Rebels They Were Not! – Part 4 – Nor Commies Either …

Steve FarrellLIBERTY LETTERS WITH STEVE FARRELL

Editor’s Note: Read “Rebels They Were Not” Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3


If you haven’t stepped inside a college classroom of late, you ought to. There you will see your taxes doing some of their “best” work; there you will discover whence cometh the appellation “rebel” so graciously attached to our Founding Fathers. I first heard it in an undergraduate American history class two decades ago.

The instructor, a devout Marxist, began the first day of instruction by quoting the preamble of the North Vietnamese Constitution; emphasizing that this Communist State’s sacred document echoed verbatim a quote from America’s Declaration of Independence – to which he followed up with this wild and sarcastic left hook: “And we fought these guys in Vietnam!?

His disgraceful defense of mass murdering communism set the theme for a semester of disinformation. Our Founders, he taught, were not unlike modern communist revolutionaries: they were drunken, skirt-chasing, hotheaded, hypocritical rebels who would resort to whatever means necessary to achieve their holy self-serving ends. That is, they would lie, they would rabble-rouse, they would revolt, and they would kill – just so long as they took care of number one.

This was, in summary, tax-funded scholarship at its best!

Similarly, round two of the lie, a modern branch of socialism, the fascist, futuristic Third Way (1) adds this: Just like the communists, the founding parent/rebels were: visionaries who saw the need to overthrow, and did in fact overthrow, the existing order – a feat which must be repeated in our time, that is, if the we wish to avoid the coming “blood bath”, and secure peace, prosperity and democracy for the 21st Century.

Sure, whatever you say guys. But before this goes any farther let’s clear the air about these American “rebels” overthowing the existing order. Just what does a Communist or Third Wayer mean when he or she speaks of the existing order?

In two words, he or she means this: “private property” and attached to that: anything which defends private property – namely, as Marx enumerated: “religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law”; and add to the list: “eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society”; and finally, two more:  “the family” and “nationhood.”

To overthrow the existing order, the communist founder said that a movement must “[abolish] eternal truths, … all religion, … all morality, [and] instead of constituting them on a new basis; … [act] in contradiction of all past historical experience.” What did he mean by that? Edmund Burke noted in his famous “Reflections on the Revolution in France”: “All … nations have begun the fabric of a new government, or the reformation of an old, by establishing originally or by enforcing with greater exactness some rites or other of religion. All other people have laid the foundations of civil freedom in severer manners and a system of a more austere and masculine morality.”

Therefore, to overthrow the existing order is to overthrow the accumulated knowledge, traditions, and patterns of history.

This had never before occurred until the French Revolution, which provides the ultimate contrast to the American Revolution.

The French Revolution, praised by communists past and present, is to them, the quintessential revolution for its brutal, bloody totality. Crushed were property, religion, legal traditions, social graces, you name it. Broken was the pattern of history, and established was a new order under a “secular” constitution.

“[They exhibited] total contempt … [for] all ancient institutions,” said Burke. And their supposed “liberty,” “[resembled] a madman,” or else “a highwayman and murderer who has broke prison upon the recovery of his natural rights … [who] acts over again the scene of the criminals condemned to the galleys …”

Ultimately to overthrow the existing order means this: to make criminality and immorality the law. That is why Burke denounced that communist styled revolution as a false revolution.

The American Revolution is the exact antipode of the French, the Communist, or the Third Way revolution. The word revolution in its old sense was “a round of periodic or recurrent changes or events – that is, the process of coming full cycle, or the act of rolling back or moving back, a return to a point previously occupied.” (2).

Jefferson suggested in 1776, “Is it not better now that we return at once unto that happy system of our ancestors, the wisest and most perfect ever yet devised by the wit of man?”

Jefferson understood what a true revolution was. He was referring to returning to the government of the ancient Anglo Saxons of the 4th Century AD and beyond to the ancient Israelites and their system of judges.

So who are these people kidding? What order and what law did America’s Founding Fathers rebel against and overthrow? Private property, equality, local self government, limitations of powers, divisions of powers, taxation (by consent), natural rights, the preeminence of God’s law, common law, trial by jury, and laws against theft, murder, deception, profanity, and so forth, were their heritage not their invention.

So as Edmund Burke noted about this “true revolution” in America, the Founders built a more glorious structure upon the ancient traditions of English law.

And so I say in tandem with Edmund Burke, and in defense of America’s Founders, to the Communist, Third Wayers, and every other blood thirsty cabal of today: “As to America’s Founders: Rebels they were not!”


Steve Farrell is the Founder and Editor In Chief of The Moral Liberal, one of the original pundits at NewsMax.com pundit (1999-2007), and the author of the inspirational novel, Dark Rose.


Footnotes

1. The Third Way is a subtle attempt to move toward a fascist totalitarian world order by offering a “safe middle-ground” between so-called “compassionate” Communism and so-called “greedy” Capitalism – hence come the titles :the Third Way, or else the New Left, or else Compassionate Conservatism, or whatever other socialist by any other name of day works best. Since the early 1990s the Republican Party, New Democrats, the EU, and the UN have joined hands in this bipartisan slide into tyranny. The Third Way calls for the abolition of the US Constitution, representative government, majority rule, the existing “intolerant” moral order – and its narrow definition of the family.

2. Kirk, Russell. “Rights and Duties: Reflections On Our Conservative Constitution,” Dallas, Spence Publishing Company, 1997.