Home >> Z-old categories >> Conservative Philosophy >> Meet the Left’s Founding Fathers

Meet the Left’s Founding Fathers

Patriotic Americans are raised with a respect for our Founding Fathers: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington being among the most famous. But there is a sizable segment of our population who have little respect for these intellectual and political titans; instead they admire a roster of radicals, revolutionaries, and reprobates.

Rather than regurgitate a stale description of these great thinkers’ ideas, which is available all over the Internet, we shall take an irreverent look at what makes these figures significant in the minds of leftists. A quick look at the “Dirty Thirty” will hopefully be on some counts informative and illuminating.

1. Plato

Proto-communist philosopher of ancient Greece. Non-coincidentally lived just prior to the fall of Athens. His Republic doesn’t so much resemble the self-titled system of government than a communist oligarchy ruled by philosopher-kings. Stratified by role, Plato’s ideal society is enforced by Guardians, a KGB-like police force that cracks down on the sheeple at the behest of the philosopher kings. Plato’s pre-Kantian notion of Forms would fuse with Christianity to dominate the aptly named Dark Ages. His advocacy of banishing private property was aptly rebuffed by Aristotle.

2. Sir Thomas More

Sir Thomas More is revered for being a “saintly” figure in both Catholic and left-wing lore. His seminal novel Utopia, a Greek word meaning “Nowhere,” has stimulated countless flights into otherworldly fancy, and numerous quixotic and sometimes bloody attempts to superimpose fantasy on reality. In More’s novel, a world traveler regales the protaganist about a wonderful world where there is no private property, and everyone’s needs are provided for through compulsory labor. His book would inspire an entire genre of works categorized only as “utopian.”

3. Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Rousseau was a brilliant polemicist known to many as the “Father of the French Revolution.” His theorizing about the social contract is ample fodder for political science courses. Slightly less well-known is his counter to Hobbes’ description of a brutish state of nature in his savage noblesse, whose supposedly gentle nature implied civilization was a corrupter of man, rather than a life-edifying social arrangement, thus making him influential with the environmental left. His ideas can still be felt today in artificial constructs of society versus nature, particularly in regards to the industrial revolution. A bit of a sexual pervert, he enjoyed sado-masochism, like fellow leftist the Marquis de Sade.

4. Robespierre

The bloody French revolutionary known as Robespierre is perhaps the emblematic figure of The Enlightenment gone awry. His steely insistence on classically liberal concepts animated his deep desire to destroy the Ancien Regime and all it stood for. Unfortunately, the unethical means he advocated to accomplish his goals did not match his occasionally moral ends. His name would become synonymous with la Terreur; if Rousseau was the Father of the Revolution, Robespierre is the Father of Terrorism.

5. Immanuel Kant

Ayn Rand considered Immanuel Kant to be the arch-enemy of reason, mind, truth, and happiness. Through such works as the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant divorced reality from man’s ability to perceive it, and posed that reason was prostrate to directly know anything. Instead, he argued that men were imprisoned by their senses and doomed to grope in the dark for as long as they existed. His influence is widespread and ephemeral; Kant’s dark impress can be felt in the Zeitgeist since his day, expressed in extreme skepticism and pessimism. His works have done much to demoralize and infantalize man.

6. G.W.F. Hegel

One of the pre-eminent left-wing thinkers of modern times, he is known as an Uber-statist and the mentor of Karl Marx. One of the most significant contributions to the radical cause is his conceptualization of historical inevitability. He is widely acknowledged as among the first philosophers to imbue teleology into his thinking, and influence one sees in Marx’s pronouncement of the eventual triumph of socialism. Writing with an esoteric and borderline incomprehensible style, he is the archetype of the indecipherable intellectual. Rightfully called the Father of Totalitarianism.

7. Arthur Schopenhauer

A Gremlinesque figure whose scrawlings are extremely pessimistic and grim. His main argument is that all phenomena and universal life-force can be reduced to the Will. The universe wills itself to exist, like human beings will themselves to survive. His borderline nihilistic synopsis of the quintessence of life and existence presages Heidegger, and his emphasis on Will marks a transition point to Nietzsche’s Will to Power, so popular later with the National Socialists. His thoughts and works can be grouped with Kant’s and Hegel’s as reflective of German Idealism, staples of early (European) Continental Philosophy.

8. Ludwig Feuerbach

An often overlooked philosopher on the right, his views on religion are among the purest expressions of secular humanism one can find. Feuerbach was an atheist who believed that God is a projection of human beings’ self-alienated desires. God’s eternal nature is man’s wish for immortality; His Holiness is man’s wish to become sinless and pure; Heaven is a manifestation of man’s desire for a perfect world; and the Trinity is symbolic of desiring to become part of something while retaining identity. Feuerbach’s influence can also be seen in existentialist, atheist, and psychoanalytical circles.

9. Karl Marx

Probably the best known and most influential leftist of them all. Marx’s inversion of Hegelian dialectics in a materialist mode sought to destroy what he saw were class relations of exploitation and oppression. A perpetual gold-digger and deadbeat dad reliant upon the funding of his associate Friedrich Engels, his life is an outstanding example of how the left thinks the world should work. Marx believed foremost that “all that exists deserves to perish,” and he constructed his theory around that imperative. His adaptation of Ricardo’s debunked Labor Theory of Value, utilization of the discredit Iron Law of Wages, and contradictory argument that one’s philosophy is materially determined by class relations, are useful anti-capitalist myths the left have invoked for generations.

10. Friedrich Nietzsche

A morose, brooding figure whose thinking defies right and left classification, and indeed, many deny that he was a philosopher, as if such a guild exists. Nietzsche is best known as a nihilist, or someone who did not believe there were such actual things as good and evil, but he grappled with this insight his entire literary career. An ardent attacker of religion, he deemed Christianity to be an internalized “slave morality,” and claimed that what are considered to be sins among the masses are merely the virtues of the rulers. In his view, the Will to Power underlay the rhetoric of the masters, and moralizing is merely an instrumental abuse of language for personal gain (whether altruistic in form or not). Went mad in his later years.

11. Mikhail Bakunin

Looking like the slightly more disheveled twin of Karl Marx, Bakunin was an anarchist flamethrower from the early 19th century. With Sergei Nechaev he co-wrote the influential left-wing guidebook The Catechism of a Revolutionist, a nineteenth century “Rules for Radicals,” if you will.. He was probably the more theoretically minded of the destructive duo, whose advocacy of revolutionary violence laid the groundwork for anarchist and socialist circles throughout the century and beyond. His presence can still be felt among such modern self-styled anarchists as the Black Blok, the more strident arm of left-wing movements like Occupy.

12. Sigmund Freud

The Father of Psychoanalysis, as he became known, is one of the key figures of modern psychology. His musings on human sexuality, as unprovable as they are, have been influential in imbuing psychosexual motives to a wide range of human behavior. One of his more charming heuristics is that men are possessed to kill their fathers in order to debauch their mothers. His formulation of the subconscious has become an omnipresent understanding of Western discourse, and is often invoked as a literal catch-all explanation of human motivation. A chief theoretician adapted and integrated by the New Left.

13. V.I. Lenin

Born Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, he became radicalized and intensely interested in Marxist theory after his brother was executed for plotting to kill the Tsar. Lenin would adapt Marxism from a theory proclaiming the inevitable triumph of the proletariat to a call to action for a cadre of intellectuals to usher in socialism’s realization. His putsch of Russia in October 1917 and surrender to Germany in WW I would hasten in a ravaging Civil War. Economic dislocation due to War Communism led to trauma among the peasantry, who were finally allowed petty marketing under his New Economic Plan. He died after a sudden stroke in 1924, paving the way for the even more ruthless Stalin.

14. Leon Trotsky

A superb orator and intellectual, Lev Davidovich Bronshtein, as he was born, was initially a leader of the so-called Menshevik faction of world communists. Early on, he supported the argument that Russia should be propelled through the historical stages outlined by Marx in order to reach the socialist end-goal. Later, he became famous as an advocate of “perpetual revolution” in order to forestall any reversion of the socialist revolution into authoritarian statism. For this innovation, Trotsky became a hated rival of Joseph Stalin, whose contributions to leftism are not so much intellectual as they are practically brutal in implementation. Trotsky would be hunted down while in exile and killed by a Stalin-hired assassin in Mexico.

15. Antonio Gramsci

Continuing the tradition of frizzy-haired radicals, the great strategician of the cultural Marxists was the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, whose contributions to the left’s grand strategy of cultural destruction cannot be overemphasized. Gramsci’s argument was the capitalism’s contradictions were held together by cultural hegemony, or domination, which should be undermined and used to further the effort to simultaneously transform the economic base. Gramsci’s demand for a “long march” through the West’s institutions is the master key that unlocks one’s understanding of the modern left.

16. Gyorgy Lukacs

Hungary’s Minister of Culture under the short-lived Bela Kun government of 1919, Lukacs was a primary advocate of sexualizing youth in order to destroy Christian culture. Lukacs’s argument was that the use of the education system to teach the young sexual perversion would “liberate” them from Christianity, and cause them to rebel against their parents. This would make them more irresponsible and thus more receptive to state authority and communism. He was thrown out of power by outraged Christians in one of the few effective uprisings against a communist regime. His influence can be seen with such figures as Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings, known to have prurient interests in youth sexuality.

17. Theodore Adorno

One of the least mentioned and most important voices on the New Left, he was a critical early influence in the Frankfurt School, a circle of intellectuals exiled from Hitler’s Germany. Established at Columbia’s Institute for Social Research, Adorno would work on the influence of mass media in obstructing or furthering the socialist cause. A specialist on music theory and the medium of radio, he argued that repetition itself ‘demystified’ the romantic and individualistic nature of Western art, an insight that helps explain the primary role of repetition in modern culture. He is perhaps best known popularly for his specious theory of the inherent “authoritarian personality” of all conservatives.

18. Max Horkheimer

Adorno’s mentor (and rumored by some on the left to be his gay lover), Max Horkheimer was a founding member of the Frankfurt School. He was a collaborator with Adorno on the Dialectic of Enlightenment, which explicitly sought to reverse the Enlightenment’s historical gains. Their theorizing would produce the seminal texts of Critical Theory, which is an idea based on unremitting criticism of Western philosophy without the need for justifying a viable alternative. Critical Theory would evolve to become a guide for tactics as well, breaking up the left into complementary “social justice” movements aimed tacitly at destroying Western culture. These architects of “political correctness” should be well-known to every American conservative.

19. Herbert Marcuse

Marcuse co-founded the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research with Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer. He has also been credited with developing Critical Theory, a type of Neomarxism influenced by Hegelian Idealism, psychoanalysis and existentialism. His primary motive was to build an aesthetic critique of capitalist culture, since Marx’s economic critiques were widely acknowledged to have failed. Best known popularly for his book Eros and Civilization, and the slogan “Make Love not War.” His work would help revitalize Freud and Hegel on the Marxian left.

20. Erich Fromm

Known as an expert on Freud, the Critical Theorist Erich Fromm was somewhat of a quack whose speculation on human psychology ran afoul of Herbert Marcuse, who condemned him as a revolutionary who had fallen into de facto support for the status quo. In typical left-wing fashion, as credibility comes from out-radicalizing one’s critics, Fromm rebuffed Marcuse as a dogmatist. Perhaps Fromm’s most interesting and twisted work is Escape from Freedom, in which he argued mankind was tormented by the Enlightenment’s version of freedom, and is thereby alienated from his community.

21. John Maynard Keynes

One of the most influential economists in world history, John Maynard Keynes developed a leading reputation during and after the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. His strongest imprint would be felt at the post-World War II Bretton Woods Conference, however, and his thinking has dominated the academic and political world ever since. Argued by many pragmatists and other statists to be a capitalist “reformer,” his policies of unending state market intervention, such as boosting aggregate demand in an economic downturn, would justify constant government meddling, unmeddling, and scapegoating of capitalism for the state’s inevitable economic failures.

22. John Dewey

Recognized by some as the Father of American Education, Dewey’s radicalism is difficult to expose in a compressed space. His pragmatism would situate morality temporally, thus removing the concept of universal ethical application. An ardent believer in pure democracy, or what many would identify as social democracy, his ideas when applied through such institutions as education and journalism break down the Western moral and political order. A Deweyan world would thus be one where all would be up for vote and morality would be contextually bound by historical circumstances, in many ways the antithesis of American Constitutional government.

23. Martin Heidegger

Heidegger is best known perhaps as the philosopher who both sympathized with, and who was adapted by, the Nazis. His primary contribution would be to existentialism in his argument that the essence of life is existence, and that the notion of there being a meaning to life is absurd. His anti-humanistic philosophy would break down man into a creature no better than animals, one ridiculously inflated in self-importance. Heidegger’s impact can be seen in modern form in the leftist movement of radical environmentalism, a program non-coincidentally bearing many resemblances to fascism.

24. Saul Alinsky

Born to Russian immigrants, Saul Alinsky would become a master political tactician. His texts, Reveille for Radicals and the better-known Rules for Radicals, would be seized upon as bibles for left-wing operators ranging from the average street thug or shakedown artist to political heavyweights like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. His Machiavellian emphasis on unabashed power-seeking combined with an ends-justify-the-means mentality would become vital to forming the remorselessly destructive and unscrupulous left. Many of his tactics can be seen throughout the media today, such as the persistent use of ridicule by the left to delegitimize conservative opposition.

25. Noam Chomsky

Chomsky is as notorious for his public criticism of “neo-conservative” policies as he is for his contributions to linguistics. His unapologetic support for anarchism or “libertarian socialism” has made him a prominent intellectual leader on the contemporary left. In Manufacturing Consent, he points out three media biases: the profit motive, advertising, and reporting news favorable to the government since it is a main source of news. He then goes on to argue that “flak,” or how special interest groups mobilize against criticism, “anti-communism” and in the post-Cold War setting “The War on Terror,” silence news outfits. Political Correctness is an infinitely more potent journalistic bias than either of his two above-named forms of bias.

26. Michel Foucault

Foucault’s deconstruction of literature and history in terms of power relationships provides a critical link in the transition from early Critical Theory to “post-structural” techniques of advancing the leftist cause. The French philosopher’s main contribution, and thereby his central means of indoctrinating students into the leftist cause, is his argument that power relationships are absolutely inescapable. In other words, all works of art and literature reflect the preferred power relationship bias of their creators, spawning modes of “feminist” or “black” critiques. His work attracted the criticism of fellow left-wing intellectuals Jean-Paul Sartre and Richard Rorty, who are important in their own right, but who will only be mentioned in passing here.

27. Jacques Derrida

Derrida is alternatively a post-modernist or a post-structuralist, depending on which leftist you ask. His method of exegesis is a standard benchmark of literary departments around the world, and has famously been captured in his phrase “there is nothing outside the text.” Derrida explains that his process is one of constant contextualization and re-contextualization of the text. As he describes himself as a historian, one sees the influence of the Continental Philosophy concept of historicism in his work, meaning, the limiting of truth to historical circumstance. Such a program attempts to deprive The Enlightenment of its universalistic claims of truth, and to “get beyond” its modernizing locus.

28. Jurgen Habermas

Considered to one of the most influential Neomarxists alive, Habermas is known for his theories of intersubjective discourse, communicative rationality, and the operations of the public sphere. The innovation of Habermas’ theorizing is to transform rationality from its understanding as a tool for man to understand the universe to one fulfilling the communicative goal for man to be mutually understood. His drawing on hermeneutics, pragmatism, and social psychology thus renders communication and reason as impotent means to understanding the world, instead emphasizing their essentially social role. In some ways, a living contributor to the Frankfurt School.

29. Slavoj Žižek

A favorite among contemporary anarchists, his views are a hodge-podge defying academic or philosophical description. His views are variegated, but center around the Critical Theory agenda of intense criticism of capitalism and Western society. A featured speaker at the Occupy Wall Street protest, he has become somewhat of a darling among young radicals. The cogency of his vision and his academic rigor, however, is questionable. Nonetheless, he has provided ample fodder for endless college bull sessions, and his simultaneous advocacy of “politicizing the economy” and anarchism is a poignant exemplar of the modern left’s refusal to believe in contradictions.

30. Barack Obama?

Perhaps the most complete personification of radical ideologies and agendas, Barack Obama is both a cunning Alinskyite street operator and a media-styled intellectual aloof from philosophical categorization. The leftist influences on his thoughts and actions, however, are clear. As he himself bragged, “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully, the more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.” But in his person, he defrays the argument that he is a Marxist radical: through his clothes, effete mannerisms, soothing pre-meditated lectures, to the fact he himself is the result of a racially mixed relationship. Barack Obama is Critical Theory. And he has been specifically reared to “fundamentally transform” America from a free nation based on liberty to a Marxian superstate. We must fully understand him and refuse to let him.

Kyle Becker blogs at RogueGovernment, and can be followed on Twitter as @RogueOperator1. He writes freelance for several publications, including American Thinker and OwntheNarrative, and is a regular commentator on the late night talk show TB-TV.

Wake up Right! Subscribe to our Morning Briefing and get the news delivered to your inbox before breakfast!

About Kyle Becker

32 comments

  1. You know, if you wanted to be fair, you could’ve included MLK or Gandhi or William Jennings Bryan. Of course, you don’t want to be fair, do you, Kyle? I could do the same thing with Augustine, Luther, Jefferson, Washington, Jesus, Reagan, Rand, etc… You name it. Aristotle thought slavery was a good idea and you’re pretty keen on him. What does that say about you? (And by the way, I say YOU, Kyle. Not conservatives or Republicans. You specifically, I wouldn’t slander an entire group because I don’t like ideas of a writer that group might not even identify with. You know who else did that? Hitl… See, that’s disgusting. But how is that any different than what you’ve done in this essay?)

    History is a beautiful topic that has many amazing people in it. All of those people had ideas that were disgusting. That doesn’t discount all of their ideas. What’s more, it doesn’t indict other people who find their ideas fascinating. To attempt to do so isn’t being “irreverent”. It’s being cowardly.

  2. Sigmund Freud was a sexual deviant, and very much per-occupied with it.
    Gyorgy Lukacs what he was teaching is being practiced through our public “Fool” system today and is working his theory rather well.

  3. Wow, Kyle. Great article. It looks like you have done a lot of research for this one. I enjoyed it very much.

  4. You should really control the responses listed here

  5. I rename this article, Just Picking Thirty Guys I Don’t like. LOL HABERMAS.

  6. How does one fight this many headed beast upon our land?

  7. Martin Heidegger?! He’s about as conservative as they come..

    Also, do you think you could list any more Jews as belonging to the evil socialist left?

  8. Please, Keynes was about as centre-right (conservative) as you can get. He saw himself as saving capitalism. Niezche was psdeu-Nazi. Chomsky has attacked Obama on occasion, seeing (rightly) your two party system (both parties rightist) as a farce. Obama has extended the Bush tax cuts. Most anarchists would not consider Lenin to be on the left.
    To be brutally honest your “Founding Fathers” are a joke. Rebels and lawbreakers. The French Revolution was based on American one. Rospierre was one of your lot.

  9. Well, I admit my first comment was a mere rant (and a silly one, though I honestly expressed my problem with conservative christianity). It makes me sick when people points out Obama is a leftist (he isn’t, as Keynes clearly wasn’t one). The man might be a very bad president; heck, he is a serious candidate for being the most warmonger nobel peace prize, but he is not a leftist (it doesn’t make him good or bad; I’m simply asserting what is truth).
    BTW, I dislike Obama, even if I could agree with some of his views (anyway, I am not usamerican, so I mostly focus on his foreign policy, which is still as bad as GW Bush’s)

    • You can’t even read the text in front of you. Don’t leave the mountains, you might find the valleys a threat to your view of reality.

  10. Not only an stupid list, but also an stupid list that supports the worst and most anti-christian of all human heresies: western christendom

  11. ‘As he himself bragged, “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully, the more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.” ‘

    The most telling line of his memoir: he wishes to ‘avoid’ the appearance of being a sell-out. He never denies being one.

  12. So if these ideas of these men are so bad and have all failed to live up to their supposed rewarding life under one of them, why is it that people flock to these ideas like a moth to a flame? It’s because people have egos and want to prove that they are smarter than those who came before them. It’s like believing the things your grandparents told you and how you were rasied by your parents is thrown away and one of these beliefs is adopted. Later on in life the person usually comes back to understand that what their grandparents and parents told them about life was true, and those things are the best way to live. Even though each of us puts our own spin on how we live, we find out the older we get the more true those things we were told come true.

    Unless a person has old burned out Hippies as grandparents and their children, your parents are brain washed to, would be the only reason why you didn’t turn out good. Instead you turned out to be a product of one of these ideologies and believe our people would be alot more happy if their lives were being run by government under one of these ideologies, instead of living their lives the best way THEY saw fit, and were being allowed to be free the freedom that God gave us and not shackled down by the destructive ideas of one of these men. ‘

    These men are insane. And the proof of it is they keep trying to do the same thing over and over again every year, and try to find new people who will follow them into the gutter following another failed attempt to control people’s lives rather than giving them the freedom God intended us to live in. These men’s ideas in the hands of insane people are the reason why we are suffering now. People like Obama and his mentor’s are all insane, but the problem is THEY are in control of our government.

    They reason why they are in control of our government and not us is, they influence young people, and the poor and tell them that it is us who are the problem with why their lives aren’t better, and they should vote them back into office so that these men’s ideas can destroy us, then life will be much better for all of the young, poor, and needy.
    It’s a lie that is fallen for by every generation, year after year. The problem is after 50 years there are alot of people still left around who fell for these lies when they were young who are still waiting for one of these idea’s to finally take over the country. They want to see if those ideas will work because the actually have faith those failed ideas will finally work this time. And no matter how many times these ideas fail, those people who believe in them still want to try them again, and again, year after year. That’s why the country is in such bad shape economically.

    How do we get rid of these people and their failed ideas. I don’t think we are going to be able to do that without killing off half the people in the country who believe in Socialism and Communism, and that’s not going to happen. All we can do is try to institute more and more conservatism into the government and the economy to try to show these dumb people that our way works and theirs has always failed. Intellectualism is fine for exercising the brain, but you have to always understand that it is just exercise and not for real. Once a person starts believing those failed ideas are real that’s when the person starts to become lost.

    • “These men are insane. And the proof of it is they keep trying to do the same thing over and over again every year.”

      That’s true of everybody, whatever their philosophy or politics. Sometimes something works, sometimes it doesn’t, but the idea that there’s one answer or idea that will always work under any circumstances or with any problem is naive.

      But a lot of these people weren’t trying to “do” much of anything political. Plato wasn’t trying to force humanity into a utopian pattern. Probably More wasn’t either. Their “utopias” were blueprints for some near future. They were trying to make a point about philosophy or values.

      Kant was primarily concerned with thinking about thinking. Such political ideas as he did have weren’t totalitarian. Schopenhauer really wasn’t much concerned with politics at all. Keynes was consummately political, but hardly totalitarian or truly left-wing.

      Freud saw therapy as an answer, but was certainly very skeptical of political solutions and utopias. That’s the other side of a lot of the thinkers mentioned here. Foucault, Derrida, Habermas, Adorno, (who wasn’t Horkheimer’s lover for heaven’s sake) had their skeptical side — skeptical not just about religion, say, but also about political solutions. That’s something conservatives may not want to recognize, but it’s there. Maybe conservatism would be deeper or richer or at least more gracious if we recognized that.

  13. With many forms of government, it wasn’t until Marx that is was thought that a whole country could be taken over with one of these ideologies. Up until that time one of these early thinkers (sic) it was just their writings and their opinions were read by those who could afford to buy books and manuscripts. They weren’t cheap, back then, and most people were spending their money on food and clothing to try to stay alive than to become “enlightened”.

    At the turn of the last century the “intellectuals” and “artists” which included writers, and others like that would have places where they would meet to discuss these sorts of things. Most of those places were rich people’s homes or places where the rich could congregate these sorts of people. They would sit around all day and talk about how to solve the worlds problems, kinda like the Hippies use to do. And as a above commentor wrote, God was not part of the equation, nor was morality, conservatism, our Constitution or being responsible for oneself. The discussion was about destroying those things. These people seem to be more about evil in explaining away goodness and individual sovereignty than anything else.

    Lennin put the ultimate spin on it where intellectual thought was applied to government where the lives and freedoms of the people were actually taken from them in order to test these thoughts as to how people could be directed to do what one of these destructive opinions declared was how they were supposed to be. And as it is said in the text about these men, theirs was the destruction of conservatism, freedom, capitalism, independence, and self reliance, and religion was denied the people in place of the ideology taken over their lives so much so that the people didn’t have time to partake in practicing their faith.

    These guys are all about hate, and evil. They have no time for people being left to their own to either learn from their mistakes and being able to make themselves better from it, their idea was to dominate man’s purpose on Earth and replace that with somekind of denial system. All these men’s ideas are failed ideas, whose time came and went. And yet we see their insane belief that the reason why their ideas failed was something or someone else’s fault, and not the fault of the idea. All these men were and are mad. Godlessness will make a human mad because we are God’s creations that aren’t supposed to exist without God’s mercy. Without it, we’re doomed to live in darkness.

    • Very strong essay, Will. I enjoyed your takes a lot.

    • “Ayn Rand considered Immanuel Kant to be the arch-enemy of reason, mind, truth, and happiness.” “These guys are all about hate, and evil.” And Ayn Rand isn’t about hate? Please! Not exactly the type of person I want to emulate. You have listed several men because of their atheism, so why does Ayn Rand (also an atheist) get a free ride? Is it because she is the champion of unfettered capitalism?

  14. Inez Barringer

    I agree that Sir Thomas More does not belong on this list. I give to the Thomas More Law Center which fights leftism in this country.

    The Thomas More Law Center is a not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored …
    They are anti ACLU.

  15. I agree with mike. You either don’t understand More or have never read More. Most left wing social activist and philosophers despise him. People like more believed Rights were a god given right, not by the state.

    if your a true naturalist; Neither give you law, justice or rights. Hence why Plato and More should not be in this group of thugs.’As right’s don’t exist’ their made up by the state, that is a true naturalist argument.

    • More’s character in Utopia describes a land where there is no private property and there is forced labor. I read the book. He inspired generations of utopians, in literature and in practice. He belongs on the list, in my humble opinion.

    • Plato was the quintessential proto-communist, deriving from his ideal political community described in The Republic. I am not claiming he was irrational, like most of the thinkers on this list.

  16. With all do respect, Thomas More does not belong in this category, not even close.

  17. Usually I don’t learn post on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up very compelled me to take a look at and do it! Your writing taste has been surprised me. Thank you, very great post.

  18. Religion, and a belief in a God has nothing to do with it. The binding tie is that they all seem to think it is government that grants rights. Jefferson said and I paraphrase. “It does me no harm that my neighbor worships 20 gods or no God at all. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my arm.”
    He was a naturalist, as were most of the founding fathers.

    • “…at least 51 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention were members of Christian churches, and that leading American political figures in the founding era quoted the Bible far more than any other source”. John Eidsmoe

      Here is Thomas Jefferson’s prioritized belief structure as found in the DOI:
      God
      God created
      God created man
      God created man equal
      God through natural law, has granted man inalienable rights
      These are therefore “self evident”
      and “we hold these truths” AKA absolutes.
      Truths which need to be held imply a need to protect them. To protect them against “artificial rules” was his phraseology.

      And he said and our forefathers said many times of His proclamations “In The Year OF Our Lord”
      He was a deist in youth, personally grappling with Jesus authority for his life, but not His divinity and wisdom, but one that was Christianized by default. But as it is with all men, we draw near to our deepest honesty as we near the veil of death:

      “Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to be so pure as that of Jesus.”
      Letter to William Canby, Sept 18,1813 ~Thomas Jefferson 70 years old

      “Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as purely as they came from his lips the whole civilized world would now have been Christian”.
      Jefferson’s letter to Benjamin Waterhouse June 26, 1822 79 years old

  19. I find it interesting (or probably more likely logical) that this list of men contains not one person who would even remotely be considered religious. They have all replaced God (ANY God – Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.) with their own thought and reason. They have elevated man to a deity and a system of governance with an human or committee of humans as the ultimate authority.
    I think that human beings have a built-in sense of a need for a deity. (I am a Christian, but I am trying to be a “generic” as possible to make a point). I have found that most people whom I meet, if they worship God – any god – tend to be more willing to help others out of a sense of duty to their God and human responsibility. The people whom I’ve met who think that Socialism or Communism should be the way of the world, tend to be more selfish and looking for a way to get without giving.
    A broad generalization, but just something that I’ve observed.
    One of my favorite quotes: Most self-made men are the product of unskilled labor.

    • You mean apart from Plato, More, Rousseau and Hegel?

      • Also Kant, since you are being so broad in your definition of religion. His project of “limiting reason to make room for faith” was why Rand (quoted in the piece) hated him so much, by the way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Sign up for our Newsletter

* indicates required field




Email Format


Subscribe!