The True ‘Social Compact’

We, as Americans, have the guaranteed right under the U.S. Constitution to assemble ourselves as we see fit within the rule of law. The First Amendment guarantees us this unalienable right.

Amendment I

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is the concept of “social compact” as the Founders intended it: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”–keywords being peaceably assemble. In a republic like the United States of America we are ruled by laws that protect the individual rights of private citizens, not unruly mobs, as we are seeing now.

My ears perked up one day when I heard Obama co-opt the term “social compact.” Obama’s version of the social compact is one big “national community.” It may sound okay, but there’s a little more to it than the notion of “one giant happy family picnic … and who wouldn’t love that” sort of thing. It’s an attempt to blur state lines and smaller groups into the greater whole, i.e. collective.

Progressive Democrats are attempting to water-down and dilute American traditions and cultural heritage many of us hold dear by progressively bringing ever more diversity into the mix where diversity already exists naturally. Ironically this does not lead to more diversity, but a monolithic sameness–a dissipation of our traditions and heritage as a nationan olive drab blob.

The concept of families, neighborhoods, churches, private schools, clubs, local militias and independent states (the social compact) is held in great contempt and disdain by the Left, particularly the dyed-in-the-wool progressive liberal, i.e. communist. I believe the reason why is the Constitution protects these rights,  which makes it much more difficult for the Progressive Democrat to gain total dominance and power over these free assemblages–just the way the Founders intended it to be. It’s called Freedom and Liberty! Our sovereignty and independence as a nation depend on this foundational truth.

The beauty of our Constitutional system is our federal government serves the states, not the other way around. It’s been described as a bottom-up (federal) governmental system, not a top-down (national) form of government. It is a rare system of governing that puts power into the hands of the people, or at least when the rules are obeyed.

So what’s a Progressive Democrat to do? Answer: appeal to the “masses” ala Marx. But how do you do that? Answer: attack the culture through art, music, media, institutions, schools, colleges, churches, businesses, corporations, books, movies, fashion–whatever it takes. This is the whole concept of leftist Critical Theory–to attack the entire culture from all sides simultaneously. Media of all sorts is wildly popular in this country. The Progressive Left is well aware of this fact. The emotional appeal (ad populum) has always been a powerful tool for persuasion throughout history.

FYI: Obama’s mother left little Barry with his grandparents to go off and study Critical Theory.

Once a sufficient part of the populace has been conditioned to certain desired cultural memes that undermine the “society” itself, it becomes much easier for the progenitors of such a strategy to gain power over the masses. The ultimate goal of all this Marxist-centered Critical Theory is to gain power within the apparatus of government itself, usually at the grassroots level by community organizing mass organizations. Sound familiar? It is. Lenin, Mao, Hitler–and so many more–did the very same thing when consolidating their rise to power.

One of the most powerful mediums to pass the Marxian-inspired cultural memes is via the airwaves. We love our flat screens, computers, iPods, iPads, iPhones and the like in this country. We absorb imagery and information at an astonishing rate these days. That’s why the progressives and liberals have taken over the entertainment and news industry …  literally running conservative-minded people out of town on a rail.

We hear so much about “community” these days. Our president is even a “community organizer.” So just what is a “community” anyway? Well, that’s a very, very interesting question. Actually, the word “community” is closely tied with the word … wait for it … “communism.” Huh. Imagine that!

The etymological origins of the word “communism” are rather murky–just like the whole concept of communism itself, but I digress.

“‘Communism’ is a word with a strange story. It is very difficult to rigorously trace its origin. Nevertheless, it is sure that the word ‘communist’ existed already in the XIVth century, with the meaning of ‘people having in common a property belonging to the category of [main morte] – that is, not being submitted to the law of heritage’: a monastery belongs to the community of the Monks, which is, as community, independent from the individuals. It seems that at the same time and even before, from the XIIth century, the same word designated some aspects of communal law and was linked to the communal movement which expanded as the beginning of a bourgeoisie.” (Emphasis mine)

Jean-Luc Nancy

According to Jean-Luc Nancy’s essay “community” is independent of “individuals.” But aren’t communities comprised of individuals? No. Not in the mind of the communist. In a communist system the individual serves the community and the community is the individual. Individualism is dissipated and assimilated into the masses in a socialist/communist system. In such a system councils or groups (oligarchies) determine what is appropriate for the individual, not the other way around. If you were going to try and wrap up communism in a nutshell, it would probably be “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

It is significant to me in the previous infamous quote by Vladimir Lenin the initial word (the preposition from) implies something will be required or taken from you first. And then you will only be given (the preposition to)  what you (each, i.e “community”) need. So the council (cf. Soviet) will determine what you “need,” but you have to give them something first–your Freedom and Liberty as an individual.

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary the word “communism” defines a “social system based on collective ownership.” Additionally, the word “communism” derives from the French word commun (trans. common). The word “common” is often heard in conjunction with all things communist, as is the word “popular,” which is roughly parallel in definition to the word “common” in this context. Starting to see a pattern here?

The whole political theory of communism is based on the fact that you are not an individual, but part of a “community.” Sounds so innocent, doesn’t it? But nothing could be farther from the truth. Individual liberty is diametrically opposed to a “community” system where individuals must first seek permission from a so-called council in order to pursue their own happiness.

If you studied anything about the organization of the #OccupyWallStreet protests, you might have noticed the protesters have formed “anonymous working groups” which report directly to “general assemblies,” i.e. councils, which carefully craft their message as one monolithic voice. Individualism is not allowed. The OWS protesters must march in lockstep with a single message and narrative, for they are the masses! It’s a classic Soviet-style organizational system based on the teachings of Hegel, Marx and Engels–among others.

So this brings us back to the “social compact” as the Founders intended, and how the Left wishes to break it and co-opt the term “social compact” to mean “social justice” (wealth redistribution) and “national community.”

In order to spot Cultural Marxism in action, many times one must be aware of the keywords and use (or misuse) of the language employed. For example, you may have heard the phrases “the haves” and the “have nots” bantered around by the liberal news media. That’s straight from Marx and Engels–the Bourgeoisie (the rich, the haves) versus the Proletariat (the poor, workers, the have nots). This is where the class struggle begins, which eventually leads to class warfare–conflict and war. Marx refers to it as the “transitional stage” in the Communist Manifesto of 1848. Obama refers to it as a “fundamental transformation.”

There are many more Marxist-inspired keywords and slogans the Left uses regularly that sound innocuous enough–“diversity,” “change agent,” “paradigm shift,” “status quo,” “popular,”  “consensus,” “outcome-based,” “group facilitator,” “change,” “hope,” “revolution,” “community-based,” “collective,” “democracy,” “workers,” “referendum,” “social justice,” “global governance”–to name a few, but they are nothing short of diabolical.

I refer to the practice of conditioning a populace for a “paradigm shift” or “fundamental transformation” from one system toward a socialist/communist system as Soviet-style Council Tactics, which derive from Hegelian and Marxist dialectical philosophy. But to be more accurate, this technique, in Soviet terms, is known as diaprax.

In a previous article I tried to boil this down a bit, which is not easy, since the subject of dialectical philosophy is a very meaty one. I will attempt to re-frame the practice for clarity’s sake.

Diversity is required for the dialectical approach in gaining power over the masses. By constantly railing for more “diversity” within in groups of individuals, i.e. businesses, schools, churches, etc., conflict is created within these groups. My good friend and co-founder of this blog, Poisontolibs, calls it the Diversity Hoax.

The conflict is purposeful. It creates confusion within the group. At this point an “agent of change” is introduced to begin a “dialog.” The goal is to reach a “consensus” within the diverse group in a facilitated setting–controlled environment. Many times the “change agent” comes in the form of a “group facilitator.” The facilitator’s job is to get members of the group to “compromise” their principles and positions for the sake of   group consensus (cf. Sensitivity Training). The dialog is inevitably over a social issue.  Remember: communism is “a social system based on collective ownership.” Examples of social issues used today by the Progressive Left: gay rights, immigrant rights, abortion rights, education rights, health care rights–and so on. He who defines the issues has the power, thus their importance to the “change agents.” The outcome from all this has already been predetermined by the “agents of change.” The only reason for the dialog is get the group to give up all moral certainties and compromise their positions and principles.

The defined “issues” lead to problems, which then leads to crises. This is where the “agents of change” really do their dirty work. Once a climate of manufactured crisis has been established within the group or populace, conflict inevitably arises. Once the conflict has boiled over and chaos has erupted full-scale, the “agents of change” will come into to crush the conflict, claiming they had no choice; they did it “for the safety and security of the masses.” The goal is simple: complete supremacy over the individual and totalitarian rule by the state. The outcome is predetermined. You could say it’s “outcome-based.”

The Progressive Left has been working their diaprax on the American population for many years now. It’s why we see what’s going on near Wall Street right now. It’s all been predetermined. The predetermined outcome in this case would be the financial collapse of our free market system. If successful, the Progressive Left will exclaim, “See, the system doesn’t work (i.e. capitalism) and we must replace it immediately with a new one.” That’s why Frances Piven herself is calling for a “popular uprising” in my opinion.

A very emotional example of how Soviet-style Council Tactics are used on a populace–mainly our own. The following film “Vietnam, Long Time Coming” will require a box of tissues, trust me. It is the story of a group of Vietnam veterans that return to Vietnam many years later to participate in a bike ride with other Vietnamese from the war–some of them NVA veterans. The men and women’s stories are gut-wrenching, as are the stories of Vietnamese survivors. There’s no denying it. My heart breaks for them. The pain is palpable beyond description. I recommend watching it. It is a very powerful film.

WATCH: Vietnam, Long Time Coming

The stories of the honorable veterans speak for themselves. What is not so obvious is the narrative and the message the producers of the film are weaving throughout the documentary. For example, you will always see the vets in groups, usually with some sort of “group facilitator.” At one point in the film a woman tells the veterans they they need to work on “getting their PTSD [Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder] out.” I swear one of the vets looked at her with an expression of “now I’ve heard it all.” I couldn’t help but think who in the hell is she to tell Vietnam veterans how they need to deal with traumatic experiences she couldn’t even imagine? I instantly thought “group facilitator.”

Additionally, I listened to heart-breaking stories of our vets apologizing for some of the incomprehensible things they had to do and did during vicious combat with the NVA and Viet Cong during the Vietnam war. The thing was, I never saw a North Vietnamese soldier apologize for some of the things they did to our troops back then in the movie. It was quite moving to see the Americans and Vietnamese trying to heal some of their bitter wounds and memories, but the filmmaker seemed to have a hidden agenda: America bad, communists good. We’re just one big happy global community now, or should be, according to the producers. That’s called illusions of grandeur in my book.

Just in case you think I’m really reaching here, let me give you a little background on the producer of the film Jerry Blumenthal and his company Kartemquin Films. From the AREA Chicago website:

“For 42 years, Kartemquin Films has been expressing the need for social change through documentary films. The journey began first in Chicago but now reaches a global audience. Founding members Gordon Quinn and Jerry Blumenthal envisioned the film company as a way to bring the need for social change to the public through cinéma vérité. Kartemquin Films began in 1966 as a local film company hoping to provide insight and spark change in the community. In 1968, a year that rocked the world, Kartemquin Films released three documentaries that showed a changing face of youth and the emergence of the New Left.[…]” (Emphasis mine)

I seem to remember a one Barry Soetoro liked to hang out in Hyde Park in years past? And didn’t Barry have some connection to Chicago? WINK! Yeah, I’m being sarcastic, but it’s hard not to question the coincidental  connections that seem to align themselves rather snugly with both the producer’s goals of social change and that of Obama and crew.

You’d think it would end there, but I couldn’t help but notice a little more dialectical madness on the Snag Film’s site as well. A Goldman Sachs advertisement was featured prominently on the Snag Film’s site with the slogan: “because progress is everybody’s business.” Ironically Goldman Sachs is one of Obama’s big-time donors. Michelle Malkin reported in 2010 at National Review Online regarding Obama’s ties to Goldman Sachs:

“Goldman Sachs partner Gary Gensler is Obama’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission head. He was confirmed despite heated congressional grilling over his role, as Reuters described it, “as a high-level Treasury official in a 2000 law that exempted the $58 trillion credit default swap market from oversight. The financial instruments have been blamed for amplifying global financial turmoil.” Gensler said he was sorry — hey, it worked for tax cheat Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner — and was quickly installed to guard the henhouse.”

Obama has allied himself with the ultra-rich, because they are ones who fund his mad dash to “socialist democracy.” The Goldman Sachs slogan implies that we must all progress (or nudge) together toward a “national community,” because it’s “everybody’s business.” “It takes a village,” don’t ya know! In this context the use of the word “progress” is synonymous with “progressive,” i.e. communist.

I hope this little article helped shed some light on the use of diaprax in our American culture and politics to move us toward a Totalitarian Marxist Utopia. I guess that’s “progress” to a progressive.

About Brent Parrish

Author, blogger, editor, researcher, graphic artist, software engineer, carpenter, woodworker, guitar shredder and a strict constitutionalist. Member of the Watcher's Council and the Qatar Awareness Campaign. I believe in individual rights, limited government, fiscal responsibility and a strong defense. ONE WORD: FREEDOM!
This entry was posted in American Culture, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, CAGW, Christianity, Communism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, Economy, Education, Energy Policy, Fascism, Fast and Furious, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Founders, Health Care Bill, History, Homosexuality, Immigration, Islam, Jobs Bill, Legal/Judicial, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Mob Action, Monetary Policy, Music, National Defense, National Security, Obama Lies, Philosophy, Planned Parenthood, Plantation Liberalism, Political Theory, Prejudice, Progressive Movement, Racism, Rank Stupidity, Sacrifice, Science, Second Amendment, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Taxation, Tea Party, Totalitarianism, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Military, UN--B.S., Union Actions, Vietnam War, War. Bookmark the permalink.