The Coming Second American Civil War (10 of 14)

For a full version of this study go to, click on “University”, then click on “History”, then click on “Political History” and finally click on “The Coming Second American Civil War”. Or just click HERE




I’m going into this tidbit of personal information because it helps you understand why I land on the side of traditional America rather than on the progressive side.

I grew up in a basically conservative home, but you have to be careful how you define conservative. My parents were Christian and we grew up in the church. I spent part of my childhood living on a peach ranch where my father was foreman, but because it was a small ranch we later were identified as the “working poor.” We were throughout my childhood what today is called “free range” children. Christmases were sparse but it didn’t matter because there was a million things to do creatively on the ranch. When I was old enough, still grammar school age, Dad let me work on the farm. I also worked on others’ farms, not because I was forced to work but because I demanded to. I loved working on the farms, except when picking figs which I hated.

My parents never set me down to explain the values of life, I learned those values, including free-thinking, from watching their behavior. They did not take many political stands until after I left home reinforcing that while it was at times a concern, it wasn’t the main topic of our home. In fact, one parent registered Republican and the other Democrat so they could see who had the best candidates. 

I grew up with two qualities that were both a curse and a blessing: I was a free thinker and independent. I didn’t have the maturity to appreciate and understand either and I didn’t understand what they were teaching me until later in life when I did mature. In 1963, ten days after graduating high school, I was in the U.S. Army ending up in Germany as a psywar specialist with the 10th Special Forces (Airborne). Here I matured. Not politically but intellectually. Our base had a library and in that library, would you believe it, was a section of philosophy books. A friend who was college educated took me to that section and said, here, these are for you. He had perceived what I hadn’t. The book I chose was a large one by Jean-Paul Sartre titled Being or Nothingness. After only a few pages I knew this was where my mind belonged.

Very simply put, Western philosophy has been about a study in ontology which states that there is a Real and we can find it and define it using reason or logic. In modern times some began to say, no we can’t and we never have. We can only find the Real though scientism and mathematics rejecting ontology. When my wife talked me into using my GI Bill to go to college. I had been in the Army among the most interesting elite soldiers learning so much about the underbelly of nations (a serious history and political education), was working and married, and because of my reading in philosophy I knew what I wanted to learn. The Deans of the two schools I went to weren’t used to this having mostly to deal with immature kids right out of high school and they pretty much let me design my own course. I ended up with a BA in Philosophy and a Masters in Theology and Ethics (my emphasis on philosophical ethics). I chose a Christian college (it just happened my uncle was Vice President there) whose philosophy teachers were schooled in ontology and taught in that discipline. I would never had earned my degrees in a school where they only taught scientism and mathematics rejecting knowable truth because my mind believed in Truth.

It was in college that I began reading the Humanist magazine and reading Humanist authors that I began seeing a change in our culture, in particular a new hatred of religion, Christianity in particular. I still was politically naïve and mostly because I hated (still do) politics.

So I began to see the cultural changes happening in the sixties but not the political changes further behind the scene. That there were those radical changes happening finally caught up with me and it prompted me to research our history to satisfy myself where the truth rested. If you don’t know me I don’t research any subject half-assed, I read everything, positive and negative before I draw conclusions. I ended up writing about what I found in Miracle Across the Water. I came out on the patriotic side in Debate 1 believing that we had created the best of all possible worlds whose principles were timeless. They are principles based on absolutes where time and new technology doesn’t change them.

  •  God’s principles are eternal, objective, trustworthy, and when relied on will lead to our happiness.

 For instance, the Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In 1791 when the Amendments were ratified there was a clear separation between public and private. If I wrote a letter, or sent private papers through the mail, technically when it left my door, entered the hand of the mail carrier until it entered the hands of the intended recipient, it was in the public domain. Yet those papers though transported in the public domain remained private and the law could not intercept them and read them, they had to have good cause and a warrant just as when they were in my house. Why? The principle behind the Fourth Amendment applied. The author or holder of those papers intended they remain private and so sealed them from public view.

There has always been tension between getting the bad guys and rights. There are times when rights interfere with getting that bad guy. Even though they often do have the best of intentions the law’s desire to capture the bad guy can turn those good intentions into bad ones and destroy the Bill of Rights. The law went that direction when a new technology entered our life, the internet, the wireless technology, and the digital world. In the State’s mind they believe they found a way around the 4th Amendment arguing that the wireless and digital world didn’t apply because it wasn’t contemplated in a paper only world.

The principle that is behind the 1791 Bill of Rights is still valid in 2018, the technology didn’t change or make useless that principle. 


I’m at the end and that’s good because now I’ll give you ammunition to throw at me for what I’m about the write. I woke. I know some of you will scream at me for using this term because you’ve intended to co-op it for your political craziness and I’m a white male who in your world excludes me. Here’s what I woke to: Debate 1 was over and we were now in Debate 2 and heading to Debate 3. I was naïve about that change. My world had changed and as I began to realize what that meant it was quite shocking. When I kept coming across progressivism I did my typical research and it all fell into place. What was happening to Americans culturally, politically, and religiously came into focus.

Heraclitus, an ancient Greek philosopher is famous for saying the only constant is change. A modernized version is that the only thing for certain is uncertainty. I don’t care who you are, what part of the world you live in, what timeframe you live in, change will be part of your life from birth to death. You can let change dictate your life or you can dictate change. This sounds good but it’s not quite true. Some change and some parts of change you have no control over, but you do have control over how you respond and in many places you can shape that change the way you want it. But you will never stop things from changing. So the first question I asked: Was the United States so bad that it was necessary to change outright our capitalist, Democratic Republic for Marxism/Socialism/Progressivism? Second question: Why did progressivism take such a vigorous hold over us?

We find it fascinating that there are still tribes in the jungles that haven’t changed one iota over centuries. They isolate themselves so they don’t have to change. The American Indians who inhabited parts of this land when our colony ancestors came over hadn’t changed and didn’t plan or want to change. Americans came with the expectation of changing, getting better with change. We created a government where our right to determine that for ourselves was not interfered with by others. If today I have twenty chickens I could feed a few, but tomorrow I could expand and have 120 chickens and feed hundreds, then 1,000 chickens and market my chicken across the world. In fact, as the population grew it required farms that could produce much to meet demand.

There are realities we have to understand in this change to big farms, industries, and whatever; it’s like the small peach ranch I grew up on. We didn’t make mega money, didn’t have control over a lot of land, didn’t have the price breaks the larger farms could get, and they did help set the market price that wasn’t always in our favor, but our farmer make a comfortable living for himself and did provide jobs. We all can’t live on the peak. And let’s get something very clear, it has always been this way. Not because of lust for power, selfish greed, a play of strongest of the fittest wins, it’s human nature to want to grow (change). Yes, there were always those in that pejorative list I just gave, but not everyone had negative traits.

In the late 1800s when Marx and Engels believed they knew how to remake the world into a utopian society, which excluded every ounce of capitalism and religion and individualism, some selfish greedy men were hoarding for themselves railroads and banks and land that was making changes on small railroads and banks and landowners. Some men were doing the same thing going big but not for the same bad reasons, their human nature was driving them to make things better. And by better, cheaper, more convenient. 

  • Here’s a truth we resist: for the problems it can cause, “big” has overall made everything better. Without big we would never advance, at any point in history.

We hear the term systemic a lot today. A simple definition can be this found in Wikipedia: “Systemic refers to something that is spread throughout, system-wide, affecting a group or system, such as a body, economy, market or society as a whole.” The whole is the problem not just a part.

In Debate 1 we would never have made that charge against the United States. Our problems among ourselves weren’t because the system of capitalism was wrong but parts were made wrong by our use of it for our selfish purposes. To fix that we just change us.

Marxism was a rationale that capitalism, religion, and individualism were systemically wrong, evil, corrupting incapable of being fixed so must be changed out for a new system without those principles. When their new philosophic idealism reached our shores under the rhetoric of progressivism a new way of fighting what some saw as evil gave them, so they thought, a new way of combating the evils of capitalism: get rid of it. Debate 2 now began.

The “common” people (and I’m certainly one of the “common” people) never caught on to the radical extent progressivism was taking us thinking it was just part of Debate 1. This imported ignorance was intentional by those who promoted progressive ideology because we would not tolerate it so stripped Marxism and it’s follower Leninism of its radicalism. What’s wrong with progress? We all want progress. So we began to wholesale buy into it. This is where the header about Dr. Johann Georg Faust comes in.