Marxism, Fabian Socialism and American Liberalism: The Politics of Racial Supremacy through Class Warfare and Genocide

Socialism, defined: The politics of racial supremacy through the progression of class warfare and genocide

Benjamin Franklin wrote “A penny saved is a penny earned”. Yet today, one can acquire income through robbing the labor force’s piggy banks and redistributing its pennies to those refusing to work. Ambition is today taboo. Personal thrift is mandatory except if government borrows one’s savings, never to reimburse its violated lenders. Worst of all, government portends this is public money, yet the cash in green does not bloom on money trees. There is no source of money other than what individuals earn. What government subsidizes, it is paid with your money, and rarely is it spent wisely or well, let alone for the individual’s benefit.

Prosperity does not manifest through more lavish public expenditure initiatives. One never accrues wealth by charging his credit card while it builds interest in his neighbor’s name and not his own. And no society has ever flourished by taxing its citizens beyond their capacity to pay. The origins of wealth are only accumulated through the fruits of one’s labors so far as his talents may take him. The wealth for all nations must be earned. It can never materialize through unmeasured fiat currency nor legal confiscation except for debt, or inflation increasing our cut of the burden exponentially.

If true concern for a nation’s welfare were actually the left-wing fringes’ enforcement of socialism on entire populations, such figures would not need to frequently rehash the French Revolution, nor its ideological founder, Jean Jacques Rousseau. Left-wing factions are averse to true liberty, of statutes guaranteeing religious freedom. The prices they charge beyond simple confiscatory taxes are to be forfeited at the state’s discretion of one’s right to live. So it is with the great inspiration that was the French Revolution, the fall of the Bastille in 1789, the reign of mob rule under an apparent anarchy that was to come.

The Tyrannical Mind of Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-78), the Father of Modern Left-Wing Politics

To better understand the horrors of revolutionary France is to read the philosophical tenets espoused in one of the landmark political treatises in history, The Social Contract (1762) by Rousseau. To understand the philosophy is to ascertain the psyche behind Rousseau the author and Rousseau the man — a man wistful for all mankind had achieved as its very existence seemingly spelled its corruption. He was the precursor to the philosophy behind nihilism.

Some contend this is a very Christian observation, that Predestination characteristic of Calvinism should lead one to live understanding his best is still lathered with sin. Before The Social Contract there was A Discourse on the Sciences and Arts, followed with its “sequel” The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. The matter the first yielded him wide acclamation is insight into why contemporary academia advocates all peoples are created equal by nature. As a result, these amoral demagogues purify the masses though first subjugation and lastly, the lone means for total equity, death.

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1766)

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1766)

Indeed, Rousseau considered himself a puritanical visionary, recognizing nothing other than the supremacy of man. The irony is his continuity declaring mankind to be inherently good. The content of his ideas certainly contradicts an alternative truth. A Discourse on the Sciences and Art reflected his perspective advancements in science and the diversity of the arts tainted mankind in his opposition to the uniformity. John Locke, paramount father of the Enlightenment, described it as the great virtue of education, that “the mind is a tabula rasa” in applied metaphor to describe the empirical purpose behind epistemology. Furthermore, the father of classical liberalism stated: 

Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper void of all characters, without any ideas. How comes it to be furnished? Whence comes it by that vast store which the busy and boundless fancy of man has painted on it with an almost endless variety? Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from EXPERIENCE.

Like Locke before him, Rousseau disbelieved the concept of preconception or the power of intuition. This too echoes Judeo-Christian ethos where the Fall of Man meant the need for God as the supreme guide. To Locke, human experiences derive simple ideas before evolving intellectually, innovating ones more complex. The sensual nature of the Lockean dialectic laid the foundation for both right and left-wing politics. For the purposes of this series, the radicalism of left-wing politics and its progression towards the same end will be discussed at length.

In his 1697 essay Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1697), Locke advocated education to prepare people to manage their social, economic and political affairs. He contended educating children early to read, write and base arithmetic should be a gradual, cumulative procession throughout one’s life, eventually to expand under one’s own machinations.

Rousseau diverged from Lockean philosophy and Judeo-Christian ethos where experience corrupts absolute and not the inherent flaws of mankind, in education leading to a greater chance at enlightenment and total inequity of individuals. Again Rousseau contradicts himself prior to laying pen to paper. In the first line of The First Discourse, Rousseau inscribed the vague reality that would entail all that is left-of-center: “I am not abusing science…I am defending virtue before virtuous men.” (First Discourse, Vol. I, p. 4)

Its contents portended a historically-revised disclosure the arts and sciences toppled once-great civilizations. He declared Greece and Egypt to have fallen as the price paid for free expression through art and academia. The foundation that intelligence serves as the enemy of socialism remains the plank that like wheat, it must be chaffed. Men could not be gods except of course, those who grew powerful and in their narcissism, into absolutists. He would never have succeeded had he not contradicted his position in evoking Socrates’ advocacy of “the philosopher king”. He paraphrases Socrates, declaring the contemporary artists and philosophers of his day espoused concepts of piety, goodness and virtue, yet they understood nothing. Curiously, Rousseau disavowed the fatalism of his contentions. Those minds like Socrates, the father of Western philosophy, were elite intellects superseding the role of God as the conscience and guide for all. Such people to Rousseau were fit to govern absolute.

Widespread education is contradictory to the socialist platform. It is artfully mastered like most of its planks through the guise of caring for the individuals’ analytical skills. Rousseau’s second part of The First Discourse addressed specifically the arts and sciences. He contended all quest for knowledge arose from man’s inherent vices, that man was meant to be ignorant lest he become tainted by his own machinations. Of particular interest is the following quote: “Astronomy was born from superstition; eloquence from ambition, hate, flattery, and falsehood; geometry from avarice, physics from vain curiosity; all, even moral philosophy, from human pride.” (First Discourse, Vol. I, p. 12) Intelligence, therefore, is the enemy of all things innately human, yet nothing is so innate to its character aside its capacity to be corrupted through learning. He continues his attack on science, declaring all thirst for knowledge leads to innate desires for prosperity, of luxury. Science may create easier means to live life daily, but corrupts absolute the moral imperative. Through his disdain of pleasure, Rousseau the hypocrite declares he is a Stoic. Psychologically however, he is plagued with amorality.

Rousseau contended the arts’ lone purpose is to seek popular recognition. Self-actualization was immoral to him. The arts yield the unsavory quality of intelligence through talent rather than a collectivized duty through courage, generosity and temperance. The purpose for living in echoing the French philosopher Rene Decartes is “sum ergo sum”, “I think, therefore I am”. Where Cartesian philosophy adopted a Christian-variant of body/mind dualism, Rousseau rejected it on ground any show of natural aberration is wanton of moral virtue, to be discouraged at all cost. But its most dangerous plank is how it leads to the death of military virtue, how a just society is alert to defend against outside aggressors. Society must live for the state as lord and master, all its duties collectivized to perpetuate the state. Finally, through generosity and warfare, all must be willing to die in the name of terra patria.

Following these assertions, Rousseau praised his predecessors during the Enlightenment: Sir Francis Bacon, the prior-mentioned Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton. Each one opposed Rousseau on every ground, but most especially that of their deep convictions as Christians. Of all religions, Rousseau feared Protestant Christianity most. Man in his mind is the most supreme being, and no true Christian who is a strict adherent of the Gospels answers to a higher authority than God in adherence to the Trinitarian doctrine.

The split between the Hobbesian ethos of mankind’s constant state of war is fully denounced by Rousseau as incontrovertibly flawed. It was said Hobbes believed this state portrayed life in the state of nature “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. The left side to these clashing dichotomies is Rousseau’s contention the role of the state had been precluded from human nature. In asserting his point, Rousseau advocates historical revisionism, declaring such natural states to be void of all “complex thought processes involving notions of property, calculations about the future, immediate recognition of all other humans as potential threats, and possibly even minimal language skills”. The true nature of man per Rousseau would disavow all knowledge history portends. He contends mankind is innately ignorant, free from the constraints intellectualism issues in terms of growing ambitious contributing differently than those with less. Finally, Rousseau describes natural man as isolated, timid, peaceful, mute, without the foresight to worry about what the future will bring. Men are meant to be slaves to the state. And to be a slave, all intellectual curiosity that would lead to its expansion must be discouraged, as ignorance is bliss, else no one would obey the spirit of the law.

In further advocacy of revisionism, Rousseau claimed the evolution of the human race had not succeeded absolutely. Through the rise of “circumstance” may humanity advance without need for preconceptions of the consequences yielded by empirical precedent. Therein the trouble with Rousseau’s logic portends of his use of history to disprove its veracity of histories, successes and failures. For an intelligent species to evolve, it must learn from its generational precedence. Ironically, he claims not to advocate the retraction to the former state of “nature” as the noble savage.

Civil society is reached subsequent a series of historic stages. In the 19th Century, this concept was employed by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in describing what would later be dialectic materialism. The state of nature is first explained as the noble savage forming nomadic tribes as they migrated between regions. A more permanent interpersonal relationship develops between man and woman, resulting in conjugal love and the rise of paternity. The conceptions of property ownership arise in this state, yielding the unfortunate desire of pride and prejudice of his people and demands on his returns. Rousseau declared this was the stage of how paradise was lost; conversely, communists borrow the term “utopia” to describe what realists know can never exist. Out of this results the denouement of mankind, where the arts, agriculture and metallurgy are learned. And due to the division of inequality based on individual talent discrepancy, Rousseau opened Pandora’s Box to the rise of socialism.

“All ran to meet their chains thinking they secured their freedom, for although they had enough reason to feel the advantages of political establishment, they did not have enough experience to foresee its dangers.” (Second Discourse, Vol. II, p. 54)

The trouble with this fallacious a priori platform is Rousseau’s disavowal for the need again to learn history. If one learns of both the triumphs and mistakes of the past, socialism would not succeed given the intellectual imperative to choice. Why too would a people upon agreement to a social contract need be threatened in such a manner as with the following contention from Book I, Chapter 7 of The Social Contract?

This, however, is not the case with the relation of the subjects to the Sovereign, which, despite the common interest, would have no security that they would fulfill their undertakings, unless it found means to assure itself of their fidelity.

In fact, each individual, as a man, may have a particular will contrary or dissimilar to the general will which he has as a citizen. His particular interest may speak to him quite differently from the common interest: his absolute and naturally independent existence may make him look upon what he owes to the common cause as a gratuitous contribution, the loss of which will do less harm to others than the payment of it is burdensome to himself; and, regarding the moral person which constitutes the State as a persona ficta, because not a man, he may wish to enjoy the rights of citizenship without being ready to fulfil the duties of a subject. The continuance of such an injustice could not but prove the undoing of the body politic.

In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence. In this lies the key to the working of the political machine; this alone legitimises civil undertakings, which, without it, would be absurd, tyrannical, and liable to the most frightful abuses.

Rousseau advocated killing of human nature by placating to the worst of its natural state. Those who fail to abide by it must face legal repercussions. The right to free expression is to be repressed at all costs. Non-conformity is intolerable. Rousseau advocates the rise of the political machine as the absolute model for total power, declaring any display of personal dependence a violation of the freedom of trust as liberty demands it, to accept only the best of intentions from the intellectuals in power he so despised. No mention of God by Rousseau sanctions the legality of civil undertakings. Without the omnipotence of the state, the futility of coerced assimilation is predestined by nature to failure.

Comments are closed.