The philosophers of the Enlightenment era experienced and understood the difficult life most people lived under and searched for better options than ruthless monarchs and totalitarian control. John Locke (1632-1704), an English philosopher and physician, was widely regarded as one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers. After King Charles II was forced into exile King William III and Queen Mary II were offered the throne in 1689 with John Locke as an advisor, resulting in a fairer and more prosperous society.
The transition to more democratic and less authoritarian forms of government involved significant debate and took decades to occur. Below are a couple of philosophers who contributed to the democratic principles of government we have today.
Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher (1588-1679), suggested that the optimal form of government was a benevolent dictatorship in which an authoritarian leader exercises absolute political power but is perceived to do so with regard for the benefit of the population as a whole, as opposed to being regarded as a malevolent dictator concerned only with his and his supporters’ self-interests. But the challenge was that the people had no control over the choice of the dictator, and no way of predetermining his motivation.
Montesquieu, a French social commentator and political thinker (1689-1755), is the person most associated with the doctrine of the separation of powers in a government. Montesquieu took the view that the Roman Republic was established to prevent anyone from usurping complete power. In modern terms, a government is divided into branches, each with separate, independent powers and responsibilities so that the powers of any one branch offset and limit those of the other branches. The typical division is three branches: a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary.
The American Revolution occurred during this period of intense philosophic debate, trial and error. Colonial America was an uncontrolled wilderness with no official state government, only various official representatives to the English crown. Lacking a formal government made it easier for our founding fathers to devise an ideal form of government based on checks and balances. The new country became The United States and the new form of government was a Democratic Republic.
The foundational principle of this new government, was Locke’s Natural Law. This principle considered all people as being born equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights which no other people can take away. The Constitution is the contract between the people and the government, guaranteeing these principles. This was designed to ensure that the people were able to maintain superiority and control over the government and that the government’s purpose was to protect people.
A second set of theories on the optimal form of government sprang from the Age of Enlightenment. These theories were promoted by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), a Genevan philosopher, writer, and composer. His theories are presented in his “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” and “The Social Contract.” Rousseau disputed Locke’s belief in Natural Law and Individual Rights and promoted the principles of Common Good and the General Will. Rousseau believed that in order to experience greater happiness people had to suppress their individual will and rights to promote the collective will under government controls. These theories support top-down governments such as kingdoms and led to new forms of government, many of them socialist or communist and most of them totalitarian.
Building on the collectivist principle of Rousseau were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who are regarded as the founders of the revolutionary, socio-economic ideology called “Marxism.” In their “Communist Manifesto,” Marx outlines five stages of socio-economic organization: 1) hunter-gatherers; 2) feudalism; 3) capitalism; 4) socialism; and 5) communism. According to Marx, the progression from one stage to the next may require a revolutionary overthrow. The Socialism stage involves the collective ownership and control of the means of production, and Communism is the final stage where competition fades and there is no longer a need for government. This vision for the final stage has never materialized and instead has always evolved into ruthless totalitarian forms of control.
This collective form of government is very similar to the kingdoms of the middle ages. Instead of a monarch, total control resides with the Politburo, a group of individuals who set the direction and oversee the implementation of their utopian vision. The second and third tiers of public leaders and the military pledge loyalty and support to the goals of the politburo. In this structure, loyalty is more important than integrity, and these classes are rewarded for their loyalty and protected by the justice system.
Defining the Problem
While the United States is still considered a Democratic Republic, it has taken on the characteristics of a kingdom or a communistic country, where the political classes are rewarded and protected from justice for their loyalty and service.
Theoretically in the United States, the people still have control over their representatives, but it seems as if entrenched politicians are rarely replaced. Although the policies passed in Congress are said to represent the will of the people, they are initiated by partisan politicians and influenced by special interests. Plus, the results of elections are heavily influenced by the propaganda, outside money and increasing voter fraud. The people are now more subject to the will of the politicians and the politicians seem to be united behind and loyal to an invisible force.
Now, instead of a simple and efficient government that serves the people, we have a hyper-partisan government that is in a constant tug-of-war and can’t seem to agree on anything. Instead of evolving in a positive direction, we constantly zig-zag from a conservative direction to a progressive direction and back again. This no longer seems like ideological differences or different views of morality and principles. Rather, pure hatred has emerged between sides that are striving to serve different masters.
Today, there are two forces battling to take control of the levers of the American government. One side has a nameless, faceless, secret Politburo doing everything in its power to create a collectivist form of government. On the other side is a Counter-Revolutionary force, fighting to prevent a collectivist takeover and restore the core values and principles that made America great.
Motive and Tactics
The Collectivist side is using a set of tactics that has been successfully used for more than a hundred years to increase control. These are basically the same tactics that were used in the Russian Revolution of 1917 and in Nazi Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s. They have also been deployed in Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea. As you read these tactics, think about the things you have been observing, and consider whether they are part of these tactics.
Establish a loyal and supportive hierarchy – Recruit people for the upper tiers of government, who will be loyal and supportive of the leadership (loyal subjects cannot serve two masters).
Grow the debt and deficit – Excessive spending bills contribute to slush funds and activist groups, which allows top-down government with loyal supporters to function and grow.
Convert the Justice System – Replace the justice system that ensures “equal justice for all” with one that protects the loyalists and intimidates and punishes the opposition.
Weaken or eliminate checks and balances – This includes things like promoting an activist interpretation of the Constitution, stacking the Supreme Court, and eliminating the filibuster.
Control public education – Vladimir Lenin said “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.” This involves teaching children what to think, not how to think.
Gain control over voting –install people who are loyal to the cause to oversee the voting process. Promote concepts that encourage mass voting and de-emphasize efforts to maintain voter integrity.
Restrict Gun Rights – Individual gun rights are a threat to superiority of the government.
Control the News – Take over the newspapers and media to promote the party message rather than truth.
Increase indoctrination and limit “Free Speech” – Claim that individualistic viewpoints are offensive and collectivist viewpoints are admirable. People who speak the truth must be suppressed and disgraced.
Reduce the influence of religion – Religion promotes obedience to a higher power, which conflicts with loyalty to the power of the government.
Create a dependent society – Convince the people that they will live a better life if they support government programs for critical goods and services. Ensure enough goods and services to keep the common people from revolting.
Discourage pride and patriotism – In order to make it easier to change our country, the country must be characterized as one that has a flawed and shameful past and needs to be reformed.
Play the blame game – Identify metrics that can be exploited, blame them on the opponent, and identify yourself as the compassionate one. Create a victim mentality.
Create fear and reluctance to resist – intimidate those who resist. Find ways to weaken and divide the opposition.
Promote Socialism over Capitalism – Portray capitalism as an unfair system that is driven by greed. Encourage bringing critical aspects of the economy into government control.
Arrive as a Superhero – Arrive on scene as the hero or savior of all that is good and right.
Together we win or Together we fall
The Global Left is the side of Collectivism and a top-down Socialistic/Communistic form of government. Joe Biden is the current figurehead of the Progressive movement. Barak Obama and George Soros are obvious leaders of the secret Politburo. Their actions are part of a worldwide globalist ideology for restrictive thought, global government, and world domination.
The American Right is the side for Individualism and a bottom-up representative form of government. Donald Trump is the most direct, vocal leader of this Counter-Revolution.
This Progressive movement is not constrained by ethics, morality, past agreements or the U.S. Constitution. They are ruthless. and their end justifies any means. The more their tactics gain control, the more they will be accelerated. When the wolves take control of the chicken coop and when safeguards that were designed to protect us are no longer effective, disaster occurs. As a society, we seem to have a significant problem with assessing the motivation of the people we put in charge. Too often we give people the benefit of the doubt, especially if we share their ideology and support their promises. But like the 9/11 attack, our naivety and woefully inadequate controls and safeguards could lead to another major disaster that brings significant pain to the American people.
It is wise and healthy to be suspicious and consider past behavior as an indication of character, motivation, and future actions and loyalties. It is extremely unhealthy and unwise to give people the benefit of the doubt because they may be charismatic and likable. Control of our government should be reserved for only the most admirable and moral people, and we must hold them accountable for achieving their goals and having the highest integrity. Our very future is dependent on having the best and most qualified people regardless of the sex or race. And we cannot give people control of our government simply to support diversity quotas. Diversity programs may be cloaked in admirable objectives but they are counter to America’s core values and principles. Critical thinking must be encouraged because it provides immunity to collectivist deception.
Just as it took our ancestors decades to create a more perfect union, migrating it into a collectivist society will also take time to complete. But many safeguards have already been removed, and our checks and balances are weakened. We should be less concerned about ourselves, but terrified about the culture our children and grandchildren could be threatened with.
Many people will claim this could not happen in America. Some of them may be part of the movement but unaware of the tactics and the desired end-state of the movement. These people will be resistant to restoring our checks and balances. But fight back we must. Watch for a future paper entitled “Strategy for Saving America.”