The Combating Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy recently published a paper that would categorize our Founding Fathers as "far-right extremists." This categorization stems from a lack of understanding of the true ideologies behind "right" and "left," which results from the progressive ("left") control of our schools, government, and the mainstream media, and sets up American patriots to at some point be considered "insurgents" against which America's own Counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine can be applied.
In November 2012, the
Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at the United States Military Academy published a paper by Arie Perliger (the CTC Director of Terrorism Studies) entitled "
Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right," which relies heavily on the generally understood categorizations of "left" and "right" in order to categorize terrorism in "far-right" groups:
"Regarding affinity towards traditional values, a common perception is that liberal/left- wing and conservative worldviews are different in their time orientation. While liberal worldviews are future- or progressive -oriented, conservative perspectives are more past-oriented, and in general, are interested in preserving the status quo. The far right represents a more extreme version of conservatism, as its political vision is usually justified by the aspiration to restore or preserve values and practices that are part of the idealized historical heritage of the nation or ethnic community. In many cases these past-oriented perspectives help to formulate a nostalgic and romantic ideological aura which makes these groups attractive for many who aspire to restore the halcyon days of a clear hierarchy of values and norms." (p. 17)
As you can see, the author (and society) is biased toward defining the "left" as looking toward the future while the "right" looks rearward at an idealized
(implied: false, unobtainable) past. The belief behind making these two categorizations is that there are no eternal truths, so change ("progress") is always desirable in a never ending quest for human perfection. Therefore members of the "right" who look to the past are only obstacles to this human "advancement."
In reality, progressive (the "left") thought is not anymore forward looking than conservative (the "right") thought looks to the past. Where their central difference lies is in their concept of "truth" and not necessarily in time orientation.
"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!" Romans 1:24-25*
Progressives reject God's Truth (following in the footsteps of Karl Marx, among others), so are actually returning to the thinking of Adam and Eve in Eden, Nimrod in Babylon, and the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, who all rejected God's Truth which ultimately resulted in despair and suffering.
Conservatives (the "right") acknowledge God's Truth and, just like our Founding Fathers, seek to lay that as the foundation on which all else is built. Progressives deliberately suppress God's Truth in order to formulate their own and become like gods themselves.
America has consistently exchanged the Truth for lies as shown in the following beliefs that are being bolstered by the government:
- The Holy Bible is a collection of sayings and myths, not Truth
- Man was not made in the image of God, but "evolved"
- The universe created itself (the "Big Bang" theory)
- Homosexual behavior is normal and not rebellion against our Creator
- Abortion--what amounts in many cases to a blood sacrifice to cover the sin of fornication--is not murder
- The family unit as defined in the Bible and practiced over many centuries is an arbitrary creation and should be redefined at will
- The Constitution was created as a "living" document open to liberal interpretation
- The Founders intended for Biblical Truths to be completely absent from public discourse
Prior to making the distinction between "left" and "right" the author paints the conservative ("far right") world view in a negative light:
"In the context of the far-right worldview, nationalism takes an extreme form of full convergence between one polity or territory and one ethnic or national collective. Two elements are required for the fulfillment of this version of the nationalist doctrine. The first is that of internal homogenization, i.e., the aspiration that all residents or citizens of the polity will share the same national origin and ethnic characteristics. The second is the element of external exclusiveness, the aspiration that all individuals belonging to a specific national or ethnic group will reside in the homeland." (p. 15)
"Internal homogenization rejects the incorporation and recognition of those embodying different ethnic and national traits as part of the nation. In addition, nativism adds opposition to external influence, whether on a cultural, religious, or normative basis. Foreign influence is perceived as a threat to the entirety and homogeneity of the nation and, as a result, to its resiliency, its ability to counter external threats and to preserve its essential traits. The concept of nativism explains why in many cases the activities of far-right groups do not only oppose foreigners, but also those citizens who promote what is perceived as non-native norms, practices or values." (p. 16)
Internal homogenization and rejection of foreign influence are both important, but are not based on the shallowness of national origin or ethnicity. What matters is a person's ideology, world view, and how they define "truth." This is what must be protected in America because
diversity of world views in a society leads to national schizophrenia and requires a strong central government to maintain order.
America's founding was unique among all world governments, before and since, because it was based on the Word of God. It is not perfect (no human government can be), but it is the most effective form of government to maintain order and security in a religious and moral society while providing its citizens the maximum liberty to direct their own lives. Therefore we should be suspicious of outside "norms" (truths) which seek to encroach on our culture since they will most likely contradict the values of our Founding. That is why immigrants who come to America should accept our form of government and our values, and not the other way around.
To attempt to rule a nation that contains a multitude of ideologies and world views will require much more power in the central government--just look at places like the former Yugoslavia or Iraq. But remember--America was not founded for a specific color of people (even though others would like you to believe this narrative), but based on an idea and world view. It should be expected of all who join us to accept that world view as primary in the nation.
The author also paints "anti-federalism" tendencies in a negative light:
"The anti-federalist rationale is multifaceted, and includes the beliefs that the American political system and its proxies were hijacked by external forces interested in promoting a “New World Order” (NWO) in which the United States will be absorbed into the United Nations or another version of global government. They also espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government." (p. 4)
The author fails to acknowledge that many of our forefathers were "anti-federalists" who feared that the Constitution in its original form would give the central government too much power and result in tyranny over the People and States. That is the very reason why the Bill of Rights was added--to give additional protection to the People and States against the natural tendency of a government to unceasingly increase its power.
More importantly, those who reject ultimate Truth (the progressives) desire to perfect humanity by their own hands. This will ultimately lead to tyranny as the government, who is expected to perfect life for all, continually fails to do so and therefore must assume more power at the expense of the People's liberties so they have total control over all aspects of life to arrive at their desired Utopia.
Thus we have irreconcilable differences within the United States because of the two competing world views. One seeks to operate within the framework of the Constitution and the Word of God. The other rejects both and seeks to rule the nation based on the ability of Man to "evolve" and solve all the world's problems given enough time, technology, and power. This latter world view requires the commensurate (and necessary) loss of the individual's ability to choose their own ends in exchange for the coercive ends dictated by the government.
This paper,"
Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America's Violent Far-Right," coming from one of the nation's military academies tasked with producing our future military leaders who will take an oath to support and defend the Constitution is disturbing to say the very least.
First, the paper demonstrates a lack of understanding of the founding of America and its Constitutional government.
Second, it potentially demonizes those who seek to follow in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers--a group who through study of the past and the Word understand the fallen nature of Man and the necessary limits that must be placed on government by a moral and religious people.
On the opposite side is a group who is vastly different, for they reject the past in the misguided hope that Man in all his Greatness can design a more perfect society this time around. Those of us who study the Truth know that this will always result in misery.
That group, known as the "left" or "progressives," need to be identified for what they are--collectivists (as
described by F.A. Hayek). At their very core they seek to consolidate all power into the central government to determine the ends of the people as a whole. They do not lament the loss of individual liberties, and are the anti-thesis of the vision of our Founding Fathers. They go by many names--communists, Marxists, fascists, socialists, and progressives--and can be found in both parties, Republican and Democrat. For those of us who love liberty, they must be resisted. The Constitution and Truth must be defended.
By trusting in the Word of God and the form of government created by our Founding Fathers, this author has painted himself to be a "far-right extremist" according to the Director of West Point's Combating Terrorism Center. This demonstrates just how far our nation has deviated from our creation, because, by Perliger's definition, our Founding Fathers would be far-right extremists and potential "terrorists" in America today.
If those who defend our Founding today are truly "far-right extremists," then they are in good company alongside our Founding Fathers.
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
--Against All Enemies
*Bible verse from Crossway Bibles (2011-02-09). The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Kindle Locations 44519-44521). Good News Publishers/Crossway Books. Kindle Edition.
Cross-posted from Against All Enemies
