Introducing the Narrator.
Noah Webster's original dictionary defines
Narrator: n. One that narrates; One that relates a series of events or transactions.
Mr Webster had a different understanding of story telling than is recognized today. He presented a narrative as a factual telling of events while today the definition includes incorporation of the teller's perspective a.k.a. advocate or prejudiced.
A story or an account of something that has happened.
The RED SCARE
In the late 1800's, the communist experiment began to gain notoriety in nations around the world, mostly through revolutionary dissidents. Marx' book had been studied in think tanks and institutions of higher education of the day and was seriously debated. Having no track record to evaluate, it was considered a viable alternative to the nobility class rule and capitalist societies imitating the success of the United States. The U.S. was itself a
"grand experiment" in new forms of governance and enjoyed a rapid growth in popularity among commoners due to it's liberty guaranties and to the ruling class due to it's property rights guaranties as well as economic, military, technological and political success in it's first 120 years.
Even so, as all governments do, it has it's warts and abuses and being a free society with plenty of internal criticism, the faults were on prominent display for the whole world to see. These faults stood out in a time criticism wasn't allowed in most countries still under kings and emperors and had never been a part of their traditions of governance. This was the environment which bred the rise of communism and fascism in the early 20th century everywhere but would find fertile ground in Germany, Italy, Russia, and China along with many less consequential countries.
Note: There is little difference between nationalists and Marxists as both always wind up under totalitarian rule. Communists dispute this as an ideology but the requirement for a popular or charismatic leader and the oligarchic regimes they wind up under demonstrate their uniform nature. The only difference being whether the winners of the prize of rule were the instigators or their opponents, generally an agent from the overthrown government's military or national police force.These Marxists appeared to be agitators and instigators of violence with stated goals of overthrowing their own rulers and governments. The rulers were literally observing the effects of communism on foreign soils as well as hearing the dissident elements in their own people. Obviously, this worried the powers that were and should worry the powers that are.
The Bolshevik Russian revolution of 1917 and Lenin's crew of 6 worked diligently to fill the power vacuum with centralized power and centralized management down to individual thought. Ironically, Lenin absorbed many of his methods and ideals by translating The Theory and Practice of Trade Unionism from American class warfare in labor struggles. As a fledgling government, Russia called for international communists to volunteer in the Spanish Civil war to defeat the internationally sponsored Nationalists. Spain's civil struggle served as a proving ground for Germany and Italy on the fascist side and Russia along with many communist societies from 53 free states in Europe and the Americas on the other side. Russia rewarded some 2800 survivors of the George Washington Brigade and the Abraham Lincoln Brigade with funds and materials they could use in their own country (U.S.) as dissidents once their service was completed in Spain. This occurred between the two world wars 1936-1940. While the allies worked alongside Russia against Germany in the second world war, the commie hunt in the U.S. was laid aside. At the end of WWII, the cold war began and the commie hunt was on again bigger than before.
From the earliest days of the cold war with the U.S.S.R. the K.G.B. (their spy agency) were planting dissidents in our midst at key points to influence our culture and advance communist ideals in our society. They weren't the first communist influence on U.S. soil but they were the more strategic effort. These plants managed to initiate and inflate the already present communist counter culture in our entertainment and education industries as well as labor and crime syndicates.
Everyone with any knowledge of American history knows some part or version of the story of Senator Joe McCarthy who charged a list of State Dept. public servants with anti-American activities. These people were brought before Congress and interrogated on live TV with very little evidence being substantiated. McCarthy earned scorn for his efforts because he used intimidation and rumor to ruin innocent peoples' careers and finally failed when his attention turned toward members of the U.S. military. Three years before McCarthy gave his infamous 6 hour speech on the Senate floor, the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) investigated and called for 324 film industry professionals to be banned from film production based on their affiliation and/or activities with Communists. Similarly, at least five universities dismissed an unnumbered cast of university professors based on their refusal to testify before Congress' HUAC prior to McCarthy's stint. By 1952, 47 states introduced and passed anti-subversion legislation, most of which still stand. Ultimately unsuccessful, these attempts to cleanse the culture of communist inculcation essentially died through McCarthy's infamy bringing down a somewhat justified pillory of the Republican party.
From the AAUP's own website I found this revelation. The sequence of events marking the turn around allowing university professors unaccountable free reign to subvert American culture in our tax money subsidized lecture theaters were a series of Supreme Court decisions reversing prior Supreme Court decisions.
"In a series of important decisions, the Supreme Court reversed itself on several anti-Communist decisions to reaffirm First Amendment principles, and the AAUP issued vocal “Friend of the Court” statements to help the Justices make the right decision. The first of these was Sweezy vs. New Hampshire in 1957, where it was decided that University of New Hampshire lecturer was well within his rights of academic freedom to refuse to answer state attorneys questions regarding the content of his lectures. In 1964, another important case, Baggitt vs. Bullitt, declaring loyalty oaths unconstitutional, involved the University of Washington, once more at the forefront of a national trend, this time in the right direction. The final significant reversal of Red Scare policies on the part of the Supreme Court came in 1967 in Keyishian v. Board of Regents which essentially declared it unconstitutional to prevent the hiring of university faculty as a consequence of their political views."
This makes me wonder who placed these Justices on the court. Shock and surprise, 6 of the first 9 to contribute to these decisions were placed by Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt who is the only president to serve 3 terms in office, (sparking bipartisan Congressional legislative intervention to limit the number of terms a president may serve) The Supreme Court was capitol L Liberal dominated beginning with Roosevelt's court packing 6 Justice placements (sparking bipartisan intervention Congressional legislation.) then followed by Harry S. Truman Democrat who placed another 3 followed by Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican who placed 4 then John F. Kennedy Democrat placed 2 then Lyndon B. Johnson Democrat who placed 2. One Republican in the lot placed only 4 justices throughout this series of decisions. At the time of this decision there was one justice on the bench who would have been considered a hardline ideologue, William O. Douglas, and he was liberal. Five others were moderate liberal, two more were moderate conservative and one was centrist. FDR would have assumed a kingly role had the Congress not blocked him on two major fronts including limited terms and court packing. He was the very definition of the leader the founding fathers feared would assume the office and the prime example of what they attempted to preempt by separating the powers of government. FDR fought tooth and nail to overcome these designed limitations attempting to centralize power in a national fascist fashion.
While I am the first to recognize the importance of keeping an environment safe for the arena of ideas, especially for a discussion of best policy options, this important principle is currently being employed as the defense for anti-American brainwashing techniques (not hyperbole, actual COMMUNIST propaganda from self professed Communists and now includes their marriage to Islamic propagandists) for which the government and the private citizen pays vast sums of wealth. The college campus is uniquely servile to their methods because the students are committed to being there financially as well as having the family authoritarian pressing them to do well with their very special opportunity, essentially making them a captive audience. Similarly, Public Broadcasting is engaged in the same operation obviously scaled back because their audience is not captive and their ratings demonstrate their success and failure. (until last March, also on the taxpayers' dime)
Back on topic.
Fifty years from graduation, their generation have infiltrated every part of our culture including all careers requiring a higher education level. However, the evidence is nowhere more apparent than the Marx controlled news and information industry. These are big business corporations and their service is run as a business. In other words they choose their stories and present them in a way that attracts the consumer. So they are more a form of entertainment industry than an information provider. Ergo the newsy phrase, "If it bleeds, it leads." The editors, anchors and producers cannot present every news worthy current event, thus they are required to pick and choose among the offerings presented by their reporters. As a corporation, they focus on the melodramatic entries to attract the consumer which rewards the reporter who focuses on and presents the melodrama. Corporations have always been held in low esteem since the inculcation of propaganda in corporate strategy. In other words, they lead our opinions to convince us we cannot be happy or even survive without their product or service just to increase their profit margins.
Therefor, you must evaluate what is the most successful form of government and which form you prefer to live under. If you have any awareness of actual history rather than what you've been indoctrinated with you will value the original American form. If you then care to preserve or reform it then investigate the historical record for yourself, and do it well enough that you can defend it's principles anywhere and at anytime. You must know 1. what is the root of American culture 2. what is the majority of American culture 3. how has that majority's rule treated other religions 4. what are America's real faults, 5. what are her virtues and accomplishments 6. the values of other religions differ from the majority's (in some cases diametrically opposed) and you are going to lose even the possibility to maintain peace and liberty without setting some guidelines for which values are profitable for our culture. Know how to articulate this information and how to describe your reasoning for the new requirements and standards for Americans.
I am not suggesting we attempt to eliminate other faiths. What I am suggesting is national and legal venues to encourage our own religion as well as the religions who's values are nearest our own and discourage those with values opposed to the American ideal of peace, respect for life, and freedom. The absolute necessity of preserving the only bastion of liberty in the world based on rights (not assigned or given by man and therefor not adjustable or susceptible to opinion) requires every man and woman to proactively promote the injection of moral discipline everywhere in our culture. Every other constitutional government is based on rights assigned or decided by man and are subject to the malleable opinions of generations. With regard to the theo-political phenomenon of Islam, the onus is on them. If they cannot self correct, if they are unwilling to correct the radical elements within their own ranks, then deportation, incarceration, and execution for violent crime in the name of their faith is in order. By the way, this is the exact same treatment we have exercised with Christians' offenses.