The Gospel Truth

A Pauper Nation

September 21, 2015
2 Comments

The Prince and the Pauper is a novel by Mark Twain, which was first published in 1881 in Canada, a year before its American debut.   Set in 1547 it tells the story of two English boys, a pauper named Tom who lived with an abusive father and Prince Edward, son of King Henry VIII.

Through a series of plot manipulations the boys switch identities for a temporary period of time.  This literary device has serious allegorical overtones and has been a standard in literature ever since.

How surprising it is that the respective historical legacies of such disparate figures, such as Niccolo Machiavelli and Saul Alinsky have come to be intertwined in an intergenerational relationship that has had lasting consequences for American society.

Just look what their acolytes in the Democratic Party have done to the United States in the person of Barack Obama and the still potentially dangerous Hillary Clinton.

Machiavelli was born in 1469.  According to historian Jacques Barzun, even his name evokes visions of fiendish conduct. It has evolved to mean a cynical approach to government. This disdain revolves around his seminal work, The Prince, written in 1513.

16th century Florence was the cultural hub of the Italian peninsula.  Yet Italy was a miasma of violence-ridden principalities where the people lived in constant fear and trembling.  Assassinations, murders, and pillaging were daily occurrences. Machiavelli thought it was time for a new prince, who would establish peace and order.

Machiavelli was disturbed because most people lived according to the immorality of the day, even though they espoused Christian principles.  He believed that since the Italians of his day were morally weak, cowards, or poor, traditional rules had to be altered.

According to Arthur Hippler, writing in the Wanderer, Machiavelli was the first Western thinker to promote the idea that moral evil is necessary for political good or as we paraphrase it the ends justify the means!

It has been almost five centuries since Machiavelli’s death in 1527.   According to Barzun, Machiavelli’s legacy has lived on in the minds and hearts of scholars and deep thinkers, such as John Adams, philosophers, Charles Montesquieu, and David Hume, as well as Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky. They all believed that the state should be neutral on moral issues.

It is obvious that his spirit has deeply influenced the minds of many current American leaders, who employ the same antinomian rationale that has led the Supreme Court to render its historic decisions on abortion and homosexual rights that have rent the fabric of American civilization.

Saul Alinsky main importance was that he adapted Machiavellian tactics to his own brand of social justice. He was a superb social organizer, who believed in the power of numbers.  Grass roots organization and community organizers were the open door through which he hoped to accumulate power for his disciples, the legions of poor people he witnessed every day.

Like his Italian forbear, Alinsky was not a utopian visionary. He believed that the organizer should be a neutral agent, a kind of ideological agnostic, seeking no particular outcome and advancing no philosophy, other the gaining of power.

Nor did Alinsky lose any sleep over doing dark deeds for the good of the have-nots. To him ethical standards had to be elastic enough to stretch with the times.

Unlike Machiavelli Alinsky did not want power for the rich and the well-connected. His goal was to turn Machiavelli on his head and usurp power for the poor and the downtrodden, thus upending the historical way that life had worked.

But Alinsky was not a doctrinaire cultural Marxist. He was more concerned with strategy. In his books Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals he created an amalgamation of ideas and plans adapted from the dusty pages of Marxist, Socialist, anarchist even Fascist texts.

In essence his thinking mirrored that of the Philosophes of the French Revolution in their deep abiding contempt for Christianity, the business world, private property, and the traditional American political process.

It is not surprising that Tom Paine, the voice of the revolution, was one of his heroes. He had no tolerance for compromise.

One of his early converts from the middle class was a former Goldwater Republican from Park Ridge Illinois. Alinsky saw great promise in the bespectacled college student from Wellesley College, Hillary Rodham.

The future Mrs. Clinton thought enough of Alinsky to write her senior thesis on his ideas and strategies, after working for him one summer.  Unfortunately, the voting public will never know what she wrote.

According to the book, Hell to Pay, by Barbara Olson, a passenger on American Flight #77 that was crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, as soon as Bill Clinton became president, Hillary’s thesis was put under lock and key at Wellesley.

In her 2003 best seller, Living History, Senator Clinton briefly acknowledges her intellectual debt to Alinsky. She took great pains to point out that she disagreed with his idea that one had to work from outside the establishment. Clinton prides herself on working from within an organization to reform it.

Alinsky has had no better acolyte than Barack Obama, who from his perch in the White House has put himself above all rules of law, moral and judicial. His tenure has worked to instill Alinsky’s Rules and Principles in health care, gun control, education and religion.

A former Alinsky community organizer, Obama has instituted a Marxist plan, the work of two Columbia University professors from the 1960s, the infamous Cloward-Piven Strategy whose intent is to purposely collapse the U.S. economy with huge deficits, an uncontrollable nation debt and a welfare system bursting with millions of new recipients, immigrants and mentally ill homeless people, essentially turning the United States into a Pauper Nation, at the mercy of its creditors and foreign enemies.

According to philosopher, Leo Strauss’ classic, Thoughts on Machiavelli, the Florentine was essentially a teacher of evil. This epithet should also apply to Alinsky.  All Americans should be aware of what these teachers of evil taught and to whom they taught it.

This should surprise no one since Machiavelli was and atheist and Alinsky praised the first known radical, who rebelled against the establishment and did so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom. Who was the first radical? Why Lucifer himself!

Advertisements

Catholic Stewardship in an Obama World

August 29, 2011
11 Comments

While Barack Obama is short on reasonable fiscal policies he is long on sinister political strategies.

I just wish someone in the media, other than the National Review‘s Stanley Kurtz, would delve into the Cloward-Piven Strategy for breaking down a capitalist society.

I have written about it before but I have seen very little about it, even in the conservative media.

This strategy was devised by Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who were both Columbia University professors in the early 1980s when Obama attended.

Image Detail

Does their strategy reign in Washington?

The essence of their strategy was simply over burden the financial resources of a capitalist country by forcing it to live up to the moral rhetoric in their political promises.

In his book, The Radical-in-Chief Kurtz ends the book by saying, Barack Obama is a Socialist.   You could save the price of the thick volume, just by reading its prescient last statement.

"Barack Obama is a Socialist!"

Kurtz spends the other 300+ pages developing his thesis.

Early in the book, after Frank Marshall Davis had instructed his son to go to Occidental University in California because of its radical climate, Kurtz points out how Obama, now at Columbia was fully exposed to the radical ideas of Cloward and Pivin.

Does the mere exposure to such a radical, anti-West, anti-capitalist thesis prove that the president was or is a socialist?

No, but given the fact that in three very long and controversial years in office, this president has added $5 trillion dollars to the national debt, certainly fits in well with the Cloward/Piven socialist methodology.

But when George W. Bush left office, the national debt was just $10 trillion.

To put this into better perspective, the nation’s first 43 presidents accumulated a grand total of just $10 trillion, while this president has raised it over 50%.

Can we and our grandchildren their grandchildren really afford another term with this budget-busting, bone-fide Social Democrat?

To any honest observer, this says that he is either a compulsive spender who can not control his desire to help poor and indigent people or intent on playing a break-the capitalist bank gambit.

Or Kurtz is absolutely correct and this is Obama’s dedicated attempt to destroy the wealth and prosperity of a nation, one can only assume he hates as did his mentor Frank Marshall Davis, an actual card-carrying Communist.

Image Detail

His mentor gave Barry some leftist advice

This brings me to the Catholic Bishops who have been far more supportive of this administration than reason and morality would seem to dictate.

I believe that a recent op-ed for the St. Louis Catholic Review, written by an Archdiocesan consultant named Dan Conway is perfectly illustrative of the Catholic bishops views on what good Catholics must do with regard to the current fiscal crisis.

After the usual statements about the dignity of the human person, he proceeded to define Catholic stewardship, which I believe is term that most Catholics are not fully aware of.

According to Conway all that we have as individuals, families, communities and as a nation have been given to us to nurture, develop and share  generously with others out of gratitude to God and our sense of responsibility….

It is funny when Bill Clinton was president I believe he felt that all the money in this country belonged to the government and they were just letting us use it until they needed it.

That sounds like Secular Stewardship to me.

Then maybe it is not surprising that both the Church and government seem on the same page about health care, the poor, entitlements, draconian cuts and tax increases.

What Conway failed to include is the fact that Catholic stewardship has three parts–time, talent and treasure.

Is it just my imagination but why does it always seem like the Church can only ask me for the third one?

I think you get the point.

First of all, I do agree everything I have is part of God’s will for me.

But I do have temporal ownership of everything that I got from my parents, my work, smart business decisions and the like.

Barack Obama is working hard every day to try to relieve me of that awesome burden.

This would include my dwelling, automobiles, clothes  and furniture.

To offer some kind of ethereal community claim to my largesse is more Marx than Jesus.

While I do have an obligation to help those in real need, not the millions of people whose life decisions, such as dropping out of school, promiscuous drug and sexual behaviors and a general disregard for traditional social norms have brought them into poverty, I get to decide who is needy of my largesse…not the Church and certainly not Barack Obama, who would just use my money to foster his misanthropic agenda.

My first responsibility, given to me by God, is to care for the needs of my immediate family and all the truly needy people who God has put in my path.

This includes the domestic help, that I have employed over the years, many of them working poor and struggling single mothers, and more recently a woman with an unemployed spouse.

I did the responsible thing—the moral thing.

I gave them a job with a fair wage, despite the efforts of government to over-burden me with rules, regulations and bureaucratic red tape.

It my my equivalent of teaching them to fish, instead of handing them a fish, courtesy of Uncle Sam.

I think Conway implies that to live up to our God-given responsibility, we must support higher tax levies—only on the people who are probably the biggest supporters of Catholic programs and then double our donations to the Church.

I once asked a former pastor of mine when he talked about the tithe, if that was before or after I paid my tax bill.

He said before of course.

Conway also relegated the heroic efforts of the Tea Party Republicans to an ideological struggle.

I think this is a false sense of moral equivalency.

Any simpleton can see that the problem of government is that it spends too much.  Its revenues are about the same and would be improved if Obama took a long holiday and let business do what it does best—make money and create jobs.

The faucet of red ink has been freely flowing since the last four years of Bush.

It has only intensified to a stream, comparable to a Red Sea under Obama.

Drowning in a president's agenda of debt

To call legislators who want to stop the flow of money and chide them for callous, mean-spirited and insensitive cuts is to betray serious signs of optical delusion.

I really don’t believe that Conway wrote this paean to Obama’s policies.

It was probably speechwriter Jon Favreau, who was my Holy Cross’ valedictorian  a few years ago or maybe Jay Carney, who has trouble reading his talking points.

A Holy Cross enabler?

Some other liberal wag living in a fantasy world of his own making, recently opined that Obama is too good for America!

My question is just what did we do to  deserve this president?

                           BE CERTAIN TO LOOK FOR PART II


About author

After graduating from Holy Cross, Bill Borst earned an MA in Asian History from St. John's University and a Ph.D in American History from St. Louis University. (1972) A former New Yorker, he taught for many years in the St. Louis area, while also hosting a weekly radio show on WGNU from 1984-2006. He currently is a regular substitute for conservative Phyllis Schlafly on KSIV radio. (1320) He is the author of two books on social history, "Liberalism: Fatal Consequences," and "The Scorpion and the Frog: A Natural Conspiracy." He just retired as the Features editor of the Mindszenty Foundation Monthly Report. In his 11 years from 2003-2013 he wrote nearly 130 essays on Catholic culture and world affairs. Many in St. Louis also know him as the "Baseball Professor," because of a course that he offered at Maryville College from 1973-74. It was arguably the first fully-accredited baseball history course in the Midwest.The author of several short books on the old St. Louis Browns, he started the St. Louis Browns Historical Society in 1984. In 2009 his first two plays were produced on the local stage. "The Last Memory of an Ol' Brownie Fan," ran six performances at the Sound Stage in Crestwood and "A Perfect Choice" ran for two performances at the Rigali Center Theater in Shrewsberry. His third play, "A Moment of Grace," ran six performances at DeSmet High School in January of 2011with First Run Theater in January of 2011. He is currently working on a 4th play, "A Family Way," which is a comedy about a happy dysfunctional family. He can reached at bbprof@sbcglobal.net

Search

Navigation

Categories:

Links:

Archives:

Feeds