Tuesday, January 31, 2017

The Hegelian Dialectic and Single Payer Health Care

President Trump's first week in office has unfolded like a conservative fairy tale. The Donald seems to be signing away the unconstitutional edicts and strangling regulations in the same manner in which Obama enacted them, with a stroke of his pen.  He is acting on immigration, he has put an end to the Trans Pacific Partnership Treaty, he has signed executive orders doing away with the Syrian refugee program and another that allegedly "eases the burden of Obamacare." This seems almost too good to be true. One of President Trumps biggest campaign promises was the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and a replacement that provides health care for everybody. That is a rather vague statement considering that Trump wrote in an early campaign book called "The America We Deserve" that he supported universal health care. It's possible that the newly anointed one intends on introducing a single payer plan in response to the disaster that is Obamacare.

"We must have universal healthcare. I'm a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses." (Donald Trump, The America We Deserve)

The executive order itself was rather vague, providing little detail into what it meant to "ease the burden." It did state that government offices would be charged with finding ways to alleviate the financial strains caused by Obamacare while at the same time, tasking them with implementing more viable health care programs.

"The order called for government agencies, to the maximum extent permitted by law, to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the Act that would impose a fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications. It also called for the federal government to provide greater flexibility to States and cooperate with them in implementing healthcare programs, with the same caveat,  to the maximum extent permitted by law.” (Olivier Knox, Yahoo News)

Again, this is a rather vague order which does little to explain exactly how this is going to work. While easing financial burdens on families would be a positive move in the right direction, this order does little to remove government from the equation. In fact, the above statement seems to suggest that the federal and state  governments will still very much be in the drivers seat while developing health care programs. This is not what conservatives wanted. The question as to whether or not President Trump really supports single payer is one voters should really take seriously. Many people believe that Obamacare was designed to deliberately fail in order to implement single payer. This would be an application of the Hegelian Dialectic, otherwise known as the problem, reaction, solution strategy.

What is the Hegelian Dialectic? Georg Hegel's theory on Dialectical thought led to Karl Marx's theory of communism through a concept known as Dialectical Materialism. This theory posits the idea that all social progress is an inevitable result of chaos and conflict. The Hegelian Dialectic is a method of guiding our thoughts and actions into a predetermined solution by controlling the very issues we care about. The issue of Obamacare and single payer would be an excellent example. The idea would be to deliberately crash the health care system while at the same time, educating the nations students about single payer systems in nations such as Canada and Britain. Present America's health care system as one based on greed, and you create the demand for government to do something about it. Is it possible that Donald Trump will present a single payer health care system as a solution to Obamacare? It is more than possible, it is highly likely. To understand this we need to examine another subtle application of the Dialectic, The Cloward and Piven Strategy.

The Cloward and Piven Strategy, as it has come to be known, was a deliberate effort to expand the welfare rolls in an attempt to destroy capitalism and implement a socialist economy. The Weight of The Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty, was written by Francis Fox Piven and her husband who is now deceased, Richard Cloward.  Piven and her husband were sociology professors at Columbia University and had extensive ties to socialist groups like Democratic Socialists of America. In fact, according to Stanley Kurtz, author of the book Radical in Chief, Piven sat on the Executive Committee of this group. The plan called for the creation of an "unsustainable welfare state" where everyone was entitled to benefits of some kind. This would crash the economy and create the artificial demand for the government to act and implement an economic solution more in line with socialism.

Is it possible that Obamacare was deliberately designed in order to force the governments hands and implement the left's lifelong dream of single payer health care?  It is more than possible, it is probable as over the past eight years we have been governed by the radical left. The question is whether or not Donald Trump is aware and acting in accordance with this plan or simply following the suggestions of advisors, if a single payer system will even be introduced at all. It is clear that President Trump once supported universal health care as he once supported Bill Clinton's assault weapons ban.  There are many issues in which President Trump seems to have changed his position on. The biggest mistake America could make is to sit back and assume everything will be fine because Donald Trump won the election. We must realize our responsibility to be active participants in our republic and hold Donald Trump to the same level of scrutiny we tried to hold Obama to. The last thing we want to do is be fooled into accepting leftist policies because they are coming from the guy we voted for. If in fact a single payer solution is introduced then this author would argue that the election of Trump and all of the propaganda around it was in and of itself, an application of the Hegelian Dialectic. Remain vigilant America.

Source: Francis Fox Piven, Richard Cloward, The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty
Stanley Kurtz, Radical in Chief
Olivier Know: Yahoo News

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

The Feminist Movements Roots in Marxist Philosophy

Despite the fact that Donald Trump is days away from assuming the presidency, the choo choo train of fundamental transformation continues to chug along. The left remains in firm control of America's educational system; which means that no matter what conservative changes Trump may make, students will still be indoctrinated into the tenets of progressivism. The latest example of this is coming from the same place that white privilege education originated, Wisconsin. It is overwhelmingly obvious that there is an agenda to not only weaken and discredit American institutions, but the American male as well. The University of Wisconsin is set to launch its "men's project" which is designed to teach male students to be more self aware of how their masculinity and manly attitudes affect the people around them. One of the main objectives, according to the college, is to address the negative characteristics of masculinity and the violence it allegedly causes. Also, the program seeks to encourage men to engage in critical self reflection and promote gender equality. Like White Privilege education, the gender equality/feminist movement has its roots in Marxist philosophy and is designed to break down the most basic of American institutions, the nuclear family.

Karl Marx viewed the family as a vehicle of class oppression. A strong family structure is essential to any free nation where people rely on themselves as opposed to government. To Marx and Engels however, the family was an instrument of exploitation. The family structure was a byproduct of the oppressive capitalist system where the woman's labor was exploited and undervalued. Marxist theory on the family argues that the modern structure developed out of a need to pass on property through familial lines. As the development of agriculture and the use of livestock became more prevalent, the need to maintain and pass down private property became a dominating factor in family life; thus, relinquishing women into subservient roles. Therefore, in order to create true gender equality, private property must be eliminated.  These ideas were later developed into the modern feminist movement by left wing activist, Betty Friedan.

Friedan, who was a communist sympathizer, authored the book The Feminine Mystique where she attempted to convince American women that the lives they were living were no more than comfortable prison camps. Marxists thrive on the creation of discontent, and in the very first chapter of this book Freidan holds no punches. Attacking the very nature of what it meant to be a 20th century American woman, Friedan suggests they should all be wondering if there is more to life than simply serving their families.

"The problem lay buried, unspoken for many years in the minds of American women. It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning that women suffered in the twentieth century in the United States. Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for the groceries, matched slip cover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured cub scouts and brownies, lay beside her husband at night-she was afraid to ask herself the silent question. Is this all?"

In that very first paragraph Friedan exposes her Marxist leanings by citing the typical work of a house wife as a source of discontent. She attacks the very nature of motherhood by implanting the idea that caring for children is somehow unfulfilling, and that family life itself is a form of oppression by describing it as a buried, unspoken of problem. The feminist movement, with the help of Freidan's book, has aided in the destruction of the American family by convincing women that they are oppressed victims in patriarchal oligarchy. This draws back to Antonio Gramsci and the idea of counter hegemony. The feminist movement represents a class of people whose values are antithetical to the dominate social group. This will create the necessary conflict which will, in the minds of Marxists, inevitably push society towards full communism.

The feminist movement, in it's epic struggle for total equality between the sexes, has completely destroyed what it means to be equal by forcing the idea that men and women are the same onto society. Marx and Engels viewed marriage and the family from the same dogmatic precept that they viewed everything else. That there was no god and mankind held no more special significance than any other animal. This is completely antithetical to the way most Americans view marriage.
Despite the changes we have endured, America still holds a Christian majority that wants the institution of marriage protected. The institute of marriage, according to our founding fathers, was unique in the sense that it best prepared individuals for responsible citizenship which is essential for self governance. While Marxists view marriage as a vehicle of oppression which subjugates women while protecting the interests of the patriarchy, the truth is that marriage protects both men and women equally while ensuring mutual interests are protected. The marriage represented equality in the sense that it was an agreement that both parties agreed to in the interest of raising children and forming a stronger community.

The feminist movement insists that men and women be treated as complete equals; however, this destroys the true character of women and suggests that they have no special characteristics which define womanhood. When it comes to the issue of raising children it would be difficult to argue that women do not possess a nurturing characteristic that is unique to motherhood while men bring different parenting skills necessary to child rearing. The point is that marriage represents true equality between the sexes because a true marriage brings men and women together into the forming of one union working together to achieve a common goal; a stronger, more responsible society. The feminist movement, deriving it's origins from the radical left, has sought to destroy this union because they understood that the family was the bedrock of any self governing society and in order to get people to accept state control it must be destroyed. The attempts to redefine masculinity while psychologically neutering the American male are part of this agenda and unless some drastic reforms are made to higher education, they will continue to fill our students heads with mush.

Source: Friedan, The Feminine Mystique. W. W. Norton & Company Inc. New York. 1963
Image Source: Library of Congress

Monday, January 9, 2017

Critical Theory and Social Change

As we approach the much anticipated end to the Obama presidency, it would be difficult to argue that much of his agenda has not been accomplished. He set out to "fundamentally transform" our culture and looking at America today, it is almost completely unrecognizable. Our culture has changed and American society has come to accept many things that once, would have been unheard of. Homosexual marriage, transgenderism, racial riots, the acceptance of government control in health care and the idea that people should be able to freely cross our borders at will are new realities that we live with everyday. While the election of Donald Trump is certainly a repudiation of these new realities, the truth is that nearly half of the electorate is still willing to fight for them while our education system indoctrinates new leftists everyday. How did America, a nation once steeped in Judeo-Christian morals come to accept an agenda that is antithetical to the very values the nation was founded on? The answer can be found by examining a doctrine known as Critical Theory.

Critical theory was developed in The Frankfort School of Social Research, which was an institute designed to study and implement cultural change. This is the birthplace of Cultural Marxism. In 1933 Nazi Germany found the school to be teaching precepts that were in disagreement with the national socialist movement, as Marx and his followers advocated for global communism, so the school was forced to relocate where it found a new home in the United States, at Columbia University.

Critical theory is often times disguised as critical thinking. As students are challenged to critically think about social issues affecting society, they are actually being encouraged to criticize mass culture and view American society as the cause of the problems being discussed. Many people make the assumption that critical thinking implies a thoughtful analysis on how to solve a problem. While the traditional definition of critical thinking supports this idea, all too often left wing professors are offering an alternative view point in the hopes that students will see the culture in which they live as the problem and accept their solution. This is the true purpose of critical theory, to get Americans to criticize their own culture and accept socialism as a solution. Critical Theory could be described as a practical application of the Hegelian Dialectic.

Read the rest of this article here

Monday, January 2, 2017

White Privilege and the Real Racist Attitudes of the Left

Across the nation public universities continue to push the false "white privilege" narrative. Liberal colleges, in an attempt to prove America is a racist, white supremacist nation, push the idea that white people are the beneficiaries of unearned privileges in American society. They insist that minority populations are oppressed victims and that American institutions, being set up only to benefit the white man, systematically discriminate against them. Not only is this false ideology limiting the potential of minorities in America by insisting they cannot succeed in such a racist country, it is creating a new racial hatred which if left unchecked, will surely end in violence. We have already seen this take shape in the revolutionary movement against police known as Black Lives Matter. Sadly, blacks and other minorities are being exploited in America. They are being used to stir up chaos and discontent in a strategy designed to fundamentally transform the nation, and the teaching of white privilege is but a means to this end.

White privilege education originated in Wisconsin in 2009 when the Department of Public Instruction developed a program called Create Wisconsin. The program was supposedly developed to address the achievement gap between white and black students. Educators argued that too many minority students were being placed in special education programs because public education was geared too much toward the "white culture" without addressing cultural differences between whites and minorities. From here, the idea that our society created conditions which made it impossible for minority students to succeed took hold. Every year there is an annual White Privilege Conference hosted by a group bearing that name. Their goal, as noted on their public website is to "deconstruct the white culture" in order to achieve racial justice. Looking at the way racial identity politics have taken a hold in America it could be argued that they are succeeding in their efforts.

Read the rest of this article here