Americans aren’t stupid. Some are a lot more clever, or educated, or skillful, or depraved than others, however. Some, who have seen their greatest personal opportunity within a legalized government employee union environment, now tightly – and politically – protected by law, eventually gain both economic freedom and inordinate influence. Most Americans, perhaps 98% of us, never gain similar advantage and, until the Covid “plan-demic,” never grasped what we have allowed to happen. Our subservient position is becoming clearer.
There are multiple tyrannies at issue.
Not only taxpayers but every parent and other providers of product to “public” school systems, has awakened to the tyrannies of public employee unionization, made sharply clear by the machinations of teachers’ unions. We who PAY for public schools, by law and state police powers, have learned that we have no control whatsoever, personally or through our elected “representatives” or through the “experts” we have hired to “manage” “our” governments. It’s humbling. The people “we” have hired and pay lavishly to “educate” our children, are exposed as our education “rulers.” They, not we, will determine both curricula and process. No longer shall our children be reinforced in the best of life’s lessons as we impart at home; they will learn what odd theories of social reformation and anti-American psychology that they, our education rulers, agree with. No longer will the routines of school and vacation be followed if we, your education rulers, don’t like them. No longer will your children be permitted into the same rooms that we inhabit if we, on our own, decide that there may be the slightest threat to our health or safety… and you will pay us according to our negotiated contract, including scheduled raises, while we ponder our next demands.
Well, that’s a fine “how do you do?”
Suddenly, teachers have become more powerful than our elected “representatives,” so-called, and the government created by we the people, is powerless to correct this destructive imbalance. To whom can an economically assaulted citizen/parent turn for redress of grievance? Well, no one.
Let us imagine, then, an actually representative government. Can you imagine what such a rare construct might do on our behalf? Can you imagine what it might do with regards to “public” education?
First, (and one can only dream of any government in the United States today, having the testicular fortitude) such a government representing the values and interests of its citizens, would arbitrarily de-certify its local teachers union on the basis of an undeclared and illegal strike. That is, since the jurisdiction had not failed to uphold the terms, financial and otherwise, of the existing contract with teachers, it had within its inherent rights the power to suspend a collective contract and offer individual contracts to teachers who were prepared to go to work at the next earliest opportunity. That jurisdiction would also have an obligation to fulfill state laws requiring a set number of days of school attendance by every school-age child in residence. At the same time, the jurisdiction would assume the obligation to protect any individual and family thereof from retribution in any form under the guise of a negotiated “contract” that was abrogated by union-enforced action.
In the event that not enough formerly contracted teachers agree to go back to work to fill basic minimum teaching slots, the jurisdiction could temporarily open up teaching slots to anyone with sufficient background in or love of subject matters to enable a temporary fulfillment of educational minimums as part of an emergency declaration. Meanwhile students would return to classroom instruction, do homework, pass tests and matriculate as able. Between school “years,” certified teachers could be hired individually to round out the teaching staff as appropriate. A lot would be expected of a highly compensated Superintendent and his or her staff to make sure that proper education was accomplished, but, but… just imagine.
Superintendents and other supervisors who are incapable of managing the system without kow-towing to a teachers union, could be replaced.
Then, we might imagine that every student would be taught to read, comprehend, write logical, well-constructed sentences and coherent essays in legible longhand, and to calculate and reason algebraically. Simultaneously those same potential adults would learn American and World History, civics and citizenship and the truth, good and bad, about our exceptional Constitutional limits on central government.
Unfortunately, that last paragraph is a dream too far.
We wished Allison Paige Hawkes Godspeed, yesterday. Pollard’s Funeral Home, Methuen, Massachusetts, U. S. A., planet Earth, Milky Way, was very good to our family and to all who came to commiserate with us and to celebrate the wonderful and wonder-filled life of Allie Hawkes. She passed on Sunday, the sixth of December, less than a week ago. It was just after 8 in the morning. Her mother held her as she slept. She stirred enough to struggle to tell Christen that she loved her. Christen had her hand upon Allie’s heart as she left the painful, cancerous bonds of Earth. There could be no better way to finish one’s journey.
We compiled our photos, and Allie’s, and all the newspaper articles that Christen had saved. There were thousands of the former, dozens of the latter, and millions of memories. Christen, Allie’s dad, Gavin Hawkes, her sister-in-law, Kim Andon (brother Joe Wescott’s wife for 20+ years), Kim’s daughter, Sarah, “Grammie” Gretchen Wescott and I, her “Grampa” Bob, sorted and printed and distilled hundreds of photo’s to display during funeral services. Allie’s girlfriends created yet another “photo-board.” We were researching someone known more by others than by us; the breadth and depth of her people-rich life was, in part, news to all of us, even to her most-connected mother, Christen.
During Allie’s brief life, many days, weeks and months were consumed by cancer treatments and effects. Virtually all of those hours were shared, in person, by the world’s greatest mother. Christen became Allie’s primary nurse and watchful angel, more than once conveying the instructions of physicians and the applications of potent drugs, more accurately than nurses, themselves, remembered. Allie and her mother built a bond of mother-daughter love that is rare. Christen had not a burden, but an opportunity to do more mothering than most mothers have. We all tried to be involved, but it was truly a matter of learning from Christen what Allie had just gone through or, thankfully, what she had just done. She was a do-er, most effectively as a creator of friends.
At the funeral home most of the three families gathered to greet the hundreds of friends on whom Allie had left her impact. She didn’t have any casual friends, it seemed, but hundreds of good ones. They, and we, all felt a loss when her light faded out. Indeed, as her Camp Otter, YMCA, Wheelock, Marsh School, Methuen High and, so heartbreakingly, many of her nurses from the Floating Hospital, Children’s Hospital and Dana Farber explained, she was nowhere “just” another student, another friend or another patient. The “Allison Effect” is large on everyone she knew.
Ostensibly, funeral preparations included having her cousin, Sarah Wescott, speak about her lifetime friend. Sarah worked hard to get her words and feelings exactly as she wished to express them. I, Grampa Bob, was also going to say a few words, and though mine were not written in advance, I too had prepared what I wanted to say. In fact, my erstwhile comments were much modified as the afternoon of meeting so many of those who also loved Allie Hawkes. They changed what I knew about my granddaughter. So, I want to share what I had decided to say Friday evening, though could not.
Good evening and thank you all for sharing your love for Allie Hawkes. Before she died I thought I knew her pretty well. You, all, have told me so much more about her; culling the hundreds and hundreds of photos she and others took of the many places she went and events she attended, has made her even more wondrous in my heart and my memories so much richer.
When she was first diagnosed my first reaction was to tell her mother that she would be okay, and I believed it. For the following 19 years that belief was justified as she beat cancer back again, again and again… until she could not. My second reaction, as I would walk each morning, was to pray for a miracle essentially every day, and often, twice a day. I was trying to tell God what the correct miracle for Him to effect was, and exactly when to manifest it. I realize that a lot of our prayers are like that: giving God and Jesus instructions… as if we knew.
What I should have prayed for is mercy and understanding.
Each time our relatively crude medical tools brought her back to remission my conviction that I was issuing the correct instructions was reinforced. Every time cancer came back, I would feel that my miracle-instructions were flawed, somehow, or not specific enough, and I would redouble my efforts and word my supplications to be much more specific as to what I wanted God to do. I hope that what I did helped Allie in some way. I know that as the end approached she became more of a believer, ready to pass through that awesome door alone, always part of my prayers.
So, I had been praying for a miracle for most of her life rather blindly, it turns out. But I recognize, now, that the miracle was right here with us, all along.
There are many words that once were in more common parlance – back when schoolchildren had to learn English and how to read and write in that very language – and readers of Prudence’ thoughts are all too aware that those “old fashioned” words are a great strength when expressing thoughts deeper than MSNBC commenters like to share. Ooops, hold on a moment, there was a Prudent word right there: commenter. A commenter is a person who comments. Somehow we’ve all adopted the habit of saying, “commentator” instead of commenter because it sounds as if the speaker might be perceived as just a little smarter for using an extra syllable. In the opinion of your correspondent, not many commenters achieve the erudite status of commentator, unless they come from Idaho.
Anyway, in the “old” days one might encounter a word like “scurrilous,” a gem of an adjective. It really means to describe someone foul-mouthed and coarse in language. But it came to be used to describe someone of the lowest morals, particularly in terms of failing to live up to one’s promises. Scurrilous. Often there are overtones of hypocrisy relative to the person who is described as scurrilous, since he or she probably held a position of some prominence, pretending to be among our betters.
Mendacious is another good one, and its cousin, mendacity. In a simple way it means untruthful, or the quality of telling lies, yet it is so much more robust than simple lying. Everyone tells lies at some level: “How’s everything at home?” a close friend might ask, to which you answer, “Oh fine, fine. Thanks for asking.” Or, the querulous, “Does this pant-suit make me look fat?” “Absolutely not,” is the answer, in case you weren’t sure. Still, a ‘mendacious’ person is not just telling lies, he or she is adjudged to be virtually unable to tell the truth.
The British used to make common use of the epithet, “knave:” a deceitful, untrustworthy person. We rarely use it in American English as it doesn’t sound bad enough to convey the hatred or derogation required to belittle the object of one’s contempt. Americans of late are wont to include the ever-popular eff-word, variously applied as adverb, adjective, verb, or noun. There is no need to further define “the eff-word.” Even women, erstwhile civilizers of us, all, are fully aware and conversant with it. ‘Knave,’ however, does convey a patine of intended depravity to the person so targeted.
Let’s summarize: scurrilous, mendacious knave. Such a person really must be the worst in any group. But, wait! There’s more!
A fairly common, but somewhat underappreciated personification is that of “degenerate.” It implies a person who is not only useless to others or to society, but who interferes with the advancement of others. In other words, a person no right-thinking person would want to engage with at any level. Indeed, such a person, a ‘degenerate,’ often appears to have regressed in his or her own humanity. Not even “reprobate” conveys those depths.
We could go on and on but it wouldn’t be Prudent. Most readers will process no more than four or five descriptives at the very most, some balking at just three. So our last pejorative is a bit less obscure, the sharp and finely pointed: “odious.” To be considered odious is to be considered offensive and even disgusting. Thankfully, few are such, but when deserved, the term is also obvious in its application.
When so many calumnies are applicable to one person, it is rare that Prudence would waste our collective minutes in order to apply them. Today however, there is a special case. Imagine, if you can, referring to an individual as follows: “____ ______ is no more than a scurrilous, mendacious knave, degenerate in his personal character and odious to those who know his practices.” Gracious! What must someone do to earn such an uniquely low status?
In Prudence view, he would have to hold a public trust and totally besmirch it by enriching himself and his family thereby and, subsequently, with unbridled mendacity toward that public, engage in treasonous behavior in the form of altering his nation’s foreign policy for still greater personal emoluments obtained from potential enemies in exchange for that action. In the processes of those thefts of trust and monies, he would also have to suborn depravity within his family in furtherance of financial greed. That person would earn all of the above outlined contempts and that person has been found. Indeed he is spoken of commonly in both high and low regard although lately, the latter has gained the greater frequency. Simply place the name, “Joe Biden” in the blanks and the fulfillment of every accusation will be achieved.
We have developed, in our vapid superficiality, a habit of judging politicians and one another on the basis of who our secular judges are, most particularly who are on the Supreme Court. What escapes most of us is that those judgments extend to ourselves.
President Trump has taken perhaps the best step in his first term in the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to our highest court. One can learn from the reactions to her new status… and likelihood that she will help decide the course of America’s future. The nation that became the United States was formed by religious people – mostly Christians and some Jews – men, and probably more importantly, women: their hands rocked the cradles.
While our comprehension of Biblical and other somewhat contemporaneous texts has certainly changed, the essential value of religious morality to the strength and success of the U. S. of A., can be denied only in ignorance. Ignorance, sadly, doesn’t inhibit that class of “deniers” to any great degree. In other words, a strong moral code, passed from generation to generation, is both crucial and comforting.
Enter Amy Coney Barrett, who has attracted vitriol – not political difference, vitriol – for what those somewhat aligned with her worldview can see no justification in the slightest. Where does it come from? How is it that half of the polity apparently distrusts or resents – if not hates – a thoroughly moral and honest person?
A large component of that vitriol comes from women. Those like Senators Diane Feinstein, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris and the legendary Masi Hirono, are unable to avoid nonsensical, disdain-laden questions or comments that leads one to deduce, it is Prudent to say, that they not only hate her politically, but are, in fact, envious of her. But, envy aimed at what, exactly?
Moral rectitude. Females who have spent decades denying their crucial roles of both civilizing – moralizing – their men, and of keeping their children on a morally straight path as they (ostensibly) learn to become adults in charge of cultural norms applied to economics, commerce, production and defense of family and community, find themselves so uncomfortable with the responsibilities of woman-hood, that a woman who has no reason for such discomfort is to be deeply resented.
Inherently there is a threat to many women that Amy Barrett, and not they, will be a best example of American woman- and mother-hood. Even her college sorority has virtually disavowed her and her extraordinary success. The “sisterhood” apparently depends not on gender, a reactionary concept, but on the purity of one’s rejection of religious-based morals.
Barrett doesn’t waver; her moral pillar requires neither comparison nor negotiation. It need not be measured against fads or trends or popular opinion. Whether one shares her complete philosophy or not, he or she ought to have the wisdom to respect it… and her. That sort of respect has not been – and is not being – inculcated through the institutions of society that are its only source: parents (mothers AND fathers), churches and, as reinforcement, schools. Barrett exemplifies and makes real, the superiority of the two-parent, responsible family model… and it is frightening.
If a society wished, freely and collectively, to restore and strengthen the one form of foundational social engineering proven successful: two-parent, economically independent families, that society would formalize through government and every reinforcing institution, every possible encouragement of that structure. The question, automatically posed by the stark and living color example of Amy Coney Barrett’s family, to those who wonder about the future of the United States, is whether we have the collective sense to shift our policies toward her model of success?
We’ll have to cleanse our education and purge public schools of socialist teachers and administrators. We’ll have to teach our children all of American history, both bad and good, and pass along the best of our founding philosophy so that our next generations recognize how to repair, adjust correct, improve the application of those ideals to inevitable problems of complex civilization.
We’ll have to change our entire approach and process of delivering public assistance such that the worst tendencies of human nature are not rewarded, and the desire – or ability – to attain to better lives is rewarded. By itself, this change to public policy holds the greatest promise for the quality of life and continuation of the American dream for ourselves and all other nations who aspire to freedom and the end of poverty.
Trump has placed the American success model at center stage. One hopes those who feel badly or resentful can examine their own philosophies, perhaps to reform them.
In Methuen, Massachusetts a young woman is trying to prepare for a very early death. It’s not her fault; she’s done nothing wrong in her nearly 27 years. Indeed, from the very first she has been a bright, delightful person, quick to learn, quick to love pretty much everybody.
Inside her genes, however, something is not the same as most people’s. She can’t fight off dysfunctional cell growth. Her first cancer arrived when she was about 6, it’s not completely certain when, but she had been complaining of “back pain” for months before her mom finally got her to a “pediatric gastroenterologist” whose connections at Tufts Floating Hospital for Children found and diagnosed neuroblastoma. There can be no worse day for a mother, unless it’s the one approaching inexorably, almost exactly 20 years afterwards.
That’s a short dash, 27 years. In between those dates were 5 big battles with cancer, excellence in school, swim team, graduation from High School, excellence in college that included trips to New Orleans to help repair Katrina-damaged homes, trips to England and Ireland, visit to Paris through the Chunnel, Graduation from Wheelock College, Masters degree through Merrimack College, friends’ weddings, even one she coordinated, a trip to Peru and Machu Picchu only to run headlong into the fifth cancer struggle, now stretching into the last. Loving teaching, early childhood and special needs, was not enough. There never will be the full-time teaching position of which she dreamed.
How does one prepare for death? I don’t know. My good friend, Tony Fusco, prepared for his when an undiagnosed tumor in his brain stem proved inoperable, impossible to biopsy and ultimately fatal. I got to sit with him the last Sunday afternoon before he re-entered the hospital to try some other treatments multiple neurologists had only the faintest idea might help. I’d brought some nice scotch thinking we might enjoy a sip together but his gag reflex was so impaired he dared to sip only water. It was a good afternoon and I expected he’d be home again.
When the only option of a feeding tube was offered, Tony realized – decided – that it was a tube too far: no further treatments, thank you. His world shrank to a room at a beautiful hospice facility that was always busy with visitors and family. He had a huge heart; it took a couple of weeks for it to go to sleep.
Clearly he’d prepared for the end. He was 71. At his funeral I told him that I knew where to hide a flask for when I’d join him on a porch where he now lived, where we could enjoy a sip and analyze the world situation. He was a year younger than me.
How does one prepare at age twenty-six and three-quarters? Without an abiding religious faith it is hard to imagine. She believes in God, but hasn’t had a lot of religious education. I try to explain, but it is uncomfortable, certainly it was a year ago when the lung cancer appeared. It represented a third kind of cancer, and her tiny body could tolerate no chemotherapy. They operated and radiated, but the treatment was still a variation of repair and destroy with the overarching hope that the cancerous cells might be killed before the patient, herself. Her breathing hasn’t been very good – or comfortable – since then. Within a couple of months lesions were found in multiple places: brain, bones, pancreas and more. Now at Dana Farber, they’ve radiated as many places as possible and she’s been taking an oral chemo pill with side effects. It tended to slow down the growth, but never stopped it and now isn’t slowing it much, either.
There’s only one door open to her… to a place where the weaknesses of her body will no longer be a problem – a place where her health will become perfect. One needs a reason to hope in order to contemplate passing through that door, alone. Observers might say that she has no choice so “…she just has to deal with it.”
What does that mean: deal with it? If one has any trust in God it should be clear that trying to pass through when angry and bitter is probably not the right approach. One school of thought is that when you pass you’ll find exactly what you believed you’d find. If that is a fade-to-black scenario, and hopeless, then that is what it will appear to be. I believe that there is an eventual judgment, an audit if you will, of how well your tests were passed – tests you knew were coming when you agreed to accept the lifetime just ending. Your “you” or your soul, may or may not have aced everything. The life just ended may or may not be the last one you need to make your ascension, but Redemption is the unfailing lesson of the Bible. It doesn’t make sense that in the matter of life and death itself, that the opportunity to redeem oneself would be absent.
For the soul, the agreement to accept a new life that includes the needed tests, is the greatest act of love expressable.
Another path of spiritual guidance says that not only are we responsible for our un-passed tests, or “karma,” but also for our reason for being, our “dharma.” Both are part of judgment. The more aware we are while on this side of that door, the more likely we are to meet and exceed the reasons for this life. Life is not a knife-edge: Hell on one side and the gift of Heaven on the other; it is a path made broad by our free will. The choices we make have meaning.
When someone passes very young, there has been little time to make bad choices, which is to say, few sins have been committed. At the same time, few opportunities have presented for passing tests. Maybe a life that ends in youth is lived sacrificially so that those around you can pass their tests. Living that life is your test: a unique expression of love.
From the limited, somewhat fuzzy understandings of a human lifetime, this is my most comforting perception of the young lady’s life: one of sacrifice. Neither I nor anyone else on this side of the door is privy to the purposes of the lives of others, and barely able to grasp the meanings of our own. Still, this observer has recorded no imperfections in our young patient’s life.
Is she comforted thereby? Does she perceive the success of her life? Or does she feel she’s been punished or singled out for “bad luck?” I try to tell her to not fall into those ideas, but to approach the door with an open heart and mind, accepting of the possibilities of immense love on the other side.
Hatred, anyone can see, is imPrudent. In some circumstances one can understand anger, as when a person of color appears to have been mistreated or, God forbid, killed by police for no good reason. Obviously his or her family has good reason to be angry in such a case. His or her friends have a “right” to be angry, too, one could allow. “Justice” is the correct call… in every instance, but lately by some process that translates into destruction of American culture and political existence. How? Prudence wonders.
It takes a long-term plan, a lot of work… like a political campaign, and money – it takes money. People are not born haters, we must be carefully taught. Part of our social troubles… or dissolution, is our tendency to paint with broad, angry brush strokes. It used to be if an Irishman were inebriated it was because “…those Irish are all drinkers.”
If an Italian pulled a fast one on you, then “… those Italians are all like the Mafia.”
Frenchmen are all great lovers and they all have mistresses. Scotsmen are cheap. Germans are all rigid and militaristic. Used-car salesmen are all liars. There are dozens of similar generalizations. These are prejudices. They seem not so bad when applied to ethnic or economic distinctions… not nearly as bad as for racial distinctions.
Yet there are people who judge whole “racial” groups based on prejudice from anecdotes and half-truths and expressed hatreds, as well as from official, legal special treatments, real and perceived, based on popularized, but largely meaningless racial victim-hood. In this sense, government is the worst offender for dividing populations by so-called, “race.”
“Blacks are too stupid to do…” whatever was in question. “You can’t depend on Chinamen.” “White people are racist white-supremacists.” Almost everyone is guilty of some form of “group-think.” That is, that individuals may be understood by virtue of their “group identity.” This is diametrically opposed to the ideals of the Constitution. In the ostensible American system, everyone is equal under the law. Therefore, laws should be written for individual application, not racially or ethnically or for any other “group” connection. Color-blindness is a virtue for a free people.
Governments, for the most crass, self-serving (politician) reasons, have proven themselves incapable of resisting group-identity codification. They attempt, and intend, to garner votes by doing favors legally, legislatively for various groups, undermining the greatest strength of our Constitutional republic. What a crappy way to damage one’s own nation.
These largely inaccurate distinctions are an easy building-block for generating hatred for groups, and, by natural distillation, for individuals within that group. Automatically, that hatred is reflected back on the originating group and its individuals. Great, great restraint and moral strength is needed to resist an easy slide into hatred and prejudice. Religious teaching helps here, particularly Judeo-Christian teachings and the Bible. It is instructive that those who would tear down the Constitution and the family-centered culture it protects, are doing their damnedest to dissolve Christianity, too. Rainbow flags weren’t enough.
Where does the money come from to pay rioters, BLM agitators and Antifa thugs… busing or flying them around the country, covering living expenses and raising funds to bail them out if arrested while looting, committing arson, assaults and an occasional murder? Is it surprising that, literally, Democrats provide it? Millions of dollars flow from Democrats and Democrat-supporting corporations like Apple, Amazon, Nike, Microsoft and others who donate multiple millions to various Black Lives Matter-connected foundations and others. Other Democrats donate and encourage others to donate money to bail criminals out of jail. Why would people on the Left do such a thing to their own country?
It is what leftists do. We are no longer contemplating the arguments of left-of-center liberals as to how we can organize America better for everyone. We are watching socialists and avowed “Marxists” of all colors who are organizing total disruption – first of cities, by rioting and grabbing “reparations” for the “community” by looting and burning, then states by confusing and changing a perfectly good voting system, and ultimately the United States, again by confusing and changing voting procedures to reduce election certainty, and by destroying faith in our system of government by distorting economics and the justice system… possibly by stealing elections.
Back to “justice.” In MOST instances, the offending police officer or officers are dealt with properly and prosecuted as he or they should be. Some are in jail. But not all are appropriately sanctioned, and anger toward a closed, obscured process is well justified. What should relatives and friends do to seek real justice? Here’s the list that lately is providing popular choices:
Protest loudly and publicly in large groups, vilifying all police.
Throw stones and bricks at police who are trying to maintain order during the protest.
Burn a police car
Burn a store or restaurant near the site of the use of excess force by the offending officer(s).
Bring in Antifa and BLM to rile up ever larger crowds.
Shoot explosive fireworks at police.
Pull down or deface a statue that honors someone few if any in the crowd know much about.
Assault, or worse, whoever is wearing an article of clothing that offends somebody in the crowd.
Force police from one of their buildings and burn it down.
None of this, obviously, generates “justice” for the victim of a perceived crime, but spreads INjustice across the lives of as many people as possible. How does this bring even a sense of justice to the family of the original victim? Maybe our erstwhile leaders could institute something like the following:
First, legislation that requires police agencies to provide a comprehensive, public report no later than 5 days from the date of the questionable incident. This report could not include any statements of judgment that could distort other legal actions or suits. The same legislation should include a strict limit of, say 20 or 30 people who are permitted to stage a protest during those 5 days; more than the right number would be apprehended and fined.
Political leaders would call for a 5-day cooling-off period and offer such help as would be accepted to the family of the “victim.” No public funds could be diverted to any advocacy groups not related directly to the family. This process, however, must be free of admissions of any guilt or responsibility by the municipality or agency before the public report is made. During the 5-day waiting period groups could apply for permits for demonstrations to follow the waiting period, that may or may not be granted in some form. Beyond that, demonstrators will be strictly contained and arrested for actions outside of the parameters of issued permits. Public safety and the civil rights and private property of others are paramount.
Being “really angry” is no excuse for rioting or stealing things or setting fires anywhere. Municipal leaders: WAKE UP!
For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, the waves crashing against the shores of America’s understanding ought to be exposing to the wise some of the great fallacies of our corrupt and feckless political power structure. First, a crucial point: government cannot “fix” racism, but it does make it worse. Government… and politicians, can’t even describe what racism is and as a consequence, they attempt to fix something else, leaving no question as to why they have failed so miserably.
Racism is not the government’s business at any level; injustice is. That is, how individuals ACT against the rights or property of another individual are the only matters that may be adjudicated, for only they may be placed in evidence at trial. How someone feels about another individual is inadmissible since it is not provable. Often it is self-declared or, at least, a matter of others’ feelings. Brought forth through testimony today, an individual’s feelings may be different tomorrow, if not within the hour. This is the problem with so-called “hate crimes” and with the laws that purport to make the underlying, adjudicable crime worse in the presence of hate, than otherwise, such as in the presence of neutrality, one supposes.
Our Constitution protects every person under its lawful jurisdiction by the principle of “equal justice under the law.” Any individual who interferes with that principle deserves appropriate sanction under the law. Any individuals of a group who interfere with it to the detriment or damage to any individual or individuals, each deserve equal sanction. Aside from some sort of executive or threatening force applied to cause an individual to abrogate the rights, freedom, or property of another individual or individuals, the individual perpetrator is responsible for the consequences for his or her actions. He or she is not absolved of that responsibility by virtue of others also being prosecutable for the same actions.
Our various governments manipulate racial groups and their designations in order to both control “groups” and to acquire their political favor. In other words, local, state and federal governments constantly distinguish among groups in terms of legislation, special benefits that result, and differential legal sanctions, both good and bad. That is, equal application of the laws is out the window if there is racially-based political advantage to be gained. The ideal of a color-blind society is most undercut by the very governments formed in its shadow. Prudence wouldn’t mind defunding that.
One of the worst consequences of the multi-city insurrection we have endured in late May and early June of 2020, is the obsequious surrenders of mayors, governors and federal politicians, to the well-coordinated mobs that have committed thousands of crimes across the country. These include murder, assault, arson, theft, insurrection, destruction of public property, incitement to riot and public mayhem. Yet public officials, sworn to uphold the law, public safety, state’s and our federal Constitutions, have decided to ignore most of it because “people are really angry.” This philosophy deserves some analysis.
Two weeks ago soft-headed, stiff-necked governors, and mayors, were threatening to fine, if not arrest, law-abiding citizens who dared – dared – to open a barbershop or 20-seat restaurant in the face of the Covid-19 scourge of the century and the requisite lock-down and social-distancing dictates. “We’re following this week’s CDC recommendations.” None of the orders were strictly legal but lots of ‘woke’ people were and are afraid to not wear a mask outside. Some mayors say they,ll fine you up to $300 for not wearing a mask! Burning out someone’s business should be fined at least $350 by that measure.
Protesters who are upset (as is everyone else) about the excessive force in the arrest of Saint George Floyd, somehow conflate every white person’s white skin with the causes of Floyd’s death. Guilt by skin color. People with white skin may say they are glad the police officers involved have been arrested and charged, but it doesn’t count: their skin’s the wrong color. People who own businesses or private property or both, are guilty of Floyd’s death, too, making the needed “justice” for George Floyd fall upon them, and burning and looting in the wake of George Floyd’s unjust death at the hands of 4 individuals in Minneapolis, can barely begin to balance the scales of racism since time immemorial. Besides, looters apparently believe, the only way white people are going to respect black people is if they are deathly afraid of them… that part of the plan is working.
They can show respect only by kneeling and apologizing for being white. Anyone who kneels for that is an idiot… they’re out there.
Lost in all of the riots – as clearly distinguished from “protests” – are the rights of individuals supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States which every elected official and police officer is sworn to uphold. These same rights protected George Floyd throughout his long criminal career and involvements with police, courts, judges, public defenders and prisons. What are police, mayors and individual, terminally guilty white kids being ”forced” to kneel for? Being white? Being elected and somehow responsible for George Floyd’s death – when they clearly aren’t?
Are they being made to kneel before the “Black Lives Matter” organization/movement? “BLM” is based itself on lies that they repeat over and over. Every wrongful death is tragic, although not always a crime, per se. In many cases they occur as a result of a series of grievous errors, not always only by the police personnel in question. But police are the ones who must operate at a higher level of professionalism. They can’t react from fear or confusion, else they must be accountable.
The “justice” that legitimate protesters seek has been remarkably swift in the Floyd case –rapid. That’s justice. First fired in one day and charged criminally about 2 days later. A couple of days after that, the other 3 police officers present were also charged in Floyd’s death. Very swift. Two autopsies had been performed before the smoke cleared from the first riots. A go-fund-me operation had raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Floyd’s family before the funeral services had been scheduled. That’s a lot of justice. Derek Chauvin, the officer whose knee caused the death of George Floyd, was served with divorce papers as he sat in jail under suicide watch. How much more “justice” can the protesters obtain?
None, that’s how much. So why keep protesting?
The actual protesters are a minority of those marching in the streets. Indeed, if one were able to interview every “protester,” the majority of them would be hard-pressed to explain what they are actually protesting. Are they protesting the death of George Floyd? Well, pretty good, so does every Prudent person. What do they hope will be the result of their protest? Better police? Cool, me too. The elimination of police? We part ways on that one because doing the ultimate stupid act isn’t Prudent at all. Is that really what protesters think they’re doing? Doubtful.
Rioters, though, are a different group, literally paid to agitate. They are where most of “Black Lives Matter” personnel are – coordinating riots. If that means looting, arson and beatings, that’s okay, in their eyes, because justice for George Floyd is not their purpose. If they cared about black people they’d be agitating to get rid of welfare or, possibly, they’d be protesting the 6,000+ deaths ANNUALLY, of blacks killed by other blacks. But they seem mainly to be concerned, upset really, about police and police departments. Regardless of color, black activists want to get rid of police. This is not a solution to problems shared by all Americans; police, law and order are a problem only for those attempting to destroy belief in our Judeo-Christian mores and America, itself.
“BLM” believes very different philosophies than you or I do, or do the vast majority of Americans. Their own statement of beliefs is in opposition to the norms of American, Judeo-Christian culture. In effect, every “victim” class they can identify, including all variants of sexual identity and “trans” sexuality, most particularly non-white, are claimed as equal-status members of the Black global movement. In this they are largely in opposition to the norms of a majority of American blacks who desire to live far more conservatively. Like most Christian or Christian-influenced people, Americans are tolerant of the need for political expression and of the redress of grievances, Prudence included of course. BLM is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, however.
BLM is purely racist. There is no pejoration in that description. Blacks, evidently can demand “black-only” this or that, whether a congressional caucus or a college graduation; whites, not so much. One of the lies that undergirds Black Lives Matter is that only whites can be racist. That is utter nonsense, of course. And racism per se, is neither evil nor negative… it is normal. Only under a regime of group identities and its hand-maiden, socialism, is “racism” a weapon. Americans are sadly in error, literally in denial of our heritage, if we accept group guilt for “racism.” Our nation and its founding is based on individual responsibility, not group responsibility. Every individual could be “racist” in the sense that he or she is uncomfortable with members of another race. It takes time and education to overcome that uncomfortability, even fear. But only a handful of individuals will act uncivilly or in a hateful manner toward members of the other “race.” That action is the only legitimate area of action for government. Bad actions may be sanctioned under the law, bad thoughts may not be.
Another aspect of what BLM “believes,” is that the “Western” nuclear family model must be undone (that is, thousands of years of Judeo-Christian family structure must be undone). BLM global wants “village” child-rearing, which is to say, some sort of government child-rearing. We’ve been drifting toward this model to our social detriment, for 60 years. As the federal government federalized welfare, removing all moral or any other judgment in the disbursal of “benefits,” black families disintegrated to such a degree that over 60% of black children are born to and raised by a single mother, which means that Headstart, Pre-K and numerous other social support programs often have more time with a child than its mother, let alone its father.
Black Lives matter is a fraud on America, since its concern is not helping black people, but rather the unseating of our nation and constitution. To communists, which they are, freedom is an affront. Any politician who accedes to BLM demands, kneels for their blessing or grovels in other ways, is presenting him or herself as the person to vote against in the next election… while elections that so many have died for, are still free.
Life is a philosophy, as is death, one could surmise. Another philosophical thread might be spun from the question of whether death and life are opposite one another. The observer of, say, a live frog and a dead one can readily note the obvious differences, most specifically that the live one is capable of independent action while the one considered dead, obviously is not… but, are the two states opposite one another? Given that death is the natural end of the limited period called life, it ought not be seen as the opposite of life.
Let’s jump up a level in our contemplations. Philosophy implies belief and wouldn’t exist without it. Truth being immutable and untethered to belief, the death of, say a frog, leaving a dead, stiff carcass, is subject to only one belief: the formerly live frog has ceased the stage we call “life” and now exists in a state we call “death.” There isn’t any room for conflicting descriptions of the change of condition or, for the rational, conflicting meanings of the change, as well. Humans, however, are immersed in a sea of philosophies and, in the presence of a large smattering of scientific knowledge, our philosophies are concentrated upon – if not entirely concerned with – life and death… of humans. We believe humans are unique for whatever reasons and philosophy enables our explaining those beliefs.
One might distill that fact into simpler terms: philosophies are based on how to create life, how to live and on how to die. Too simple? Let’s consider a few. The most widely known are religious, the fire that has forged most of our beliefs: marriage, rearing of offspring, educating them and launching them into marriage, conducting our personal lives, dealing with crime and anger and unfairness and injustice, meeting our obligations to others, and being honest and honorable and fulfilling our duties… and how to worship our creator and perhaps other gods. Every religious belief structure includes dietary and sexual laws, ways to punish and ways to exact revenge, as it were… or avoid it. Structures of belief.
There are philosophers who explain the meanings of our beliefs, of our lives, our emotions and our hatreds. They try to explain why religions are complete or incomplete, why life has meaning or it doesn’t; they rationalize failure, success, happiness and depression, loneliness, gregariousness, hygiene and filth. Philosophers have, and will again, endeavor to explain industry, work, laziness and entertainment… even complete nihilism and the need for suicide. In a way, they are all explanations or understandings (opinions) about creating, living and ending life… of humans, mainly.
Humans build things. There’s a philosophy about this need to construct more than is necessary for basic shelter and safety. Humans invent ways to grow more than enough food – then we eat it all. There are philosophers trying to explain why we eat more than we need, even if it hurts us. The same is true about alcohol, drugs, tobacco, coffee and chocolate. Why are these things so important to humans? How is it that we can abuse one another and even children? People try to think about and reason about, explain and understand these odd behaviors. What do they mean?
Much of religious thought / philosophy is about the end of life and the existence or absence of a soul living in the spiritual self of every human. The majority of humans alive today believe to some degree that there are rewards or punishments awaiting them after death. It feels Prudent to consider those possibilities. If we live a rotten life do we, should we, “get into” heaven the same as the most charitable and saintly people we know? Do non-religious people have a last minute choice to win or possibly earn a ticket to heavenly realms? How good a life must one live to be acceptable to get even a decent room in the many mansions of heaven?
Do we have to leave earth, or just life, to get to heaven? What if you aren’t good enough to take up residence in heaven? Do you remain stuck on earth somehow? Or are you wiped from creation, every record and memory, any act of love or anger toward others that you created while alive – just ‘poof’? Gone? The people who run heaven wash their hands of you? Maybe you are parked in a halfway village – or a one-third way or one-quarter way – until there is either a lull in new applications or one of the staff in heaven thinks you can be rehabilitated. These are philosophical questions because each is laden with meaning. For some.
It is possible to drift through, or fight through life without ever thinking of what your actions mean. Philosophically this seems like a sad outcome for years of living, and implies a certain sociopathy: complete disregard for others, something that has to be learned; no one is born that way. Some people, unfortunately, learn a rare but real philosophy of hatred or disregard for others, even in their families. These are they who have a high likelihood of incarceration and other interactions with government agencies. Those interactions, whether with social workers, foster care or special schools, fulfill the philosophies of others.
That is, a large fraction of society believe in government as a better source of decision-making than any family unit or parent. We can see a constant push from these types to remove children from parental influence at ever earlier ages. It reflects the philosophies of socialism which are also anti-religious. At the same time, there are smaller societies where communal child-raising has worked beautifully for centuries, only thanks to a culture supported by shared philosophies toward rights, wrongs and the stages of life. These beliefs are too rare in complex industrialized “societies” like ours. Here and there small “communes,” often religion-based, attempt to maintain cleaner and simpler cultures and child-raising is shared somewhat.
This can practically, and honestly, be done in the United States in only small, restrictive communities, because ever growing fractions of our “multicultural” nation do their best to be as different from our actual heritage and mores as possible. Parents relinquish control of their children for more than brief periods at great risk. Their teachers, counselors and coaches are increasingly likely to believe very different things about what children should believe , learn, memorize or think of the world, than what their parents believe. Those whose philosophy includes greater trust in government(s) than in individuals will tend to separate children intellectually – philosophically – from their parents. These are the ones whose guiding philosophy is that we cannot enjoy a true society until we all accept the “common good” ideals of socialism, and reject all the old ideas and ideals, including that pesky freedom we try to enjoy and pass on to our kids. Religions are an impediment for this type… unless the beliefs they espouse are destructive of the awful principles that formed the United States.
Try to find out the philosophies of your children’s teachers. If they don’t believe what you believe, why let them screw up your kids? Because the government says to?
There are a lot of money-related philosophies, too. Some of these – most of them, actually, are destructive of the lives of ordinary people: the kind that go to work and try to provide for their families and save for retirement. Most of the people who form the backbone of free-enterprise capitalism don’t have money philosophies. Money is simply a tool for negotiating life… which could be a philosophy, but isn’t worth the time. For the ultra-capitalists, worldwide bankers, central bankers, money isn’t money, it’s their lower-than-secular God. They worship the stuff.
Money is not the “root of all evil,” it is the love of money that has that effect. Those international, ultra-wealthy, celebrity and relatively hidden titans of finance, are among the most evil, amoral humans on the planet. The small-business entrepreneur who winds up wealthy is the example to emulate; the financial wizard who earns through speculation and trading and who controls multiple fortunes internationally, is not. While both may cause envy, you will have to forego your moral bases and patriotism to emulate the latter. Prudence is skeptical of entrepreneurs who become extremely wealthy because they are smart, but then decide that they are also wise. These same then try to sway governments or major institutions to follow the wealthy person’s philosophy on how life should be lived. The wisdom of history and heritage, they often deal with as impediments to the “better” or more efficient ways of life, education and freedom from which the oligarch is far removed and insulated by wealth.
There are philosophies of money and wealth that derive from the love of money. They are perceived as entitled control of others, and are divorced from the beautiful chaos of freedom.
Philosophies about human differences are key to civilization. Rarely do philosophies derived from ignorance of “others” include automatic trust or love. A philosophy of tolerance will erode natural distrust and lead to acceptance and then love and trust. One’s philosophy must include belief in a path toward acceptance – the alternative is mental barriers that devolve into hatred. Either philosophy must be taught to offspring.
Can we make laws that require belief in eventual acceptance? No, not successfully. But we can, by trusting citizens self-governed by largely shared philosophies, create a legal structure where acceptance is possible. Our Constitution is the best example of this structure. “e pluribus unum” is the clearest statement of the philosophy of acceptance: “from many, one (people or nation).” Recent failings of American constitutionalism have resulted from the intrusion of alternative philosophies into the fabric of liberty and responsibility, and from the denial of other philosophies, primarily religious.
We must remain vigilant.
Each of us will pass on, but not, Prudence’ philosophy says, like the stiff and lifeless frog. We have an obligation – one we accepted – to leave this plane of existence having lived, loved and served for the benefit of others and thus for the benefit of ourselves. A wise and Prudent soul once observed that “…you get to keep only what you give away.” Only our acts, loves, angers, hatreds go on with us to be judged. That’s a Prudent philosophy. The United States of America provides unmatched opportunities to live in ways of which we might be proud.
Every cloud has a silver lining, we tell ourselves. We believe, or hope at least, that no matter how grim conditions may be, we will emerge from them to a new level of happiness, love or accomplishment. We know – or believe – enough to sacrifice today and in this lifetime, to receive the rewards of a better life before we die… or afterwards.
So it must be with this God-forsaken imposition of leftist tyranny that politicians are blaming on “the coronavirus.” Most of us have quickly, aggressively, agreed to forego our “unalienable rights” to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Most of us have agreed to be frightened by the dire descriptions of what is happening to a fast-shifting number or percentage of COVID-19-infected fellow citizens and to denizens of foreign countries. In the span of 3 weeks or so Americans watched China (until the news was clamped down) Italy and Iran erupt with thousands of deaths from COVID-19. Suddenly in early March, politicians and medical bureaucrats who days earlier had been telling Americans that they would not be very much impacted by the new coronavirus, were grimly commanding us to stay at home, stop intermingling with others, stop working or playing, and to obey, obey, obey in order to “flatten curves” and “save lives.”
It might have. There really is no way to precisely state whether the curves “flattened” because of the lockdown. It’s possible that the course of the infection rate (which is still not fully known) would have been about the same if people were given good advice and masks and told to stay out of work if exposed or symptomatic. Unfortunately, locking down a whole city or state is something the true government types have dreamt of: stopping people from enjoying life unfairly, and enforcing the stoppage with police powers. Oh! My! Gawd! “I never realized how good this would truly feel,” hundreds of mayors and governors (may) have been overheard to say. “My Poli-Sci professor tried to tell us but who could have imagined the glow?”
There are several collateral injuries that result from any brutal attack and the requisite stern defenses governments must mount on our behalf. Businesses close down, for one, but, when you think about it, most of those were unfairly profitable, especially for the owners. Lots of people lose their jobs, for another, but, when you think about it, a lot of them are church-goers and even Christians, so the damage isn’t as bad as it could have been. If we put a stop to church-going altogether, no one will feel unfairly repressed. There are more reports of domestic violence, but that’s a problem of degree, only. Child abuse is also up, according to agencies that watch those things, but those kids were going to be abused at some point, anyway. Let’s get the federal government to send out checks to everybody and they’ll all put up with the house-arrest that is so obviously necessary.
Still, we can’t let people stew over conditions for long periods. We’ll have to add new policies and closures here and there to keep lock-down opponents off-balance. We are saving lives, after all.
There are several silver linings, though, despite the multi-trillion-dollar costs (so far) and building conflict with Red China. For one big thing, the utter inability for state governments in “progressive” states to do the right thing for even a large fraction of their populations, has been made glaringly clear. Their citizens, tenuously holding the power of voting idiots out of office, should take note: big opportunity ahead.
The purposes of those at the federal level, both elected and appointed, come in two sets: elected and deep-state. Elected officials have two goals: re-election and avoiding responsibility. Deep state denizens have only one: staying in power. Everything else is subordinate. This should help explain why change can be excruciatingly slow or, about as often, way off-target… not off any target, just off our, citizens’ target. Whatever politicians do is hitting, first, their personal targets as they become wealthy in office.
Power and re-election are drivers for state pols, too. The most common end of legislative service is retirement at age. Citizen-legislator is a mythical being from a long-ago time; today we have the inside-government “us” and the lesser, civilian “them.” In any case, once a sweeping declaration of change is made, it must be defended and justified as the very best, life-saving decision that could have been made due to forces over which the deciding politician had no control. Then, when the consequences appear to be going sideways, the same politician will defend and reinforce the underlying, out-of-control circumstances that forced the original decision.
In effect, then, regarding current political fears, it is Prudent to describe the problem as one of politicians building a box from which they cannot escape. With haphazard statistics peppering them during January, February and into March, everyone in a decision-making position – president on down – was afraid to not shut things down. “We must flatten the curve,” said the medical experts, “for if we don’t our hospitals will be overwhelmed and people will needlessly die… die…die.” OMG! The possibilities of politicians being blamed for something – being forced to take responsibility for something, anything – were growing to be a real crisis.
As each day passed and unfortunately ill-suited supply chains drew unending accusations, the future looked bleak. Hot spots seemed to be simply precursors of what was waiting around the corner for every city and state. Stormy skies for the Republic were forecast, minute by minute, to finally fall on our heads the day after tomorrow. Things were worse than we thought and getting worse than that.
Quickly, private enterprise shifted manufacturing and supply chains to fill the gaps in equipment and personal protective equipment. Hospital ships were deployed; ventilators found, refitted or newly manufactured. Less than 3 weeks later there were too many ventilators and the emergency hospitals and ships were largely unused. We’re told those successes are all due to stay-at-home orders and strictures on groups as small as, well, one.
The work of the healthcare “system” was and is remarkable as it dealt with an infectious disease not fully understood. But understanding has developed quickly, as have testings that seek current infections, and past infections, more interestingly. The folly of many policies and mandates intended to slow the infection rate, is becoming stark.
All incidents are anecdotes until they are added up. People, especially blame-shedding politicians, can adhere to the “science” of mathematics while ducking responsibility simply by adding up certain incidents and not others. Every “covid” death was not a covid death; every shutdown business was not about to cause increased infection if not shut down. School-age children were neither at risk nor a risk for others. Even public transportation turned out to not be a major source of cross-infections.
Still, shutdowns were not relaxed and even enhanced to varying degrees. Governors and mayors were just beginning to flex their dictatorial muscles when pesky statistics began to intrude into the shutdown model. Two things were never going to happen as a result: 1) Those elected executives would change their shutdown tactics to accommodate new facts; or, 2) Those same would admit they had been wrong about some of their policies.
In some states shutdown rules became ever stricter despite evidence they need never have been strict at all. Besieged governors and even judges, appear to have reacted arbitrarily and personally to citizens demanding that the shutdowns be lifted, including arrests, lifting of licenses, incarceration and harassment. Essentially none of those instances involved any provable health risk… not even suspected health risk, the ostensible basis for the “rules.” Americans should be alert to and instructed by these and hundreds of other examples: Our nation is no longer a nation of laws, but a serfdom of rules. Rather than “We the people” ratifying shared moral codes of rights and wrongs, set in law, there are now, literally, tens of thousands of rules for what we sovereign citizens are allowed to do. The solemn advisories that cause small and large “g” governors to promulgate their new rules do not come from US, but from unelected “experts” who self-declare their predictive expertise and carry impressive resume’s.
Some are, perhaps, experts in a field of study, even epidemiology, even in studies of contagions and how they spread in past, somewhat similar environments. Our newest adversary, coronavirus-19, is not the same as earlier epidemics, it was not spread around the world in the same way, it has not mutated the same way, it has different symptoms, different impacts on different demographics, different gestation periods and different sensitivities to drugs and anti-viral chemicals. But, they knew exactly what to do before all the statistics were collected and studies were underway. Presumably these “scientists” would be poised to alter their predictions upon receipt of new facts and observations. Oddly, however, in direct contravention of scientific method, they have tended to “double down” (a popular gambling term) on their first predictions, making ever more draconian recommendations DESPITE new data. It is at this point that medical science became medical politics, or ideology. Like true ideologues they had staked out their beliefs, not their science, and those positions would be defended… economies and lives be damned.
Dr. Fauci appears to be in this class of dictators. In the span of a few days he switched from reassuring the public that the new coronavirus was not a major concern for Americans, to advising that the economy be shut down, gatherings prohibited and healthy citizens be confined. Only he can tell us if any science was behind his first views of COVID-19; only he can tell us if any science is behind his current views. Anyone, however, can tell that there is no science or even judgment behind his praise of W.H.O. director, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a politician willing to cooperate with or promote some very sketchy other politicians in matters of public health – including those tied to the Chinese Communist Party. Ol’ Tedros’ communist-inspired lying can be thanked for many thousands of deaths in the U. S. and around the world.
The attack on western civilization by China, performed through the agency of the Wuhan coronavirus, has, finally, presented us with reasons to try to understand foreign policy, international trade, and, key to all, international banking. To the United States, international banking means The Federal Reserve, which is neither federal nor a reserve. It is time to remove international banking’s hands from the throats of sovereign individuals.
The existence of religion since time immemorial is also a factor in our understandings of money, wealth and individual value – things that bankers have devised the financial system to control. That’s an unpleasant concept: being controlled by strangers for their own profit; being forced through economics to cede one’s future and that of his or her family to the service of financial manipulators and to perpetual indebtedness they have placed on our shoulders. But, why religion? Aren’t we talking about money here? What has religion to do with my finances?
Religion, and most particularly Christianity, forms the basis of “western” beliefs and of our basic self-governance, as well as our economic beliefs and practices. We share most of our basic beliefs, and it is Prudent to list them, however much you tend to quibble:
Honesty. We value honesty in our dealings with one another and, if we are wise, in our “dealings” with ourselves. Our contracts are enforceable; our word is our bond.
Independence. We value our personal, “civil” rights, at least as we think we understand them. That is, we have inherent value and we agree that everyone else does, too. We believe we have the right to personal liberty that does not hurt others, and that we are “sovereign” and yield to government only as much of our rights and freedoms as we deem necessary for the safety, protection and happiness of all.
Responsibility. Despite the constant corrosion of socialism we recognize that we are responsible for our actions and their consequences. The concepts of personal responsibility have been stretched and twisted, but we still expect to pay our bills, clean up after ourselves, interact with basic civility, and keep our promises both verbal and written.
Sacrifice. All sort of activities, choices and financial decisions are rooted in the belief in doing without some comfort or desire now, for a greater reward later. For the faithful this extends to an afterlife that rewards “good” behavior and choices while on Earth; and for all of us it defines civility, and civilization and even education. The very idea of earning status, wealth or recognition is founded in recognition of sacrifice for later reward. There would be no actual charity without a level of sacrifice. Even investment for future growth and reward fits this model.
Health. Virtually every religious belief structure includes a significant portion of its accumulated writings devoted to diet and food preparation or combining. There is often an “apothecary” of useful plants and methods of animal sacrifice and religious feasting. Their attendant cultures incorporate many of these rules and so do individuals and families. We grow up believing in a certain amount of responsibility for the health of our bodies – some to the point of worshipping the body instead of the spiritual “powers” that gave the instruction way back when.
Self-defense. Most religions view the corporal body as a mere vessel for the “soul” to use on Earth for the balancing of karma, for some, or for the fulfillment of one’s “divine plan” or other forms of good works, sacrifice and charity. In most traditions, suicide is sinful and cowardly, showing an unwillingness to face the tests the supreme spiritual being, God, places before us. Therefore it is inherent that the possessor of that body defend it and keep it safe. Wasting its life is the wasting of spiritual energy that has been given – literally “gifted” – to it at conception, or at “quickening” or at birth, and renewed each morning.
Procreation and sex. How to live and how to create life properly are the most vital instructions in most religions: essential fertility. How to assure the proper upbringing and acculturation of every child, how to maintain parental responsibility until children’s age of maturity – a set date – are crucial components of how to extend belief in the God or gods issuing the instructions. All of these are spiritual events more than they are social or simply cultural. Strong societies and nurturing family or village environments are the result. Breaking or flouting these rules for life yields some of the strongest sanctions in every belief structure.
Justice. Every religious tradition that recognizes spiritual beings, God, gods or saints / ascended beings of some sort, is replete with how INjustice shall be dealt with or adjudicated, or, in so many, many words, how justice is to meted out to offenders of the laws laid down by God, gods, prophets and other spokespeople who have some form of direct communication with the supreme being. In most cases these instructions (commandments) become codified law to be applied by those granted their position to specifically do so, be they “judges” or spiritual leaders. In each of our hearts is the blueprint of what is just punishment or retribution for all sorts of infractions.
In view of our cultural / legal understandings and beliefs, it should be incumbent upon us to rise up and replace any system or group or institution that BY CHARTER steals from us daily, while it forces us to indentured servitude, which is to say, economic slavery. Our inherent power of sovereignty should also undo the fiefdoms of any who continue or promote such servitude – most of whom we think we freely elected to begin with.
Well, fellow sovereign Americans, have you not noticed how little changes no matter who is elected or which party holds the most power? Is it not a little disconcerting how people from “Wall Street” are always holding key budget power in every administration, as well as becoming Treasury Secretaries? Aren’t you troubled a small, unsettling amount, by the fact that our “national debt” (which doesn’t begin to measure our national obligations) only grows, and now is in the realm of $26 Trillion – more than all the economic activity of the whole country in a year?
Please don’t throw up your hands and say there’s nothing you can do about it. Don’t give a nickel to a politician unless he or she is willing to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. “The what?” you say. “What does the Federal Reserve have to do with all this moral stuff you listed earlier?” Aside from unknown dietary habits, the Federal Reserve has no morals, and has been stealing steadily, through good times and bad, from Americans and from the United States, since it began to operate its conspiracy in 1914. How it abuses the procreation part is outpictured in its economic handiwork.
“Conspiracy” could be a good word for their peculiar crimes: “Con” means together; “piracy” means piracy. “Piracy Together” among the 12 private reserve banks. You may think it is too complicated for your practical, day to day brain, and that is exactly why the Federal Reserve System is designed the way it is. But it is designed to commit legal THEFT, and it affects every purchase, mortgage, car loan and candy bar or quart of milk you buy. It threatens the integrity of the United States – its very independence – and each of our personal freedom and sovereignty. If recent collusions between the federal government and the “Fed” over the coronavirus bailouts haven’t exposed the rot to you, you’re not paying attention.
Please, Prudence begs you to devote a bit of time to this video:
The Federal Reserve is a diabolical, century-long fraud upon the American people… including you, your parents, your children and their grandchildren, if we do nothing. Vondir!
