A Tragically Stupid War Comes to a Tragic End

Sunday’s news reports that the Biden Administration mistakenly killed nine members of one Afghan family, including six children, in “retaliation” for last week’s suicide attack which killed 13 US servicemembers, is a sad and sick epitaph on the 20 year Afghanistan war.

Promising to “get tough” on ISIS, which suddenly re-emerged to take responsibility for the suicide attack, the most expensive military and intelligence apparatus on earth appears to have gotten it wrong. Again.

Interventionists love to pretend they care about girls and women in Afghanistan, but it is in reality a desperate attempt to continue the 20-year US occupation. If we leave, they say, girls and women will be discriminated against by the Taliban.

It’s hard to imagine a discrimination worse than being incinerated by a drone strike, but these “collateral damage” attacks over the past 20 years have killed scores of civilians. Just like on Sunday.

That’s the worst part of this whole terrible war: day-after-day for twenty years civilians were killed because of the “noble” effort to re-make Afghanistan in the image of the United States. But the media and the warmongers who call the shots in government – and the “private” military-industrial sector – could not have cared less. Who recalls a single report on how many civilians were just “collateral damage” in the futile US war?

Sadly these children killed on Sunday, two of them reportedly just two years old, have been the ones forced to pay the price for a failed and bloody US foreign policy.

Yes, the whole exit from Afghanistan has been a debacle. Biden, but especially his military planners and incompetent advisors, deserves much of what has been piled onto him this past week or so about this incompetence.

Maybe if Biden’s Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs’ Chairman had spent a bit more time planning the Afghan exit and a lot less time obsessing on how to turn the US military into a laboratory for cultural Marxism, we might have actually had a workable plan.

We know that actual experts like Col. Douglas Macgregor did have a plan to get out that would have spared innocent lives. But because this decorated US Army veteran was “tainted” by his service in the previous administration – service that was solely focused on how to get out of Afghanistan safely – he would not be consulted by the Pentagon’s “woke” top military brass.

Trump also should share some of the blame currently being showered on Biden. He wanted to get out years ago, but never had the courage to stand up to the also incompetent generals and “experts” he foolishly hired to advise him.

Similarly, many conservatives (especially neoconservatives) are desperate to attack Biden not for how he got out of Afghanistan, but for the fact that he is getting us out of Afghanistan.

That tells you all you need to know about how profitable war is to the warmongers.

I’ve always said, “we just marched in, we can just march out,” and I stand by that view. Yes, you can “just march out” of these idiotic interventions…but you do need a map!

Ron Paul

Mother of Fallen Soldier Sends Personal Message to Biden


“You then said you just wanted me to know that you know how I feel and I let you know that you don’t know how I feel and you do not have the right to tell me you know how I feel! You then rolled your f***ing eyes in your head like you were annoyed with me and I let you know that the only reason I was talking to you was out of respect for my son. …

You turned to walk away and I let you know my sons blood was on your hands and you threw your hand up behind you as you walked away from me like you were saying ‘ok whatever!’”

— Shauna Chappell, mother of Marine Lance Cpl. Kareem M. Nikoui, in a post addressed to Joe Biden

The Ten Commandments of Critical Race Theory

Recently, one of Canada’s best-known rabbis (an American by birth and a graduate of prestigious colleges in the USA) asked me bluntly and simply to explain the essence of Critical Race Theory. This is what I told him.

Critical Race Theory is the latest version of Marxism, except it has gone racial. This means that unlike traditional Marxist theory, which used to focus on the injustices experienced by working men and women in industrial and industrializing societies around the world and preached violent revolution to overthrow the capitalist democracy that persecutes them, the new victims are any kind of minority, usually people of color, but not exclusively. The “white” working class no longer counts.

In the USA, Cultural Marxists have elected African Americans to fulfill the role of those persecuted by capitalism, which is done by white people or people with white skin (despite the fact that more than 50% of self-defined African Americans belong to the silent, non-protesting, law-abiding middle classes or “bourgeoise”).

Almost any grievance group, whose goal is to bring down liberal democracy and capitalism, can join African Americans in their persecuted status. So even wealthy Muslim immigrants can do so. Or sexual adventurers can be granted that status. Privileged women of color like  “Ilhan Omar” and others like her can also qualify, as can millionaires like Meghan Markle or Oprah Winfrey.

The key thing is to hate whites, hate capitalism, hate democracy, hate American, Canadian, and British political culture, and believe that “whites” have caused all the trouble in the world. For example, an activist from this thought group once reframed WWII  as “white on white” violence.

In an odd but not surprising anti-Semitic twist, Israelis (most of whom look like Sicilians and come from the Arab world) are thought of as colonial whites from Europe oppressing indigenous Arabs — so many of whom claim to have come to the land of Israel from Arabia some time ago. (Historical scholarship and truth are in short supply among the Cultural Marxists).

The last fifty years have seen an unhealthy and growing domination by Cultural Marxists of federal, state (provincial), and municipal bureaucracies, who then provide funds for a growing number of like-minded NGOs.

Together they argue that these new grievance groups deserve special treatment, “reparations,” and “affirmative action” from the whites, as a kind of compensation for bad behavior in both the past and present. And so, meritocracy goes to the wind and non-whites become privileged (that is, they get access to the public purse — that is to say, our tax dollars.)

Classical Marxists like Bernie Sanders and historian Howard Zinn have always believed that Marxism explains “superstructure.” Marxists have argued that the “base” or “mode of production” of any society is the direct cause of its culture and institutions.

So, law, government, music, the arts, and the intellectual life of ideas are solely an expression of the base. There is no real freedom of thought. Those who think they are free are under an illusion. The Marxists call this “false consciousness.” It must be violently destroyed. There is no defense in “following the law” as it is by its own nature, corrupt.

As “bourgeois culture” embodies the false consciousness of the “superstructure” it is by definition immoral, evil, and must be destroyed. It is the evil guardian of “structural inequality.” Any social mobility is explained away by accusing those who rise, of joining the oppressors.

And so, Larry Elder, African American radio personality and contender for the position of Governor of California, is labeled a white supremacist by his Cultural Marxist-inspired critics in the media.

Old style, traditional Marxists and Leninists like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Che Guevara, and Fidel Castro believed that the working class around the world would eventually rebel and set up a classless society. That did not happen. Workers in states have shown more loyalty to their nation than their class.

So just after WW II, Cultural Marxists (the Frankfurt School) began a campaign launched from New York City to undermine and subvert the bourgeois values practiced by lawyers, implemented by administrators, and until recently supported by police, the military, the media, and the educational elites. Their goal was to destroy capitalism and bring on a Marxist state, with a command economy and a revolutionary vanguard (they and their self-anointed political colleagues) who would run the country.

They have succeeded. They are now dominant in the Liberal Party of Canada and the Democratic Party of the USA.

Here is the clincher. The values of Cultural Marxists, when you read through their contradictory, dense, and boring books and articles are essentially a crude inversion of the pillars of the Judeo Christian tradition; that is to say, the Ten Commandments.

Let me, therefore, outline the ten basic commandments of Cultural Marxism which, not surprisingly, are violations of almost every one of the ten commandments of the Bible, values that permeate the Constitution of the United States and have informed much of British common law. Here they are:

  1. God is dead — therefore the means justify the ends. If the Cultural Marxists believe that bourgeois culture and society should be destroyed then, there is no moral restraint-look at Antifa riots to support this point
  2. One now worships Karl Marx. He is the substitute for God. And his prophets are violent and numerous.
  3. Language is flexible. You can take any name in vain. Words mean what you want them to mean if it furthers your agenda like “largely peaceful protests”
  4. The Sabbath means nothing. There is no rest for the righteous. They must be attacked during the 24/7 news round and on occasion arrested at gunpoint by the FBI or CIA. And so, defund the police and turn every city into a war zone.
  5. Mothers and fathers are not honored. Your children can be taken from you and their gender forcefully reassigned as God did not make man and woman according to sacred archetypes.
  6. Murder is okay if you are a political enemy. Remember Ashli Babbitt?
  7. Adultery is meaningless because marriage and the nuclear family are oppressive.
  8. Lying is what you do to defeat your enemies
  9. The property of your enemies (Jews, Christians, Vietnamese minorities, Korean grocers, “whites” of any kind) is up for grabs. Take it!
  10. Envy is everywhere and greed rules

This short enumeration of the ten commandments of the Cultural Marxists should provide a good grid from which to understand their values and goals. It permeates their writings and their practice. The rest is gobbledygook.

 If you are religious you would call this “the devil’s work.” If you are not religious you would call this …“the devil’s work.”

Geoffrey Clarfield

My Mind, My Body, My Choice

We are told by EVERYONE that self-sacrifice is the ideal; and that self-preservation is wrong (or, at best, a necessary and occasional evil).

The basis for our entire welfare state, and the basis for the next step after the welfare state — all-out Communism — is the idea that self-sacrifice is the ideal.

The idea behind mask-wearing and the so-called vaccine isn’t self-preservation. The idea is self-sacrifice, for the sake of your fellow man.

None of it makes sense, on its own terms. If self-preservation were the point of mask-wearing and experimental vaccines, then no self-sacrifice would be necessary. Nobody ever points this out. We wouldn’t need to be threatened, shamed, intimidated, censored or coerced into doing something if it were self-evidently in the interest of self-preservation to do it.

I have even heard Karen-types argue (actually, scream) that, “Even if the vaccine doesn’t harm you, that’s not the point. The point is to sacrifice for your fellow humans!” But why should we sacrifice for our fellow humans? If something is good for us, then it doesn’t require a sacrifice. And if the thing we’re being commanded to do will result in our own self-destruction, then it will surely harm others, too. And if someone is telling me to do something that I believe or know will destroy me, even while supposedly benefiting others, then that person better have a good explanation for why I should do it (hint: there is none).

This isn’t a comment on whether you should or should not wear a mask, or whether you should or should not take the vaccine. I am making a comment that whatever you do, it shouldn’t be an act of self-sacrifice. You should make important, risky decisions only because you believe — or preferably, because you KNOW — that whatever you’re putting into or on your body is good for you, and necessary for your survival.

The same goes for the Communism, socialism and fascism now being foisted on us by our schools, corporations, media establishment and government. Communism, if it’s so great, would not require an act of self-sacrifice to endorse it, as advocates of Communism (AOC, Bernie Sanders, etc.) so readily brag that they do (while living in huge houses and wearing the most expensive clothes). Unfortunately, Communism destroys ALL that is worthwhile about life, all that makes the life of the mind and the body comfortable, happy and survivable; it’s an act of simultaneous suicide and murder to support any kind of collectivism or socialism. Communism breaks the spirit and decimates the material prosperity that only freedom can provide.

Without the false idea that self-sacrifice is good and self-preservation is bad, Communism would never have come this far.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The Thirteen Hundred Eighty Nine Year War

During an interview regarding the recent suicide attack on Kabul airport, a former Navy SEAL quipped that no one making military decisions for the United States seems to have read a history book. Lack of knowledge, he implied, is partly why America is suffering a humiliating and unconscionable defeat in Afghanistan.

Here, then, is a short skeletal history of Muslim-Christian relations beginning with Islam’s founding in 622 AD by Muhammad, an Arab military leader intent on unifying the Arab world and conquering the rest. The lessons learned might put us on the right path forward.

Muhammad died in 632 and, soon thereafter, his followers began Muslim military advances into the Christian Levant. In your mind’s eye, if you can picture the Mediterranean Sea on your left, the landmass to its right – Syria, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, and part of Turkey—is known as the Levant, which means the place where the sun rises. A great trading center in ancient and medieval times, conquering the Levant was the Muslims’ first great conquest over the Christian Greeks at the Battle of Yarmuk, in 636, only four years after Muhammad’s death. Jerusalem surrendered in 638.

Islam pushed on vigorously after this battle, sweeping over North Africa, uniting Arab countries, and setting its sights on conquering Constantinople, the Greek capital. Today, Constantinople is known as Istanbul and is part of Turkey. In 717, however, at what is known as the Siege of Constantinople, 80,000 Muslim troops and 1,880 galleys laid siege to the city. Possessing the equivalent of napalm, a fire that is very difficult to put out, the Greeks set fire to the galleys and after a year of siege and attack without success, Muslim forces retreated.

This Christian victory is thought to have slowed Muslim conquest of Europe but Islam penetrated Europe by crossing the Gibraltar Strait into Spain. Not content, in 732, Muslim forces moved north into what is now France. At this time France, western Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, and the Netherlands were part of the Frankish Empire, led by Charles Martel, or Charles the Hammer, and his victory over the Muslim attack at the Battle of Tours, in France, is credited with reversing Islam’s spread in Europe. Christianity, not fully established in Western Europe at this time, began to unify Western Civilization around the Roman Catholic Church.

here is one of the great moments of history. Were it not for Charles Martel, Europe would have been swept up in the advance of Islam instead of the advance of Christianity. One of the differences is Christianity’s mental openness to science and intellectual inquiry – hence the rise of the great universities of Europe and Europe’s eventual influence on America.

The story does not end here. The struggle continued back and forth for another 1,289 years. Muslim Turks defeated the Christian Greeks at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. The Greeks had re-conquered the Levant in the 1100s but lost again at the Battle of Hattin in 1187. Back and forth it went. Muslim victories – then Christian victories – finally ending at the Siege of Acre in 1291 when the last of the Crusader influence was dispelled from the Holy Lands and the Hospitallers moved to Cyprus and Rhodes, where they held out until 1523.

Islam had conquered Spain. Islam had conquered the Holy Lands. Islam had conquered the Levant.

Islam laid siege to the Greek capital, Constantinople, which surrendered in 1453. That surrender marks the end of the Roman Empire and a victory for the Muslim Ottomans.

Painstakingly, Western Civilization began to fight back. Spain was re-conquered at the Battle of Navas de Tolosa in 1212. A fleet of the Holy League, mostly from Spain and Venice, fought the last rowing naval battle at Lepanto, in 1571, routing the Muslims. Finally, in 1683, the Muslim Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Holy Roman Empire fought it out literally at the gates of Vienna. The Ottoman defeat there meant that Islam ceased to be a menace to the West, especially with the Ottoman Empire’s and caliphate’s final dissolution on March 23, 1924, after World War I.

America was colonized by Christian Europe, specifically Protestant Christian Europe, beginning in 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia, and Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. Americans take for granted the intense battle for humanity’s mind that this history represents. The notion of natural individual rights through a Creator; the notion of the development of the person (male or female); the notion of personal Liberty; the notion of people as a reflection of the divine—the undergirding of our way of life is the result of being on the Western side of this war.

We are now at the Battle of Afghanistan, 2021. Because our military and political leaders have not read a history book, they deem it a 20-year war, but they are wrong. It is a thirteen-hundred-and-eighty-nine-year war that we will lose because we do not know we are in it.

The Navy SEAL was right. Our political and military leaders make decisions without a clue. We had a stable and neutralized position in Afghanistan, with very few troops, that served as a check on Islamic Jihad and the rise of an Islamic caliphate and harsh Sharia Law.

We do not need to be there to nation-build—something that anyone who knows history knows cannot be successful. We are there because Islam decided to attack the West once again in 2001. We are there to save Western Civilization. We cannot allow a humiliating defeat.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/08/the_thirteenhundredandeightynineyear_war.html#ixzz752AAVU19
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The GOP’s Future is Liberty Populism

The GOP needs a liberty-centered, populist revolution. Republicans such as Sen. Rand Paul, Gov. Ron DeSantis, and Rep. Thomas Massie have become some of the most prominent voices of the party during the embrace of this mindset. If Republicans center their populist momentum on liberty, they will see victories as they have never seen before.

In 2008 and 2012, the Republican Party was upturned when a controversial congressman named Ron Paul took center stage as one of the top candidates for its presidential nomination. A former Libertarian Party nominee, Paul began to share opinions that leaned far away from the establishment Right. The Texas congressman had anti-interventionist positions in foreign policy, critiqued his Gov. Rick Perry for high tax rates in Texas, and said that the country had failed in terms of fighting the eternal drug war the GOP had championed for decades.

He may not have won the nomination in either of the years he ran, but it seems as if the lasting impression he made on the party carried over into the party’s primary in 2016 when a man named Donald Trump shared sentiments that were popular with voters but very unpopular with his primary counterparts. The similarities between Paul and Trump may not seem significant, but the debates revealed how they equally affected the shift in their party’s mindset.

Both were anti-war, criticized former President George W. Bush despite the critique being unpopular, and did not say they would vote for the GOP nominee if they failed to win the primary. While Paul appealed to the Tea Party movement of the late 2000s to early 2010s, Trump embraced the populist ideology of 2016. Trump won the GOP primary while Paul helped set a candidate such as Trump up to be the dominant ideologue.

Both men’s contributions to the party get attributed to how they positioned their ideologies to appeal to the masses. Trump made the elite the media, the “swamp” in Washington, D.C., and even other Republicans he shared the stage with. Years ago, Paul said similarly, “The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.”null

The GOP is now combining both of these men’s approaches to conservatism. The path forward to win elections and decrease federal government authoritarianism is one of populism based on liberty. Most no longer want to be in endless wars, such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq. Through the COVID-19 pandemic, voters realized the amount of power both the federal and state governments have over their people is far too intrusive. Social issues are beginning to mean far less to conservatives in terms of governmental legislation. However, they still practice social conservatism themselves and fight for policies that support family values. While the Republicans may care less and less about marijuana, they have begun to care more about abortion and tax policy issues. The Republican Party is changing and for the better.

However, conservatives have now got to be careful about countering the dangers of other mindsets that center on populism. Over the last couple of years, some conservatives have embraced economic populism concentrated on higher taxes for the elite class, a higher federal minimum wage, and even universal healthcare. Positions on these issues from the economic populist Right are far more similar to a socialist such as Sen. Bernie Sanders than even a populist conservative such as Trump. Taking all of the financial criticisms that the far Left already deals with and growing the federal government’s power is not the way forward for the GOP. Republicans can take how Trump and others appealed to the masses in their campaigns without being economically socialist.

Kenny Cody is the chairman of the Cocke County Republican Party in Tennessee, as well as a columnist for Newsmax.com .

Share
Share Email
Share SMS
More Options

null

Sponsored Content

Washington Examiner
1152 15th St NW, #200
Washington, DC 20005
202-903-2000

Copyright © 2021 Washington Examiner.
All Rights Reserved.

Celebrate the Heroes Who Warned Us that Afghanistan would be a Disaster

Thousands of dead Americans, tens of thousands of dead Afghans, $2 trillion down the toilet, a Taliban victory that leaves America’s international reputation in shambles. This disaster didn’t happen by itself. Political and military leaders, aided and abetted by the news media, are responsible and should be held accountable. Voters let themselves be led by the nose, and they should take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror because what they did and didn’t do caused many people to die.

Antiwar heroes deserve recognition and respect for telling us not to go into Afghanistan, and after we did, telling us to get out despite being marginalized and ridiculed. They were lonely. Despite widespread reports of casualties among Afghan civilians and the glaring fact that the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, 88% of Americans — Democrats and Republicans alike — supported former President George W. Bush’s war three weeks after U.S. bombs began raining down on Kabul, Afghanistan.

Let’s celebrate the good guys.

During the fall of 2001, tens of thousands of demonstrators marched against the war in Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York and other U.S. cities. The marchers were too few and too peaceful to move the needle. But the judgment of history is now final: the tiny minority who opposed invading Afghanistan were morally upright and correctly skeptical about the outcome. If you know any of these true American heroes, thank them for their service and buy them a drink.

While nationalist nimrods drove around with their cars idiotically festooned by American flags, intelligent ethical individuals spoke out for what was right. “Under the (U.N.) charter, a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense or when the (U.N.) Security Council approves,” said Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild. “Neither of those conditions was met before the United States invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. Nineteen men —15 from Saudi Arabia — did, and there was no imminent threat that Afghanistan would attack the U.S. or another U.N. member country. The council did not authorize the United States or any other country to use military force against Afghanistan. The U.S. war in Afghanistan is illegal.”

All 98 senators present, including Bernie Sanders, voted to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan and install the puppet regime whose corruption led to the Taliban takeover. In the House of Representatives, the vote was 420 to 1. There was only one sane, only one correct voice in opposition in the entire Congress: Rep. Barbara Lee of California. “As a member of the clergy so eloquently said, as we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore,” she implored.

“For her lone stance,” Glenn Greenwald wrote in 2016, “Lee was deluged with rancid insults and death threats to the point where she needed around-the-clock bodyguards. She was vilified as ‘anti-American’ by numerous outlets including the Wall Street Journal. The Washington Times editorialized on September 18 that ‘Ms. Lee is a long-practicing supporter of America’s enemies — from Fidel Castro on down’ and that ‘while most of the left-wing Democrats spent the week praising President Bush and trying to sound as moderate as possible, Barbara Lee continued to sail under her true colors.’ Since then, she has been repeatedly rejected in her bids to join the House Democratic leadership, typically losing to candidates close to Wall Street and in support of militarism.” Two years later, pro-war Democrats denied her yet another post, as chairperson of their House caucus, to punish her for voting against the Afghan war.

Every congressman and senator who voted for this stupid Afghanistan war is a fool who should resign at once.

Americans who supported this stupid Afghanistan war should refrain from voting ever again.

Media outlets that editorialized in favor of this stupid Afghanistan war deserve to go out of business.

American history has been defined by war, mostly illegally and unjustified on the part of the United States government. That history will continue unless we recognize, elevate and employ the voices of people who speak out against stupid wars before they start.

Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is the author of a new graphic novel about a journalist gone bad, “The Stringer,” now available to order. You can support Ted’s hard-hitting political cartoons and columns and see his work first by sponsoring his work on Patreon.

America Already has a Taliban

We already have a Taliban in the United States. It’s called the Democratic Party. It’s called leftism.

The American version of the Taliban favors coercion over persuasion. Leftists are grossly intolerant — just like the Taliban. Leftism shames, threatens and intimidates. Psychologically, leftism is precisely like the Taliban. Leftists cancel all who disagree with them. It’s not hard to imagine them favoring worse than mere “cancellation”, for dissenters and others with conscientious objections to the rule of their edicts and beliefs.

The American Taliban worships at the altar of government. Just as the Taliban says, “Our authorities speak the will of Allah,” America’s leftists claim to speak unquestionable truth. They call it “science”. But science, in its correct meaning, refers to objective proof and ruling out alternative explanations. Science refers to an integration of ALL relevant facts, not only facts that Facebook, Twitter or the Biden White House says you may or may not consider. Science requires reason; and reason means thinking, objecting and always being open to modifying. These qualities are 100 percent absent from American leftism, culture and their whole approach to government. America’s Taliban perverts science as a means of using authority to blindly accept whatever authority says.

“Follow the science” say America’s Democrats and leftists. “Follow Allah” say the Taliban. Both mean the same thing: “Subvert independent judgment; SUBMIT to authority.”

The Taliban and the American left who rule us have one simple goal in common: submission.

In Afghanistan, you’re jailed or killed if you don’t follow the state religion. In America, you’re shamed, censored or cancelled if you don’t follow the state religion imposed through state-run schools, and state-intimidated corporations and music, movies, television, and sports. You’re thrown in Facebook jail. You’re banished from Twitter forever. Real jailing will soon come. What’s to stop it? On our current course, even worse will come. It always does — absent a massive, immediate, and TOTAL U-turn in absolutely everything we’re doing.

The Taliban stands for conformity, and brutal enforcement of that conformity. Shaming substitutes rational morality, and willful blindness replaces freedom of speech and thought.

How on earth is it ANY different in America today, insofar as America is influenced and controlled by leftists?

When I look at Taliban terrorists and I look at Pelosi, Schumer, Biden or AOC … I see exactly the same thing. If you value your survival, you would do well to do the same.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Learning Locke: An Introduction to Cato’s Letters

Thomas Jefferson famously adapted key passages of John Locke’s Second Treatise in his draft Declaration of Independence. An 18th century gentleman could hardly regard himself as learned without the ability to quote a few Lockean passages from memory.

Yet, what of the average colonial? Books were expensive imports. How were the yeomanry educated well enough in Lockean concepts to readily understand and accept this radical document, the Declaration of Independence?

Through newspapers.

Like modern Americans, our colonial forebears were also political junkies. Freewheeling editorials, letters to the editor that criticized parliamentary and colonial governments were standing features of public life.

On November 5th 1720, the opposition newspaper London Journal began a series of entertaining, sarcastic, biting and accurate letters that hammered the corruption of the English government surrounding the collapse of the South Sea Company. Without getting into detail here that can be Wikied by anyone, suffice to say the damage done by the South Sea Company bubble and collapse was equivalent to the 2006 US Housing Crash. Like the US Housing Crash, the South Sea debacle enriched politicians, members of parliament, the royal court and their cronies at public expense.

The authors of Cato’s Letters, John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, exposed high political crimes and embarrassed numerous leading men. Men of the era were schooled in Roman history, and reference to Cato the Younger (95-46 BC), the implacable foe of Julius Caesar and champion of republicanism, appealed to their sense of honor and virtue. Of the 138 published letters, only twelve were devoted to the South Sea crisis; the remainder examined other areas of public morality: the ideas of liberty and the nature of tyranny. Considered all together, Trenchard and Gordon brought the philosophy of John Locke to the masses in a thoroughly engaging manner.

Cato’s Letters were published as a collection in 1724. Five more editions appeared through 1755. Copies soon appeared in colonial book seller’s catalogues and thereafter in American newspapers well into the Revolution.

The late historian Clinton Rossiter wrote that no one can spend any time in colonial newspapers without realizing the presence of Cato’s Letters and how Cato, rather than Locke’s Two Treatises, was the quotable, most popular source of political ideas in the colonial period. As noted by Ronald Hamowy, “From its first publication through the revolutionary era that ended the century, its impact on both side of the Atlantic was enormous. Its arguments against oppressive government and in support of the splendors of freedom were quoted constantly and its authors were regarded as the country’s most eloquent opponents of despotism.”

Cato wrote that the foundation of tyranny in all countries is essentially the same; there is too much force in the hands of one man, or a few unaccountable magistrates, and power without balance. Can it be a crime to write against great evil? Ask the conservative groups stymied by Lois Lerner’s IRS. The sum of the question is whether mankind have a right to be happy and oppose their own destruction. What man has the right to make another miserable?

Since mankind and America circa 2016 have a right to be happy and oppose their own destruction, it follows that we must take means appropriate to this noble end. Nothing is more appropriate than the peaceful means outlined in Article V to limit the power and jurisdiction of Washington DC, to restore free government.

Rodney Dodsworth

NOTE: The Artful Dilettante is proud to own a first edition, 4-four volume set of Cato’s Letters, a classic of Enlightenment thought.