Decision-making, whether of voters, politicians, very angry individuals or government types, are made from a mish-mash of facts, opinions, fables, fantasies and other lies. Within and among all of this slippery, shape-shifting pile of influences, lie words and language: the two building blocks of decisions that ought to be solid and immutable, upon the meanings of which all parties can agree. One might think that… if one thought.
Since the death/murder/manslaughter of George Floyd, a lot of decisions have been made and the consequences of decisions made long before that death, have played out. Some decisions were carefully weighed and placed on the shelf of foul opportunity for an, well… opportune time. Others have been made only in reaction to “riots,” vandalism, assaults, arsons, mobs and public mayhem – some strategic or tactical decisions to retreat, some difficult to comprehend by those who think. Utterly spontaneous mobs could not share such unity of purpose in 20 or 30 cities, as was evidenced in the first days of the 2020 insurrection. Those making use of well-calculated, pre-Floyd decisions took and retained the upper hand in city after city, forcing flabbergasted municipal officials to offer varieties of ever-escalating bribes to regain peace. What a disheartening display of governmental pant-wetting. Let’s not re-elect any of those dolts.
The organization calling itself “Black Lives Matter” was assigned the “point” position in making demands upon politicians to somehow rectify the centuries of “injustice” that black people have endured. The problem is, that if every weird change and every financial bribe is delivered (thank God we don’t negotiate with terrorists), none of the fundamentals of the next insurrection will go away. The existence of America and Americanism is an affront to communists, and until America is destroyed, their hatreds will be unfulfilled.
In other words, BLM is not primarily motivated by tearful concern or anger over the black fatality rate in North America. What does motivate these avowed – and trained – Marxists, is destruction of “white” culture and power, and destruction of the Constitutional system. Sadly, ignorant youth, products of incompetent education, march along with professional BLM agitators, demanding the piece-by-piece disassembly of the world’s greatest governing ideas. Every form of socialism is sold with untruths, starting with the premise that humans will be finer, better, happier people once the shackles of religion, merit and attainment are thrown off – discard human nature and “we” will make a better world. It’s a clever hoax if enough unhappy people can be identified via groupthink hatreds.
BLM has valid points to make about poor policing standards and practices, some of which result in the death of “unarmed” black suspects and arrestees. These are crimes when wrong actions are taken, but not always – not even close. And the frequency of such events has declined markedly since the Ferguson, Missouri riots. Unfortunately, so has other valid and valuable police work, causing a spike in crimes in inner-city areas, including murder rates: a very costly bargain. The Ferguson incident is the key example Black Lives Matter cites as proof of police malfeasance. The facts, even following a biased DOJ investigation by A. G. Eric Holder, show that Darren Wilson was justified in shooting Michael Brown as the teenager attempted to wrest the officer’s firearm from him. BLM consistently claims alternative “facts” to justify its anger, when it has other examples that are more reasonably real examples of police error. Constantly citing a false narrative makes it difficult to communicate with those not caught up in the hatred business – like most blacks and most whites and most others.
The actions of rioters that devolve into looting and arson and physical assaults on police, destruction of police equipment and other public properties, are indicative of the most foul hatreds. Nothing good comes from hatred: nothing of value is built, no advancement of the human condition is effected.
Politicians who believe they are the only people qualified to hold whichever august office they sit in, are virtually helpless in the face of hateful mobs. Immediately prior to the riot those same politicians thought that nearly everyone loved them – or should – given all the good works and heartfelt pandering each has done for every group he or she could identify. The knee-jerk or plain-jerk reaction of most elected “leaders” is to pander MORE to meet mob demands, thereby, it is hoped, to buy some sort of mob approval, turning murderous, anti-American hate into positive, America affirming cooperation.
It doesn’t seem to work, even when the big demands of the supposedly aggrieved mob leaders are met. Those demands have sunk to defunding or abolishing police forces and city leaders are actually agreeing to this! At the same time they are arranging for private security forces for their own safety. The vast majority of the citizenry that elected these fools is left out of their calculations. Normal, law-abiding, non-rioting residents of the jurisdictions of pandering politicians, are made significantly LESS SAFE in order to bow down to mob demands. A strange political calculation, that. At least the identity of office holders who should never be elected to anything ever again, is now clear.
America is confused. It seems a sudden event, this confusion, but it has been a long time coming. Rational patriots hope only that the radical leftist and fascist forces have sprung their trap at the wrong time, thinking that Americans, particularly white Americans, have finally grown so soft that we’ll all just roll over and wash the feet of black people for the sheer joy and justice of fawning over a brown-skinned person.
Once we’ve reached that level of automatic love and justice, we can readily let brown-skinned criminals out of jail regardless of their offenses, because someone’s great, great grandfather was a slave, known or unknown. Just being brown is close enough. All of our successes and failures are contained in simple formulae: more whites are better off than the average black person, therefore whites, as a group, are ALL guilty of something that has negatively impacted brown-skinned people… as a group, you understand.
Now, black people are pretty smart. Most have larger cranial volume than most whites; they are physically stronger in most cases, and, as a group derive from dozens of tribal heritages – racial types you might say – but now that they are in the United States they are all one race, one tribe, one aggrieved group, one voting bloc, one drug-dealing, white-hating, criminal-minded, low mentality group – easily led to welfare and other addictions… if you don’t look too closely. If you do look at blacks and other brown people, really look at them, you’ll find that they are as diverse as white people, Asian people, Indian people, Arabic people and so on, and on and on.
Most black people work for a living. Doesn’t seem like it, but most are competent and responsible and trustworthy. But not all. There are problems, not all of their own making… if you really look at how blacks are marginalized by governments and weak-minded whites, among others. Among those others are black racial leaders. No one has marginalized blacks more effectively than purported leaders who gain both influence and wealth by placing black individuals into a group, contravening the real American Dream.
Like any American citizen, any black is an individual, and equally treated (by law) under the law. Any black or brown citizen should have the same opportunities to “get ahead” in society and status and wealth, based on that individual’s own strengths, attitudes, education and will to succeed. The “government” cannot give an individual higher status or a higher level of attainment, although it can give him or her money in various forms. He or she knows deep down, that he or she has not earned the money/support just received. Black racial leaders, on the other hand, make a living by making blacks believe that they are owed that money or support. Whites have treated blacks so badly in the past that they have taken away blacks’ opportunities in this racist society, and simple fairness requires reparations. Thanks to us, your black leaders, here they are.
Except, they aren’t. No, no. Welfare is separate. Money transfers up until now are barely just, though vital and seriously demeaning. They don’t “count” toward reparations. Real reparations involve big, large, grandiose, unheard-of and astronomical numbers of dollars. We’re talking about multiple TRILLIONS of dollars. Welfare, free health care, Head Start and WIC, AFDC and a dozen other transfers, are mere window-dressings, drops in very, very deep buckets. Once the “reparations discussion” gets serious, the real price tag and the breadth of beneficiaries will take shape. Suffice to say that a starting point for said “discussions” could be every black person of unspecified fraction of black ancestry, is deserving of a share. We’ll get to the size of the fraction when discussions get serious.
Barack Hussein Obama, for example, was born to a white mother and a dark-skinned Kenyan about 100 years after slavery ended with the capitulation of the Confederacy. He claimed more than once that he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia, but everyone else who would benefit from denying that claim finally convinced him that he was wrong, after all, and was born in Hawaii. Maybe. Still his family had no connection to slavery, including the Arabic part of his father’s ancestry, and no connection to segregation and Jim Crow laws in the South after the Civil War. He appears to have lived a highly privileged life, in fact, even becoming President – a quite corrupt one it turns out, not in terms of money but of process, intent and belief.
Would he be “entitled” to reparations? Would his children, who are “blacker” than he is? If so, paid by whom? Taxpayers, obviously, particularly white ones. But what about the millions of brown and black taxpayers? What is their “debt” to black people? Prudence indicates that there isn’t one, so a lot of people would have to be excluded from the special reparations levy on white people.
There are millions of whites who emigrated to the United States since, say, 1870. Do they somehow share this unprecedented burden? Well, say BLM balloonists, “they” all were prejudiced against blacks, so they owe us, too. And Chinese indentured laborers – most of them weren’t willing immigrants; what do they owe? Nothing, seems Prudent.
And all of the immigrants over the past 60 or 70 years… or since World War II, let’s say, carry no burden of making black Americans richer because of slavery in previous centuries.
Then, we’ll have to exempt people related to courageous abolitionists who fought slavery their whole lives. There wouldn’t be a “Juneteenth” without them. Add in descendents of soldiers who fought in the Civil War to end the Confederacy, particularly of those who died – hundreds of thousands of them – and there are relatively few people: descendants of slave owners, who might be connected tenuously to the institution of slavery.
There are descendants of people who fought for the Confederacy, who might be prime targets of this scheme, except many of them were fighting for their states, not for slavery, per se, and many, like Robert E. Lee, who was very opposed to slavery, itself, were complex patriots, many, many of whom died. What more do they owe? If we isolate blacks who can trace their genealogy to slaves, do we then separate out those who are doing very well in America? Shouldn’t we look only at those who are still suffering from the effects of slavery? Or, from the effects of severe prejudice? How do we distinguish between racial prejudice and anti-social acts that would keep anyone from wanting to hire or help, or even be within the field of vision of the individual committing them?
Prudence knows who should be compensated: Native Americans. None of them emigrated since any time in American history. Their history and treatment is far worse than that of any other group, and they are a group that is identifiable.
Do you know who is enslaving blacks today? Mostly other blacks in the welfare-industrial complex. And they do so with the best of intentions; they hired on to federal and state welfare programs to help less fortunate black and brown people. Welfare is the second most corrosive acid ever concocted, exceeded only by other liberal-leftists, some of them, black, who make a living keeping hatreds raw. Shame on them. The continued failure of many blacks to advance economically and educationally, keeps those foul dragons powerful. Many actually fight against better educational opportunities for the very people they claim to share the suffering of. For shame.
There is a speech that a wise president ought to deliver – none has, so far:
“Ladies and gentlemen, Americans of all heritages, welcome! America does welcome you, it is our exceptional opportunity to do so. There are times in the life of every nation when its citizens must be reminded of their purpose and mission among the family of nations. None is quite like that of the United States of America. Our first Civil War was our separation from the Kingdom of England, of which we all were subjects. We paid mightily in blood and deprivation and with acts of heroism rarely seen even in war.
The United States were sorely tested on moral and Constitutional grounds in our second, ‘THE’ Civil War as we call it. By the numbers of participants on both sides, it was the bloodiest, most fatal war we’ve ever fought. At a time when medical practice was ignorant of germs, antiseptic conditions or instruments – often bone saws – or of anesthesia, patriots on both sides risked everything for their beliefs. Yes, Confederate soldiers were also patriots. Many cared not a whit for slavery, but they risked, and gave all for their state and their new country, not so many years – just ‘four score and seven’ – after the United States was itself brand new. The civil War of 1861 was a terrible purging of a nation’s soul. Work barely begun in the Constitutional Convention in 1787, was finally completed in the destruction of ‘the South.’ From the thousands of funerals on both sides sprang the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to our founding Covenant. When the Declaration of Independence declared it self-evident that all men are created equal, it did not clarify that non-whites were also men, and created equal too. Finally, that was rectified by the Fourteenth Amendment, and strengthened in terms of voting by the Fifteenth: the first voting rights ‘act.’
It took nearly 100 years more to rid our many states of ‘Jim Crow’ laws and codified segregation. But black people are amazingly strong and resolute, stoic and faithful. They are incredibly talented and beautifully expressive. For hundreds of years and in dozens of countries, whites and many other “non-black” people have tried to keep black people down, or separate. For shame. But they keep rising up!
Blacks constantly show their intelligence, creativity, skills and abilities in virtually every field of study, science, invention and strength. And as they rise up and excel in their professions, they lift up all of us. There are so many examples of excellence, duty, honor, fealty and faith among black men, why aren’t the loudest black politicians holding them up for young black men to follow? Is there no political power there? Is political power found only in marshalling hatred?
We have recently seen the harvest that hatred brings. Along with statues of Jefferson and Washington being torn down by ignorant, hate-filled rioters, a statue of John Greenleaf Whittier was vandalized, despite his outspoken abolitionism and calls for total emancipation. Yet even this was excused by one black apologist bemoaning the fact that black poets and writers of the same era did not receive enough attention. Perhaps this ignorant, stupid act of vandalism will ‘fix’ what didn’t happen in the 1800’s, but that is unlikely. What fools rioters and vandals and their apologists are.
Such acts of destruction and blind hatred must not be excused no matter how angry or hate-filled someone is. They must not be rewarded by venal politicians hoping to buy kindness from hate-filled gangs.
What fools these blind, empty-headed politicians are.
There is so much good that black and brown people are responsible for; there is so much good to build upon. Who among us truly believes that anything good will be built on utter, blind hatred?
My fellow Americans, it is time, indeed it is our duty to learn and grasp our own history, our own heritage, and the exceptional engine of freedom that our Constitution is. The mantle of American citizenship includes the defense of freedom and the inalienable rights that flow from it. If we don’t do so; if we let this fragile gift slip from our hearts, there is no one to our west who will save this, the last great hope of mankind.”
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.
Leftism, global socialism, in fact, is transforming America’s national unity and our local states, counties, cities and towns. It is insidious. Because of George Soros’ financed groups, for example, several counties are suffering under prosecutorial regimes that refuse to prosecute “small” crimes. Unfortunately, the definitions of the nature of crimes that fall in the “serious” and “minor” lists, are subjective, and proving to be dangerous by their very existence.
Every major metropolis, at least all the ones run by liberals… but I repeat myself, is turning away from public order. Several have District Attorneys who campaigned on platforms of “criminal justice reform,” which is Orwellian newspeak for leniency toward criminals. In Boston, which is mostly in Suffolk County, the new D. A., Rachel Rollins, ran with a list of “petty” crimes her administration would not spend time prosecuting. This was so that “they” could concentrate on “serious” crimes. One might suppose that every petty criminal – particularly those that enjoyed doing those crimes, or who felt a right to the proceeds of those crimes, or any of their relatives who thought it unfair that their otherwise “good” sons, daughters, nieces, nephews or grandchildren should be hassled or incarcerated when, after all, life has already been unfair to them, voted for Ms. Rollins… all in the interest of social justice. The D. A., it is fair to say, has never made a living running a convenience store, or an auto-parts store or small grocery. She has never paid the increasing insurance rates for small businesses victimized by thefts deemed non-serious; she has never paid the extra-high prices for the products those stores’ neighbors must pay to cover the no-longer-sanctioned thievery.
She represents the very odd, even twisted logic of
liberalism: people of certain skin colors and economic circumstances are not
responsible for their actions, since they are largely RE-actions to (pick all
that apply) racism, systemic racism, institutional racism, heritage of slavery,
social injustice, police brutality, departmental (police) racism, lack of
education resources, having to pay for Transit rides and poor housing. In fact there IS systemic racism and it is
the outrageously expensive welfare racism that has destroyed the family
structure of inner-city populations – mostly of color – since the “Great
Society” began. Regardless of what
people of any color may think about
brown-skinned people, even if their thoughts are racially vile – and they’re
out there – it is only the actual impact
of “racism” that truly matters. It is
safe to say that only an infinitesimal fraction of “racist” or prejudicial
thoughts have any impact on anyone besides the ignorant thinker.
Racism is as natural as breathing, otherwise, today, there would be no ghettos forming. People, however, prefer people like themselves: those who look like, sound like and “live” like themselves… even those who eat the same foods and attend the same churches. It’s as natural as breathing. What each ethno-centric group thinks about the others is mostly inconsequential. Should they think nicer thoughts? Probably, but it’s not anyone’s business what thoughts they think unless… unless they take some negative action because of them. Burning down or looting some Korean’s store because of racial hatred is racism that actually matters. Stealing from any store because you think life has been unfair to you because of “racism,” is actual racism that matters.
Consigning 4 or 5 generations of black and brown people to
welfare dependency, and now “legally” enabling them to be more effective
criminals, that is real racism that matters.
To help counter black welfare hopelessness, the same liberals promote
and finance abortion-on-demand as some sort of civil right, and, as evidently
intended, it reaches 60% or more of its pinnacle of “success” by killing off
black and brown babies. What a country.
San Francisco, formerly under the guidance of Gavin Newsome, now the winsome governor of California, has, in the span of less than a decade, converted itself from a city of beauty to one where humans are enabled, if not encouraged, to live more like animals, thanks to new “rights” afforded to those so inclined, to camp out in public spaces, take illegal drugs in public, commit certain levels of crimes to support their “oppressed” life choices, fornicate in public, and relieve themselves wherever the fancy strikes them, now amounting to 20,000 or more defecation “rights” in public places, including sidewalks, parks, playgrounds and schoolyards, each year! Uptight “conservatives,” San Francisco authorities discovered, have no right to impose lifestyle choices on others not as fortunate.
Dogs and other animals at least endeavor to cover up their
feces. Once public nudity was found to
be a “right,” was public defecation far behind?
Once public defecation was ensconced among constitutionally protected “rights,”
was defecation in a super market far behind?
That’s where the toilet paper is, after all. The astronomical property values in San
Francisco are starting to slip, and segregation from public areas is growing
for those able to afford it. Dystopia.
Liberalism appears to have partnered with global socialism
on the path toward destruction of “Western” culture and North American culture
in particular. A very effective way to
accomplish that goal is to disrupt cultural norms, one of which has ALWAYS been
that laws mean what they say, those who break those laws deserve legal
sanctioning for those criminal acts, policing, prosecution and adjudication
shall be, BY LAW, unbiased, fair and based only on the law. In other words, no individual in the chain of
justice has the power, logically, to decide the resolution of cases outside of
the lawful process – certainly not on the premise of some sort of triage due to
“limited resources.”
Who represents justice for victims? Isn’t justice the key reason for
relinquishing personal sovereignty to a government? Where does ANY law convey authority to an
individual to judge some people’s justice as more valuable than that of others?
None does, in fact, but many are deciding that justice somehow varies based on skin color. This is not to say that injustice hasn’t been
meted out by white authorities based exactly on skin color. It was shameful then, and is shameful,
now. But how is injustice for most
citizens able to correct, or balance, injustice meted out for some others in
the past… even if the past was yesterday?
It isn’t, of course, unless perceived in a certain level of hatred…
hatred spawned in racism, a terrible way to conduct public safety and other
policies.
Public safety is attacked hourly by the growing hordes of “homeless”
people accumulating in major cities, all liberal bastions of victimhood. Clearly, feeling sorry for people who, in the
vast majority, choose to be how and where they are, neither improves their
condition or living circumstances, nor their health or humanity. Victimhood requires someone to be “oppressing”
those in uncomfortable straits, and liberals/socialists, never exhaust the
reasons that misfits, criminals, drug addicts and otherwise “homeless” denizens
are not responsible for their situations.
Indeed, it seems more cruel to perpetuate – practically promulgate – living
“on the streets” rather than forcing those who do so to “shape up.”
Public vagrancy laws have, in some liberal jurisdictions, been set aside as somehow un-Constitutional. In other words, “society” has no right to require either living or sanitary standards. Drug addiction and public urination, defecation and lewd exposure are now civil rights. “Crimes of survival” are to be tolerated by the more fortunate in order to balance past – possibly current – oppression of “the homeless.” Cultural standards, norms, are now simply suggestions. By extension, then, one is left to decide which laws enforcing standards are worth obeying: very poor statecraft, to be sure, helping, steadily, to dissolve social and political unity. The natural result will be imposition of social order by a police state. The mindset of modern liberalism is creating, or has created, sets of problems that are insoluble by democratic republicanism.
A woman in Seattle was brutally raped at a car dealership by
a “homeless” man. Her screams brought
help too late to prevent the consummation of the assault. She has spoken out as loudly as she can
against policies that foment Seattle’s growing homeless/lawless
population. Liberals, at least those who
still feel sorry for poor, victimized, homeless criminals, attacked the victim for spreading a story that might reduce public
sympathies for “homeless” people!
In Los Angeles many homeless people “live” in the terminals
at LAX international airport. They cause
problems, of course, including filth, lewd and lascivious exposure to both
adults and children, stealing of small packages and purses – generally discomfiting
the traveling public. Some keep
themselves clean in the restrooms, some don’t.
Some avail themselves of indoor plumbing, some don’t. The situation is tolerated.
Liberal administrations shrug at the existence of these “intractable”
problems. Cities spend tens of millions “addressing”
the homeless problem, basically in trying to contain it. But they cannot, or will not, contain the
drugs, the diseases, the “petty” crimes or the human failure. Liberalism is incapable of creating or
imposing order and standards in urban centers.
Does this mean the problems are unsolvable? If liberals declare a condition as “normal,”
does that stop consideration of ideas for its solution?
To correct the
conditions, or causes of homelessness and addiction, requires changing the
beliefs of those who cling to that way of life.
This is not to say that most, or even very many of those living on the
streets intended to live this way or even want
to live this way, but they cling to it out of fear. It is their life and their comfort. It is where their co-sufferers live, their friends
and drug dealers, some quite petty, sharing more than selling. To be torn away from them is the most
grievous outcome imaginable. They help
one another and bond with one another. “Arresting”
them is no solution, since the penal system cannot provide what is missing. Individual cities cannot simply “place” them
in housing: their beliefs won’t have changed and their habits and life-choices
will immediately resume. For most of the
“street” people, a new belief in both themselves and in their legitimate place
in civilization, must be learned – inculcated, if you will.
OMG! Do you mean “re-education
camps? You fascist!” Yes.
The loudest screams will come from leftists, for whom the
entire country is a well-orchestrated re-education camp – but let that go for
the moment. There is no long-term, or
even short term solution to rampant,
growing homelessness, other than changing the beliefs of those who cling to
that way of survival. Pursuit of
happiness, indeed. They need a new happiness,
and not one drug-induced. A test-city/county
needs to be selected and a tightly defined state of emergency declared. The resources of a wealthy nation, and its
brain-power, must be applied to a new community where survival depends on
learning and practicing the skills of construction, farming, sewerage
treatment, fire-prevention… every single skill and craft needed to operate a
small town. Every homeless or addicted
person in the test region will be brought there.
Removed from filth and literally forced to be clean, in
every way, and drug-free, our test-community will rise from a tent-city to a
constructed one. Individuals will be
detoxed and then taught nutrition and self-care and then their old skills or
new ones will be employed – as will they – to create a model community. These people are not worthless, they are lost
or trapped. If they do not work they
will have meager sustenance. If they
work and contribute and grow, they will eat better, live better, perform
better. Much like the American legion’s “Boys’
State” and “Girls’ State” programs, they will form neighborhood groups and
eventually town or city councils. They’ll
elect leaders and establish schools for themselves and their children. They’ll learn how to build and furnish houses
in the most eco-friendly ways, and they’ll produce goods or foodstuffs to sell
to others so that their town can afford fuel, electricity and so forth. From completely subsidized they will become
completely independent, a program that will probably take 4 or 5 years. With success, every drug addict, homeless or
not, could be sentenced to “New Life Town.”
To accomplish this will require military discipline and
regimentation, and a domestic “Peace Corps” to assist relatively backward
people to learn to be civilized, to live well through self-discipline and
responsibility, rather than enforcements.
They are the wayward children of America. We know how to effect adult maturity and responsibility,
we do it all the time with our own children.
For how many more decades and ruined lives will we refuse to “raise”
these people?
It is an interesting “fad,” we might call it, to portray
every event in history from the viewpoint of the most “woke” or radical
perspectives fostered and pandered-to by today’s politicians. It doesn’t seem to be helpful in terms of
increasing knowledge or of increasing understanding
of the past. But it has, in the span
of 20 years or so, become commonplace.
Every example of this new
ignorance need not be brought before
the bar of reason for the student of history to still be able to ask, “why?”
If we accept the premise that schools are the imparters of truth, then it follows that
they should be the bastions of truth,
as well. Interesting word,
‘bastion.’ It means a projection from a
defensive wall that affords more effective firing angles against attackers, and
it also means “bulwark.” A bulwark is a
person, or a thing, that is the immovable defense of the fort or castle. In the battle of ideas, persons in the school
or education business, are obligated by their office in society – the official
role to which they are committed and for which they are well-compensated – to
be the bulwarks against UN-truth and lies.
In that regard, their best success derives from having
taught students to both find truth and to recognize it when it appears… or
disappears.
Parents consign their children to schools in order for them
to learn truths and to learn about truth.
Human beings entrusted with imparting truth to children of any age, are
sorely tested to not convey opinions or beliefs they hold that cannot be demonstrated
to be true. One might think – and
parents might hope – that a mechanism exists to remove teachers who cannot help
but taint truth with their opinions.
That the opposite mechanism
exists should give us pause. Short of
severe debauchery or criminal acts, it is nearly impossible to pry a teacher
loose from his or her tenured security.
What are they teaching?
Let’s look at a simple event that has caused news stories in
recent years; the landing of the
“pilgrims” in Massachusetts Bay, ostensibly at what we know as Plymouth, named
for Plymouth, England. To get to
Plymouth the so-called Pilgrims had to endure privations and tribulations that
we, today, in our land of too much food and electricity, cannot conceive
of. We lose our cool when another car blocks
us or cuts in front of us. Imagine
uprooting your family and leaving the place of your birth and generations of
customs and history, to sign on to a corporate adventure to the “New World,”
about which little is known. Your first
ship proves unseaworthy and you limp back to port until another can be obtained
and hired to your purposes.
You are unable to carry with you more than a small trunk’s
worth of tools and possessions. On your
little ship there are no bathrooms, no showers, salted fish and beef to eat, no
fresh vegetables, no toothpaste or toilet paper. Privacy is virtually non-existent, you know
nothing of germs or disease except that the latter is common. Childbirth is among the deadliest of burdens
for women. For years you have planned and
hoped for a better life upon reaching the distant unknown shore, and after the
final two months at sea you are deposited on the shore, far off from your
intended destination, now forced to fend for yourselves from the ground up, in
fact, building shelters, foraging for wildlife and wild fruits or berries to
try to store enough food for the imminent winter which will be much harsher
than what you have been used to, particularly since your delay in leaving
England left you in the New World in October, rather than in May or June.
Among your beliefs is deep religious faith in God, bolstered
by frequent prayer, but He isn’t cushioning any blows or revealing hidden
stores of healthy food. Many of you die
in that first winter, yet faith and incredible work see you through. Eventually relations with natives, whom you
believe to be “savages,” keep you from dying out altogether and your duties as
profitable fur trappers can commence.
Accidentally, in total ignorance, you have brought germs
that infect the native people, germs against which they have no defense. You have brought another disease, economics,
including concepts of private property, fences and stockades, and guns and
swords of steel to defend them. You
believe that God has blessed you with a new land over which you have every
right to take dominion. History records
the clash of beliefs and its outcome.
To this Prudent observer, descended from those Pilgrims and
others who followed soon after, the story of immense courage and faith,
regardless of what we may, today, think of that faith, is a bit heroic. Courage in the face of danger is one of
humankind’s abiding virtues and is worthy of honor and emulation, but what is
more frequently discussed, even abetted by public entities, is the awfulness of
the Pilgrims and all of their virtues and beliefs, since it turned out badly
for the natives. The thanks offered
prayerfully to God, for the salvation of the tiny colony, must now be
denigrated because of those germs and the new ideas the colonists held dear.
The strength of the underdog fighter who wins against all
odds, must be hated because, we have since learned, he once flipped the bird to
another driver and… it was a woman!
There will never be a good reason to train the way he did, or learn the
tactics that he used to win, not ever will there be a reason to mention his
name or take his picture. Everything
must be expunged.
And so education has purged itself of the role of
Christianity in the creation and final founding of the United States. Since many teachers and professors, now, are
so sure that belief in the Bible’s teachings is superstition, they cannot bring
themselves to learn how it is woven into the fabric of America, and certainly
not to teach about it. Is it all just
economics? That was Marx’s view; we
certainly must teach about that. So, is
the “new” narrative about where America came from the same as “truth?” It would seem Prudent to judge that it is a
half-truth at best. Does that fulfill
the essential requirement that educational institutions… and functions… be the
defenders and imparters of truth? If
not, what are they? What are they being
paid to do, if not impart truth?
Christopher Columbus was nothing if not unusually
brave. It took unusual courage to set
sail beyond the sight of land, not knowing how far it was to reach another
shore. It was a struggle for him to
obtain not one, but 3 crews to follow him on his undefined journey. When he landed he was thousands of miles from
where he thought he must be. His mission
was financed by the newly victorious, fused monarchies of Ferdinand and
Isabella, who defeated the Moors just one day before granting Columbus the
support he needed.
They needed gold, which the “indies” reportedly had, and
some other valuables Columbus’ crewmates and soldiers might come across. No one on earth had knowledge of germs,
viruses or infections. No one. The Spaniards were simple thieves who
believed non-Europeans, non-Catholic non-Europeans most particularly, were “savages.” In other words, Spaniards, like French,
British, Italian, Dutch and other explorers… Portuguese, were brought up to
believe that because of their relative enlightenment, manufactures, printing,
marriage, courts, police, and religion, they were superior to savages wherever
they found them. The Spaniards were
fulfilling the charge of their King and Queen, whose authority came from
God. There was no better work they could
do. Not so simple, perhaps.
Today Columbus is vilified, as if current hot feelings might improve Columbus’ own attitudes, causing him and all of his crewmates who had just risked their lives on their mission to the “Indies,” to renounce every belief they held and their faith, and to switch to social services for the savages they had found, perhaps teaching them how to forge iron and smelt bronze, and to build better huts and grow more crops. The next expedition could teach them to read the Bible and raise their children.
Many teachers seem consumed by the estimates of decimation
brought about by European diseases thanks to Columbus’ discovering the new
world. Rather than recognize the
essential sacrifice and bravery of mariners of Columbus’ day, along with the unintended consequences
of the intercontinental movement of peoples, educators convinced of the evil
intent of all white-skinned peoples, pummel their students with the evils
initiated by white Europeans.
Increasingly liberal teachers twist the views of their students such
that whites begin to hate themselves and question not only bad actions of the
past, but even ideas and philosophies generated by people whose skin is not
brown.
This immediately translates into hatred of America and the
ideas that created it; it also validates hatreds the racialist hate-mongers are
encouraging non-stop in black communities.
Neither trend is healthy for our nation, our future progress or our
steady destruction of disease and poverty.
It’s stupid, essentially. Shame on
us.
This same poisoned outlook has been seized upon by
socialists now to fuel their never-ending struggle to destroy individual
freedom, a goal that may only be achieved by destroying America. They must destroy Christianity, too, since
many white people believe in it.
Can the descendants of slave owners atone not only for the
sins of their ancestors but for the sins of their ancestors’ ancestors’
ancestors? No, never. The actions of the past still remain no
matter what is done, now. Can the
descendants of slaves (which are virtually all of us depending on how many
ancestries we include) receive some kind of justice for the sufferings of their ancestors? No, the suffering will have still
happened. Is that suffering the reason
some brown-skinned people are economically behind the curve today? Or educationally? No.
Up until the “Great Society,” which federalized welfare has
purchased the votes of blacks for generations, the suffering of slaves had
created a great strengthening of their descendants. “We shall overcome” had genuine meaning and
blacks were overcoming and gaining economic power faster than their white “oppressors.” But when hate became a tax-funded industry,
black progress not only slowed, but reversed.
And still they excel… in virtually every field, yet more also fail,
convinced by their hate-filled leaders that life is unfair because of (pick all
that apply) whites, Christians, police, schools, businesses, Republicans,
slavery, Columbus, NASA, Trump. What a
waste, however enrichening it is for some.
“Freedom is never more than one
generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the
bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the
same.” – Ronald Reagan.
Into his simple statement, Ronald
Reagan distilled the greatest threat and the greatest strength of America: the
ideas of it. We could forget them. We could become so enamored of the false
idols of socialism that we finally fail completely to pass along the meaning
and significance of America. The Prudent
observer already recognizes that a large fraction of U. S. citizens are far
down that path.
What makes this possible? Obviously, education is worth examining; so is immigration; so, too, is ghetto-ization. Let’s look at the last. Ghettos form somewhat naturally, primarily for ethnic reasons, which is to say, cultural reasons. They form economically, as well, but where the only shared “norm” is poverty… or substantial wealth.
Religious ghettos are well recorded and well-storied in
history. Most were either harmless or
threatening to a power-structure. Some
were left in peace, most eventually destroyed for their “other-ness,” and the
implied threat that represented.
Most ghettos engender resentment, or cohere because of
it. Shared resentment is a political
tinderbox, to which outside intrusion, however legitimate, can provide the
explosive spark. In and of itself,
ghetto-ization is deconstructive of the greater society, corrosive and
segregationist. There is no good reason
to encourage the growth or even the existence of ghettos – of any sort, at
least not in a democratic, free-enterprise republic.
In its perpetual confusion, religious sectarianism both
creates and attempts to integrate, ghettos.
Part of Judeo-Christian teaching is to “…come apart and be a separate
and chosen people.” It is not dissimilar
to many other faiths. The direction
seeks purity of body, mind and soul.
When the rest of the “world” is deemed impure and immoral, “sickly” in a
sense, quarantine appears wise, and temporarily it is. Enlightened sects both separate themselves
and purposely integrate themselves, hoping to attract some – if not all – of the
impure and immoral to adopt their ways of belief and of life.
Mere enlightenment can easily evolve into messianism,
causing religious groups to send missionaries out to dissimilar, and therefore,
“heathen” lands who are living in sin for no other reason than ignorance of the
one, true path.
But ghettos, religious, ethnic, economic, tend to inhibit
understanding – understanding which is essential to cultural/social survival
based on shared mores and standards, habits and language. Those “inside” tend to mostly talk to one
another, share distrusts of outsiders with one another, hear only opinions from
one another and, eventually, for some, reinforce one another’s hatreds for
outsiders.
Hatred is unhealthy, especially so for relatively “open”
societies, where there is freedom of movement, speech and expression… and where
there are politicians. Hatred spawns a
rotten sort of political power… a sort that is happy to ply ghetto hatreds with
pandering postulates, even to the point of social revolution. That is, every form of “establishment” power
is besmirched and derogated until the cravings of those seeking votes are but a
shade away from the hatreds of the marginalized.
It would seem unwise to spur the creations of more ghettos,
and unwise to feed the ones that exist such that they need not integrate and
come to better understandings.
In effect, the United States has permitted, encouraged and
protected the formation of new ghettos, both through civil tolerance of the
rights of homeless people to remain drugged while living animally on
appropriated public lands, and by importing enclaves of aliens whose cultures
and belief structures are not only unlike our own, but antithetical to our
own. The great “melting pot” of quickly
assimilating immigrants is a quaint notion.
Immigrants today come, in part, to show Americans how inferior our mores
are to their “superior” ones, from which they have fled to our shores. This is unhealthy.
At the same time our social welfare industry strengthens and
feeds the original, “black” ghettos, feeding their politically powerful support
to those in government who feed the welfare industry. More recent ghettos based on Central and
South American attitudes and language(s) actually compete for the support from
the welfare industry that was largely delivered to blacks 50 years ago. The United States literally fights to grow
those ghettos in contravention of our own laws.
This is doubly unhealthy since it cements a disregard for law amongst
our fastest growing minorities, many of whom reside here illegally. Very unhealthy.
Very few within the ghettos described share understandings of our Constitution or of our common law and standards. For these growing sub-cultures, there is no need to forget our heritage: they come or are born without it and there is no requirement to adopt it in order to enjoy our land and protections, legally and honestly or not.
For the rest of us, upon whom the survival of the ideas of America
rests, many of our youth are ignorant of, have forgotten or have been
instructed away from those ideas. One
generation is all it will take to lose everything.
The ability to “conduct” politics is critical to the survival of democratic republics, most specifically, to the survival of this one, into which we have been most fortunate to be born or naturalized. Prudence teaches that, as Benjamin Franklin wisely observed following the Constitutional Convention, we have “…a republic (only) if you (we) can keep it.” What is required for a citizenry to “keep” its republic?
First, obviously, is citizenship, itself… a fascinating
quality, uniquely so for the United States of America, and the most valuable
quality for the nation’s education system to impart. Before joining a political party, our citizens should all be members of the “U.S. of
A. party,” in effect. That is, we all
should share the principles of “America.”
How is that accomplished?
First and foremost, we must agree on the meanings of words
and, simultaneously, on the meaning of laws, starting with our bases of right
and wrong. Just suggesting such a
radical idea will generate heated argument, if not violence in certain venues,
today. Here in 2019, just 220 years
since the Constitution was ratified, Americans no longer agree on very basic
word definitions, starting with “nation.”
Those who now want to defend the borders of their “nation”
are called “nationalists,” a term so pejorative as to be synonymous with
Nazism. Clearly the use of the word
“nation” is close to the word “national” and the NAZIs were “National”
socialists, meaning that they were transformed from socialists into
right-wingers bent on either lynching a brown person or gassing some Jews. I mean, “Duuuhhh.” It is the same as owning slaves to be a foul
“nationalist.” It’s just like, ummm…
Republicans.
So, principled conversations have become both tedious and
more difficult. Another bad word is
“abortion” or, even more prejudicial: “infanticide,” or, “life,” itself. Abortion is the epitome of goodness and deep
caring about civil rights, in today’s lexicon, when it used to mean the
premature and usually violent ending of the miracle of life in the womb. So clearly it can neither be worried about or
discussed, since it is settled civil rights “law.” People with the temerity to question the
beauty of abortion or who might suggest that the effects of rampant,
profit-making abortion could be somehow bad for the “nation” or for our social
communities, can be attacked physically, spat upon, kicked, thrown down to the
ground and even worse. No one will make
much of a stink.
Governments have even created safe zones around abortion
mills (sorry), “clinics,” so that those preparing to accept the sacrament of
ending their child’s life, will not, themselves, be made uncomfortable. I mean, “gosh,” after all.
States are finding their voice regarding abortion, passing
various restrictions on when it is legal to kill unborn children. One is based on whether a heartbeat has
reached detectability, which is somewhere around 6 weeks after conception. Others use a “principle” called “viability,”
which is when modern technology can enable the fetus to survive outside the
womb, generally successfully, while the, now, baby completes gestation and is
able to mature with normal maternal care at home. Viability seems to be around 24 weeks after
conception, or two-thirds of a normal pregnancy “term.”
Opponents of these concerns, and these are among the most strident of advocates America has ever heard, pooh-pooh all of these calculations about life, and insist that death is somehow better and better serves everyone involved, but to do so they have to change the definition of “life, unborn, baby and offspring.” Those words are relatively meaningless if the confused or weak-minded “mother” doesn’t “want” the child, baby, offspring.
Consequently craven politicians make what they think are
legal laws based on the feelings of the weak-minded or weak-hearted proto-mothers. The ramifications are grievously
complex. In the case of a new mother who
takes her baby home from the birthing center but, for some reason, loses
control under the new stresses of motherhood and kills the new child: she has
committed a crime and will be arrested.
But, in the case of a new mother whose child survives abortion, which
happens when abortion is performed late-term by a “doctor” who hasn’t practiced
snipping the baby’s spinal cord before complete delivery, for example, she has
no responsibility to the baby who, despite his or her automatic citizenship,
may be allowed to starve to death on a table someplace near where it was
delivered and NO ONE has any criminal liability.
Prudence wonders if those tables have a special, descriptive
name, like every other piece of “medical” equipment.
At one time, doctors swore to “first, do no harm.” Indeed, they became doctors and joined an industry the mission of which used to be helping people overcome… oh, injuries, diseases, old age and other life-threatening conditions. Unfortunately, politicians are unable to allow big economic functions to carry on successfully, and this politicization of medicine is reducing the money that can be made doing all the things we thought doctors were sworn to do. The big money is in abortion, now. Politicians are urging each other to send more money into the abortion industry, and then fight off every attempt to limit abortions, while placing restrictions on top of restrictions for the life-saving arena of doctor-activities.
Doctors, of course, worked their fingers to the bone, so to
speak, to become doctors, and figure that the rewards should be commensurate –
they’re not stupid, obviously.
Consequently, many are learning and practicing how to help the
almost-born overcome LIFE. Life is now a
disease that doctors can cure. What did
you think you knew?
Fascism and Fascist are two words we can’t seem to agree upon
the meanings of. Those who are acting
exactly like, umm… well, fascists, seem to believe that they are courageously
fighting fascism. This disconnect
interferes with useful discussion and, unfortunately, interferes with sworn “peace
officers” actually defending public order when faced with “Antifa” chaos, lest
they “enflame” the situations. When
government policy is senseless, the sensible are left speechless.
Some Americans – and other residents – are unable to accept
the meaning of “immigrant.” While it is
true that native-Americans (which is a meaningless term, itself; indigenous
peoples got here before Europeans did, but there was no “America” then, making
the term, “aborigines” the only accurate one) were able to roam around as far
as their war-making prowess enabled, they had no concept of “immigration,”
today a distinct and legal condition.
They understood “invaders” though, by whatever words they described
unwelcome “others” who threatened their lands and way of life. They understood ethics better than many “others”
do even now, and the concept of “theft.”
“Others” stole their lands and lives and very ways of life, often by creating treaties that aborigines agreed to, but which were quickly abrogated by their “other” treaty-creators. Those sensitive to honesty, today, are painfully aware of the lies told against aboriginal peoples. Lying is the distillation of not agreeing on word meanings, and it can threaten everything a people holds dear. Back to “immigrant.”
We no longer live in a society where people can just slide
onto one another’s land or appropriate their means of living. The concept of private property is the basis
of economics and social order, itself.
The need to strive to obtain the means to survive, protect and shelter
oneself and one’s family, also provides the opportunity to be charitable toward
others – often to sacrifice for others.
In order to “emigrate” to another country, a person must accommodate the
legal strictures of his or her intended new home country and, in some cases,
the strictures of his or her present country.
It is part and parcel of adopting a new “citizenship” which carries with
it significant legal sanctions and benefits.
It is not a simple condition of location.
So, an “immigrant” must have a status defined in law, else
he or she is simply a law-breaker… which is to say, a criminal. The legal adjudication of that criminal’s
status is a matter for the illegally adopted country to perform. Otherwise, that person is not an “immigrant”
at all, but a thief.
These are but a few examples of words the definition of
which – specifically the disagreement over those definitions – threatens the
existence of the United States and some other nations, as well. Words have meaning, tied to the meaning of “truth.”
One other example is the word, “racism.” Racism is a social concept that is based on
an undefinable term, thus yielding a meaninglessness that enables the epithet, “racism”
to be used with little connection to any of the circumstances that inspire its
use. Racism, epithetically, infers some
group membership, of those so accused. That
is, the accused must be prejudiced against another group, presumably based on
surface, observable traits.
Usually this refers to “white” people who are accused of a variety of wrong feelings, or thoughts, toward, usually, brown-skinned people. Now, brown skin covers a broad swath of human beings who cannot by any measure be considered racially singular. Anthropologists have tried dozens of ways to “define” races and every classification system immediately is challenged by freshly observed biological distinctions that must be shoe-horned into the supposed standard classifications. In short, there certainly are biological “races” but it is nearly impossible to identify them, so “racism” is reduced to mere political advantage, today.
This is not to say that terrible actions haven’t been taken against people – of all shades of skin color – by countries, states, counties, towns, mobs and, in truth, individuals. But, except for individuals , official, legalistic discrimination and worse bad actions have ceased in the United States. Why has “racialism” increased? Why have the accusations of “racist” and “racism” become more commonplace? Politics – not logic, not biology, not science, not group connection – politics, through which racialist grouping by the most superficial of distinctions, can produce a sort of “groupthink” that yields “group-voting.” For shame.
Our Constitution embodies the greatest spirit of individualism ever made nationally
foundational in human history. Individuals are required to be responsible to
themselves and to others, a radical idea.
It marked the intentional, codified rejection of serfdom… the rejection
of monarchy… the rejection of tyrannical control of others, altogether. In other words, individuals are sovereign
under the Constitution. As a result, the
government was formed by communities of individuals, each of whom relinquished limited amounts of that sovereignty so
that all may benefit. The government was
formed to serve its sovereign citizens, and
not the other way around.
Now, we see our democratic, individual political powers being defined by false connection to
arbitrarily defined groups. Nothing more
threatens our national cohesion and our nationally protected individual liberties. Group membership yields group responsibility,
the fundamental destruction of individuality and individual
responsibility. It is antithetical to
our Constitution. Billions call it socialism.
“Doctors” learn this procedure from one another to become “good” at it.
The battle over a “border wall” on the southern, Mexican border is a symptom of larger and more significant hatreds motivating a large minority of American residents. One hopes, and prays, that those same will step back and reconsider their desire to feed such ugly motivations. Led by Democrat leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer, Barack Obama and now, Andrew Cuomo, and many others, these new political haters appear to share several common traits:
They hate the Constitution as it was designed
and written. The intent of the founders
cannot be accepted, in their views, because some of them owned slaves, a
grievous custom, without question, but totally irrelevant to the ideas and
philosophies they espoused. In fact, the
designers and compilers of the American ideas were ALL opposed to slavery and
did their best to help it phase out of American life. Read Frederick Douglass; he understood.
They are deeply ignorant of American and of
European history, and of the Bible, itself.
The underpinnings of American
culture are ignored by them, even reviled.
The institutions of government are trusted by
them more than any individual’s motivation, and the seeming ability to
legislate or regulate – doesn’t much matter – people to act as their fellow
thinkers wish, is so tantalizing as to distort the presence or even the
perception of liberty.
They view America’s existence as an affront to
all non-white, non-European people, and therefore not deserving of defense,
even of its borders, and that the history of America should be erased from
people’s minds and certainly from educational systems so that America’s
evilness and corruption can never again interfere with universal sharing of all
wealth or with individual freedoms to play, fornicate and indulge as Gaia
intended, under the careful watch of the Smarter Ones. They’ll identify themselves.
So, politics is not the actions of a free people to choose
their leaders and governing philosophies; it is the benign control of wages,
prices and production so that everyone is EQUAL, with brownish people being more
equal than white people. Skills-based education
will no longer be required for most students, so long as there are enough very
smart people who should be compensated for making everyone else comfortable.
The quaint chaos of individuality and “freedom” can be
avoided.
The majesty of American citizenship is unique in the
world. There is no system like
ours. Anyone… anyone, anyone who can
honestly swear to uphold the Constitution, obey civic law, pay his or her bills
and act responsibly, can become an American – an actual, living, breathing,
American. One wishes those born here were held to the same
standards, but still, it’s impossible to sign up for a French residency and
ever, ever become, well, French. The
same is true for Japan, China, Japan, Korea, or India or virtually any ethnically defined country.
You might get to live in other countries legally, but you’ll never
become one of them. America, including Canada, is different. America is defined by the ideas that formed
her, and by geography. That’s it. No matter how hard racists of every shade
attempt to say America is defined by white skin, it has never been so.
This is not to say there haven’t been some terrible ideas
held by “Whites.” There are terrible
ideas held by every race. The tendencies
to gain power or wealth or women by whatever means can be devised, legality and
justice be damned, is pretty much universal.
The religious / ethical belief structures that lead us to contain those
desires, to channel them for greater goods, to construct families that produce
good adults from the children they are responsible for… those we are tearing
down by every means possible, even through new laws that give status to the
most twisted perversions and hatreds.
Hatred of America is readily evidenced by laws – LAWS – that permit partial-birth “abortion” and even infanticide for the most temporal purposes, even convenience. Since Roe v. Wade was given Supreme Court justification, we have killed-off 61 million Americans while importing 30 million non-Americans to “pay for our Social Security.” The trouble with Americans is they might become infected with individuality, Constitutionalism, responsibility and freedom! So, we destroy those who might make America stronger and import, illegally, those more likely to be dependent upon the whims and pleasures of the Smarter Ones, made widely known by their widely parroted self-declarations.
Trump, for all his flaws and imperfections, is trying,
almost alone, to restore the mighty engines of freedom. If we are waiting for perfect, flawless leaders to
arrive before we follow them away from rot and debauchery, we’ll wait forever
while the last great hope of mankind is pissed away.
The “elections” of 2018, slowly completing as Thanksgiving approaches, are a foggy mirror held up to a nation and an electorate that cannot see clearly what America is, nor what America’s future should be. Here and there a partisan inadvertently rubs a spot clear and the real purposes of his or her struggle are revealed.
One such is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Although somewhat loose with veracity, she is probably no more dishonest than the majority of congress-people, or politicians of any sort. Probably – at least according to accepted norms of mendacity and political advancement, today. On the other hand, as her proudly cleared spot on the foggy glass reveals, she is deeply socialist, possessed of a twisted Elizabeth-Warren-like view of free enterprise and private property… not to mention of the role of a Constitutional Republican government. So, aside from the inherent untruths of socialism, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is every bit as honest as the majority of congress-people or politicians of any sort.
Mrs. Warren, on the other hand, is more dishonest than the average political miscreant. She believes some of the same nonsense as more pure socialists do, but she hasn’t the rough courage of Ocasio-Cortez, for example, to oppose those who don’t and who do great damage to our nation by playing footsie with rotted monopolists for whom free-enterprise is merely a slogan. Ocasio-Cortez has a loosely-grasped mission greater than her self-aggrandizement, a prospect that’s foreign to Elizabeth Warren.
Then there’s Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, a serial philanderer who purports to represent the interests of his state. Unlike simpler thieves who simply sell their votes for personal enrichment but who may be trusted in most human relationships, like in their families, Menendez besmirches every human quality. One suspects that Ocasio-Cortez has no use for people like Menendez, and, possibly, little use for Warren, either. Warren, on the other hand, hasn’t and won’t criticize Menendez because he may be helpful, someday – to Warren, not to America.
Maxine Waters is a special case, not just because she is African American, which makes telling the truth about her… “racist,” but because her abuse of the concept of hypocrisy is so blatant as to be egregious. Her voting base, almost 50% Hispanic and 25% African-American, doesn’t seem to mind her multi-millionaire status and inability to find a nice enough residence within her District. She “fights” for them and plays “California Hold-em” with all race cards.
Waters’ second husband, former NFL player, Sid Williams, had $350,000 worth of stock in a supposedly minority-sensitive bank called OneUnited. With a history of sketchy deals under the leadership of an equally sketchy president with a blemished record, let’s say, OneUnited was going to fail, destroying what was left of Sid Williams’ stock value, already cut in half when the 2008 banking crisis blind-sided the Bush administration. Waters, through Treasury secretary Henry Paulson, arranged a meeting with top Treasury officials that she later claimed was to support all minority community banks. OneUnited Bank, however, was the only bank at the meeting. Ultimately, OneUnited received $12 Million in TARP funds, which is to say, the taxpayers bailed out OneUnited and Sid Williams. Waters’ grandson, her “chief of staff” at the time, was reprimanded for engineering the meeting specifically for OneUnited’s benefit. Waters knew nothing about that.
Once described as the most corrupt congress-person, Waters is now a darling of the left for her constant condemnation of President Trump. Unlike Republicans, who quickly encourage exposed unethical or corrupt office-holders to resign, Democrats rally around the worst of their lot and fight to keep them in office.
An argument could be made about the candidacy of Judge Roy Moore of Alabama, but as more and more was revealed or, at least charged, Republicans withdrew support. The more that is known about Bob Menendez, Bill or Hillary Clinton, the harder the left fights to defend them. Just saying.
All in all, the Democrats gained 38 seats in the House, apparently restoring 78-year old Nancy Pelosi to the Speakership. She’ll be 3rd in line to become president if something incapacitates both Trump and Pence. Barely able to string together 2 sentences in a row, the Grand Nancy raised large amounts of cash for house candidates across the country. She and her flock of new majoritarians will run the House and its committees from a solid base of hatred: hatred for Trump, hatred for the exposure of the deep State, hatred for any reduction in regulations, hatred for conservatives, conservative judges and for the reality of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s terminal frailty. Of course, if they can hobble or impeach the president sufficiently, they may sidestep the consequences of that last concern – medical science has produced so many miracles.
For this crew of hate-filled heroes there has never been a more hopeful era in factional governance than the current one of virtually permanent, extra-Constitutional and free-wheeling “special counsel (prosecutor)-ism.” According to one of the foulest White House denizens in Prudence’ lifetime, Rahm Emmanuel, politicians should “…never let a good crisis go to waste.” If the reader will take note, nowadays EVERYTHING is a crisis. It’s why we are teetering on national bankruptcy, beholden to a cabal of international banks.
The greatest crisis of all is the lack of a socialist majority, but that is being addressed by importing large fractions of Central America, creating what is arguably an actual crisis, but, as you take note, it is the one crisis that is not a crisis at all – for us, anyway – except that it is a “humanitarian crisis” that only the rainbow-flagged warriors of the United States can “solve.” It’s how they’ll vote, you see.
Underlying everything on the left is hatred for White America, Whites in general, White Donald Trump, White explorers from Europe 500 years ago, White business owners, White baseball players and White Tom Brady. White ideas of a meritocracy, derived clearly from the Old and New Testaments and Judeo-Christian philosophy, is also hated. In obeisance to “Social Justice” socialism, there must be sufficient numbers of non-whites running, essentially, everything or else whatever enterprise it may be is cast as part of “White Oppression.”
The Bible was written, fundamentally, by non-Whites, with its strongest traditions maintained in Africa. None of that matters, of course, because Santa Claus is portrayed as, OMG, WHITE.
To be honest about history, which is to say, be honest about everything, whites are no more guilty of injustice than any other “race” of people. Part of Whites’ problem is that much more of “their” history is documented and, since the fulfillment of Christianity, White’s have celebrated all the ways they might be sinners. Then they invented printing and spread their history across the “white” civilized world. Along the way White’s invented democracy, banking, economics and various kinds of engines that multiplied production of food and other things.
Slowly, imperfectly, “White” civilization developed the philosophies, sanctions and shaming that molded a more honest social structure. Written laws that bound both governors and governed, concepts of personal responsibility and of the freedoms to be so were finally distilled into the Constitution of the United States, the essence of the lessons of the New Testament. “As ye sow so shall ye reap.”
Immediately, the threat to tyranny that was born in the Constitution garnered enemies… enemies roughly aligned with and derived from the original sin of dialectic rationalization, so neatly allegorized in the story of the serpent.
God, having provided everything “Adam and Eve” needed for life and comfort, had admonished them to not eat of the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” that for some reason He had planted in the midst of the Garden of Eden. That knowledge was the province only of God and His warning was that should they eat of it they would surely die.
The serpent, however, for some never-stated value to himself, told Eve that “Ye shall not surely die.” Thesis (word of God): “Lest thou die.” Antithesis (anti-word of God): “… not surely die.” Thesis – Antithesis – the tool of Hegelian dialectic materialism. Adam and Eve were not killed on the spot, they were banished from the “Garden:” God’s benevolence and Eternal Life. Thereafter they would toil mightily for the needs of life, suffer in childbirth, and be forced to choose between good and evil… a new “Thesis.” Soon there were tests of that thesis, choices to be made for short-term, Earthly gains, in exchange for allowing some “antithesis” to gain a foothold in defining evil as not all that evil. Then that thesis would be immediately challenged with a new antithesis, and on it goes. Abortion is not murder; murder is not always bad; marriage is neither sacred nor limited to a man and a woman; individuals are not responsible for the consequences of their decisions.
Now, it’s “racism.” And whiteness. Hatred, normally frowned upon as somehow sinful, is now a good thing in defense of non-whiteness and in opposition to individuality… in opposition to the Constitution; Socialism: the original anti-thesis and still champion. To the best of mankind’s ability, the American Constitution is the Thesis. Our new Congress, both houses, and the deep state in all of its permutations and polluted judgeships, comprise the anti-Thesis.
It is comforting to think that good and evil may be located under party banners; in fact they can, all of them, both of them. There are neither purity nor perfection. Sometimes evil appears to concentrate in one faction, identified with concentrations of socialism. Here we are.
The defense of freedom is unending; the requirement to dis-empower the anti-Thesis is paramount to that mission.
