Machiavelli
Nicollo Machiavelli was an Italian political philosopher. His book The Prince was written in 1513. In it he opined that a ruler, who in establishing a kingdom or a republic used violence to accomplish his ends, should be excused when the intentions were “good” and the results were “beneficial.” From his philosophy we derive the common saying “the ends justify the means.”
Niebuhr
Reinhold Niebuhr was a leftist theologian who ran for the U.S. Congress on the Socialist ticket in 1932. Democrat James Comey, in his analysis of the writings of his hero Niebuhr, commented thusly: “the Christian in politics must be willing to transgress any purely Christian ethic. He must be willing to sin in the name of justice.” Comey used the name Reinhold Niebuhr as his personal Twitter handle, a clear testament to his affection for his own interpretation of Niebuhr’s political philosophy. When Comey’s interpretation of Mr. Niebuhr’s ethical philosophies were exposed in the conservative media, Comey abruptly changed his Twitter handle. Was it to hide his interpretations from being widely known? Almost certainly—Machiavelli would be so proud! Barack Obama said of Niebuhr “I love him. He is one of my favorite philosophers.” Hillary Clinton is also a Reinhold Niebuhr fan. As leftists, they clearly interpreted his works in the same manner as Mr. Comey.
When we evaluate the sentence “he must be willing to sin in the name of justice” we find that sin of course is an act committed in defiance of at minimum the Ten Commandments found in the Old Testament, from which we derive the basis of the Christian ethic.
Which commandments then would James Comey and others who adhere to their interpretation of Niebuhr’s philosophy feel comfortable breaking to further a cause that they would consider just by their definition? Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor? Comey tacitly implies that in politics lying is acceptable in the furtherance of their definition of justice. Would they bear false witness by withholding crucial evidence, or actually offering false evidence? It seems so, if it could be useful in the furtherance of what they consider to be justice by their revised definition.
So when Mr. Comey claimed regarding Hillary Clinton that “no reasonable prosecutor” would prosecute her for her clear felonies, and hence the F.B.I. would not either, what we may now assume is that he may simply have been lying to prevent what he saw as a threat to what he considered a just result—the furtherance of the leftist movement in America, of which he and Hillary Clinton are members. Prosecuting and convicting a prominent Democrat leader would have hurt the leftist cause badly. This to Mr. Comey would clearly set back the cause of his adopted form of “justice” and called for sinning in the name of said justice.
It should be noted that Comey voted for Gus Hall, the Communist Party USA candidate in the 1976 presidential election, as did John Brennan, who ran Obama’s C.I.A. Hall rose to General Secretary of the CPUSA and was then awarded the Soviet Order of Lenin, after having originally studied for two years at the International Lenin School in Moscow. So in point of fact Comey voted for a communist candidate who was trained in the communist Soviet Union. May it not be reasonably inferred then that Comey is at minimum a communist sympathizer, in light of his vote for a Communist Party USA candidate? Is communism not the political philosophy whose leaders have murdered 100 million citizens of communist countries in the philosophy’s short history, of which Comey was clearly historically aware? Is this not the ultimate social injustice? Apparently not in the mind of James Comey, nor of John Brennan.
Gramsci
The Italian communist, Antonio Gramsci, lived at the time of Stalin. He was the head of the Italian communist party. Gramsci sought to foment an Italian revolution similar to the Bolshevik Revolution that had been previously successful in Russia. His efforts were completely thwarted by the nature of the Italian citizenry, which was wholly devoted to God through their Catholic faith, and therefore disinclined to replace God with the State, which is a prerequisite to the adoption of communism. The institutions of the Italian culture and society—the schools, the courts, the media, the police, the military—were based on the church, and solidly held up the Italian government, making it impervious to subversive attacks against it. Therefore Gramsci failed miserably in his attempts at Italian governmental overthrow.
Gramsci was imprisoned 20 years for his subversion, where he ruminated daily about what he might have done differently in order to have had success with his Italian revolution. He realized that there first needed to be a concerted effort to weaken and finally destroy the supportive institutions that prop up any western democracy, and particularly that of the United States, in order to make it more effective to then attack the weakened government and topple it in favor of a communist replacement regime. His writings have elevated Gramsci into the upper echelons of the communist pantheon, and his strategies have been widely read and carefully applied by hard leftists, including those in the U.S., for many decades.
In Gramsci’s Prison Diaries, written during his incarceration, he elaborated on his newly developed tactics to attack the institutions of any target society. He encouraged fellow revolutionaries to infiltrate the furthest left political party in the target country and to eventually take it over (which has clearly happened in today’s Democratic Party in America) He taught his followers to attack every tenet of the traditional church in order to diminish its influence in society. This strategy and effort has clearly been underway in America for quite some time. He encouraged the infiltration of the school system by fellow travelers in order to propagandize students into the communist philosophy and to teach philosophies counter to the tenets of the church and traditional Americann society. Some of these tenets include that marriage is only between a man and a woman, that homosexuality is not normal and is indeed a sin, and that God created only two distinct genders. As is easily seen, each of these and other base tenets of the church is under sustained attack by the hard left in America and throughout most of the world. And of course they are—most hard leftists leaders in the U.S. are intimately familiar with Gramsci’s philosophies and writings, and are at work utilizing his tactics in order to arrive at a different revolutionary outcome in the United States than was possible in Italy in Gramsci’s time.
Social Justice
By “sinning in the name of justice” James Comey does not mean actual traditional justice, in its long accepted definition, which is exactly what the keeping of the commandments secures for any population. If one does not bear false witness, but instead gives others only factual information on which to base their decisions—this is just. If he follows the commandment thou shall not steal, he allows others to keep the earned fruit of their labors—this is just. Traditional and eternal justice is arrived at by following the commandments, which is defined as just treatment and culminates in a state of actual societal justice.
Social justice is arrived at by the breaking of any of the commandments—which in essence is unjust in reality—in order to bring about by whatever means necessary the non-traditional definition of justice—the equal economic outcome of all citizens regardless of their willingness to work, their talents, their contributions to society, or the tragic resultant economic losses to their overall society that always results from such an attempt, ending in the impoverishment of the entire population, including the exact populations the left purports to be lifting up. Social justice is in effect the usurping of the original all wise and eternal lawgiver and his declared definition of justice, and replacing him within society with a select group of mortal, fallible humans beings who then define their own subjective version of what are to be considered just actions and policies in society, according to their human and therefore potentially flawed opinions.
The political philosophy of James Comey relative to the gaining of political power and the making of societal revolution, is in essence the same as that of Joseph Stalin, who proclaimed “you cannot make a revolution with silk gloves.” Stalin utilized these same Machiavellian principles to justify the murder of 20 million of his fellow Soviet citizens whom he felt stood in the way of the social justice goals of the Soviet Union. Mr. Comey clearly interprets Niebuhr’s writings as concluding that it is just and right to break any purely Christian ethic or commandment, and that would it seems include the commandment against murder, which Joseph Stalin broke day after day against the population enslaved within his Soviet Union. Could that be why the American hard left has such a difficult time fully objecting to the atrocities of Stalin?
In light of James Comey’s stated political philosophy, which runs counter to the biblical ethics of justice long accepted by the American public—is there any reason to consider his past actions as having ever been actually honest according to our common traditional ethic of honesty? Since, according to his own words, he does not share a common set of ethics with the American public, can he ever really be believed, and should he ever have been in control of an investigative division of the American government originally devoted to the furtherance of justice, which should clearly have its operating basis in truth and actual traditional justice?
James Comey voted for the American communist Gus Hall for president, whose political philosophies he has never disavowed. Obviously his higher loyalty is to the long term communist revolution, not the societal principles and ethics that gave birth to and undergird the American republic. He was not then nor is he now fit to hold any position in the American government. Mr. Comey could not then nor now pass a traditional F.B.I. background check conducted by his own former agency in order to serve as janitor at any federal building because of his documented communist leanings and associations. Yet he was chosen without any meaningful congressional oversight to serve as the director of the agency established to safeguard the original American principles of truth and justice, made possible specifically because Congress no longer requires such vetting for subversive political leanings and associations, nor is the now politically captured F.B.I. inclined to pursue traditionally subversive elements in our society and government.
Was the Democrat Hillary Clinton not exercising the same Machiavellian principle when she lied to Congress as to whether she had any classified e.mails on her home server? Or when she had aids smash her smart phones with hammers in order to make information on them unavailable for the normal required public scrutiny of a government employee’s communications? Was she not simply bearing false witness, breaking our traditional moral code, in the service of what she considers to be a higher law? That “higher law” would be the furtherance of the socialist revolution long sought by the American hard left in order to forcibly foist on the populace their coercive and twisted version of social justice and socialist governance. Covering her tracks and getting away with it all, in her mind, has protected and furthered that revolution, keeping hidden what we have to assume are subversive communications that she engaged in. Why else would she go to such great lengths to hide the content of her communication devices? She also was and is now unfit to be employed in government by the American people, as she was working without holding the common ethic of justice held by the vast majority of Americans. Hillary also could not pass a traditional F.B.I. background check due to her philosophical leanings and hard left associations, but is seems none is required to serve as our country’s first lady, to serve as our Secretary of State, nor to run for the office of President of the United States.
Democratic Party Machiavellian and Gramscian Policies: AFDC
During the New Deal under President Franklin Roosevelt, legislation was passed called Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Under the rubric of compassion, the program provided for income assistance to low income American families. One of the stipulations of the program was that it would be provided only to households without a father living in the home, which was indicated as a severe disadvantaging criterion. The implied compassion under which Democratic lawmakers introduced the bill was supposedly expressed through the elevated economic assistance offered to these families. But as the left traditionally follows the tenets of Machiavelli, Niebuhr, and Gramsci, what might have been the actual obfuscated background reasoning behind the legislation?
The end result of AFDC was that poor black fathers were heavily financially incentivized to move out of their own nuclear family homes that contained their children and children’s mother, separating the fathers physically from both. This resulted in great emotional suffering for black children, and especially black boys. Then ensued, as a result of this legislation, the rise of black inner city gangs, as these disenfranchised boys sought to belong to any meaningful social construct that they had lost when their fathers left. Inner city violence exploded. Concurrently occurred the shattering of the American black family in general, which went from having the highest level of intact traditional families of any racial group in America, to thereafter having the lowest level, and the highest level of absentee fatherhood. Today, seven out of ten black children are born out of wedlock—fatherless black households are the statistical norm. In retrospect, did any form of justice ensue from this legislation?
Judged from a traditional American ethical framework, AFDC would seem to have been simply a legislative mistake, that had unintended negative consequences. But when judged through the prism of the teachings of Machiavelli and Gramsci carried forward through the Democratic Party, a different probability arises. Could not the results of AFDC have been easily foreseen by anyone even slightly inclined to predict the clear potential consequences? Was it not obvious that poor but intact black families would be strongly financially incentivized by the proffered governmental assistance after moving fathers out of their family homes? And would this not clearly then have broken these black boys spirits and led to social unrest and crime? Would this then not clearly have financially impoverished the American black family further, by encouraging black fathers to leave the support of their children to the government, leaving these families then even more financially dependent on government assistance in the future? And would this not then have clearly driven the black family to ally themselves more closely with the American political party that would offer the most unearned benefits in response to their resultant increased financial need, therefore resulting in a more dependent and loyal constituency for the Democratic Party?
The Latin phrase cui bono—to whose benefit—is always a guide to understanding the background reasoning for any action or policy introduction. Who exactly benefited from the black family being weakened and further impoverished, when it was easily predictable that this would be the result of AFDC? Clearly not the black family for which the legislation was supposedly crafted—but the Democratic Party did. They gained an almost totally loyal constituency group, who in their socially and financially weakened condition needed the Democratic Party then more than ever for financial benefits, as the economic undergirding of their families had been effectively shattered. The long used phrase “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime” has been completely inverted. The Democrats subscribe more closely to the philosophy “separate all those who would like to fish together today, take away their fishing rods and their bait, break their legs so they can’t walk to the river, and they will rely on you to give them fish for a lifetime.” And because of this they will vote for you in perpetuity. An added benefit to the left under Gramscian theory is the breakdown of the black family structure for its own sake, which directly undermines the church teaching that a family is comprised of a father, mother, and children living together. Many black families have now abandoned this teaching as a result of government policies that financially disincentivized the holding together of their families. This greatly weakens the influence of the church in black society, furthering a goal of Antonio Gramsci with the methods of Machiavelli.
Democratic Machiavellian and Gramscian Policies: Immigration
As the left continues to seek to keep our borders open to unfettered illegal immigration inflows, they seem to care not at all for the displacement of American workers in our job market. It would seem that the Democrats have calculated that alienating Americans who are forced into unemployment or underemployment by illegal immigration is of less political importance than the addition of millions of illegal aliens to the Democratic Party voting rolls, as they traditionally vote at a 70% rate for the Democratic Party in the first generation. As is typical of the followers of the aforementioned political philosophers, they cloak their policies in “compassion,” when the real intent is gaining un-earned political hegemony.
The left knows that if they can bring in millions of foreign workers into our political mainstream, regardless of the negative consequences to the American worker, they will gain millions of new first generation voters to their cause. Using this tactic, they seek to eventually gain political dominance over conservative Americans, and that this will bring them to the brink of instituting an authoritative socialist state to rule over us all. Again, the political philosophies of Machiavelli, Niebuhr, and Gramsci guide their intentions and actions, as they strive to use deception and even violence if necessary to bring them closer to their ideal of political justice—the complete subjugation of the American conservative, who holds contrary and completely antithetical views of what is the best philosophical, cultural, and political structure of American society, and who default to our original religious tenets, traditions, and Constitution.
Democratic Machiavellian and Gramscian Policies: The 2020 Elections
The political philosophies of Machiavelli, Niebuhr, and Gramsci undergirded the Democratic Party approach to the 2020 presidential election. Since President Trump represented the single greatest threat to the furtherance of the hard leftist revolution in the U.S., with his concerted attempts to counter the results of Gramscian theory by strengthening the country economically, militarily, and by promoting and strengthening our traditional culture, the “ends” became of primary importance—he must be defeated. The “means” devised and employed were massive voter fraud, turning a decisive victory for Trump into his narrow defeat. With leftist media and politicians bearing false witness as to the fraud committed, all of course without remorse nor shame as in their minds social justice was served—the fraud was effectively pulled off and covered. And now the left is moving quickly in 2021 to codify their recently effective methods, seeking to make mail-in balloting mandatory in every state in the nation, while removing any effective identification requirement to prove actual eligibility to vote, thereby enabling the cheating to be institutionalized, and to completely negate the conservative vote in our country. In other words, conservative voters will no longer have any representation commensurate with actual vote totals for candidates for our federal and state governments, and will have no resultant say in their policies. Thus there will now be no truly effective counterbalance to the hard leftist policies of the Democratic Party. Only submission and powerless objections, or counter revolutionary action, will be the possible remaining conservative reactions as the left completely radicalizes our federal government and our election processes.
Where Are The Limits To The Machiavellian Evil The Hard Left Will Commit?
With the philosophies of Machiavelli and Gramsci as their operating principles, the question must be asked—what if any are the limitations to the commandments the Democrats will transgress in their pursuit of their ultimate goals when they have effectively and permanently rendered the voting input of half the American population moot by means of bearing false witness through election fraud? And under what principles would they then place any limitations on the extent to which they would oppress conservatives? Those reading who operate in their lives with respect to the commandments and to a traditional definition of justice assume in general that Democrats would limit their future commission of evil out of respect to conscience, as they themselves would. This assumes that hard leftists think like traditional Americans do—yet they clearly don’t. It is a grave misunderstanding of the hard leftist mindset, and of their decision making processes relative to human ethics. They do not share our common values and morality. They accept no limits on the extent to which they will go should it serve their political ends. They intend to force a form of government on us that is diametrically opposed to our ideals and values. When we look out at the communist regimes of countries that the American left has supported, we see outrageous atrocities having then been committed, and in many cases still being committed today. From Stalin, to Mao, to Ho Chi Minh, to Castro, to Chavez, to Maduro, to Xi Jinping—the American left has supported, justified, and lionized them all—because their desired ends are identical.
Most American leftists in our government are Maoist Communists, supporting foremost the tenets and policies of Chinese communism, and are either supportive of or actually colluding with the Chinese Communist Party. Yet Communist China uses slave labor to produce consumer goods. China is currently committing genocide against the Uighur minority within China, enslaving them in 380 concentration camps, subjecting their women to mass rape by their Chinese captors in order to dilute their gene pool, subjecting them to forced sterilization in order to eventually end the very existence of their people. Are not socialist/communist regimes supposed to have instituted a more just form of government, reflected in equitable treatment of all sectors of their populations? Apparently not. And how do American leftists justify their associations and support for the CCP? They remain silent on this subject, but the phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” seems to describe their motivations well relative to China. Traditional America is their enemy, therefore America’s enemy China is their friend, with whom they share a common philosophy and sympathy. They do not seek any form of actual social justice as a true ethic, nor do they require it of their ally China, but instead use the concept as a useful lever to overturn American institutions holding up our traditional form of government, which stands in the way of the realization of their totalitarian socialist world dream. Should American leftists gain sufficient political power, they will immediately drop all pretense and commence the oppression of all forces that stand against their revolution, as their philosophical allies in China have already done, and in particular will harshly persecute all politically conservative Americans who stand against communism, and in support of our traditional religious, civic, and political culture.
Are U.S. concentration camps inhabited by American conservatives in our American future? It is quite possibly so, should we not find the means to reverse the recent political developments that have given leftists virtually complete control of our government and culture in perpetuity. Since communists know no moral nor ethical boundaries, it is safe to assume that negotiating with them from our current state of cultural and political weakness is untenable. There clearly is no viable and ultimately effective way to resist the current communist revolution taking place in America short of counter-revolutionary action. Mao Zedong, who founded the Chinese Communist Party, famously stated that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” When dealing with current day communists who faithfully follow Mao’s teachings and always resort to suppressive violence when they gain sufficient political power, American conservatives must adopt an effective counter-balancing strategy including the willingness to potentially use arms in self defense against the left, or there is no future for our traditional American republic, nor for the millions of American conservatives living within our borders. If we do not act, we will live under the boot heel of American communists in the country that those who held to our traditional tenets and beliefs founded and established—and we to our great shame will have neglected and lost.
Even the God of the Bible used what might be construed to be Machiavellian ethics in his commandments to the Israelites to kill entire populations down to the last man, woman, and child. The ends to which he went though were in actuality truly just by eternal traditional principles, as were therefore the harsh means he sometimes employed, without needing to revert to ‘sinning in the name of justice.’ God does not sin as Machiavellians and Gramscians do. He commanded his people the Israelites to slaughter certain whole populations that they encountered, and to leave not one man, woman, nor child alive. These tribes had adopted horrific and degraded practices of human abuse, and God judged the highest good of the world to be their elimination, and for no remnant of their horrific actions to remain on the earth, in order to protect the just societies remaining from being socially contaminated and eventually ruined by their associations with the practices of these tribes. It was akin to a doctor making the difficult decision of cutting off a gangrenous leg to save the rest of the patient’s body. It was righteous and fully justified. It was a true case of the ends being actually justified, because the ends were wholly good and right. In the case of the hard left practicing Machiavellianism today, the ends are not good, are not justified by any eternal ethic, and do not have the actual good of the country nor the world writ large as their goal. They seek to enslave, to control, to wield totalitarian government control against all dissenters, many of whom are followers of the God of the Bible. They seek to strip us of our human freedoms, and to sanction by law the following of any religion except that which worships their socialist state.
There is one grand difference between God and his people, and those on the left who utilize Machiavellian and Gramscian ethics and tactics in their lives and political pursuits. To choose for the highest actual good of any society is the basis for all of God’s decisions, and should also be for his followers. This is the truest definition of love. Leftists choose ends which always ultimately degrade a society, and bring misery to its people under the guise of justice, for the satisfaction of their perverse desire to become gods themselves and then determine the unlimited means appropriate to arrive at the ends they unwisely and arrogantly choose. The character of the ends chosen, when studied carefully, are clearly seen as divergent between godless communism and the God on which our traditional religiously based constitutional republic was firmly based. In communism, the means and the ends are unjustifiable. In the Soviet Union, the national state culmination of leftist ideology and struggle, the government murdered 30,000,000 of its own citizens for their divergent beliefs, and imprisoned millions more, subjecting them to torture and unspeakable privations, in order to enslave and control them, forcing their adherence to a false and destructive communist philosophy. Soviet citizens lived as virtual captive slaves in their own country.
The United States though, long considered the epitome of traditional religious and civic values, and based historically on godly principles, and having long held to a strict traditional philosophy of justice, has a body count of its own citizens that is infinitesimal by comparison, and traditionally has provided its citizens a level of freedom and potential for happiness that is unparalleled in human history. The means employed to undergird and maintain this great and generally good civilization have in most every situation been sufficiently justified, as will be any similar attempts made in the future by traditional Americans, including in any instance in which we may be compelled to kinetic action to defend our developed civilization.
Conservatives in America have been in a conservatism 1.0 status for many decades, characterized by their awakening to the subversive methods of the left and its attempts to culturally and politically subjugate us, and to eventually foist a totalitarian socialist government upon us. The conservative 1.0 focus has been on educating and organizing politically to gain power against the left in political self defense. True heroes of this movement have informed and educated millions of conservative Americans as to these realities, and brought out the vote to further conservative ideals. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Diana West, Trevor Loudon, Jeff Nyquist etc. have spent their lives in this educational attempt. Donald Trump has also spent a number of years attempting to place us back generally on a foundation of traditional American values. Yet we find ourselves at a juncture—having been completely overwhelmed in the 2020 elections by fraud, collusion, and deceit—where our conservatism 1.0 heroes no longer have sufficient answers to meet our current reality. It is of no use now to follow traditional political methods in order to have like minded politicians elected to represent our values and ideals, which was a hallmark of conservatism 1.0. This is no longer possible as the left has established an overwhelming level of propaganda control in our schools, media, and government, effectively censoring conservative ideals, and preventing them from being disseminated to the public at large in order to influence our society. They have now also devised means to defraud us of our vote, effectively disenfranchising us through the targeted subversion of our electoral processes. With their current control of the entirety of government, won through fraudulent means, Democrats are pushing to permanently nationalize the methods they employed successfully in the 2020 battleground states, which would in the next four years ensure their political hegemony in perpetuity. Their aggressive use of Machiavellian, and Gramscian principles and policies have brought them to the precipice of a finished revolution here in the states, and if successful they will now take off the gloves and begin their persecution and subjugation of American conservatives who have stood opposed to them.
We are in desperate need of a new approach, an advanced and improved conservatism 2.0, in order to save ourselves from the onslaught by the left that is beginning now against conservatives in America, as we are rapidly being characterized as domestic terrorists to be hunted by a completely politicized F.B.I and Homeland Security. Those of us who carry forward the traditional American religious and political tenets from our forefathers are now the hunted in our own country. We must immediately turn this equation around, and become the pursuers of those who seek to make illegal our traditional lifestyles and beliefs, and persecute and imprison us for who we are and what we believe. We are at the point where only a strong kinetic offensive response will push back on their heels those who are coming for us to politically and physically subjugate us.
This will be a time fraught with danger, as the means to our ends, which are now our political and physical survival, and ultimately our American Renewal, are more limited and much more dangerous. Unless we as American conservatives shake ourselves awake from our fatal lethargy, we will soon find that the noose is already in place and tightened, and escape no longer possible. Living in the normalcy bias—imagining that life will continue along as it always has, and that there is no need to act to prevent disaster—will prove ultimately fatal if continued in. Thinking that we can now be saved by political organizing, or the rebirthing of past conservative figures, or by discovering new political heroes—is a false hope. Those doors have now effectively been closed to us through the effective use of institutionalized voter fraud.
Our organization American Renewal, will be exploring the new philosophies and methods necessary to assure the survival of American conservatives, and of our very republic itself. The time is now for American heroes to stand up and lead us back into freedom. Will you be one of those heroes that history will remember and celebrate for their foresight, resolve, and courage? Or will you be remembered as an American who sat idly by while our republic was destroyed in our time and on our watch? The time for clear thinking is now, and the time for decisive action is fast approaching…