The Four Core Ideals

Political Parties As Agents of Ideology Instead of Tools of Power

Would you be surprised to learn that at different times in American history the actual positions of both the Democratic and Republican Parties have reversed and flip flopped on a number of occasions and until the 1960’s the ideological divide was not based on party?

 

The Democrats were at one time more or less controlled by southern and pro slavery interests and the Republicans were dominated by abolitionists from the Northeast but today the black community, enslaved by the socialist programs and a tendency to ask “what can government give me” rather than simply asking government to protect their freedoms, gives its votes to the Democrats.

 

You can trace the Republicans back to the Anti-Federalists, more conservative and more for limited government, while the roots of the Democratic Party are in Federalism, less conservative on moral issues and more for centralized government.

 

The “lineage” of both parties, going back to the anti-Federalists and the Federalists, is hard to track, at times both parties leaned in the same direction, with a difference of approach being the only distinguishing characteristic, and at times the conservative/anti-federalists and the federalist/liberals fought it our within their respective parties.

 

Originally, Anti-Federalists and Federalists agreed that the objective of society was to simply ensure that the self interest of individuals or their interest groups (factions) were constantly checked and balanced to allow maximum freedom for all and dominance by none. The short way of saying this is that they wanted to maintain a “balance of power” as a protection of individual rights and freedoms.

 

The disparity between these aims and the status of women, slaves, and some of the poor was one of the chief reasons why, over time, this aim was broken down. Hypocrisy usually creates either repentance when it is exposed or a re-defining of the original truths which basically excuses the hypocrisy.

 

The process of creating American Socialism began with the Marshal Court which imposed the Federalist doctrine of Judicial Review (a nice way of saying Judicial supremacy) which power was used to judge not merely in terms of the constitution but also in terms of social justice (as, for instance, “affirmative action” or “gay marriage”). Without the disparities between stated aims (prevent dominance by factions, protect individual freedom) and actual practices, this process of Socialization would have had little opportunity to get started.

 

To put it another way, people who could argue that the treatment of women, slaves, and the poor could be justified despite the freedom centered aims of the nation could very easily justify creating a false doctrine of judicial review (Judicial supremacy) that violates the essentially Sovereigntist aims of that same nation.

 

The division of America along the lines of its aims changed over time, moving closer to the objectives of the French Revolution, which include “social justice.”

 

Social justice is best summed up by Obama’s oft repeated lines about freedom not being enough if people are not guaranteed a good job, good health care, and the like. A “conservative” version of social justice, which is not very influential (despite the media trying to make it seem as if it is influential), is the idea of “social morality” in which the government makes laws that encourage “morality” and make “better citizens.”

 

The tendency towards social justice is to seek a “universal” solution or truth which everyone can ascribe to is designed not merely to maintain a balance of power between factions but to move beyond that, to eliminate factions in the name of social justice for all, a social justice measured in terms of income, health care, education, morality and etc.

 

America’s dominant ideologies involve two primary areas: anti-federalism versus federalism and freedom based on a balance of power between factions versus freedom based on a universal set of beliefs designed to eliminate factions and achieve social justice.

 

The most critical difference is between anti-Federalism and Federalism. Regardless of one’s aims (freedom or social justice) the disparity between Anti-Federalism and Federalism allows little room for negotiation.

 

We call people who are in favor of anti-Federalism, regardless of their aims, Sovereigntists, because they seek a limited government and private institutions and actions to advance their agenda without forcing anyone to follow their program.

 

There are primarily three types of Sovereigntism.

 

State Sovereigntists who believe in an extremely limited Federal government with a sort of neo-Federalism WITHIN the state, individualist Sovereigntists who are basically against all forms of government or for extremely limited government (anarchists and hard core libertarians), and community or free association Sovereigntists who believe in an individual sovereignty that is guarded primarily by local communities and free associations of like minded people (sometimes called “community sovereignty”).

 

Federalists (and we will continue to use the term) fall into two primary camp: those who are for a Federalism with sovereignty for the states (State’s Rights Federalists, similar to State Sovereigntists, but with a more robust State government) and those who are for a form of “cooperative Federalism” in which the Federal Government is the lead partner.

 

BOTH State’s Rights Federalists and Cooperative Federalists tend towards using the power of the state to advance their agenda.

 

The more “conservative” or “traditionalist” Federalists tend to focus on state sovereignty and the “liberal” Federalists tend to focus on using the central government to advance their agenda.

 

While modern Federalism is a logical progression from the Federalism of the 18^th Century, the Federalists of that age were not nearly as focused on using the state to achieve their goals as is the case today.

 

Those who seek “social justice” tend to favor Federalism and those who seek freedom only tend to be Sovereigntists but this is not universally true.

 

Those who seek a public aim of promoting freedom for individuals and/or their free associations while maintaining a balance of power between factions (which prevent any faction from becoming too dominant) are Freedomists.

 

Freedomists typically gravitate towards a representative form of government, with consensual democracy as the ideal at a local level, they believe that this form of government prevents conflicts, and believe in promoting peace by encouraging and supporting freedom movements which want to create a representative form of government.

 

Those who seek a social justice aim that is more oriented towards economic results while usually removing moralistic restrictions are liberals and those who seek a social justice aim that is based more on creating good citizens based on some moral vision that is traditional are social conservatives. Often “populists” who respect a representative form of government or “fascists” who do not pursue both economic and moralist/traditionalist social justice aims.

 

Social justice advocates of both types tend to focus less on structure and forms of government and more on results so that “the end justifies the means.”

 

A Sovereigntist and Freedomist ideology with sovereignty for individuals as its objective is absolutely incompatible with a Federalist and Social Justice ideology with arbitrary results in terms of income, health care, education and etc. as its goal.

 

While we will identify 6 key ideologies, there are really two ideologies which we can refer to as “primary ideologies”.

 

We will call the first ideology Republicanism. Republicanism combines Sovereigntism with Freedomist aims with some limited conservative Social Justice aims but only, at most, the local level and only by popular consensus.

 

Republicanism generally involves a limited federal government, states, more autonomous local communities, and private organizations which are believed to be the proper primary providers of spiritual, social, economic, and cultural services and even rules.

 

We will call the second ideology Socialism.

 

Socialism combines Federalism with liberal Social Justice aims and includes some limited Freedomist aims in the area of religion and morality.

 

Socialism can involve the government, corporations, and private social organizations that are given grants by the government.

 

There can be no peaceful co-existence between Republicanism and Socialism.

 

To put it another way: These two ideologies cannot peacefully co-exist in a single society under a single political and economic system.

 

Republicanism and Socialism are the primary ideologies (Republicanism being the leading Sovereigntist ideology and Socialism being the lead Federalist ideology). These are not the only ideologies and we have six main ideologies: Sovereigntist with Freedomist aims (Republicanism), Sovereigntist with liberal Social Justice aims (Communitarianism), Sovereigntist with conservative Social Justice aims (conservatism), Federalist with liberal Social justice aims (Socialism), Federalist with conservative Social Justice aims (Dominionism), and Federalist with Freedomist aims (Constitutionalism).

 

There are ideologies that are shades of a number of these ideologies or that are more specific (for instance Protestant versus Catholic Dominionism) or shades of Constitutionalism based either on a Christian concept or a secular concept.

 

Republicanism and Socialism are the largest ideologies in terms of number of adherents (no matter how they identify themselves) and the political power they wield within the Parties but there are probably hundreds of ideologies ranging from Ecological ideologies to racist ideologies.

 

There are forms of Federalism that are based more on representative forms of government and that are based on more authoritarian forms of government.

 

There is a more conservative Republicanism and a more libertarian Republicanism, a more authoritarian socialism and a more democratic socialism.

 

It is sufficient for now to say that the struggle between Republicanism and Socialism, and then all the other ideologies, has generally, and mostly, occurred WITHIN the parties and within socializing institutions (more later in this article) and that the parties themselves have not been agents of ideology so much as tools of power.

 

All the ideologies can peacefully co-exist with one another and are capable of finding some common ground but no ideology can peacefully coexist with Socialism or its EQUALLY evil twin, Dominionism.

 

We call the idea of allowing different ideologies that are not based on coercion to have a sphere of influence which is respected by the others, “Concordianism.” Without Socialism and Dominionism America could become a Confederal Union which allows all the main “Concordian” ideologies to have their own sphere of influence at the local level (through states or local communities and free associations of some kind).

 

It is the combination of Federalism with Social Justice aims under the control of a revolutionary and radical leadership that is incompatible with all other ideologies, especially of Republicanism.

The Sovereigntist ideologies and the Federalist ideologies have changed parties and have themselves changed over time into various “camps”.

 

The primary distinction has been how much it each side relied on the power of the federal government or how much it relied on individuals, communities, or states.

 

At various times American Sovereigntism and Federalism have been closer together, for instance in terms of being more Freedomist in their aims or in seeking social justice, and at other times being further apart.

 

So let’s review the various ideologies that exist in American political parties today.

 

The main distinction is between Sovereigntism and Federalism in which the aims of the ideology are to be primarily achieved either in the private sphere (Sovereigntism) or the public sphere controlled by the state (Federalism).

 

The two types of Federalism include centralized Federalism under a national government and State’s Rights Federalism with a less centralized government.

 

The three types of Sovereigntism include State’s Rights Sovereigntism (a neo-Federalism that ONLY applies to States but that is very limited in its powers), Individual Sovereigntism (a Sovereigntism that involves practically no government or large scale organizations with the individual and their family being largely self reliant), and Communitarianism in which the sovereignty of the individual is protected by limited but autonomous communities and free associations over which the majority or a super majority have ownership and control.

 

The next distinction is in the aims, either Freedomist (protecting individual sovereignty and maintaining a balance of power between factions) or Social Justice (goals which may include economic results, individual happiness, or creating a “good” citizen or any combination of such goals).

 

These distinctions between the different types of Sovereigntism and Federalism in terms of structure and Freedomism and Social Justice in terms of aims define the various ideologies which tend to not be so neatly definable but which we can say, at least, tend to resemble or be closely related to certain ideologies.

 

Here are the some of the ideologies.

 

Federalist and Social Justice ideologies include corporatism (Russia has this, a non racist form of fascism), nazism (racist fascism), communism (Russian, Chinese, and Liberation Theology version), socialism, and social democracy, and Dominionism.

 

Federalist and Freedomist Ideologies include various forms of Conservatism and Theonomy (a sort of non-mandatory “theocracy” which mostly limits itself to co-religionists in one small area).

Sovereigntist and Social Justice ideologies include forms of Conservatism, “Anarcho-Socialism”, Syndicalism, and Communitarianism.

 

Sovereigntist and Freedomist Ideologies include Republicanism, some forms of Theonomy which are not desirous of state power, some forms of Communalism, Anarchism, and Anarcho-Capitalism.

Some ideologies combine elements of each, especially in the area of aims, such as a Community Sovereigntism that has Freedomist Aims for its government/state functions and social justice aims for its free association on a human (individual and local) scale.

 

Upadarianism is a Republicanist ideology (combines community Sovereigntism with Freedomist aims and limited conservative Social Justice aims at the local level) but it is more involved than just being Republicanist.

 

Upadarianism includes an emphasis on local, virtual, and intentional fellowship communities as the primary source of meeting social, cultural, economic needs while promoting Christian morality and virtue.

 

All of this occurs primarily within private fellowship communities which include only Christians who agree with the beliefs, values, and philosophy of the community.

 

Within each ideology there have been shifting tendencies towards federal and governmental solutions or away from them.

 

The battle between the two dominant ideological systems (Sovereigntism and Federalism) takes place right alongside the ongoing battle between the two dominant parties.

 

Internally, the Federalists and Sovereigntists argue over Freedomist versus social justice aims. The Federalists and the Sovereigntists argue over the definition of the terms they use. Sovereigntists argue over just how limited the government can be and still function. Federalists argue over what the limits of government functions and power should be.

 

These ideological battles cross party lines at times, with Sovereigntists in both parties and Federalists in both parties. They are part of the ongoing battle between the parties.

 

Parties battle for votes and control in service of the politicians themselves as well as the factions who support them with votes and donations.

 

In the normal scheme of things, the parties USE ideologies when they are convenient but their structure and leadership tend to promote the interests of the factions who vote for them and give them money.

 

Of course they often serve the interests of the politicians who want to stay in office for their own profit.

 

It is unusual for a party to truly be ideological. This usually occurs when idealists who are more altruistic become leaders and when the interests of the factions that support them line up, or can be made to APPEAR to line up, with the ideology.

 

To a certain degree conservatism controlled the GOP for a time, although the “Big Tent” idea watered this down.

 

Socialism of a more radical and authoritarian type is taking over the Democratic Party (Obama’s circle of friends and associates includes MOSTLY hard core socialists who lean towards Marxism or who are Marxists).

 

The Freedomist versus Social Justice aims of these two ideologies have also fought one another, seeking to BRAND their ideas into the definition of their ideology, whether that is Conservatism or Liberalism.

 

The American Political Party system is structurally incapable of handling more than two major parties even as it tends to discourage the long term dominance of one party.

 

The various ideologies have been struggling for representation within the parties and within other socializing institutions.

 

Ideology plays, at best, a secondary role in parties in America, although at times one ideology becomes more dominant.

 

The American system allows anyone to register with any party without an ideological test. Registered “members” of a party vote in its primaries or, in some states, allowing any citizen to choose which party primary it will vote in. This tends to water down the influence of ideology.

 

The reason why elections are often about personality or party affiliation, where parties have almost become like virtual states or like sports teams with their own “citizens” and “fans” is because the structure of America’s political parties, with the way people register to join them and the way they select their nominees, does not allow for any “discipline” based on ideological beliefs or faithfulness to those beliefs.

 

At times an ideological affinity group (which includes individuals who share the same ideology and consider themselves a “movement”) gravitates towards one party or manages to take control over one party. During these times when one party is dominated by a more disciplined ideological group and the other is not, it appears as if one party has purpose and discipline and the other does not.

 

The 7 years in which Republicans controlled congress and the White House were not fruitful to the party because there was no ideological discipline and because the interests of the politicians themselves became the leading influence on party conduct.

 

While the Republicanist groups within the GOP, the so called “right wing”, gave the most money and provided a solid electoral base, the people at the top included Federalists of various persuasions.

 

The American system of non-ideological parties is strengthened and exemplified when pundits complain that a party is “beholden to the right” (or the left), when they complain about “ideologues” (people whose ideology is more important than anything else), and when they demand “bipartisanship” on the premise that you should do what is “best for everyone” based on a consensus amongst members of both parties.

 

The agents of ideology shift now to social and religious organizations and so called 527 groups which generally tend to be more ideologically disciplined and which tend to work almost exclusively through the two parties (often through both parties at the same time).

 

On one hand the public is being socialized to be suspicious of ideologies and partisans and on the other hand the extreme partisans of the left are using socializing institutions to crate a cultural worldview that is consistent with their ideology.

 

They are willfully and purposefully purging these institutions of non leftists, and they are presenting their ideology to the People as if it is not an ideology but a universal, bipartisan truth that “everyone can agree to: while labeling all who question this “bipartisanship” are labeled as intolerant, partisan, or worse (even criminal).

 

The process of entrenching liberalism has included the ideological take over of the Democratic Party and the weakening of the Republican Party from within. The Republican Party is still run from the top by “big tent” moderates who are Federalists, even if they are not Socialists.

 

The lesson of history has been that factions must be kept in check, that ideologies matter, that ideologically divided populations end up splitting part or going to war, and that Socialism always fails to deliver on its promises and ends up causing violent oppression of all dissent.

 

While very few Americans are in agreement with the ideological beliefs of the left very few Americans know their own ideological beliefs or know enough about linking actions and behaviors to the ideas and ideology they come from.

 

Most Americans think only in terms of what they have been taught to think: what matters is what’s in it for me or, at most, my family and that ideologies are always bad or should be treated with suspicion while what really matters is what government does for you, not the ideology of your leaders.

 

Why do most Americans shrink back when you say someone is a socialist or a communist? Because those are ideological labels and labels are “bad”.

 

It does not matter that the idea that labels are bad a logical fallacy in the extreme (labels how us to classify things and people for ease of recognition), the socializing institutions controlled by the left have indoctrinated most Americans to shy away from using or accepting any label.

 

This has resulted in a loss of individual identity and a loss of safety: we do not know who we are and when we see people who LOOK suspicious we are taught to ignore than lest we label them).

Because of all of this, most people are not ideologically conscious.

 

To be ideologically conscious means that the individual has a clear worldview that is consistent for all areas of their lives, that they know what they believe and why they believe it, and that they actively seek to both live that ideology and support public officials who are loyal to that ideology.

 

The ideologically conscious, often called “extremists” by the muddling middle who are not ideologically conscious, must fight within political parties even as they have to deal with factions of every type (religious, ethnic, economic, etc.) who pursue goals and agendas (and political alliances) based mostly, if not solely, on their own selfish interests.

 

The ideologically conscious, we may call them partisans, seek to use and manipulate political parties, the self interest of politicians who just want to stay in office, and the self interest of interest groups to pursue their ideology, but they must do so in an environment in which the general public has been socialized to be suspicious of all ideologies and of partisans who “put their ideology ahead of the good of the country.”

 

If you want to know the REAL reason Americans are apathetic about government it is because they are not ideologically conscious. You can’t get excited or involved in something that you do not understand!

 

You spread an ideology in such an environment in only two ways: you either directly confront the myths and perceptions that bias people against ideologies and partisanship or you use more subtle devices to cause your ideology to control the culture by controlling socializing institutions such as the courts, the schools, the news media, and entertainment (music, TV, and movies especially).

 

The Socialists have an advantage. They tend to be more revolutionary and disciplined and less constrained by any sense of fairness, morality, or justice, For instance, when a Socialist is in charge of a news outfit they do not hesitate to discriminate against conservatives by only hiring fellow Socialists.

 

When a Socialist is a teacher, they do not hesitate to indoctrinate their students by using falsehoods and by telling a story from only their perspective, omitting any facts which might disprove their theory.

 

It is the self imposed moral constraint of Republicanists that prohibits them from coercing or manipulating people into doing what they do not choose unless it is on the basis of informed consent that makes them incapable of dealing with the Socialists on a level playing field.

 

The Socialist partisans are prepared to do anything necessary, including manipulating people’s minds, censuring and discriminating against their opponents, lying, omitting facts, and using coercion, including economic and even physicial forms of coercion.

 

Remember, their objective is to control and then use the state to achieve social justice, as they define it, and for them “morality” is to achieve social justice and nothing else matters.

 

The Patriot, a new little red book (it has a red cover) being passed around Democratic Party circles defines this ideology, although it arrogantly (another symptom of Socialism) tries to put itself off as being non-ideological as if the ideology of liberalism was a universal truth that only the insane or the evil would question and which is so universal that liberals and conservatives could embrace it.

 

This book even goes so far is to advocate for a “civil religion” based on social justice that is identical to the beliefs presented by the Jacobists of the French Revolution who gave us “The Terror”.

 

The ads you see about global warming where they have opposites on a couch and pretend that their agenda is for “liberal and conservative”

 

This is the ideology of Socialism (which is called liberalism and progressivism) and it has become more extreme, although the new Socialism has a greater tendency to seek some form of government-corporate co-rulership with each side having shared responsibilities in the effort to achieve social justice.

 

The political parties have structurally become tools of power rather than agents of any ideology, fought over by politicians, interest groups, and partisans who try to control them and use them in their bid to either control or limit the power of the state.

 

The denial of the importance of ideologies and this tendency to promote a bipartisanship which is based on a leftist dominated culture will lead eventually to some form of tyranny, whether that tyranny of obvious or subtle,

 

If this happens Christians, Republicanists, Upadarians, and Americans of all non-leftists views and ways of life (including people who believe in traditional values) will find themselves discriminated against, their children will be turned against them by the state and social institutions that increasingly are controlled by the State (directly by regulations and nationalization or indirectly by placing conditions on “grants”), and they will be oppressed and abused in countless subtle and at time violent ways.

 

If you want to know where American Socialism under the Democratic Party is headed, with its emphasis on broadening what is morally acceptable on an individual level and demanding universalism and bipartisanship in politics, look to China, for China, which has only one party, is the model, albeit in the American version two parties will do.

 

Ideologies matter and what we need is a two dimensional approach: on one hand we need to raise the partisanship level within one of the two political parties and seek control and on the other hand we need a political party that is purely ideological and that will field candidates whenever the main party we are using fails to produce candidates of our liking.

 

Finally, we must understand that liberalism and liberals are our enemy, that they cannot be “patriots” and support ideologies that come from European Socialism which are undermining the American experiment in democracy.

 

In understanding that these people are our enemy we must understand that they are like the Soviet Union and for our model we must look to Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength” and “trust but verify” which led to the destruction of the USSR within 10 years of his taking office.

 

Most Americans are merely pawns, cogs in the wheel of a social order that our enemies now dominate. They will have to be shocked out of their slumber, the enemy will have to be pointed out, and we will have to show them that our intention is not merely to win the next election but to see American Socialism (whether you call it liberalism or progressivism) go the way of the Soviet Union, in the ashbin of history.

 

While we must make alliances with many individuals, Upadarians in America must seek to be in the vanguard of the movement of a new Republicanism that is revolutionary, that will attack the enemy and run them out of our party and our institutions, and that will ultimately see them become socially as acceptable as communism itself.

 

Our enemies are revolutionary in their aims, in their passions, and in their tactics. We cannot compete with them in a civil environment as if we are merely dealing with friends who disagree or fellow Sovereigntists who have the same goals but disagree about how to get there.

 

The enemy wants to finish the transformation of America from a constitutionally limited confederal union (consisting of democratic republics which seek to balance the interests of all factions and ensure that no faction dominates, for the purpose of protecting individual sovereignty) into a welfare state in the European model (which aims at unattainable “social justice” using the power of the state in an unlimited capacity without any moral constraint other than “the end justifies the means”).

 

When a “liberal”, “progressive” or “moderate” cries “foul” if their “patriotism” is questioned they are really only trying to make any legitimate questioning of their Socialist ideas (those ideas will destroy America as it as intended to be) socially unacceptable (politically incorrect).

 

As already noted, when Socialists have power over any organization or institution they always use that power in the service of their ideology. As part of this effort, they use their power in any way they can, whether it is legal or not, to silence all opposition and to keep their enemies, us, from getting into any positions of influence or power.

 

It is important to understand who our enemy is, the Socialists and all the ideologies associated with them as well as the institutions and organizations they control, and how they fight, in a revolutionary way in which the only moral that guides them is “the end justifies the means.”

 

Overall, throughout American history, our political parties have been tools of power rather than agents of ideology, but only the Socialists seem to have understood that the battle for the primacy of their ideology must involve them taking control over socializing institutions and removing their opponent’s opportunity to gain any influence within those institutions.

 

The recent Republican rebellion in the House floor over oil drilling is a good example: the Socialist Media is IGNORING the whole thing and is attempting to prevent the House members from being heard by the public!

 

The ideology of Republicanism is focused on parties, even though parties in America are structurally incapable of being purely ideological, while restraining itself from using the power of the state or of socializing institutions against liberals. This is ironic considering how Republicanism assigns individuals and private organizations the greatest role in society.

 

We can use their tactics and run them out of socializing institutions or we can make those socializing institutions irrelevant by creating alternatives which are privately owned and therefore which only hire people who are in agreement with our basic ideology.

 

It may be necessary to take both approaches at the same time, but what is important is that we understand that the ideological battle will determine what kind of nation we end up with, that our enemies are not to be treated as “the loyal opposition” but as domestic threats to our freedoms and way of life, and that the ideological battle must be waged in every area and in every kind of socializing institutions, especially the news media, education, entertainment, and political parties.

 

Think of it like this. You don’t shoot people you disagree with, but when they threaten to shoot you, it’s war and you are justified in shooting them.

 

We do not normally seek to censure people or to discriminate against them, but THIS IS WAR and unless we want a political war that is fought in a nonviolent manner to become a full fledged violent confrontation then we must become as uncompromising and partisan, and censorious and discriminatory, within our socializing institutions, or those we can gain control over, as they are.

 

The conclusion of the whole matter is that ideology is of vital importance, that we need to gain power for our ideology and vanquish the ideology of Socialism, that political parties are tools of power in America and not agents of ideology, but that we can make them agents of our ideology and, finally, that our opponents are a domestic threat to our freedom and way of life and need to be dealt with like they are

 

[1] SUBSCRIBE to our blog by REGISTERING FOR FREE