Paul's Passing Thoughts

Colonial Puritanism was Commonly Known as “Platonic Christianity”

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on August 13, 2016

Originally published November 5, 2013

Excerpted from quaqua.org

In their new home, the Puritans implemented many of the same onerous legal restrictions upon religious liberty that had vexed them while living in England. For example, John Cotton, a leading Massachusetts cleric, implemented a law that no man could vote unless he was both a Puritan church member and a property owner (non-Puritans were dispossessed of their private property). Additionally, all colonists were legally required to attend austere Puritan church services. If the Church Warden caught any person truant from church services without illness or permissible excuse, the truant was pilloried and the truant’s ear was nailed to the wood. This approach was widespread and long-lasting in Puritan society. The Plymouth court of 1752 convicted defendant Joseph Boardman of “unnecessary absence from [Puritan] worship” and “not frequenting the publick worship of God.” In short, Puritan salvation was to be achieved through compulsory social engineering of the community, rather than voluntary individual piety.

The Puritans implemented a form of Platonic Christian Socialism, which was based upon an ideological synthesis of such influences as 1) Plato’s Republic, 2) a utopian interpretation of the New Testament (especially Acts 2:44-46), 3) a joint-stock agreement between colonial shareholders and the London-based John Peirce & Associates company, 4) a Continental European cultural attitude toward education (acquired during Pilgrim settlement in Holland), and 5) especially close economic and cultural bonds between Boston’s elite and the ruling class of England. During their first three years in the New World, the Puritans abolished private property and declared all land and produce to be owned in common (a commonwealth).

In Plymouth over half the colonists promptly died from starvation. Governor William Bradford observed that the collectivist approach “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.” He lamented the “vanity of that conceit of Plato’s . . . that the taking away of property and bringing community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.” Governor Bradford implemented private ownership of property, but Platonic Christianity continued to dominate other aspects of regional social policy.

For his part, John Winthrop delivered a famous speech in 1630 that articulated the prevailing contemporary Bay Colony ethic of social collectivism:

[W]e must be knit together in this work as one man, we must entertain each other in brotherly Affection, we must be willing to abridge our selves of our superfluities for the supply of others’ necessities, we must uphold a familiar Commerce together . . . [and] make others’ Conditions our own, . . . always having before our eyes our . . . Community in the work, our Community as members of the same body[.] . . . [W]e shall find that . . . when [God] shall make us a praise and glory, that men shall say of succeeding plantations: the Lord make it like that of New England: for we must Consider that we shall be as a City upon a Hill.

Winthrop’s words were not mere inspirational rhetoric. Each statement reflected an expansive element of social policy, pressed to its logical end and enforced by the Puritans with deadly seriousness.

The leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony openly espoused rule by the elite. “If we should change from a mixed aristocracy to mere democracy,” Winthrop once explained, “we should have no warrant in scripture for it: for there was no such government in Israel . . . A democracy is, amongst civil nations, accounted the meanest and worst of all forms of government.” John Cotton wrote: “I do not conceive that ever God did ordeyne [democracy] as a fit government eyther for church or commonwealth. If the people be governors who shall be governed?”

Despite utopian aspirations, the Massachusetts colonies were quickly beset with political and religious division. Internally, the Puritans persecuted and even tortured non-conforming Christians. In Boston Common, dissenters were hung or buried alive. In 1636, Roger Williams, who became a Baptist, was banished in the dead of winter and led some religious dissidents away to found Rhode Island. The same year, Thomas Hooker, another preacher at odds with the Bay Puritans, founded Connecticut with a separate breakaway group.

The Massachusetts Bay Colony attempted to curtail further dissent by utilizing a tightly-controlled system of schooling and neighborhood monitoring. In 1635, the first “public school” was established in 1635. In 1636, by general vote of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the Puritans established what was then termed “the School of the Prophets.” This divinity school, which grew into Harvard College and then Harvard University, was meant to superintend the lives of the colonists and prevent any further deviations from proper doctrine.

With Harvard established as the capstone of their system of social control, the Puritans then set about to construct supporting strictures. The Puritan paradigm utilized certain aspects of the Platonic paradigm of community child raising, including indentured servitude:

[There was a] practice common among English Puritans of “putting out” children–placing them at an early age in other homes where they were treated partly as foster children and partly as apprentices or farm-hands. One of the motivations underlying the maintenance of this custom seems to have been the parents’ desire to avoid the formation of strong emotional bonds with their offspring–bonds that might temper the strictness of the children’s discipline or interfere with their own piety.

A controlling, punitive culture gradually emerged. The Puritans enacted laws that curtailed parental rights, created community schools, established Puritan precepts as a civic requirement, imposed community taxation for majoritarian schooling, and encouraged citizens to report upon non-conforming relatives and neighbors. By separating children from their parents, community leaders could monitor all family members. No family member could rebel against the community scheme or the official dogma without putting other family members at risk of reprisal. Children became more vulnerable to various forms of abuse.

The Massachusetts Education Law of 1642 (re-enacted with a preamble and local taxation features in 1648) was a natural extension of the Puritan requirement that all citizens had to attend Puritan church services. School was, like church, an institution designed to inculcate a particular world view. Puritans thought that their world view should be sanctioned and disseminated under government auspices. This same precept necessarily underpins the enactment of every compulsory education statute, Puritan or otherwise.

In Connecticut, Yale filled the same role as Harvard did for Massachusetts. Much later in time, Congregational Reverend Eleazar Wheelock founded Moor’s Charity School in Connecticut to “civilize” Native Americans. In 1769, Wheelock moved the institution to Hanover, New Hampshire, and renamed it Dartmouth College. During the Framers’ Era, the Baptists complained vociferously about the oppression they experienced as a religious minority in Connecticut.

As the Massachusetts Puritan society became more overbearing, it developed a psychotic quality. Children committed suicide. Furtive adults coped with an environment in which due process and freedom of expression were denied. A dark era of suspicion and fear took hold, culminating most famously in the Salem Witchcraft Trials of 1692 — 1 2. (Salem is located near present-day Boston). The aim of the trials was to eliminate individuals with “heretical” views or conduct. In practice, heresy included political criticism of the colonial government, eccentric personal behavior, and criticism of the witchhunt itself.

During the purge, nineteen men and women were executed as witches (along with two dogs thought to be accomplices). About two hundred other nonconformists were imprisoned, and four accused witches died in prison. One man who refused to submit to trial was killed using an European torture technique, peine forte et dure, whereby heavy stones are placed upon a man until he is crushed and suffocated. (Plymouth held witchcraft trials as well, but the defendants were acquitted.)

As the bloodlust ebbed, a general sense emerged amongst colonial leaders that their entire community had gone terribly awry. To their credit, judges and jurors issued public apologies for their errors in judgment. Reverend Samuel Parris was replaced as minister after reluctantly admitting to some mistakes. Unfortunately, Chief Justice William Stoughton, the most culpable actor in the bloodfest, refused to apologize. He was subsequently elected to be the next governor of Massachusetts (a feat emulated by Earl Warren, who was elected governor of California after the internment of Japanese Americans).

Fortunately, the lessons of the Massachusetts Bay Colony were not lost upon the Framers of the United States Constitution. For example, home-educated Benjamin Franklin, one of the most influential Framers, frequently clashed with the officials and clerics in Boston. As a youth, Franklin bridled under the Puritan strictures in Boston, defied the Puritan culture of indentured servitude, fled to make his home in Quaker-dominated Philadelphia, and published criticisms of perceived Puritan bigotry.

Franklin also wrote a scathing criticism of Harvard. Writing under the “Mrs. Silence Dogood” pseudonym, he recounted her fictional deliberation about whether to send her son to Harvard. In the process, Dogood fell asleep and began to dream that she was journeying toward Harvard. Its gate was guarded by “two sturdy porters named Riches and Poverty,” and students were approved only by Riches. Once admitted, the students “learn little more than how to carry themselves handsomely, and enter a room genteelly (which might as well be acquired at a dancing school), and from thence they return, after abundance of trouble and charge, as great blockheads as ever, only more proud and self-conceited.” Franklin founded the University of Pennsylvania with a very different educational mandate.

After Franklin invented the lightning rod, many of the Puritans effectively accused him of sorcery. Reverend Thomas Prince, a prominent Congregationalist Puritan pastor of Boston’s Old South Church and a graduate of Harvard, led the the charge. Franklin, Prince decreed, had defied the will of God, the “Prince of the Power of the Air,” by interfering with His heavenly manifestation. Prince also asserted that Franklin’s rods had caused God to strike Boston with the earthquake of 1755. Franklin used his pithy wit to defang the campaign against his invention. Surely, Franklin observed, if interference with lightening was prohibited, roofs also defied God’s will by allowing people to stay dry in the face of His rain. Resistance to Franklin’s lightening rod subsided when it was discovered that his innovation prevented many churches from burning to the ground.

As another example, John Adams expressed concern about Puritan discrimination against Jews. Much of the discrimination was accomplished through Massachusetts’ imposed system of state-mandated religious observance and government-sponsored schooling. Harvard, for instance, implemented policies and quotas which were designed to curtail enrollment of meritorious Jewish students. John Adams unsuccessfully recommended revisions of the state constitution which would have enhanced free exercise of religion. Adams further urged that slavery be prohibited, darkly predicting it would lead to eventual civil war if uncurtailed.

Colonials living in the southern United States were equally wary of Massachusetts practices. In stark contrast to the Massachusetts model of public education, leading Southerners preferred apprenticeship and home education (a lifestyle that predominated until Reconstruction). Tutors and private schooling supplemented the educations of wealthy Southern children. James Madison, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry, all Virginians, experienced the same general regime of home-education and apprenticeship known to Benjamin Franklin.

In perhaps the most critical indication of all, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams spoke forcefully against the Platonic model of governance by Philosopher-Kings. Jefferson reflected the contemporary sentiment of many of the Framers and Founders when he stated in his letter to Levi Lincoln of January 1, 1802, that “I know it will give great offense to the New England clergy; but the advocate of religious liberty is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them.” Jefferson made other comments at odds with the Puritan approach to education, parental liberty, and religious pluralism, including oppression of the Quakers by the Anglican sects. Notwithstanding Winthrop’s aspirations in 1630, statements such as “Lord make our Virginian colony like that of Massachusetts” were conspicuously sparse during the Revolutionary Era.

While it is true that Madison, Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson urged their communities to support education and morality in a general way, they pointedly refrained from endorsing Puritan-style compulsory education or compulsory attendance at school/church. Indeed, compulsory education for government schools did not exist during the Framer’s time. In the civic scheme envisioned by the preeminent Framers, community schools were to function much like public libraries. Some Framers encouraged communities to fund libraries and establish a system for purchasing books, but few legal scholars would suggest that the Framers were thereby endorsing a state power to compel use of library premises or materials. In the absence of conviction for a crime, such a constraint of liberty would clearly have run afoul of numerous Constitutional protections.

The Framers and Founders left no doubt that their Constitutional system of Ordered Liberty, which protected parental rights in so many complementary ways, was incompatible with the Platonic model for an Ideal Commonwealth. In Federalist Paper No. 49, a work promulgated by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, it is written:

The reason of man, like man himself, is timid and cautious when left alone, and acquires firmness and confidence in proportion to the number with which it is associated. . . . In a nation of philosophers, this consideration ought to be disregarded. A reverence for the laws would be sufficiently inculcated by the voice of an enlightened reason. But a nation of philosophers is as little to be expected as the philosophical race of kings wished for by Plato. And in every other nation, the most rational government will not find it a superfluous advantage to have the prejudices of the community on its side.

In a letter to John Adams, Thomas Jefferson observed:

I amused myself with reading seriously Plato’s republic. . . . While wading thro’ the whimsies, the puerilities, and unintelligible jargon of this work, I laid it down so often to ask myself how it could have been that the world should have so long consented to give reputation to such nonsense as this? . . . Education is chiefly in the hands of persons who, from their profession, have an interest in the reputation and dreams of Plato. . . . But fashion and authority apart, and bringing Plato to the test of reason . . . he is one of the race of genuine Sophists, who has escaped . . . by the adoption and incorporation of his whimsies onto the body of artificial Christianity. His foggy mind, is forever presenting the semblances of objects which, half seen thro’ a mist, can be defined neither in form or dimension. . . . It is fortunate for us that Platonic republicanism has not obtained the same favor as Platonic Christianity; or we should now have been all living, men, women, and children, pell mell together, like beasts of the field or forest. . . . [I]n truth [Plato’s] dialogues are libels on Socrates.

. . . When sobered by experience, I hope that our successors will turn their attention to the advantage of education on the broad scale, and not of the petty academies . . . which are starting up in every neighborhood . . .

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams (July 5, 1814), in 2 The Adams-Jefferson Letters, at 432-34 (Lestor J. Cappon ed., 1959)(hereinafter “Letters”).

In reciprocal letters to Jefferson, John Adams was equally critical. He said the “philosophy” of Plato was “absurd,” Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson (June 28, 1812), in Letters, at 308, berated Plato’s concept of “a Community of Wives, a confusion of Families, a total extinction of all Relations of Father, Son and Brother,” Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson (September 15, 1813), in Letters, at 377, and observed that “Plato calls [‘Love’] a demon,” Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson (October 10, 1817), in Letters, at 522.

In his most telling observations, Adams described his meticulous study of Plato’s writings, expressed delight at knowing that Jefferson shared the same “Astonishment,” “disappointment,” and “disgust” with Plato, and then concluded as follows:

Some Parts of [his writings] . . . are entertaining . . . but his Laws and his Republick from which I expected the most, disappointed me most. I could scarcely exclude the suspicion that he intended the latter as a bitter Satyr upon all Republican Government . . . . Nothing can be conceived more destructive of human happiness; more infallibly contrived to transform Men and Women into Brutes, Yahoos, or Daemons than a Community of Wives and Property . . .

After all; as long as marriage exists, Knowledge, Property and Influence will accumulate in Families.

Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson (July 16, 1814), in Letters, at 437.

George Bernard Shaw – Poster Boy for Platonist Collectivism

Posted in Uncategorized by Andy Young, PPT contributing editor on March 29, 2016

This is what evil looks like!

“You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world; who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there, and say, now sir or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence; if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat; if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us, and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”

 

Pope Francis’ Culture of Death is Looking a Lot Like Protestantism

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on April 22, 2015

TANC 2015 flyer

“Dear Christian parents, will you save your children from this philosophical culture of death?”   

The real difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is philosophical, and by no means a biblically based theological argument. If you want to discuss the difference in regard to orthodoxy for the serfs, there is no difference—both are progressive justification. Both propagate a need for the church to get people from salvation point A to salvation point B.

The functions of both camps are really determined by spiritual elitists who think they are above logic and all things material. Catholic philosopher kings tend to think knowledge beyond the material realm is within every being while Protestant philosopher kings believe all true knowledge is outside of the person.

Both appeal to Christ consciousness as the only immutable true form of goodness and truth. When it gets right down to it, you can barely slip a playing card between their definitions of faith.

Catholics seem to believe that the inner light gives everyone some potentiality for being good, while Protestants believe Christians can only see good and experience goodness that remains completely outside of them. They can experience it, but it is not a part of them. Man cannot be partially good enough to participate in his own salvation; it is a total work by God alone from beginning to end.  Catholics believe that people can have enough goodness in them to participate in the finishing of their salvation.

In both cases, salvation is a process that needs the church to finish it. Catholics believe people can be made good enough to participate in the finishing while Protestants reject the idea that man can possess any goodness.

The point here is that they share a common belief that salvation is a process overseen by the church, and that affiliation with the church is efficacious to being saved.

Of late, and more and more, they also share a belief in Martin Luther’s doctrine of death. Both interpret all reality from the standpoint of the cross; i.e., “all wisdom is hidden in suffering.”  Both see true discipleship as a complete emptying of self. Both see material as evil and only the invisible as good. Catholics believe inner goodness enables us to see ourselves as worthless, while Protestants believe faith enables us to see ourselves as worthless because we are worthless. Catholics believe good people will want to die to self and this material world, while Protestants believe we ought to die because we deserve nothing but death. But either way, it’s a culture of death.

Also, both believe that self-sacrifice shows forth the glory of the cross because all choices to sacrifice self are “living by the cross” or “walking according to the cross.” Self-denial and self-death demonstrate God’s cross-love and this is when the gospel is presented to people with power from on high. We hear this rhetoric in Protestant circles constantly.

So, what in the world inspired this post? Keep in mind that the following video is a Catholic production, and prepare yourself to be dumbfounded.

The same mentality can also be seen in Pope Francis’ collectivist views on economics and financial equality. Francis, who is loco popular with the Millennials, is leading a whole generation of our youth into socialist ideas. On the other side of the fence, the same. Collectivism gauges the total worth of people based on their ability to contribute to “the group” which is Platonic lingo for society at large.

Another aspect of death culture is the rising popularity of environmentalism among Catholic and Protestant youth.  If you are a good Catholic, you know that your evil material body exhales carbon dioxide which pollutes the air, but the good trees absorb the carbon. If you are Protestant, you assume trees are better than humans because humans are totally depraved. In this video, it is suggested that we errantly worry more about ISIS killing people than saving trees.

The video was posted on my FaceBook page by a young Christian, and this was my response:

Well, wouldn’t worry about it too much. Apparently, shortly before the return of Christ there is plenty of earth left to destroy because God destroys it. I also find the notion that trees compensate for human pollution via breathing somewhat disturbing. It’s the idea that trees are important because they filter out the product of human living: trees good–humans bad. Fact is, what we exhale is only about 4% carbon. Also note the unqualified moral equivalency between those who kill people (ISIS) and those who cut down trees. lastly, if those who propagate this message really cared about the environment rather than their ulterior political motives, they would point to the science and example of Israel who have turned that desert terrain into a rich agriculture.

Dear Christian parents, will you save your children from this philosophical culture of death? This May, I will be teaching a series on Martin Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation on Blog Talk Radio. We will exegete this foundational document theses by theses. Let me also recommend our 2015 TANC conference where we delve into these issues as well.

paul

The Home-Schooled: Poets [Platonists] and Don’t Know It

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on February 24, 2015

TANC LOGOIs there a more deceived mass of humanity than the homeschool community? I doubt it. While thinking they are the epitome of a Christianity that supposedly founded America, the depths of their cluelessness is stunning. The Neo-Puritan movement has all but totally taken over homeschool curriculum resulting in a whole Christian subculture of functioning Platonists.

Something seems to be missing from their history books: colonial Puritans were known as “Christian Platonists” by those who were the movers and shakers in the American Revolution. Puritans, the undisputed heroes of the homeschoolers, were little more than Eastern mystics without the same penchant for colorful dress codes.

One of the more visible signs of their  functioning Platonism is the secular is evil mentality. My wife Susan likes to share one of her favorite examples of how she was once a functioning Platonist like most good Baptist Kool-Aid drinkers. As a professional educator, being a teacher in the public realm was unthinkable to her. She also believed that secular educators do not have a true grasp of reality because they are “secular”, i.e. spiritual, good – secular, evil. That’s simple Platonism. Another way of stating it: weak equals evil.

After buying into the whole Christian education is ministry motif  resulting in no retirement and near financial destitution, she was forced to take a teaching position in the dreaded secular realm of abject evil. To her shock, she was barely qualified to cut it in that realm.

The Reformed have always been masters at integrating Scripture into their Marxist worldview, and they presently own Christian publications not excluding homeschool curriculum.  The present-day Neo-Puritan homeschool movement is the greatest threat to American liberty in this present age because of its astir ability to present evil as good to the future leadership of the church. In addition, their rewriting of world history is egregiously disingenuous. Below, I have included an excerpt from a Christian homeschool book sent to me by a homeschool mom that is very indicative of the problem:

The Birth of Postmodernism

Social critics have observed that the rise of modern society in America follows a similar plot line [to the Tower of Babel account].  A people who were proud of their automobiles, their computers, their moon landings, their weapons of mass destruction, and their scientific methods of birth control, devised to build themselves a city.  It would be based on man-made laws, and it would serve to exalt the ways of man rather than the ways of God.  Human reason, not divine revelation, would bring the people into a heaven made on earth.

The rise and fall of the Tower of Babel and modernism are similar.  As with the Tower of Babel, the building of modernism stopped with the gathering of peoples.  In the confusion over who or what would replace the authority of God, a popular saying emerged: “What is true for you is not necessarily true for me.”  Society, lacking a cohesive set of absolutes, broke apart, splintering into a myriad of divergent communities.  Women opposed to men; children opposed to their parents; whites opposed minorities; heterosexuals opposed homosexuals; “Pro-lifers” opposed “Pro-choicers”; the Religious Right opposed the Liberal Left; etc.

As we pass from modernism, society is becoming more obessed with the “right” to choose according to individual ideas of right and wrong.  People no longer look to or acknowledge an objective, universal standard of truth.  Everyone is doing “what is right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6).  American literature reflects this shift.  It, too, has fallen into a downward spiral, beginning with God-oriented, historical accounts during the colonial period; slipping to Romanticized portrayals of nature and man in the nineteenth century; and finally, dropping to man-centered pictures of reality that have only caused disillusionment and confusion.

In the dawning of the postmodern age, the walls of certainty and truth have crumbled and art has tumbled into the gulf of meaninglessness.  The only writers and artists worthy of serious attention are those that have not only recorded the fall of truth but also attempted to put the pieces back together again.

The Modern Age.  Thomas Oden, professor of theology at Drew University, argues that the modern age lasted exactly two hundred years-from 1789 to 1989.  At its beginning was the French Revolution, which exalted human reason.  In the Cathedral of Notre Dame, the revolutionaries tore down images of Christ and erected a statue of the goddess of Reason.  The Rights of Man became superior to the rights of God.  Man was enthroned as the ultimate authority.  Man and his intellectual abilities would bring society into the form of socialism and communism.

The Russian Revolution put into practice the economic theories of Karl Marx, instituting a communist state.  Marx, borrowing from the scientific theories of Charles Darwin, believed that the lower classes would eventually emerge to the top.  This would complete the evolution of society.  There would be no upper class or lower class, everyone would be equal.  Gene Veith correctly stated, “Communism was the most thoroughgoing attempt to remake society by means of human reason.”  Devoid of the influence of the Scriptures, it based its advancement on science and human reason.

The appeal of Marxism was deceptive.  While claiming to create a utopian state based soley on human reason, it found its power in “oppression and brute force”.  After WWII, the term Iron Curtain came to be used for the barrier against communication and travel that the Communists erected.  It limited the citizens of communist states from relations with Western Europe and the United States.  Human reason did not lead the people to greater freedom.  On the contrary, it led to the greatest horrors that this world has known, namely, the extermination of more than six million Jews in Nazi Germany and the execution and starvation of millions of “class enemies” first in Stalin’s Russia and later in China under communist dictator Mao Tse-tung.  In 1989, the Berlin Wall was torn down, signaling the fall of the Iron Curtain and the death of the modern age.

In America, the Rights of Man never became as thoroughgoing as in Russia.  The Christian roots and capitalistic economy of America were too well grounded in the nation’s demeanor.  “One nation under God” was not merely a decorative slogan printed on the tokens of free enterprise.  The existence of a personal God was and still is recognized by a majority of Americans.

The Art of Meaninglessness.  Sir Arnold Toynbee, a historian of world civilizations, has observed the societies that stop believing in a universal standard of morals tend to lose their ability to create great pieces of art.  As we survey the landscape of American literature, we can see this occurring.  Anne Bradstreet, Edward Taylor and Jonathan Edwards all spoke with beauty about the God who rules over His creation.  Nathaniel Hawthorne and Herman Melville argued with the same God, yet with eloquence, acknowledging His presence.  Emerson, Thoreau and Whitman all denounced the God of the Bible and questioned the idea of truth.  Their work, though inventive, lacked a connection with the real world.  Hemingway and Fitzgerald could paint a clear picture of problems but they left readers without an answer.  Their works lack the goodness of wisdom that makes art truly beautiful. …

American Literature
Alpha Omega Publications
Author: Krista L. White, B.S.
Editor: Alan Christopherson, M.S.

Core Ideology’s Bloody Road to Utopia

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on February 12, 2015

PPT HandleIt doesn’t seem to make any sense. I have written on several occasions about the tacit approval of terrorism communicated by leading evangelicals in the New Calvinist movement. One such leader protested in a recent article that ISIS atrocities in Iraq were being exaggerated. Well, gee, that just isn’t fair. I have also written about the fact that many well-known evangelicals voted for President Obama. This seems perplexing.

Now, after all of the bantering back and forth between groups about school prayer, and religious groups meeting at school, etc., we find out that public schools across the nation are promoting Islam. One such report can be found here.

What’s going on? Regardless of the brutality and horrors perpetrated by Islam, people whom conservatives disagree with, but would stop way short of suggesting they support Islamic brutality, are conspicuously aloof from standing against Islam’s virus-like infiltration. It’s almost like there is something they have in common with Islam that they deem very important.

And that’s exactly the case.

Sure, liberals vehemently reject the brutality of Islam with all prejudice, but there is a more egregious enemy plaguing the earth; those who believe mankind can self-govern. This isn’t an oversimplification; liberals believe that utopia can be reached if the right mediators between truth and mankind are ruling, and the great unwashed masses are obediently following without question. All of the bloodletting is due to half-hearted endeavors. Yes, Islam is a religion of peace; there would be peace if everyone would only see that they know what’s best for the world. For another example of this, see “Democrat.”

And that my friend is the ideological tie that binds. The American principle of a government by the people and for the people is a tough nut to crack, and it requires whatever it takes. Quibbling about innocent blood is beside the point, that’s collateral damage and necessary sacrifices for the common good. Once Islam has served its purpose in helping socialism destroy self-governing, Plato’s philosopher kings can sort it all out with more bloodletting.

It’s all very ugly, and that’s “unfortunate,” but alas, that bloody road leads to utopia.

What America needs is a Patriot Party. Few conservatives really understand the true ideology of the original framers of the constitution, even fewer Republicans, and I venture to guess not a single Democrat. How bad is it? Even Rush Limbaugh doesn’t recognize the colonial Puritans for the Islamic socialist pigs that they were and has unwittingly endeared them to our children through recently published books. Moreover, and sadly, Ayn Rand, a Russian immigrant, has probably shown more understanding on this issue than anyone in the past 70 years.

We are in big, big, trouble. As an aside, that’s why I think Immel’s TANC 2012 sessions need to be viral. Really, we need to have a weekend pizza party and get a good video redo on that as well. Nevertheless, the transcripts are presently available. His three sessions really nail the big picture.

%d bloggers like this: