White Slavery, what the Scots already know
|A famous history professor stated that history was not a science but a continuing investigation into the past; a person’s conclusion is based on their own bias. This story will offer evidence that the Alba, Scots, Irish and Pics have been the longest race held in slavery. The reader will be responsible for their own bias pertaining to White Slavery.Alexander Stewart was herded off the Gildart in July of 1747, bound with chains. Stewart was pushed onto the auction block in Wecomica, St Mary’s County, Maryland. Doctor Stewart and his brother William were attending the auction, aware of Alexander being on that slave ship coming from Liverpool England. Doctor Stewart and William were residents of Annapolis and brothers to David of Ballachalun in Montieth, Scotland. The two brothers paid nine pound six shillings sterling to Mr. Benedict Callvert of Annapolis for the purchase of Alexander. He was a slave. Alexander tells of the other 88 Scots sold into slavery that day in “THE LYON IN MOURNING” pages 242-243.
Jeremiah Howell was a lifetime-indentured servant by his uncle in Lewis County, Virginia in the early 1700’s. His son, Jeremiah, won his freedom by fighting in the Revolution. There were hundreds of thousands of Scots sold into slavery during Colonial America. White slavery to the American Colonies occurred as early as 1630 in Scotland.
According to the Egerton manuscript, British Museum, the enactment of 1652: it may be lawful for two or more justices of the peace within any county, citty or towne, corporate belonging to the commonwealth to from tyme to tyme by warrant cause to be apprehended, seized on and detained all and every person or persons that shall be found begging and vagrant.. in any towne, parish or place to be conveyed into the Port of London, or unto any other port from where such person or persons may be shipped into a forraign collonie or plantation.
The judges of Edinburgh Scotland during the years 1662-1665 ordered the enslavement and shipment to the colonies a large number of rogues and others who made life unpleasant for the British upper class. (Register for the Privy Council of Scotland, third series, vol. 1, p 181, vol. 2, p 101).
The above accounting sounds horrific but slavery was what the Scots have survived for a thousand years. The early ancestors of the Scots, Alba and Pics were enslaved as early as the first century BC. Varro, a Roman philosopher stated in his agricultural manuscripts that white slaves were only things with a voice or instrumenti vocali. Julius Caesar enslaves as many as one million whites from Gaul. (William D Phillips, Jr. SLAVERY FROM ROMAN TIMES TO EARLY TRANSATLANTIC TRADE, p. 18).
Pope Gregory in the sixth century first witnessed blonde hair, blue eyed boys awaiting sale in a Roman slave market. The Romans enslaved thousands of white inhabitants of Great Britain, who were also known as Angles. Pope Gregory was very interested in the looks of these boys therefore asking their origin. He was told they were Angles from Briton. Gregory stated, “Non Angli, sed Angeli.” (Not Angles but Angels).
The eighth to the eleventh centuries proved to be very profitable for Rouen France. Rouen was the transfer point of Irish and Flemish slaves to the Arabian nations. The early centuries AD the Scottish were known as Irish. William Phillips on page 63 states that the major component of slave trade in the eleventh century were the Vikings. They spirited many ‘Irish’ to Spain, Scandinavia and Russia. Legends have it; some ‘Irish’ may have been taken as far as Constantinople.
Ruth Mazo Karras wrote in her book, “SLAVERY AND SOCIETY IN MEDEIVEL SCANDINAVIA” pg. 49; Norwegian Vikings made slave raids not only against the Irish and Scots (who were often called Irish in Norse sources) but also against Norse settlers in Ireland or Scottish Isles or even in Norway itself…slave trading was a major commercial activity of the Viking Age. The children of the White slaves in Iceland were routinely murdered en masse. (Karras pg 52)
According to these resources as well as many more, the Scots-Irish have been enslaved longer than any other race in the world’s history. Most governments do not teach White Slavery in their World History classes. Children of modern times are only taught about the African slave trade. The Scots do not need to be taught because they are very aware of the atrocities upon an enslaved race. Most importantly, we have survived to become one to the largest races on Earth!!!
White Slavery in America
The topic of this story is a sensitive one yet one of great importance. White slavery in America was real. There are many documents that verify the bondage, kidnapping and transporting of Brits to the Colonies as slaves. The importance of this story will help those who cannot find a ship passenger list on their ancestor. This story may not pertain to all who came to America that are not listed on ship passenger lists.
The Journal of Negro History #52 pp.251-273 states, “The sources of racial thought in Colonial America pertaining to slave trade worked both directions with white merchandise as well as black.”
Thomas Burton recorded in his Parliament Diary 1656-1659 vol. 4 pp. 253-274 a debate in the English Parliament focusing on the selling of British whites into slavery in the New World. The debate refers to whites as slaves ‘whose enslavement threatened the liberties of all Englishmen.’
The British government had realized as early as the 1640’s how beneficial white slave labor was to the profiting colonial plantations. Slavery was instituted as early as 1627 in the British West Indies. The Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series of 1701 records 25000 slaves in Barbados in which 21700 were white slaves.
George Downing wrote a letter to the honorable John Winthrop Colonial Governor of Massachusetts in 1645, “planters who want to make a fortune in the West Indies must procure white slave labor out of England if they wanted to succeed.” Lewis Cecil Gray’s History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860 vol.1 pp 316, 318 records Sir George Sandys’ 1618 plan for Virginia, referring to bound whites assigned to the treasurer’s office. “To belong to said office forever. The service of whites bound to Berkeley Hundred was deemed perpetual.”
The Quoke Walker case in Massachusetts 1773 ruled that; slavery contrary to the state Constitution was applied equally to Blacks and Whites in Massachusetts.
Statutes at Large of Virginia, vol. 1 pp. 174, 198, 200, 243 & 306 did not discriminate Negroes in bondage from Whites in Bondage.
Marcellus Rivers and Oxenbridge Foyle, England’s Slaves 1659 consists of a statement smuggled out of the New World and published in London referring to whites in bondage who did not think of themselves as indentured servants but as “England’s Slaves” and “England’s merchandise.”
Colonial Office, Public Records Office, London 1667, no. 170 records that “even Blacks referred to the White forced laborers in the colonies as “white slaves.” Pages 343 through 346 of Historical Sketch of the Persecutions Suffered by the Catholics of Ireland by; Patrick F. Moran refers to the transportation of the Irish to the colonies as the “slave-trade.”
Ulrich B. Phillips, Life and Labor in the Old South explain that white enslavement was crucial to the development of the Negro slave system. The system set up for the white slaves governed, organized and controlled the system for the black slaves. Black slaves were “late comers fitted into a system already developed.” Pp 25-26. John Pory declared in 1619, “white slaves are our principle wealth.”
The above quotations from various authors are just the tip of the iceberg on the white slave trade of the Americas. People from the British Isles were kidnapped, put in chains and crammed into ships that transported hundreds of them at a time. Their destination was Virginia Boston, New York, Barbados and the West Indies. The white slaves were treated the same or worse than the black slave. The white slave did not fetch a good price at the auction blocks. Bridenbaugh wrote in his accounting on page 118, having paid a bigger price for the Negro, the planters treated the black better than they did their “Christian” white servant. Even the Negroes recognized this and did not hesitate to show their contempt for those white men who, they could see, were worse off than themselves.
Governments have allowed this part of American and British history to be swallowed up. The contemptible black slavery has taken a grip on people associated with American History. Yet, no one will tell of these accountings that are well established on to the middle 1800’s.
Slavery is not something to be proud of but it is a fact that happened to every country, kingdom and empire that has been on this earth. Each of us needs to search our hearts and find the answer to stop racial hatred. One place to begin; realize that the black race was not the only race in the last 400 years that was in bondage.
Who pays the bulk of the taxes in America? Who pays the largest percentage relative to their income? Who pays the greatest in terms of what they have left, after taxes? This is three separate questions and each has its own specific answer.
Who pays the taxes in America? The answer is 50% of the American people pay 98% of all the tax. Around 48% don’t pay any tax at all but they vote and they helped elect Bar-rack Obama. The cut off-line for the 50% is a gross adjusted income of $32,000.00 or higher. The Tax Payers Union has it broken down like this:
- Top 1% have an AGI of 343,927.00 and they pay 37% of all the taxes
- Top 5% have an AGI of 154,643.00 and they pay 58% of the taxes
- Top 10% have an AGI of $112,124.00 and they pay 70% of the taxes
- Top 25% have an AGI of $66,193.00 and they pay 87% of all taxes
- Top 50% have an AGI of 32, 396.00 and they pay 98% of all the taxes
Understand that each successive group includes the previous. When I say that 50% of the people pay 98 % of the taxes: it includes the 1%, 5%, 10%, and the 25%. In truth the first 25% pay 87% of the taxes and the second 25% pay 10%. Where am I in this picture and where are our small businessmen? June and I are somewhere toward the top of the bottom 25%. Our Adjusted Gross Income is less than $112,000.00 but more than $66,000.00.
First of all, let me make it clear that I have no beef with the top 25%. I don’t have a complaint about the top 1% who earn $344,000.00 per year. Whereas it is true that these folks are paying the bulk of the taxes which I don’t think is fair; the problem is in how we view the math. Let me give you an example.
You make $350,000.00 a year and you will pay 38 % in taxes which amounts to $133,000.00 and that leaves you $217,000.00 to live on. Now lets move from there to where I am [Middle Class]. If we count SS, our income [June and myself] is around $80,000.00. Sounds good for an old couple doesn’t it but let me finish. The top 5% max out on SS but those of us in the lower 25% do not so that means 15.3% off the top for SS. My income tax is not horrible but it’s more than I can afford. So I pay $7,650 per year in SS and another $6,000 to Income Tax while June pays around $4,000.00 which comes to $17,650 which leaves us around $62,000.00. Sounds like a lot of money doesn’t it. Our health insurances is $500 per month–that leaves us $57,000. Then there are our charitable contributions that come off the top. That is usually between $15-20 Thousand but we will say $15 just to be on the safe side. That leaves us with $42,000.00 Well, we spend it all and with sales tax at 9-10%, that comes to another $4,200.00 which lowers our net to below $38,000.00. My greatest expense is gas because I am on the road a lot: I average 25,000 miles per year which means I burn at least 1,300 gallons of fuel per year. Let’s just use $3.20 as the average gas price per gallon and that comes to another $4,500.00 which has us down to $32,000.00. Medical, contribution and expenses are not taxes but they do come out of our check up front. To be fair, lets subtract the same $48,000 from the 1% income after taxes and his family would have $169,000 to live on whereas I have $32,000.00. There is a lot of difference between $169,000.00 to live on and $32,000. I am not complaining about what he makes: what I am saying is that those of us in them middle are really feeling the crunch. Bottom line is: the upper class is paying more, a lot more but do have more left to live on. Whereas, we in the middle are struggling to make ends meet.
You may not have figured it out yet but Obama is slowly but surely crushing the middleclass. We are the ones feeling the crunch. Wealthy people can shut down. They can live on interest income. The only way he can destroy them is to forcefully take their wealth away: otherwise, they will stop spending, stop investing, stop starting new business and sit on their capital. These folks are smart, they know how to make money and how to keep it. They are not about to let Obama have it all.
In the middle class, we don’t have that many options; we can’t sit on our capital. We can’t live on the interest of what we have accumulated. Basically, we are trying to keep our heads above the water. If Obama get re-elected, we are going to see this country become a two-class society, not instantly but over time. Right now we have the RULING CLASS [Obama and the Washington insiders, the elites, the ones who are too important to answer our mail]; next we have independently wealthy. These are the people who can create jobs and will if Obama stops taking their money in taxes. Have you ever been hired by a poor man? Then we have the working middle class. We don’t have the money to make money with our money, we have to work because we don’t have a choice. Then there is a 4th class in America, the lazy non-worker and the government employee that has a government created job that has no productive value. So it looks something like this:
- 1st class [.5%] of population
- 2nd class [5.5%] of population
- 3rd class [44%] of population
- 4th class [50%] of population
Obama is not brilliant but neither is he a dunce: he studies the numbers. He believes that the lower class will re-elect him even though he has not been able to make good on his promises to them. They are dependent upon government for their survival and that in itself creates a form of slavery which he encourages. He is the ultimate hypocrite. He rants and raves about Washington and Jefferson owning slaves and he is creating slaves while he speaks. Slavery is slavery. What he does not understand is that his Marxist ways will produce more and more slaves with fewer and fewer producers to take care of them. In the end, the system will collapse because there is no base to support it.
One more point, and I will put it in the form of a question: Where do small businesses arise from? The answer is the Middle Class. How many folks in DBC are employed by big Corporations? Think about it: there are some but only a few. Think about the small business in our church and community. We have two trucking companies in Danville and a florist, all owed by Middle Class Americans. We have Safe-T-Shelters, Hunter Systems, Inc. Gregg’s Grocery, Garnett Lawn Service, Wood Construction, Anders Dump Truck, A-1 Backhoe, Foreman Landscaping, Penney Veterinarian Clinic, Shelton’s Sign Service, the Hype Salon, Diamond Pro, and I am sure I left out some. Then think about the others who are employed by small business. My son-in-law works for Corum’s, one of our sound men works at Hembree Machine Shop: just give it some thought and you will discover that it is small business not the big corporation that is the heart beat of our community. I’m not opposed to big business but they don’t need my advocacy, they have lobbyist, they have money, they wine and dine congressman. It is the small business that is getting crushed and no one will talk about it. Where is Jeff Session, where is Robert Adlerholt? Where are the people who are supposed to care? We are being destroyed by government regulation and high taxes and these guys cannot be found. I’ll tell you where they are: they are playing golf with the big corps. They are dining with wealthy lobbyist. Washington and Montgomery are stinky toilets and both need a royal flushing. I would vote for David Wood over Robert Aderholt in a heartbeat. We need someone up there who represents us, the working middle class, the small businessmen of America. We don’t have one politician who has the courage to champion our cause. Our own Governor continues to wage war on independent truckers with his DOT Tax Collectors on every road. I heard a retired congressman say this past week that Washington has been waging a war on SMALL BUSINESS for the past 30 years: Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of hurting the small businessman. Republicans are right in principle but they are weak and cowardly when it comes to action. Democrats are left-wing socialist who are slowly being taken over by Marxist. They are nothing but flakes, dupes, morons and power hungry politicians. Democrats no class or principles. They don’t believe in Adam and Eve: they believe in Adam and Steve. Gay marriage and abortion ought to turn the stomach of every God-fearing American. I am not a man of courage but if you could get all the democrats on one boat, I believe that I would be willing to go down with them. Take them to the bottom before they take this country to the bottom. I might need a Valium or a pep talk but I would consider doing it for the good of this country. Don’t accuse me of getting into politics: it is not my politics that bothers you, it is my principles: killing babies is wrong and you should be ashamed of supporting it. End of Story.
[This is a reprint but I thought it was interesting]
Are Electronic Cigarettes Healthy? A Way To Smoke Nicotine Without Tobacco?
(ADP) — It’s what many smokers are calling a “miracle technological breakthrough.” But, could making the switch to electronic cigarettes really change your life?
July 13, 2012
The use of electronic cigarettes has skyrocketed over the past 12 months. Creators and product users now say you can enjoy a cheaper healthier cigarette without the bad smells, second-hand smoke, or cancer causing chemicals. With these huge claims, we decided to investigate e-cigarette use amongst users.
After providing multiple electronic cigarette kits to our test group, we received shocking results. First we found that product users did actually save money. The claim from e-cigarette manufactures is that smokers who make the switch can save over $1,000 per year. We found that the actual cost of smoking for our test group was nearly cut in half.
Our group was pleased to find that, as promised, the product truly is odorless. This was a huge winning point amongst the women as some realized they would no longer have to worry about the affects tobacco smoke has on their clothes and hair. But what was most exciting amongst our test group was that many felt the product didn’t seem to have an adverse affect on their health. In fact many of our testers reported being able to “breath more easily” within one day of using the product. Others simply stated that they just “overall felt better.” This is because what is “smoked” when taking a drag on an e-cigarette is mainly a water-based vapor consisting of nicotine.
Many doctors are now recommending the product and Dr. Panariello told us that with E-Cigs there is virtually no risk of getting cancer. These conclusions come from studies which show that nicotine is about as equally harmful to your health as caffeine. These studies also show that the real harm in traditional cigarettes comes from the tobacco smoke and the hundreds of additional added chemicals.
With the lack of second-hand smoke, smokers are excited to find that many businesses allow them to smoke e-cigarettes indoors. Many have also received special permission from their employers to smoke e-cigarettes in the work place.
In the United States, over 500,000 smokers have already switched to electronic cigarettes. Sara Silk is one of the many whose life has dramatically changed thanks to the product. She informed us that she “smoked almost two packs a day for 16 years,” and she thought that she would never quit. To her surprise though, when she tried electronic cigarettes she was able to “quit smoking regular cigarettes two days later.” Sara told us, “I recommend this product to anyone who plans on quitting. Unlike gum or patches you actually feel like you’re still smoking, which makes the transition so much easier… I feel like the chains of my addiction have finally been broken for good.”
We have received a number of positive testimonials such as this one and we feel that as more and more Americans are made aware of this new technology, that more and more smokers will make the switch.
Electronic cigarettes can be used with real nicotine cartridges or with zero nicotine to facilitate the ease of quitting for users desiring to do so. Our interviews and research have found that the electronic cigarette will quickly become the #1 choice for smokers looking to lead a healthier lifestyle. With the high cost of smoking traditional cigarettes, and with the danger cigarettes bring to your health, we give our recommendation and “thumbs up” to anyone looking to give these devices a try.
Overall user feedback for this new product has been very positive. Each day, thousands of smokers are making the switch. The great news today is that E-Cigs™ Electronic Cigarettes has agreed to offer our readers a special Electronic Cigarette Free* Trial kit. While supplies last, you’ll pay just $5.95 S&H costs with promo code “vapor” to see if this new breakthrough will help improve your life. We thank E-Cigs™ for providing the chance to “try it before you buy it.” We encourage readers who currently smoke to give E-Cigarettes a try for their health and for the health of their friends and family. Make sure to order before July 13, 2012 to be guaranteed your Risk-Free* Trial Kit.Click Here for all the detai
You are not going to believe that this was written pre-1960’s. If you did know better, you would assume that Lewis was involved in American politics and knew the difference between the REPUBLICANS and the democrats. This essay is a satire directed to educrat’s but it has democrat written all over it. The foreword is mine but I have not edited one word in the toast. Not one!
(The scene is in Hell at the annual dinner of the Tempters’ Training College for young devils. The principal, Dr. Slubgob, has just proposed the health of the guests. Screwtape, a very experienced devil, who is the guest of honour, rises to reply:)
It is customary on these occasions for the speaker to address himself chiefly to those among you who have just graduated and who will very soon be posted to official Tempterships on Earth. It is a custom I willingly obey. I well remember with what trepidation I awaited my own first appointment. I hope, and believe, that each one of you has the same uneasiness tonight. Your career is before you. Hell expects and demands that it should be — as mine was — one of unbroken success. If it is not, you know what awaits you.
I have no wish to reduce the wholesome and realistic element of terror, the unremitting anxiety, which must act as the lash and spur to your endeavours. How often you will envy the humans their faculty of sleep! Yet at the same time I would wish to put before you a moderately encouraging view of the strategical situation as a whole.
Your dreaded Principal has included in a speech full of points something like an apology for the banquet which he has set before us. Well, gentledevils, no one blames him. But it would be in vain to deny that the human souls on whose anguish we have been feasting tonight were of pretty poor quality. Not all the most skillful cookery of our tormentors could make them better than insipid.
Oh, to get one’s teeth again into a Farinata, a Henry VIII, or even a Hitler! There was real crackling there; something to crunch; a rage, an egotism, a cruelty only just less robust than our own. It put up a delicious resistance to being devoured. It warmed your inwards when you’d got it down.
Instead of this, what have we had tonight? There was a municipal authority with Graft sauce. But personally I could not detect in him the flavour of a really passionate and brutal avarice such as delighted one in the great tycoons of the last century. Was he not unmistakably a Little Man — a creature of the petty rake-off pocketed with a petty joke in private and denied with the stalest platitudes in his public utterances — a grubby little nonentity who had drifted into corruption, only just realizing that he was corrupt, and chiefly because everyone else did it? Then there was the lukewarm Casserole of Adulterers. Could you find in it any trace of a fully inflamed, defiant, rebellious, insatiable lust? I couldn’t. They all tasted to me like undersexed morons who had blundered or trickled into the wrong beds in automatic response to sexy advertisements, or to make themselves feel modern and emancipated, or to reassure themselves about their virility or their “normalcy,” or even because they had nothing else to do. Frankly, to me who have tasted Messalina and Cassanova, they were nauseating. The Trade Unionist stuffed with sedition was perhaps a shade better. He had done some real harm. He had, not quite unknowingly, worked for bloodshed, famine, and the extinction of liberty. Yes, in a way. But what a way! He thought of those ultimate objectives so little. Toeing the party line, self-importance, and above all mere routine, were what really dominated his life.
But now comes the point. Gastronomically, all this is deplorable. But I hope none of us puts gastronomy first. Is it not, in another and far more serious way, full of hope and promise?
Consider, first, the mere quantity. The quality may be wretched; but we never had souls (of a sort) in more abundance.
And then the triumph. We are tempted to say that such souls — or such residual puddles of what once was soul — are hardly worth damning. Yes, but the Enemy (for whatever inscrutable and perverse reason) thought them worth trying to save. Believe me, He did. You youngsters who have not yet been on active duty have no idea with what labour, with what delicate skill, each of these miserable creatures was finally captured.
The difficulty lay in their very smallness and flabbiness. Here were vermin so muddled in mind, so passively responsive to environment, that it was very hard to raise them to that level of clarity and deliberateness at which mortal sin becomes possible. To raise them just enough; but not that fatal millimetre of “too much.” For then, of course, all would possibly have been lost. They might have seen; they might have repented. On the other hand, if they had been raised too little, they would very possibly have qualified for Limbo, as creatures suitable neither for Heaven nor for Hell; things that, having failed to make the grade, are allowed to sink into a more or less contented subhumanity forever.
In each individual choice of what the Enemy would call the “wrong” turning, such creatures are at first hardly, if at all, in a state of full spiritual responsibility. They do not understand either the source or the real character of the prohibitions they are breaking. Their consciousness hardly exists apart from the social atmosphere that surrounds them. And of course we have contrived that their very language should be all smudge and blur; what would be a bribe in someone else’s profession is a tip or a present in theirs. The job of their Tempters was first, or course, to harden these choices of the Hellward roads into a habit by steady repetition. But then (and this was all-important) to turn the habit into a principle — a principle the creature is prepared to defend. After that, all will go well. Conformity to the social environment, at first merely instinctive or even mechanical — how should a jelly not conform? — now becomes an unacknowledged creed or ideal of Togetherness or Being Like Folks. Mere ignorance of the law they break now turns into a vague theory about it — remember, they know no history — a theory expressed by calling it conventional or Puritan or bourgeois “morality.” Thus gradually there comes to exist at the center of the creature a hard, tight, settled core of resolution to go on being what it is, and even to resist moods that might tend to alter it. It is a very small core; not at all reflective (they are too ignorant) nor defiant (their emotional and imaginative poverty excludes that); almost, in its own way, prim and demure; like a pebble, or a very young cancer. But it will serve our turn. Here at last is a real and deliberate, though not fully articulate, rejection of what the Enemy calls Grace.
These, then, are two welcome phenomena. First, the abundance of our captures: however tasteless our fare, we are in no danger of famine. And secondly, the triumph: the skill of our Tempters has never stood higher. But the third moral, which I have not yet drawn, is the most important of all.
The sort of souls on whose despair and ruin we have — well, I won’t say feasted, but at any rate subsisted — tonight are increasing in numbers and will continue to increase. Our advices from Lower Command assure us that this is so; our directives warn us to orient all our tactics in view of this situation. The “great” sinners, those in whom vivid and genial passions have been pushed beyond the bounds and in whom an immense concentration of will has been devoted to objects which the Enemy abhors, will not disappear. But they will grow rarer. Our catches will be ever more numerous; but they will consist increasingly of trash — trash which we should once have thrown to Cerberus and the hellhounds as unfit for diabolical consumption. And there are two things I want you to understand about this: First, that however depressing it might seem, it is really a change for the better. And secondly, I would draw your attention to the means by which it has been brought about.
It is a change for the better. The great (and toothsome) sinners are made out of the very same material as those horrible phenomena the great Saints. The virtual disappearance of such material may mean insipid meals for us. But is it not utter frustration and famine for the Enemy? He did not create the humans — He did not become one of them and die among them by torture — in order to produce candidates for Limbo, “failed” humans. He wanted to make them Saints; gods; things like Himself. Is the dullness of your present fare not a very small price to pay for the delicious knowledge that His whole great experiment is petering out? But not only that. As the great sinners grow fewer, and the majority lose all individuality, the great sinners become far more effective agents for us. Every dictator or even demagogue — almost every film star or [rock star] — can now draw tens of thousands of the human sheep with him. They give themselves (what there is of them) to him; in him, to us. There may come a time when we shall have no need to bother aboutindividual temptation at all, except for the few. Catch the bellwether, and his whole flock comes after him.
But do you realize how we have succeeded in reducing so many of the human race to the level of ciphers? This has not come about by accident. It has been our answer — and a magnificent answer it is — to one of the most serious challenges we ever had to face.
Let me recall to your minds what the human situation was in the latter half of the nineteenth century — the period at which I ceased to be a practising Tempter and was rewarded with an administrative post. The great movement toward liberty and equality among men had by then borne solid fruits and grown mature. Slavery had been abolished. The American War of Independence had been won. The French Revolution had succeeded. In that movement there had originally been many elements which were in our favour. Much Atheism, much Anticlericalism, much envy and thirst for revenge, even some (rather absurd) attempts to revive Paganism, were mixed in it. It was not easy to determine what our own attitude should be. On the one hand it was a bitter blow to us — it still is — that any sort of men who had been hungry should be fed or any who had long worn chains should have them struck off. But on the other hand, there was in the movement so much rejection of faith, so much materialism, secularism, and hatred, that we felt we were bound to encourage it.
But by the latter part of the century the situation was much simpler, and also much more ominous. In the English sector (where I saw most of my front-line service) a horrible thing had happened. The Enemy, with His usual sleight of hand, had largely appropriated this progressive or liberalizing movement and perverted it to His own ends. Very little of its old anti-Christianity remained. The dangerous phenomenon called Christian Socialism was rampant. Factory owners of the good old type who grew rich on sweated labor, instead of being assassinated by their workpeople — we could have used that — were being frowned upon by their own class. The rich were increasingly giving up their powers, not in the face of revolution and compulsion, but in obedience to their own consciences. As for the poor who benefited by this, they were behaving in a most disappointing fashion. Instead of using their new liberties — as we reasonably hoped and expected — for massacre, rape, and looting, or even for perpetual intoxication, they were perversely engaged in becoming cleaner, more orderly, more thrifty, better educated, and even more virtuous. Believe me, gentledevils, the threat of something like a really healthy state of society seemed then perfectly serious.
Thanks to Our Father Below, the threat was averted. Our counterattack was on two levels. On the deepest level our leaders contrived to call into full life an element which had been implicit in the movement from its earliest days. Hidden in the heart of this striving for Liberty there was also a deep hatred of personal freedom. That invaluable man Rousseau first revealed it. In his perfect democracy, only the state religion is permitted, slavery is restored, and the individual is told that he has really willed (though he didn’t know it) whatever the Government tells him to do. From that starting point, via Hegel (another indispensable propagandist on our side), we easily contrived both the Nazi and the Communist state. Even in England we were pretty successful. I heard the other day that in that country a man could not, without a permit, cut down his own tree with his own axe, make it into planks with his own saw, and use the planks to build a toolshed in his own garden.
Such was our counterattack on one level. You, who are mere beginners, will not be entrusted with work of that kind. You will be attached as Tempters to private persons. Against them, or through them, our counterattack takes a different form.
Democracy is the word with which you must lead them by the nose.The good work which our philological experts have already done in the corruption of human language makes it unnecessary to warn you that they should never be allowed to give this word a clear and definable meaning. They won’t. It will never occur to them that democracy is properly the name of a political system, even a system of voting, and that this has only the most remote and tenuous connection with what you are trying to sell them. Nor of course must they ever be allowed to raise Aristotle’s question: whether “democratic behaviour” means the behaviour that democracies like or the behaviour that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same.
You are to use the word purely as an incantation; if you like, purely for its selling power. It is a name they venerate. And of course it is connected with the political ideal that men should be equally treated. You then make a stealthy transition in their minds from this political ideal to a factual belief that all men are equal. Especially the man you are working on. As a result you can use the word democracy to sanction in his thought the most degrading (and also the least enjoyable) of human feelings. You can get him to practise, not only without shame but with a positive glow of self-approval, conduct which, if undefended by the magic word, would be universally derided.
The feeling I mean is of course that which prompts a man to say I’m as good as you.
The first and most obvious advantage is that you thus induce him to enthrone at the centre of his life a good, solid, resounding lie. I don’t mean merely that his statement is false in fact, that he is no more equal to everyone he meets in kindness, honesty, and good sense than in height or waist measurement. I mean that he does not believe it himself. No man who says I’m as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the patient refuses to accept.
And therefore resents. Yes, and therefore resents every kind of superiority in others; denigrates it; wishes its annihilation. Presently he suspects every mere difference of being a claim to superiority. No one must be different from himself in voice, clothes, manners, recreations, choice of food: “Here is someone who speaks English rather more clearly and euphoniously than I — it must be a vile, upstage, la-di-da affectation. Here’s a fellow who says he doesn’t like hot dogs — thinks himself too good for them, no doubt. Here’s a man who hasn’t turned on the jukebox — he’s one of those goddamn highbrows and is doing it to show off. If they were honest-to-God all-right Joes they’d be like me. They’ve no business to be different. It’s undemocratic.”
Now, this useful phenomenon is in itself by no means new. Under the name of Envy it has been known to humans for thousands of years. But hitherto they always regarded it as the most odious, and also the most comical, of vices. Those who were aware of feeling it felt it with shame; those who were not gave it no quarter in others. The delightful novelty of the present situation is that you can sanction it — make it respectable and even laudable — by the incantatory use of the word democratic.
Under the influence of this incantation those who are in any or every way inferior can labour more wholeheartedly and successfully than ever before to pull down everyone else to their own level. But that is not all. Under the same influence, those who come, or could come, nearer to a full humanity, actually draw back from fear of being undemocratic. I am credibly informed that young humans now sometimes suppress an incipient taste for classical music or good literature because it might prevent their Being Like Folks; that people who would really wish to be — and are offered the Grace which would enable them to be — honest, chaste, or temperate refuse it. To accept might make them Different, might offend against the Way of Life, take them out of Togetherness, impair their Integration with the Group. They might (horror of horrors!) become individuals.
All is summed up in the prayer which a young female human is said to have uttered recently: “O God, make me a normal twentieth century girl!” Thanks to our labours, this will mean increasingly: “Make me a minx, a moron, and a parasite.”
Meanwhile, as a delightful by-product, the few (fewer every day) who will not be made Normal or Regular and Like Folks and Integrated increasingly become in reality the prigs and cranks which the rabble would in any case have believed them to be. For suspicion often creates what it expects. (“Since, whatever I do, the neighbors are going to think me a witch, or a Communist agent, I might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb, and become one in reality.”) As a result we now have an intelligentsia which, though very small, is very useful to the cause of Hell.
But that is a mere by-product. What I want to fix your attention on is the vast, overall movement towards the discrediting, and finally the elimination, of every kind of human excellence – moral, cultural, social, or intellectual. And is it not pretty to notice how “democracy” (in the incantatory sense) is now doing for us the work that was once done by the most ancient Dictatorships, and by the same methods?You remember how one of the Greek Dictators (they called them “tyrants” then) sent an envoy to another Dictator to ask his advice about the principles of government. The second Dictator led the envoy into a field of grain, and there he snicked off with his cane the top of every stalk that rose an inch or so above the general level. The moral was plain. Allow no preeminence among your subjects. Let no man live who is wiser or better or more famous or even handsomer than the mass. Cut them all down to a level: all slaves, all ciphers, all nobodies. All equals.Thus Tyrants could practise, in a sense, “democracy.” But now “democracy” can do the same work without any tyranny other than her own. No one need now go through the field with a cane. The little stalks will now of themselves bite the tops off the big ones. The big ones are beginning to bite off their own in their desire to Be Like Stalks.
I have said that to secure the damnation of these little souls, these creatures that have almost ceased to be individual, is a laborious and tricky work. But if proper pains and skill are expended, you can be fairly confident of the result. The great sinners seem easier to catch. But thenthey are incalculable. After you have played them for seventy years, the Enemy may snatch them from your claws in the seventy-first. They are capable, you see, of real repentance. They are conscious of real guilt. They are, if things take the wrong turn, as ready to defy the social pressures around them for the Enemy’s sake as they were to defy them for ours. It is in some ways more troublesome to track and swat an evasive wasp than to shoot, at close range, a wild elephant. But the elephant is more troublesome if you miss.
My own experience, as I have said, was mainly on the English sector, and I still get more news from it than from any other. It may be said that what I am now going to say will not apply so fully to the sectors in which some of you may be operating. But you can make the necessary adjustments when you get there. Some application it will almost certainly have. If it has too little, you must labor to make the country you are dealing with more like what England already is.
In that promising land the spirit of I’m as good as you has already begun something more than a generally social influence. It begins to work itself into their educational system. How far its operations there have gone at the present moment, I should not like to say with certainty. Nor does it matter. Once you have grasped the tendency, you can easily predict its future developments; especially as we ourselves will play our part in the developing. The basic principle of the new education is to be that dunces and idlers must not be made to feel inferior to intelligent and industrious pupils. That would be “undemocratic.” These differences between pupils – for they are obviously and nakedly individual differences – must be disguised. This can be done at various levels. At universities, examinations must be framed so that nearly all the students get good marks. Entrance examinations must be framed so that all, or nearly all, citizens can go to universities, whether they have any power (or wish) to profit by higher education or not. At schools, the children who are too stupid or lazy to learn languages and mathematics and elementary science can be set to doing things that children used to do in their spare time. Let, them, for example, make mud pies and call it modelling. But all the time there must be no faintest hint that they are inferior to the children who are at work. Whatever nonsense they are engaged in must have – I believe the English already use the phrase – “parity of esteem.” An even more drastic scheme is not possible. Children who are fit to proceed to a higher class may be artificially kept back, because the others would get a trauma — Beelzebub, what a useful word! – by being left behind. The bright pupil thus remains democratically fettered to his own age group throughout his school career, and a boy who would be capable of tackling Aeschylus or Dante sits listening to his coeval’s attempts to spell out A CAT SAT ON A MAT.
In a word, we may reasonably hope for the virtual abolition of education when I’m as good as you has fully had its way. All incentives to learn and all penalties for not learning will be prevented; who are they to overtop their fellows? And anyway the teachers – or should I say, nurses? – will be far too busy reassuring the dunces and patting them on the back to waste any time on real teaching. We shall no longer have to plan and toil to spread imperturbable conceit and incurable ignorance among men. The little vermin themselves will do it for us.
Of course, this would not follow unless all education became state education. But it will. That is part of the same movement. Penal taxes, designed for that purpose, are liquidating the Middle Class, the class who were prepared to save and spend and make sacrifices in order to have their children privately educated. The removal of this class, besides linking up with the abolition of education, is, fortunately, an inevitable effect of the spirit that says I’m as good as you. This was, after all, the social group which gave to the humans the overwhelming majority of their scientists, physicians, philosophers, theologians, poets, artists, composers, architects, jurists, and administrators. If ever there were a bunch of stalks that needed their tops knocked off, it was surely they. As an English politician remarked not long ago, “A democracy does not want great men.”
It would be idle to ask of such a creature whether by want it meant “need” or “like.” But you had better be clear. For here Aristotle’s question comes up again.
We, in Hell, would welcome the disappearance of democracy in the strict sense of that word, the political arrangement so called. Like all forms of government, it often works to our advantage, but on the whole less often than other forms. And what we must realize is that “democracy” in the diabolical sense (I’m as good as you, Being Like Folks, Togetherness) is the fittest instrument we could possibly have for extirpating political democracies from the face of the earth.
For “democracy” or the “democratic spirit” (diabolical sense) leads to a nation without great men, a nation mainly of subliterates, full of the cocksureness which flattery breeds on ignorance, and quick to snarl or whimper at the first sign of criticism. And that is what Hell wishes every democratic people to be. For when such a nation meets in conflict a nation where children have been made to work at school, where talent is placed in high posts, and where the ignorant mass are allowed no say at all in public affairs, only one result is possible.
The democracies were surprised lately when they found that Russia had got ahead of them in science. What a delicious specimen of human blindness! If the whole tendency of their society is opposed to every sort of excellence, why did they expect their scientists to excel?
It is our function to encourage the behaviour, the manners, the whole attitude of mind, which democracies naturally like and enjoy, because these are the very things which, if unchecked, will destroy democracy. You would almost wonder that even humans don’t see it themselves. Even if they don’t read Aristotle (that would be undemocratic) you would have thought the French Revolution would have taught them that the behaviour aristocrats naturally like is not the behaviour that preserves aristocracy. They might then have applied the same principle to all forms of government.
But I would not end on that note. I would not – Hell forbid! Encourage in your own minds that delusion which you must carefully foster in the minds of your human victims. I mean the delusion that the fate of nations is in itself more important than that of individual souls. The overthrow of free peoples and the multiplication of slave states are for us a means (besides, of course, being fun); but the real end is the destruction of individuals. For only individuals can be saved or damned, can become sons of the Enemy or food for us. The ultimate value, for us, of any revolution, war, or famine lies in the individual anguish, treachery, hatred, rage, and despair which it may produce. I’m as good as you is a useful means for the destruction of democratic societies. But it has a far deeper value as an end in itself, as a state of mind which, necessarily excluding humility, charity, contentment, and all the pleasures of gratitude or admiration, turns a human being away from almost every road which might finally lead him to Heaven.
But now for the pleasantest part of my duty. It falls to my lot to propose on behalf of the guests the health of Principal Slubgob and the Tempters’ Training College. Fill your glasses. What is this I see? What is this delicious bouquet I inhale? Can it be? Mr. Principal, I unsay all my hard words about the dinner. I see, and smell, that even under wartime conditions the College cellar still has a few dozen of sound old vintageWell, well, well. This is like old times. Hold it beneath your noses for a moment, gentledevils. Hold it up to the light. Look at those fiery streaks that writhe and tangle in its dark heart, as if they were contending. And so they are. You know how this wine is blended? Different types of Pharisee have been harvested, trodden, and fermented together to produce its subtle flavour. Types that were most antagonistic to one another on Earth. Some were all rules and relics and rosaries; others were all drab clothes, long faces, and petty traditional abstinences from wine or cards or the theatre. Both had in common their self-righteousness and an almost infinite distance between their actual outlook and anything the Enemy really is or commands. The wickedness of other religions was the really live doctrine in the religion of each; slander was its gospel and denigration its litany. How they hated each other up where the sun shone! How much more they hate each other now that they are forever conjoined but not reconciled. Their astonishment, their resentment, at the combination, the festering of their eternally impenitent spite, passing into our spiritual digestion, will work like fire. Dark fire. All said and done, my friends, it will be an ill day for us if what most humans mean by “Religion” ever vanishes from the Earth. It can still send us the truly delicious sins. Nowhere do we tempt so successfully as on the very steps of the altar.
Your Imminence, your Disgraces, my Thorns, Shadies, and Gentledevils: I give you the toast of – Principal Slubgob and the College.
Whereas the majority of thoughts are from Cherry’s article, I have taken the liberty to comment through out the article. It is a very good article but very long and I have condensed in for you but you know me, I can’t keep my two sense to myself. Some of these things you have heard me say before but I think you will agree that Mark says them more articulately.
In its essence Marxism, the core ideology of Socialism, contains an irrational, utopian and coercive perversion of human equality.
Marxism seeks equality where equality does not exist, demanding legal enforcement of equal social outcomes, including those related to economics, religion and human sexuality.
This ideology even extends to international relationships whereby no nation is allowed to “excessively” prosper or achieve greatness: all nations must be equal.” Never mind that when people are free their human nature leads to natural inequality of outcomes — some are hard-working and some are lazy — some are more intelligent and some are less intelligent — some are stronger and some are weaker — some are tall and some are short. Unequal results occur naturally without force when people possess true liberty . Based on their degree of truly free enterpirse nations similarly divide themselves into various degrees of prosperity or depravity.
Under the guiding hand of democrats and the lame stream media, Marxist ideas are slowly and silently transforming the way Americans think. For example, we fail to recognize Marxist Equality at work in Title IX enforces colleges to have an equality in men’s and women’s athletic programs. You know as well as I that at Alabama and Auburn, nothing will equal football and football is a men’s sport. This form of Marxist thinking is called “gender equity,” but Marxist thinking is dysfunctional in the real world because it frustrates the natural liberty.
Affirmative Action is also a form of cultural Marxism since these laws unnaturally force equal ethnic or racial outcomes in the work place and graduate school admission instead of a natural enforcement of equal academic standards for all. Get a load of this…Under Cultural Marxism the values of the American Judeo-Christian culture must be seen as equal to that of Totalitarian Political Islam. Likewise, the value of homosexuality must be made equal — by force — to that of heterosexual marriage. Ronald Cherry says, “Like gods walking the earth, the Marxist Priests of Power — in their perverted minds — believe they can create human nature.“
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake… The object of power is power… Always there will be the intoxication of power… We are the Priests of Power… We’ll cut the links between child and parent… and between man and woman… Children will be taken from their mothers at birth as one takes eggs from a hen… Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card… You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do, and will turn against us; but we create human nature.” George Orwell — 1984
Under Economic Marxism,the government-manages or manipulates the class struggle, the wealth of the hard working middle class must be unnaturally and forcefully taken from them via taxes and penalties in order to made them equal to that of the so-called proletariat class, which in practice turns out to be the non-workers and the government employed or supported make-workers. Forced equality of economic outcome requires the tyranny of suppressed property rights for the worker, and corresponding enhancement of property rights for the lazy, through unequal tax law, in order to reduce the gap which naturally occurs — under equal rights — between rich and poor. This is exactly the game plan that Mr. Jimmy Carter was following in the creation of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Carter’s goal was to make housing affordable for all Americans whether they are responsible workers or welfare bums.
When Karl Marx advocated economic class struggle:
“From each according to his abilities [middle class], to each according to his needs [proletariat class].”
Marx failed to account for the facts of lower human nature — the greedy aspect of human nature. The ordinary man desires to labor creatively for his property in the pursuit of happiness. The laboring man who desires and is satisfied with the fruit of his own labor is not a greedy man; his happiness a natural sign of self-ownership and earned self-esteem. The proletariat class, and the Marxist ruling class, do not desire to labor — they desire the fruit of another man’s labor and that is true greed.
Long story short, Marxism declares war on the middle class and ultimately destroys their incentive which always leads to great poverty for the whole. This is one of many reasons that communism is a dismal failure. Although he never openly declared it as such, Marxism creates three classes: the proletariat class becomes the greedy class — along with the Marxist ruling class — greedy for the property of the hard-working middle class. Government which forces equal property outcome must do so through “despotic inroads on the rights of property” —thus the Marxist Ruling Class [Obama and the Democrats] confiscates the middle class wealth and then “re-distributes” said wealth to the labor-challenged so-called proletariat class in return for votes. Of course in the process, the Marxist ruling class charges us a fee for their services. Marxists call such economic social engineering “Social Equity”. I call it communism.
The lazy, tax-eating, non-disabled government-dependents will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie which in truth is the working middle class of entrepreneurs and tax-payers. This is exactly what is happening today. The Labor Unions and the Media portray the rich [bourgeoisie] as big business and large corporations but in reality, it is the large corporation that are in bed with the democrats. General Electric is a good example: they were and are huge Obama supporters. Obama is not after G.E. or G.M. other than in the sense that he wants to control them. The C.E.O.’s of the large corporations will be a part of the “Ruling Class”. They talk about “Big Oil” to deceive you. The millions that swallow their propaganda hook line and sinker really believe that the Republicans are in the sack with the “Big Corporation” but it is the democrats who are guilty. No one seems to realize or care that the middle class is under attack.
As Cherry points out…Under Economic Marxism the middle class will be gradually reduced to the economic level of existing poverty — this occurs when enough of a population goes over to the proletariat side — with outstretched hands — voting for the Party which will rob the laboring middle class on their behalf. The property outcome of the hard-working middle class, in their natural creative pursuit of happiness, must be unnaturally and forcefully made equal to that of destructive proletarian laxiness. Eventually under Marxism the middle class is worn down through excessive taxation.
At least Marx was honest because he thought communism would actually work: this is what he said about the MIDDLE CLASS. “You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible… And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois [middle class] individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.” Karl Marx
Is that statement above unbelievable or what! What is more unbelievable is that Obama has followed the Marx play book to the letter. His class warfare rhetoric is Marxist. Community organizing, propaganda, diversion and on and on are all right out of the communist playbook and few are calling his hand. Cherry draws the only sensible conclusion based on historical fact–Serfdom and poverty are inevitable in a Marxist society because the people comprising collectivist government invariably become greedy for fruit of other men’s labor — and because the work ethic of the laboring middle class is destroyed as they eventually become exhausted and demoralized by the burden of excessive taxation of their labor on behalf of the parasitic proletariat and Marxist ruling classes. The work ethic of the non-disabled proletariat class is also destroyed because they are not required to labor for property — the Marxist ruling class supplies them with the fruit of middle class labor. In the end a nation where the natural work ethic of its people is destroyed — and where there are no longer enough people in the laboring middle class — is a nation on the road to slavery and poverty. At the end of Marxist economic class struggle, when the middle class finally succumbs, there will be a dramatic fall off in production of food and other goods and services. This will create a crisis and possibly anarchy — and who “comes to the rescue” — with dictatorial martial law — You got it, the Marxist ruling class. Marxist “Social Justice” ends in poverty and a dictatorship of the proletariat. Marxist Socialism is not the cure for poverty — it is one of the chief causes of poverty in the modern world.
One of the tactics of communism is that they redefine words. The words progressive, democracy, equality, and social justice all sound good and even have a ring of morality but you will not like these words once you understand what the liberals have in mind. Democracy means destroy the constitution; progressive means socialism, equality means communism and social justice means the destruction of the middle class.
I’ve been harping on the code word ‘Democracy’ for 30 years and no one seems to be listening. In recent days, it is the word ‘Equality’ that is driving me insane. What we don’t seem to understand is ‘Equality’ under Marxism always entails the use of excessive government force, and is thus incompatible with human liberty. Force will be used to unnaturally bring down hard-working middle class individuals and high-achieving entrepreneurs to the level of the lazy, self-centered, beer-drinking, pot-smoking, I want a check in the mail but no responsibilities class called the proletariat. Force must be used to unnaturally bring down a high-achieving nation to the level of the socialist hell-holes of the world. Bear in mind that an unnatural use of force requires a superior class of not-to-be-equalized Marxist equalizers— a class superior in rights — superior before law — and superior themselves in social and economic (property) outcome — forced equality leads to even worse inequality. Cherry says that when Marxists and Socialists speak of equality (of outcome) you should understand its meaning in an Orwellian way — it is a lie — because the Marxists who forcefully socialize (collectivize) property end up with a lion’s share of property. In reality the dystopian Marxist dream of equal outcome turns out to be the nightmare of equal serfdom, except of course for the not-to-be-equalized Marxist elite and their favorites. So, in the end, in Orwellian fashion, Marxist equality results in inequality. The Orwellian paradox of forced equal outcome is unequal outcome.
Marxist equality was carefully analyzed by Igor Shafarevich and Alexander Solzhenitsyn — Soviet dissenters who directly witnessed the unjust Marxist system. They knew the smell of a corpse — they understood that Marxist equality is a lie. Shafarevich and Solzhenitsyn figured out that Marxist “equality” only applied to those below the Marxists — those who would form a vast underclass of forced labor — identical peons — leaving the Marxists themselves looming over the mass of mankind in a Marxist Oligarchy — the ultimate totalitarian system of social and property inequality.
“And even equality itself, that powerful appeal and great promise of socialists throughout the ages, turns out to signify not equality of rights, of opportunities, and of external conditions, but equality quaidentity, equality seen as the movement of variety toward uniformity.”Alexander Solzhenitsyn
In the most popular work of Marxism, the Communist Manifesto, one of the first measures of the new socialist system to be proposed is the introduction of compulsory labor… From this point of view, a puzzling and at first sight contradictory property of socialist doctrines becomes apparent. They proclaim the greatest possible equality, the destruction of hierarchy in society and at the same time a strict regimentation of all of life, which would be impossible without absolute control and an all-powerful bureaucracy which would engender an incomparably greater inequality.” Igor Shafarevich
C.S. Lewis also understood the tyranny of perverted (forced) equality of outcome — because someone very powerful — like a King or a Dictator — or a Marxist Oligarchy — must exist to enforce equal outcome. Marxists have always been willing and eager to “snick off” with their canes the more hard-working and successful — in order to force equality among the masses of inferior subjects. I have posted C.S. Lewis essay, “Screwtape Proposes a Toast” in its entirety on the soapbox. You should see it in the column to the right.
“Democracy is the word with which you must lead them by the nose… You are to use the word purely as an incantation; if you like, purely for its selling power. It is a name they venerate. And of course it is connected with the political ideal that men should be equally treated[equality before law which secures equal rights]. You then make a stealthy transition in their minds from this political ideal to a factual belief that all men are equal [in outcome — regardless of creativity and labor]… You remember how one of the Greek Dictators…sent an envoy to another Dictator to ask his advice about the principles of government. The second Dictator led the envoy into a field of grain, and there he snicked off with his cane the top of every stalk that rose an inch or so above the general level. The moral was plain. Allow no preeminence among your subjects. Let no man live who is wiser or better or more famous or even handsomer than the mass. Cut them all down to a level: all slaves, all ciphers, all nobodies. All equals.” C.S. Lewis — Screwtape Proposes a Toast
“We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the [non] working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.” Karl Marx
“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Thomas Jefferson
“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.” John Locke
You really want to get your blood pressure up…read what Obama’s mentor has to say…
“Moral rationalization is indispensable to all kinds of action… All great leaders invoked ‘moral principles’ to cover naked self-interest in the clothing of ‘freedom,’ ‘equality of mankind,’ ‘a law higher than man-made law,’ and so on… All effective [despotic] actions require the passport of morality.” Saul Alinsky
“Communism has never concealed the fact that it rejects all absolute concepts of morality. It scoffs at any consideration of “good” and “evil” as indisputable categories. Communism considers morality to be relative, to be a class matter. Depending upon circumstances and the political situation, any act, including murder, even the killing of thousands, could be good or could be bad.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Marxism requires an unnatural and despotic enforcement of equal outcomes — and is thereby in violation of the American Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution which lay out and ensure the natural enforcement of equal rights; thus Marxism is an anti-individual and anti-American system in all respects, and Karl Marx was the anti-Thomas Jefferson and the anti-John Locke. Our founding fathers understood that human liberty naturally results in economic inequality. If all sports events ended in a tie, sports would be destroyed in a short matter of time. It goes against the grain of human nature to mandate equality.