Will America Once Again Realize Her Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood?
(Above: Fred Rogers, host of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood from 1968 to 2001.)
Fred Rogers was a wonderful human being, and moreover, the last of a line of classic pop culture icons who was much beloved by those who were raised watching his daily program on PBS, Mister Roger's Neighborhood. Upon his death nearly 13 years ago, I reflected upon the true significance of the occasion. This fundamental truth, so sad in its absolutism, is that upon his passing, the last true representative of a bygone era where our society truly believed in the good nature of mankind, and that our generation, the "millennials," were to be the last best hope for humanity and perpetuating ad infinitum this culture, were reduced to the very ashes carried through the winds of change soon to be the heap about which history warned us in chronicling our projections a dystopian future archaeologists and anthropologists will study and critique about what was once a shining city upon a hill in accordance to John Winthrop, the governing figure and minister of the Congregational church in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the spirit and 1,400 years since the landmark diction within Jesus Christ's epic "Sermon on the Mount." The following passage by Winthrop will in elaborative detail describe the initial premise upon which Massachusetts was settled, courtesy of Hanover University:
***
(Above: Fred Rogers, host of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood from 1968 to 2001.) |
Fred Rogers was a wonderful human being, and moreover, the last of a line of classic pop culture icons who was much beloved by those who were raised watching his daily program on PBS, Mister Roger's Neighborhood. Upon his death nearly 13 years ago, I reflected upon the true significance of the occasion. This fundamental truth, so sad in its absolutism, is that upon his passing, the last true representative of a bygone era where our society truly believed in the good nature of mankind, and that our generation, the "millennials," were to be the last best hope for humanity and perpetuating ad infinitum this culture, were reduced to the very ashes carried through the winds of change soon to be the heap about which history warned us in chronicling our projections a dystopian future archaeologists and anthropologists will study and critique about what was once a shining city upon a hill in accordance to John Winthrop, the governing figure and minister of the Congregational church in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the spirit and 1,400 years since the landmark diction within Jesus Christ's epic "Sermon on the Mount." The following passage by Winthrop will in elaborative detail describe the initial premise upon which Massachusetts was settled, courtesy of Hanover University:
***
(Left: John Adams; Right: Thomas Jefferson) |
In comparing the success of the American Revolution to that of the failed French experience in mob rule and anarchy, the first uprising of radical left-wing subversives to the status quo, John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in June 1813 the following letters during the period upon which the two exchanged more than 150 letters of correspondence, generally regarded by historians as the most significant line of communications between former presidents in U.S. history:
***From John Adams:Quincy June 28th 1813Dear Sir:It is very true, that “the denunciations of the Priesthood are fulminated against every Advocate for a compleat Freedom of Religion.”1 Comminations, I believe, would be plenteously pronounced, by even the most liberal of them, against Atheism, Deism; against every Man who disbelieved or doubted the Resurrection of Jesus or the Miracles of the New Testament. Priestley himself would denounce2 the man who Should deny The Apocalyps, or the Prophecies of Daniel. Priestley and Lindsay both have denounced as Idolaters and Blasphemers, all the Trinitarians and even the Arrians. Poor weak Man, when will thy Perfection arrive!3 Perfectibility I Shall not deny: for a greater Character than Priestley or Godwin has Said “Be ye perfect &c.”4 For my part, I cannot deal damnation round the land on all I judge the Foes of God or Man, But I did not intend to Say a Word on this Subject, in this Letter. As much of it as you please hereafter: but let me now return to Politicks.With Some difficulty, I have hunted up, or down, “the Address of the young men of the City of Philadelphia, the District of Southwark, and the Northern Liberties:”5 and the Answer.The Addressers Say “Actuated by the same principles on which our forefathers atchieved their independence, the recent Attempts of a foreign Power to derogate from the dignity and rights of our country, awaken our liveliest Sensibility, and our Strongest indignation.” Huzza my brave Boys! Could Thomas Jefferson or John Adams, hear these Words, with insensibility, and without Emotion? These Boys afterwards add “We regard our Liberty and Independence, as the richest portion given Us by our Ancestors.” And, who were these Ancestors? Among them were Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. And I very cooly believe that no two Men among those Ancestors did more towards it than those two. Could either, hear this like Statues? If, one hundred years hence, your Letters and mine Should See the light I hope the Reader, will hunt up this Address and read it all: and remember that We were then engaged or on the point of engaging in a War with France. I Shall not repeat the Answer, till We come to the paragraph, upon which you criticised6 to Dr Priestley: though every Word of it is true, and I now rejoice to See it recorded; and though I had wholly forgotten it.The Paragraph is “Science and Morals are the great Pillars on which this Country has been raised to its present population, Oppulence and prosperity, and these alone, can advance, Support and preserve it.” “Without wishing to damp the Ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial Researches, the longest liver of you all, will find no Principles, Institutions, or Systems of Education, more fit, in general to be transmitted to your Posterity, than those you have received from your7 Ancestors.”Now, compare the paragraph in the Answer, with the paragraph in the Address, as both are quoted above: and See if We can find the Extent and the limits of the meaning of both.Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and “Protestans qui ne croyent rien.” Very few however of Several of these Species. Never the less all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.Could my Answer, be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? or those of the Quakers? or those of the Presbyterians? or those of the Menonists?8 or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No.The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen9 could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity,10 in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities Sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God: and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore Safely Say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire; as well as Newton11 and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.I might have flattered myself that my Sentiments were Sufficiently12 known to have protected me against Suspicions of narrow thoughts contracted Sentiments, biggotted, enthusiastic or Superstitious Principles civil political philosophical, or ecclesiastical. The first Sentence of the Preface to my Defence of the Constitutions, Vol. 1, printed in 1787 is in these Words “The Arts and Sciences, in general, during the three or four last centuries, have had a regular course of progressive improvement. The Inventions in Mechanic Arts, the discoveries in natural Philosophy, navigation and commerce, and the Advancement of civilization and humanity, have occasioned Changes in the condition of the World and the human Character, which would have astonished13 the most refined Nations of Antiquity.”14 &c I will quote no farther: but request you to read again that whole page, and then Say whether the Writer of it, could be Suspected of recommending to youth, “to look backward, instead of forward” for instruction and Improvement.This Letter is already too long. In my next I Shall consider “The Terrorism of the day.”15 Mean time, I am as ever; your FriendJohn Adams
His epic phrase, "The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen9 could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity,10 in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities Sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence," serves along with Jefferson's nomenclature within the Declaration of Independence, courtesy of the National Archives:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Jefferson, the sage of Monticello, was most prophetic. Today, America is bearing witness to the gross phenomena of the greatest series of usurpations of the God-given rights of mankind in modern history. Society today has been secularized, the institution of God desecrated and destroyed in the name of a finite series of baseless values known as atheism. John Adams discussed this scenario with regards to the failure of the French Revolution, courtesy of the Online Library of Liberty:
Quincy, 2 March, 1816.
I cannot be serious! I am about to write you the most frivolous letter you ever read. Would you go back to your cradle, and live over again your seventy years? I believe you would return me a New England answer, by asking me another question, “Would you live your eighty years over again?” If I am prepared to give you an explicit answer, the question involves so many considerations of metaphysics and physics, of theology and ethics, of philosophy and history, of experience and romance, of tragedy, comedy, and farce, that I would not give my opinion without writing a volume to justify it. I have lately lived over again in part, from 1753, when I was junior sophister at college, till 1769, when I was digging in the mines as a barrister at law for silver and gold in the town of Boston, and got as much of the shining dross for my labor, as my utmost avarice at that time craved. At the hazard of the little vision that is left me, I have read the history of that period of sixteen years, in the six first volumes of the Baron de Grimm. In a late letter to you, I expressed a wish to see a history of quarrels, and calamities of authors in France, like that of D’Israeli in England; I did not expect it so soon, but now I have it in a manner more masterly than I ever hoped to see it. It is not only a narrative of the incessant great wars between the ecclesiastics and the philosophers, but of the little skirmishes and squabbles of poets, musicians, sculptors, painters, architects, tragedians, comedians, opera singers, and dancers, chansons, vaudevilles, epigrams, madrigals, epitaphs, sonnets, &c.
No man is more sensible than I am of the service to science and letters, humanity, fraternity, and liberty, that would have been rendered by the encyclopedists and economists, by Voltaire, D’Alembert, Buffon, Diderot, Rousseau, La Lande, Frederic and Catherine, if they had possessed common sense. But they were all totally destitute of it. They seemed to think that all Christendom was convinced, as they were, that all religion was “visions judaiques,” and that their effulgent lights had illuminated all the world; they seemed to believe that whole nations and continents had been changed in their principles, opinions, habits, and feelings, by the sovereign grace of their almighty philosophy, almost as suddenly as Catholics and Calvinists believe in instantaneous conversion. They had not considered the force of early education on the minds of millions, who had never heard of their philosophy.
And what was their philosophy? Atheism,—pure, unadulterated atheism. Diderot, D’Alembert, Frederic, De La Lande, and Grimm, were indubitable atheists. The universe was master only, and eternal. Spirit was a word without a meaning. Liberty was a word without a meaning. There was no liberty in the universe; liberty was a word void of sense. Every thought, word, passion, sentiment, feeling, all motion and action was necessary. All beings and attributes were of eternal necessity; conscience, morality, were all nothing but fate. This was their creed, and this was to perfect human nature, and convert the earth into a paradise of pleasure.
Who and what is this fate? He must be a sensible fellow. He must be a master of science; he must be a master of spherical trigonometry, and great circle sailing; he must calculate eclipses in his head by intuition; he must be master of the science of infinitesimals, “la science des infiniment petits.” He must involve and extract all the roots by intuition, and be familiar with all possible or imaginable sections of the cone. He must be a master of the arts, mechanical and imitative; he must have more eloquence than Demosthenes, more wit than Swift or Voltaire, more humor than Butler or Trumbull; and what is more comfortable than all the rest, he must be good-natured; for this is upon the whole a good world. There is ten times as much pleasure as pain in it.
Why, then, should we abhor the word God, and fall in love with the word fate? We know there exists energy and intellect enough to produce such a world as this, which is a sublime and beautiful one, and a very benevolent one, notwithstanding all our snarling; and a happy one, if it is not made otherwise by our own fault.
Ask a mite in the centre of your mammoth cheese, what he thinks of the ‘το πᾶν.” I should prefer the philosophy of Timæus of Locris, before that of Grimm, Diderot, Frederic, and D’Alembert. I should even prefer the Shaster of Indostan, or the Chaldean, Egyptian, Indian, Greek, Christian, Mahometan, Teutonic, or Celtic theology. Timæus and Ocellus taught that three principles were eternal: God, matter, and form. God was good, and had ideas; matter was necessity, fate, dead, without form, without feeling, perverse, untractable, capable, however, of being cut into forms of spheres, circles, triangles, squares, cubes, cones, &c. The ideas of the good God labored upon matter to bring it into form; but matter was fate, necessity, dulness, obstinacy, and would not always conform to the ideas of the good God, who desired to make the best of all possible worlds, but matter, fate, necessity, resisted, and would not let him complete his idea. Hence all the evil and disorder, pain, misery, and imperfection of the universe.
We all curse Robespierre and Bonaparte; but were they not both such restless, vain, extravagant animals as Diderot and Voltaire? Voltaire was the greatest literary character and Bona the greatest military character of the eighteenth century; there is all the difference between them; both equally heroes and equally cowards.
When you asked my opinion of a university, it would have been easy to advise mathematics, experimental philosophy, natural history, chemistry, and astronomy, geography, and the fine arts, to the exclusion of ontology, metaphysics, and theology. But knowing the eager impatience of the human mind to search into eternity and infinity, the first cause and last end of all things, I thought best to leave it its liberty to inquire, till it is convinced, as I have been these fifty years, that there is but one being in the universe who comprehends it, and our last resource is resignation.
This Grimm must have been in Paris when you were there. Did you know him or hear of him?
I have this moment received two volumes more; but these are from 1777 to 1782, leaving the chain broken from 1769 to 1777. I hope hereafter to get the two intervening volumes.
***
Adams' description of the principle behind which the French Revolution was fought, per his phrasing, "And what was their philosophy? Atheism,—pure, unadulterated atheism. Diderot, D’Alembert, Frederic, De La Lande, and Grimm, were indubitable atheists. The universe was master only, and eternal. Spirit was a word without a meaning. Liberty was a word without a meaning. There was no liberty in the universe; liberty was a word void of sense. Every thought, word, passion, sentiment, feeling, all motion and action was necessary. All beings and attributes were of eternal necessity; conscience, morality, were all nothing but fate. This was their creed, and this was to perfect human nature, and convert the earth into a paradise of pleasure," is the best measure of the road to Perdition upon which America is traveling today, which will ultimately lead to the great experiment in liberty and democratic republican government's demise. The United States does not formally recognize a state religion; the principles behind which Anglo-America were in part settled incorporated the desire to the free exercise of one's religion without persecution emanating from the state. Sadly, this is exactly what is occurring today.
***
(Above: British author and war correspondent George Orwell, 1903-1950, author of Homage to Catalonia, Animal Farm, and Nineteen Eighty-Four.) |
In the tradition of Orwellian logic behind corrupt regimes and societies, he concluded Animal Farm (1945):
"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS."
***
When I read the news online as many times per day as I do, I cannot help but shed a tear within my heart at the sheer tragedy behind the wanton morality forced upon us first by our elected politicians in both parties who with great success convince the masses that they will care for their every need so long as they trade essential liberty as their cost to bear. Following this, modern pop culture demagogues proclaim that blind obedience to the state and adherence to the obscenely obvious or subliminal messages we watch, read, and to which we listen will enlighten and provide for society a great cultural renaissance of eclecticism and sophisticated masses. Sadly, when these manifestations of the new series of normative mores of Western civilized democracies were realized, the rights of the individual who endeavored as best as he or she could to contribute to society as law-abiding citizens were destroyed, and in their stead a world where our every turn is captured via data scans and the unlawful confiscation of E-mails and phone records, and where natural liberty was replaced with amorality, profligacy and libertine values, the rights of the few declared of minority status legally recognized to supersede all others, and the avarice of individuals in belief of due entitlement that others in society will pay with their taxed incomes for their livelihoods regardless of these individuals' capacity to work.
If we lose liberty here, where are we to turn to regain it? For while our society is by definition morally bankrupt as it has always been due to the reliance upon elected officials comprised of the wealthy elite who wrest away our liberties simply to govern and to accrue more power, it still is the freest in the world, and remains superior to all others. Yet sadly, our leaders today also teach us to despise America, to believe that the principles upon which this continent were settled more than 400 years were at best disingenuous and at worst, to subjugate its natives in much the same manner as the separatists were in England, the latter of which occurred, along with the peculiar institution of slavery. We have failed as a society to meet the expectations our forefathers set before the fellow neighbors within the nation's first settlements by engaging in self-reliance and to responsibly determine what course our destiny will travel.
We see today the citizens in California and Colorado demanding to embark upon a diaspora into smaller states to better represent the people's interests and values in those areas. The large urban areas domestically have grown so large as to dominate the national political landscape while those within suburbia and rural American go unrepresented in accordance to their normative moral principles and economic necessities, for it was none other than the sage of Monticello himself, Thomas Jefferson, who forewarned America about this with the following statement, provided by Thomas Jefferson's Monticello:
"I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe."
- Jefferson to James Madison, Paris, 20 Dec. 1787, in PTJ, 12:442
The Seventeenth Amendment was passed in 1913 to delegate the means by which United States senators are to attain their posts through popular elections rather than at the discretion of the state legislatures as was the old law within Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The House of Representatives traditionally has not experienced so severe a problem with this issue as each district of approximately 700,000 citizens is represented in accordance to their systems of core beliefs and principles with how the culture and economy are structured. The Senate is dominated by the large metropolitan areas where massive poverty in the inner cities tragically are a part of the blight of those large concentrated population centers culture. Sadly, with the definition of insanity being to continue the practice of enforcing policies and perpetuating the culture malefficient of the course which has been implemented for decades and has wrought upon the citizens such horrid conditions and violent crime are as they will forever, the people in these predicaments are not educated enough to analyze what trading their autonomy for subsidies will result: their perpetuated poverty. Corrupt politicians engaging in machtpolitik through money laundering and bribery, and business deals with local organized crime and billionaire corporate tycoons who earn de facto power to form policies through their power of the purse do nothing to lift the people from poverty and moral decadence other than to perpetuate the institution. The civil rights activists who on the surface seek to acquire a greater social and political voice for racial, ethnic, and gender-based demographics have through their measures of gaining publicly-funded welfare for their people only kept them poorer or lesser appreciated. Instead, their measures counterproductively manifested greater disharmony and distrust rather than cooperative fraternity and an eternal peace.
There are an abundance of options to attempt to quell the tides of moral, social, and economic decadence that is at its most abhorrent, totally pervasive and absolute today than in during any prior era in the nation's history, and I cannot state that I know what answers will cure all ills. At some point, appeasing to those in our society by handling socially troublesome problems with "kid gloves" and walking upon eggshells so as not to offend anyone other than the majority of the population must be fundamentally curbed or ended completely. If America is to accomplish the tasks of resurrecting an imperfect society of peace predicated upon rendering upon it the liberty of simply maintaining their liberties without stifling creativity or ingenuity, it will only bear fruit through the empowerment of the downtrodden with strength and the capacity to engage in entrepreneurial endeavors within their communities, including in impoverished rural areas. Corporations who monopolize our economy like Walmart and the labor and trade unions which have destroyed once great cities like Detroit must be brought to their knees in order to gain for the majority of Americans the opportunity to acquire as high of a living standard as their talents will carry them. No two people are equal in their characteristics, which is why our nation is exceptional. We must not allow for socialism or other measures of disingenuously abdicating the people's liberties and legal rights to be used as a bargaining chip towards insidious designs to usurp legitimacy from the popular sovereignty or the propagation of corruption. The people are the sovereign body politic, a population of the popular sovereignty and of the individual who determines what course they should take, and not the corrupt oligarchy in power. The people are the general will, not the state.
Ultimately, government will not solve the problem plaguing American society today. It will only come to fruition as a result of the reignition of the spirit of the American yeoman resolve. God must triumph in coalescing our nation of fragmented peoples under a unified system of core values and principles to mitigate our means by which we identify the natural laws of liberty and justice for all. We cannot resort to allowing others dictate these terms, to pontificate the supremacy of the state over all facets of daily life, and we must never abdicate our popular sovereignty as a people comprised of individuals rather than a collective.
I only pray that one day, America may seize the opportunity for a new morning, and to realize once and for all time that it is good to be in the neighborhood and for all to befriend their fellow man. The time for choosing is soon at hand. We have a rendezvous with destiny, and that destiny is for we the people to determine its course, not government or pop culture demagogues who do not live paycheck-to-paycheck as must the common man. If we believe in ourselves and the talents we each inherently possess, if we continue to dream and to work diligently and with the Puritans' resolve, we as individuals will never lose but rather always triumph, and the dream behind which our forefathers and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. promulgated so passionately will never die, but live a life eternal and everlasting.
That is the philosophy behind which Fred Rogers lived. And sadly, my generation of millennials have developed a tolerance and worse still, the expectation of entitlement and idleness emanating from the stench of moral decadence. Americans today no longer believe they reside in the world's greatest nation, no longer are endowed with a sense of pride behind which the "shot heard round the world" initiated the birth of our nation on April 19, 1775 in the pathway leading to Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts, and no longer are cognizant to the realization that freedom to one's own devices and measures of self-determination nor essential God-given liberty guaranteed by Him through the laws of nature come free nor without paying a price.
In closing, America long ago traded responsibility and self-reliance for government regulations and conditional welfare for some who play the system while others truly in need may not legally receive it. If we as a people are to survive and as Obama press secretary Jay Carney stated infamously to "pursue our passions," we will never again be capable of embarking upon such endeavors under the government's watch. It will only bear fruit through the power of the individual and his or her capacity to self-determination. The latter, therefore, is liberty; the former is, instead, slavery. Utopia, then, is the uniformity of a starving mass of peoples relegation to authoritarian soup lines, not liberty through individuality. Be careful with which politician you opt to support. They are all corrupt and morally-bankrupt, but in the end, the lesser of two evils must prevail.