7 Mountain Strategy » Education

America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution

Rich Carey — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:19:51 +0000

By Angelo M. Codevilla from the July 2010 – August 2010 issue of The American Spectator.

(Reprinted in it’s entirety. Vitally important information for such a time as this.)

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

Although after the election of 2008 most Republican office holders argued against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, against the subsequent bailouts of the auto industry, against the several “stimulus” bills and further summary expansions of government power to benefit clients of government at the expense of ordinary citizens, the American people had every reason to believe that many Republican politicians were doing so simply by the logic of partisan opposition. After all, Republicans had been happy enough to approve of similar things under Republican administrations. Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. Moreover, 2009-10 establishment Republicans sought only to modify the government’s agenda while showing eagerness to join the Democrats in new grand schemes, if only they were allowed to. Sen. Orrin Hatch continued dreaming of being Ted Kennedy, while Lindsey Graham set aside what is true or false about “global warming” for the sake of getting on the right side of history. No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class’s continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place. The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it.

Never has there been so little diversity within America’s upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America’s upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California, Texas, and Florida, the industrialists of Pittsburgh, the Southern aristocracy, and the hardscrabble politicians who made it big in Chicago or Memphis had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and “bureaucrat” was a dirty word for all. So was “social engineering.” Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday’s upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed.

Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America’s ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century’s Northerners and Southerners — nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, “prayed to the same God.” By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God “who created and doth sustain us,” our ruling class prays to itself as “saviors of the planet” and improvers of humanity. Our classes’ clash is over “whose country” America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what. The gravity of such divisions points us, as it did Lincoln, to Mark’s Gospel: “if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”

Evolution and Racism

Rich Carey — Tue, 04 May 2010 21:51:11 +0000

By Don Walker. Reprinted in full from The Transforum.

Most people are unaware of the full title of Charles Darwin’s book that launched a revolution in Western civilization. Most textbooks record the title merely as The Origin of the Species. The “dirty little secret” is that the full title of the book is The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. (They loved long titles in those days.) The truth is that Darwin’s evolutionary theory was an argument to support the idea of white racial superiority. His book was a treatise to explain and justify the domination of the “white race” over the “non-white races” of the world.

Darwin believed that the various races were at different levels of evolutionary development, with Blacks at the bottom and Caucasians at the top.

Supporters of Darwin claim that his use of “races” was intended to refer to subspecies of animals. Is that so? It appears that Darwin concept of “subspecies ” was somewhat broader than that, and included “non-white homo sapiens.” But don’t take my word for it, let Darwin speak for himself. In his book, The Descent of Man (sequel to The Origin of the Species…) Darwin states:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. Darwin believed that the various races were at different levels of evolutionary development, with Blacks at the bottom and Caucasians at the top. Thomas H. Huxley, nicknamed “Darwin’s Bulldog,” because of his ardent defense of Darwin said that “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal still less the superior, of the white man.” Huxley described whites as “bigger-brained and smaller jawed.”

The biology textbook used at the so-called “Scope’s Monkey Trial” (1925) was entitled Civic Biology (1914). The author of this book was George William Hunter, who espoused the “scientific racism” of that day. He believed that humans appeared as a progressive result of the evolutionary process, with the Caucasian race being “finally, the highest type of all.”

Nazism built upon the foundation of Darwinism. Otto Ammon, a racial anthropologist, writing prior to the Second World War wrote: “Darwin must become the new religion of Germany…the racial struggle is necessary for mankind.” Hitler merely put into practice what he believed was human evolution. Darwin and Nietzche were the two philosophers studied by the National Socialists in working out the philosophy set forth in Mein Kampf. Likewise, Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was also of follower of Darwin. In her book the Pivot of Civilization (1922), she made it quite clear what her goal was: racial purity.

As I have pointed out previously, most people are unaware of the full title of Charles Darwin’s book that launched a revolution in Western civilization. Most textbooks record the title merely as The Origin of the Species. The full title of the book is The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

Not only must Darwinian evolution be confronted regarding its lack of scientific facts, it must also be addressed on the basis of the philosophy under girding it. Darwin developed his theory out of a racial presuppositionalism, which was prevalent in that day. Darwin reasoning out of that presuppositional framework sought to lay a scientific basis for the superiority of the white Europeans over the other peoples of the earth.

In order to understand why Darwin’s theory was so readily accepted one must be aware of the philosophy that predated it. Before evolution became popular, creation was the accepted scientific model of the universe and of humans. However, this was not a creationism rooted in the Bible. Rather, it was rooted in the Platonic concept known as the “Great Chain of Being.” This was the idea that God had created a “great chain” or “ladder” of living things, each a bit more complex than the one below it. Though this may sound like evolutionary progression, each organism was “static” in its particular slot, and did not evolve upward. Nevertheless, this concept was the “setup” for Darwin’s theory. All one had to do was change the static chain to a dynamic one, with the life forms gradually evolving upward from one to another, and you had the basic premise of evolution.

It was this concept of the “Great Chain of Being” which allowed for the endorsement of racial superiority. When the nations of Africa and the East were discovered, Europe learned of the many “savage” tribes that inhabited large portion of the earth. To the chauvinistic Europeans these people were viewed as inferior. The “savages” were fitted into the “Great Chain of Being” above the apes, but below the Europeans. There was no evolutionary significance in this; it was simply believed that God had created them inferior. Some went so far as to say that God had created them without souls, to be used by the superior races like domestic animals. This of course was used to justify slavery.

This was the worldview into which Charles Darwin was born. His racism was the racism of the 19th century. Like all men, Darwin was a “presuppositionalist.” His presuppositions lead to the conclusions he drew from his scientific investigation. As a result, Darwin’s theory caused a revolution. Most people know nothing about the racism that helped fuel that revolution in its beginning.

Don Walker is a teacher, counselor, and writer living in the Kansas City area.

Hollywood’s Marxist Education Project

Rich Carey — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:54:51 +0000

Some of our liberal comrades in Hollyweird are taking the battle of worldview to the next level. Not content to merely entertain us, they want to mold and shape the minds of our America’s children by changing the curriculum in the public school system.

Excerpt from Michelle Malkin’s blog:

The two most important questions for society, according to the Greek philosopher Plato, are these: What will we teach our children? And who will teach them? Left-wing celebrities have teamed up with one of America’s most radical historians to take control of the classroom in the name of “social justice.” Parents, beware: This Hollywood-backed Marxist education project may be coming to a school near you.

On Sunday, December 13, the History Channel will air “The People Speak” – a documentary based on Marxist academic Howard Zinn’s capitalism-bashing, America-dissing, grievance-mongering history textbook, “A People’s History of the United States.” The film was co-produced/written/bankrolled by Zinn’s Boston neighbor and mentee Matt Damon. An all-star cast of Bush-bashing liberals including Danny Glover, Josh Brolin, Bruce Springsteen, Marisa Tomei, and Eddie Vedder, will appear. Zinn’s work is a self-proclaimed “biased account” of American history that rails against white oppressors, the free market, and the military.

Read the entire article HERE

Sept. 8 – The Day Obama Goes After Our Kids

Rich Carey — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:22:04 +0000

FROM SHARON CALVERT, TAMPA TEA PARTY MOVEMENT…

Urgent! Forward to everyone you know…especially those with children in Public Schools. Bring it up during conversations during Labor Day activities and events this weekend. Wake up those around you! He is coming after our kids now!!!!!
Please read the following link, take a few minutes to wake up and pay attention to what is happening in the world around us, in our own backyards!!!!!! Read this:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10582301/President-Obama’s-Address-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009

Really? Does anyone read history anymore? Does anyone care?
Who in the past has “reached out” to students like this? Indoctrination??? Who has tried to build a “youth movement” in the past???

Mark the date down, Sept. 8, 2009, Barak Obama will address to all students pre-k to 6th! This is unprecedented, never before has this taken place!

Please take a few minutes to read this historic document and the work the White House and Department of Education put into the questions the children will be asked. They are very clear on the most important questions teachers should be asking students, as they are repeated over and over again like:

“What is the president trying to tell you”,

Another interesting note is:

“Why is it important that we listen to the president.”

My personal favorite is:

“Is he asking anything of anyone else, teachers? parents? the American people?”

Of course, all teachers should “build a background of the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barak Obama.” glad they put that last one in there just in case we had forgotten.

On September 8, 2009, keep your children home and read them excerpts of the “5000 year leap”, “The American Patriot’s Almanac: Daily Readings on America”, and The Constitution.

I declare September 8, 2009, Freedom from Oppression Day!

NO OBAMA, YOU WILL NOT INDOCTRINATE MY CHILDREN!

Audio: Overview of the 7 Mountain Strategy by Rich Carey

Rich Carey — Sat, 16 May 2009 20:42:03 +0000

In this inspiring message, Rich Carey provides and overview of the 7 Mountains and summarizes the strongholds which hold each mountain, a brief strategy for bringing the Kingdom to each mountain, and offers insight as to what each mountain will look like once the Kingdom has been established on that mountain.

Just click on the player below to listen to this message. It is also available for purchase in video format here.

How Modern Liberals Think

Rich Carey — Sun, 03 May 2009 14:20:26 +0000

Video: Evan Sayet speaks to the Heritage Foundation about the liberal mindset. Very insightful for those who wonder how otherwise intelligent liberals can be so illogical in regards to conservatives. It’s all about worldview!

Think What We Think…Or Else: Thought Control on the American Campus

Rich Carey — Sun, 03 May 2009 13:48:10 +0000

Video: In 2007, the University of Delaware’s Office of Residence Life used mandatory activities to coerce students to change their thoughts, values, attitudes, beliefs, and habits to conform to a highly specified social, environmental, and political agenda. Following FIRE’s campaign, which called the attention of the national media and the blogosphere to the Orwellian program, university President Patrick Harker terminated the program, effective immediately. This video explains the program’s invasive thought-reform activities, the horrified reactions of students and the press, and FIRE’s response.