Leftists Construct a Fantasy World

6abef9169ae0548a9b8059408a57fead

Written for and (surprisingly) published by the Logan “Herald Journal.”

My mystification grows along with the growth of what I see as the absurdity of leftism. My life has its own level of absurdism (which is fairly high). While I recognize and often do attempt to justify it, I also recognize the sandy, slipping soil upon which my absurdities are grounded. I don’t imagine a political force being applied to impose my absurdities upon you and yours.

It appears to me that leftists have constructed a fantasy world which although beautifully hopeful, is also demonstrable impossible. The chink in the armor of their idea of fairness and equality doctrine is the essential nature of humanity. The universal failure of socialism, even when applied by the most humanitarian of intentions, i.e. religious organizations (Mormons), the founders of our country (Pilgrims), revolutionaries battling agains tyranny (Spartacus), always came down to the failure of the socialist policies put in place at those times. The nature of humanity which includes a fair dose of greed and amplified self-importance throws a wrench into the socialist gearbox. Beautiful intention evolves into a more self-protective form of tyranny, or oligarchy.

Individualism, which includes both freedom and exercising personally recognized and enforced responsibility, evaporates into the atmosphere of statist control.

It was a recognition of this infectious nature of government which inspired political philosophers all the way back to Socrates, who saw democracy (the goal of so many modern politics) and the “politic of mediocrity” which it actually is as America is currenty demonstrating. The irony of enforcing responsibility while admitting freedom was a goal for which the U.S. Constitution was forged to inspire and protect.

“We still suffer from not having a Constitution that guarantees its citizens economic rights” ~Barack Hussein oBama. The Constitution, he explains, is a “charter of negative liberties…(it)… says what the states can’t do to you (and) what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” Thus, apparently, the need to rewrite the Constitution, which in spite of the magnificent wisdom of our pRESIDENT oBama, does indeed say what the federal government must do on our behalf. The difference being that our founders recognized personal responsibility and left that up to the persons. Responsibility is tails on the freedom coin, one can’t be taken away without the other.

The fantasy evolves and the mystery grows.

~Bacon

Weapon of A.S.S. Destruction

A.S.S. Destruction

I must preface this  with my intent, which is to promote what may be the most remarkable piece of literature regarding the relativity between politics and humanitarian values that I have ever read, “Weapon of A.S.S. Destruction,” by Alfonzo Rachel. A full painting will require some lead-in. So bear with me. I really will get to the point which goes far beyond religion, eventually.

One ever present aspect of human nature is the curiosity about our own eternal (or not) nature. Is there a God? Of course! (not)! Naturally I share this universal curiosity and have taken approaches ranging from absolute atheism all the way through the gamut to  the committed following of organized religion (Mormon). None of this seemed satisfactory, comforting, nor truly fulfilling. Thus none stuck.

Agnosticism is certainly the easiest route, being quite similar to the political belief referred to as, “independent.” It requires very little in the form of commitment and is the “faith” I have adhered to throughout most of my life.

Atheism can be logically compared to political anarchy, which is one of it’s lures. People are at least tempted to believe they are individually capable and responsible and that they don’t need to depend upon “fairy tales,” “magicians,” nor Gods. Most of us deny it, but there is an element of narcissism that naturally resides within us which makes this type of independence look appealing. This is one of the reasons I took a stab at atheism. I lost interest as my realization grew that atheism leaves us with true, non-self centered reason for nothing. I do like to think of myself as reasoned, yet I also confess to a propensity towards the dark side. It is largely because of my lingering fear of eternal damnation that certain individuals remain alive today whom I believed the world would be better off without.

The study of Christianity, particularly the pursuit made outside the reigns of any particular religious organization (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon etc.), the aspect of Christianity which claims to be the actual teaching of Jesus Christ (the red letters, as it were), ignoring the human manipulations of his doctrines, leads the student to some of the most sound and loving humanitarianism imaginable. Although I am far removed from the typical view society has as to what a Christian typically is, I am never the less sold on the fact that it presents us with a philosophy that guarantees such a broad range of freedom/responsibility empowering beliefs that no political philosophy can compare. Even if there actually were no Jesus Christ (that there was is historically provable), or if the man were nothing but a magnificently talented philosopher (which may be the case), the result of following his teachings leads to true freedom, the truest respect of humanity, AND an appreciation for our own existence, that no secular philosophy can approach.

It is easy to argue against torturing and burning witches, cutting the tongues out of “blasphemers,” the idea of multiple wives, or religious socialism. However none of these perversions can be traced directly to the words of Jesus. These were manipulations for personal gain made by humans holding up their own interpretations or even their own generation of words they attributed to Jesus. The ultimate core of true Christianity boils down to “My command is this: Love one another the way I have loved you.” The simple fact of the matter is if humanity actually followed this teaching alone, every one of the legal and political problems we face would fade back into the Hell holes from whence they came.

The flip side of this coin is the fact that humanity is distantly removed from the nature of Christ. Thus it is quite unlikely that we can be successful in imitating his behavior. Our best hope is to recognize it and hold it up as motivation for our higher intentions. This, beautifully, is the point of Christianity. It is a set of logical, reasonable, and purely humanitarian ground rules to strive for. Failure is certain but the attempt will naturally build good principle and strengthen morality in the heart and soul of the person who sincerely makes the attempt. Thus the failure becomes a success.

One of the greatest disappointments with atheism for me was the atheist arguments for morality. There is no doubt that atheists are perfectly capable of completely moral behavior, and atheists who do live morally, (there are many) can logically be seen as actually having a more personal form of morality than those who pursue moral behavior in order to earn a mansion in heaven, 70 virgins, 30 wives in heaven, eternal existence, or whatever payoff is being played/prayed for. However the ultimate question still remains. Why be honest? Why be fair? Why help the weak? The unfortunate answer which the atheist will employ volumes of words to present, boils down nicely and cleanly to one, “because.”

Now, down to the nitty gritty:

According to Plato, Socrates referred to democracy as the “politic of mediocrity.” Rachel’s book is a brilliantly written, shoot from the hip look at historically verifiable facts about the development of democracy in our American republic. He Illuminates beautifully all of its brilliant absurdity, and backs up Socrates’ observation made almost 2500 years ago with indubitable evidence. He ties it all together beautifully with the relativity between proper principle, morality, freedom, responsibility and Christianity. All of which are rapidly being lost in America.

Rachel begins with the “so called party switch,” where he illuminates the true roots of racism in America, revealing startling, verifiable truths about slavery, the Jim Crow laws, the Dred Scott decision, the KKK, the truest opposition to Martin Luther King, AND the truest roots of the growth of civil liberties in America.

From here Rachel moves on to one of the most coherent descriptions of the difference between liberalism and conservatism, which alone makes the book a masterpiece. He states quite plainly and simply, something I’ve been trying to relate in my writing for well over a decade.

He moves into the association between religious thinking and effective politic. “Facts have little effect on the opposition because everyone has an interest in confirming what they already believe,” the very foundation of my own philosophical interpretation of one of the core aspects of human nature, egoteneoism. He illuminates the difference between conserving the freedom to do for yourself, and the political hunger for voters’ dependency. The difference between voting for what’s popular and voting for what’s “right.” It is this portion of his book which will cause the most consternation for the liberal thinker, but careful consideration of its premise reveals a beautiful philosophical basis.

Next he attacks another liberal bogeyman, capitalism. By clearly describing what it is and the power that it implies, “capitalism is freedom of money.” The innate differences between capitalism, socialism, and fascism. He examines modern absurdities such as “minimum wage,” “unionization” (the stepping stone to communism), pulling into focus the “render unto Ceasar” statement, so often used to Biblically support taxation.

State run healthcare, abortion, Constitutional protection, homosexuality (including a very illustrative historical look at the real physical dangers which inspired the the anti-gay mentality which still exists. (Rachel presents a very logical case in justification for including homosexuals in the military) Immigration, back to racism “Democrats still have you on the plantation. They farm blacks for votes like ballot cattle.” Which brings to my mind a quote of L.B.J., “I’ll have those niggers voting democrat for the next 200 years.” Environmentalism, “Our government currently makes laws respecting the religious establishment of environmentalism” (back again to egoteneoism).

Rachel takes a look at libertarianism, which was somewhat uncomfortable to me since I have often referred to myself as libertarian. “A Libertarian is typically just a liberal that doesn’t have a love/hate relationship with capitalism and the free market.” He presents a case which is now a new bug under my saddle.

One of the most important points Rachel makes is in reference to the American media, who I see as the biggest enemy the American tradition of freedom/responsibility has ever faced. “People vote democratic, not because of principle, but because of feelings swayed by the media.” There is a rising surge of resistance to the media lies, based on the growing recognition that it is going on. Tis one of the most important aspects of Donald Trump’s popularity, his refusal to kowtow to the whims of the liberal American media.

Bottom line… buy this book, read it, buy copies for your friends, give it out as Valentines, donate copies to charity, slide copies under your liberal professor’s doors, read it to your children at bedtime. Thank you Alfonzo Rachel (http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=84 ) for a true breath of fresh air and a rekindling of hope!

Thank You Margaret Thatcher!

Image

One of the greatest heroes of independence, freedom and responsibility passed this morning. She was fought at the time and is increasingly viewed as a “radical” extremist today. And this she was, in the world of socialism, statism and those paving the road toward Marxist communism. She appeared at a time in Great Britain which was even further advanced on the trail towards socialism than we are in the US today. As the US is fast in the process of the government takeover of one of the largest segments in American business, the medical industry, we can examine an economy  under the effect of privatization. Margaret Thatcher said, “privatization  shrinks the power of the state and free enterprise enlarges the power of the people… we understood that a system of free enterprise has a universal truth at its heart: to create a genuine market in a state you have to take the state out of the market.” We can actually examine the effect of the very principle so hated today, in all its successful glory. Although she was far from being a “feminist” in the way we see them today, she literally broke ground in the field of thwarting the logic of sexual discrimination which had been almost constant since the dawn of humanity.

Margaret Thatcher appeared during the “Winter of Discontent” in the UK, where the economy was drowning in an ocean of socialism. The government accounted for over 30% of the workforce. The government red tape, just like in the US today, was strangling the free enterprise that remained. Thatcher privatized telecommunications, railroads, steel and more, and the course of UK economy immediately took a new and much more positive direction. Her wisdom in stating, “The lesson of the economic history of Europe in the 70’s and 80’s is that central planning and detailed control do not work and that personal endeavour and initiative do. That a State-controlled economy is a recipe for low growth and that free enterprise within a framework of law brings better results…” Can scarcely be denied, yet America is flocking down that very path and following a leader who is the diametric opposition of Thatcher’s wisdom and is rapidly destroying the independence and freedom of us all.

“We should back the workers, not the shirkers.”

“When you hold back the successful, you penalize those who need help.”

“There is no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.”

“To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukemia with leeches.”

“What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner ‘I stand for consensus’?”

“When all the objectives of government include the achievement of equality – other than equality before the law – that government poses a threat to liberty.”

“In the Conservative Party we have no truck with outmoded Marxist doctrine about class warfare. For us it is not who you are, who your family is or where you come from that matters, but what you are and what you can do for your country that counts.”

“During my lifetime most of the problems the world has faced have come, in one fashion or other, from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it.”

An interesting aside; listening to the news reports today, each one refers to her greatness, but not a one I’ve heard from the “main-stream” has neglected to point out something quite negative “many believe she kicked the poor into the street,” for example. It’s damn hard for statists to show her the respect she deserves.

~Bacon

Sincere of the Sin

Image

Does “The Strength of the Strong” reveal the answer to the question of Jack London’s true philosophical perspectives? Marxist? Socialist? Individualist? We know what he claimed, but but what were his actual core principles? Did he know or even understand it himself? This question is reflected in his response to Rudyard Kipling’s anti-socialist, “The Mother Hive,” this story clearly illustrates the very challenge in which London’s own professed philosophy of socialism is bound. The greatest hurdle socialism faces is that It must exist under the helm of human nature. Rather than pointing out the flaws in Kipling’s work, London muddies the very waters he is defending by pointing instead at the natural weaknesses of humanity. “The Strength of the Strong” has been called “A ridiculously lame story … Social Darwinism at its silliest.” (Tidwell) which in fact, it is anything but. “The Strength of the Strong” actually challenges much of what we take for granted as the structure of family and community. Nevertheless the attitude Tidwell is not rare and it is understandable because Tidwell, as have many, missed the point, which is not Darwinism. The point of “The Strength of the Strong” is actually the weakness of all humanity, which is its nature.

The silly social darwinism seen by Tidwell and others is actually the product of London’s creative genius. In this story Jack London has constructively applied his true genius as he captured human nature and gave his readers a very comprehensible and relatable reference point to the naturalistic world he loved. It is much more than a hat-tip to Darwin, in one very short story London has painted a quintessential picture of the ever rotating history of humanity which includes human nature, roots, trunk, and branches, spiced with the ultimate and ever present humanitarian condiment, a god.

Ironically the very magazine which published the tale, Collier’s Weekly, was put out of business in a manner quite reminiscent of the destruction of civility the reader sees in “The Strength of the Strong.” The strong (capitalists) consuming what is perceived as an infection (truth) using various techniques (religion, shortages, market floods, and mendacious control) which remind one of the tactics used by the American industrial oligarchies, during London’s day, and pursuers of tyrannical power throughout recorded time. It could have been another paragraph in London’s story which still would not promote socialism so much as it focusses it’s crosshairs on unregulated capitalism, which was indeed the reign of the day during the progressive era during which London lived. Unregulated capitalism which brought the response of unionism, which many believe is currently destroying the U.S. free market and free enterprise in America as production moves to foreign shores and domestic businesses crumble (Hostess being a recent example).

Long-Beard (Marx?) never does let go of the dream. After the evodevolution of his society he predicts to his children as they converse in their cave, a time “all men will be brothers and no man will lie idle in the sun and be fed by his fellows.” (London) He attributes the social failure to “the fools” which indeed, unfortunately and historically humanity, outside of its words, tends to be.

In the end, the strength of the strong is all that really matters.

“We must take human nature as we find it, perfection falls not to the share of mortals.” ~George Washington

Works Cited

London, Jack. “The Strength of the Strong.” Hampton’s Magazine. Vol. 26, Mar. 1911: UP. Print.

Tidwell, Gregory. “Science Fiction of Jack London, The by London, Jack, 1901.” Omphalos’ SF Book Reviews (NPR). Sept. 24 2012. Web. Nov. 2012