Tag Archives: fascist

Culture, Politics 2021, Race

RACISM FOR LUNCH

2 Comments

There’s no such thing as a free lunch: sounds Prudent – someone, somewhere, is paying for it.  There’s no free racism, either, since someone is or soon will be, paying for it.  Nation-wise, it’s damned expensive.

The ‘racism!’ accusation is pretty expensive, too, yet it’s tossed around like racism grows on trees.  Wait, wait, wait… that advice comes from the old “… it’s not like money grows on trees, you know.”  Usually it’s thrown up to someone who needs a lesson in economics.  And, it’s good advice, too.  Money has to be related to a value exchange; all it can be is a way to measure value, denoted in the fungible currency of the day.

Prudence advises us that racism doesn’t grow on trees, either, but it’s tossed around as if it does.  Nothing backs it in terms of value except in the rarest of instances.  Sadly, ‘Racism!” has become the currency of the day.  It’s a little like the relative who opens every gift with the question, “How much did this cost?  Do you have the receipt?”  She (don’t ask, it’s always a she) also gives gifts with the price tag still attached or packed inside.  The only way that person can judge or appreciate value is in terms of currency.

More and more, people – more and more people – cannot judge any other person without determining what level of racism, or anti-racism, adheres to that person.  The value of the epithet is now so low that one might think that racism grows on trees.  The trouble with racism, though, is that it’s a form of hatred: the more you give the more you get.

People who consider themselves “liberal” have suddenly become fully invested in racism currency, not because there is a tangible “R.O.I.,” but because the return is a thick coating of purity… of innocence.  Those same declared “anti-racists” are, evidently, easily educated as to the widespread nature of racism among people who are not as anti-racist as themselves.  In a mild form of “snitching” on racists around them, the anti-racists have begun to advertise their declared “anti-racism.”  One can see the “Black Lives Matter” placards and the “Hate Has No Home Here” signs that imply that the homes without those advertised attitudes must be housing latent or actual racists.

The declared / advertised anti-racist, anti-homophobic, anti-transphobic, anti-Islamophobic attitudes are, in fact, an attempt at the fabled “free lunch.”  Primarily posted by white liberals, they contain an unspoken hope that when riots reach their street, their house will be safe… or their business, or their cars.  Little do they realize that the racism they claim to be opposed to with all their hearts, is already being directed straight at them: their skin is the wrong color.

“But, but… I’ve got a ‘BLM’ placard in my window!  We’re of the same heart and mind as you.  We hate whites, too!”  What?  Don’t they know there’s no such thing as a free lunch?  Next thing you know, white liberals are voting for any politician with brown skin, donating money to “BLM” and other black/brown-centered charities, and holding signs protesting “systemic” racism that they knew was lurking out there, even on their own streets: look at all the houses that don’t proclaim anti-racism.  Racism became a mirror.

Politically, and that is ALL that is truly on the table, here, “racism” means power.  That is the currency that eventually exacts a very high price for the proverbial “free lunch.”  There is no such thing as a non-racist society anywhere in the world.  Actual racists, who have manipulated soft Americans into believing racism is rampant here, are holding out a gaseous premise that racism can be “fixed” or “eliminated” by a universal hatred of whites.  In their view – we’re talking “Black Lives Matter,” here – any rules or standards that whites attempt to live by, are so racist that black and brown people don’t have to abide by them.

Maybe that last paragraph got by you without a lot of reflection or thought.  “BLM,” a communist-inspired, anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish and anti-family terrorist organization, is saying that any part of current social-cultural structure that is comfortable for white people, is so racist and foul, that it cannot be reformed and must be torn down – burned down if convenient – and replaced with the global communist dream, dominated by black and brown people.  Prudence isn’t making this up – they’ve said virtually these words.  There’s no free lunch, or anti-racism, in any currency.

All the placards and rainbow flags a house or yard has room for will not insulate any avowed “anti-racist” from that change.  Moreover, since they are white, the spoils of “BLM’s” victory, should we stupidly permit it to come to that, will not be shared equally with anyone who is the wrong color. 

Racism is normal.  It’s not equitable, per se; “equity” is unrelated to racism.  The only value a Constitutional republic can offer is equality: equality of opportunity.  No one, as in not any person or official of any sort – no teacher, no coach, no drill instructor… not even any parent or pair of parents, can cause even two people to produce or earn or perform EQUALLY.  No one.  Equity implies that the results of equal opportunity are unequal because of racism, and not just crappy racism embodied in hatred of someone of one race by someone of another – bad enough – but, no, the results are unequal because of systemic racism, a blight that not only cannot be defined, but cannot be reformed. 

Some truly innovative fantasies – lies, we call them – must be sold to a lot of people in order to even begin to approach the nirvana of a world without racism.  Fantastic because such a world is impossible, has never existed and at the cost of millions of lives, has only been set aside temporarily except… except where people are free to worship as they wish and to perfect themselves as their individual happiness leads them.  Only one place on earth has ever formed a government intended to create and maintain such a place of freedom and of equality… of opportunity.

The problem is, we haven’t fulfilled our own founding, at least, not completely.  We were well on our way in the fities and sixties, but the rotten hand of leftism-socialism, often a problem for freedom in our middle century, but a threat to it only since LBJ, has almost completely shredded the fabric of freedom and responsibility, attainment and merit and even of morality.  Certainly it has shredded Judeo-Christianity.  Now it has weakened our ability to resist so carefully that the United States can barely afford to defend itself should it come to that.  For shame, Nancy, Chuck, Barack and the rest of you, demons.

Has anything they espouse resolved racism?  Not in the slightest, for they are employing hated-filled racism to fight unthinking racism.  Not that racism can be eliminated.  Martin Luther King, Jr. once said in a speech to the Massachusetts Great and General Court, that “…no law can make a man love me, but it can keep him from killing me.”  He summed it up nicely.  Government can enforce only civility, and it may adjudicate only injustice – it cannot “create” justice or enforce “fairness.”  Nor are those its duties.  However, an assault on one’s person, interference with his or her civil rights (including rights enumerated in the Constitution), theft or destruction of his or her property, various frauds, libels and so forth, provide a more than adequate basis for enforcing and protecting civil order.  No American citizen, for any reason, should be made to bow down or kneel before anyone else, or be forced by threats of violence or loss, to swear to any idea he or she does not believe.  How can people elected to lead in the United States, twist their beliefs to the extent that they can approve of or encourage the blatant subjugation of one race by another?

With hate now a political tool, principles and beliefs can be discarded, apparently.  Ask our 46th “president.”  Every principle he has espoused throughout his “campaign” and since winning the certifications by enough states to claim the presidency, is new.  Over the nearly 4 decades he became wealthy in the House and Senate, Joe Biden stated, repeatedly, completely opposite principles to those he now governs by.  It seems Prudent to wonder what sort of a man can completely change his beliefs after age, 60, say, or even after 50 years of age?  An unusual one, to say the least, if not a scurrilous bastard.

Joe Biden embodies the high cost of anti-racism as government policy.  Since it is impossible to achieve an anti-racist society, increasing levels of government are needed to pursue it and impose it.  That is to say, fascist socialism, which has nowhere to go but to communism.  Scratch an anti-racist agitator and the next layer reveals a fascist.

There is no free lunch.

Culture, Economics, Education, Politics 2020, Race, Representation, Responsibility, Terrorism

Brown Injustice

Leave a comment

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.”

Culture, Economics, Education, Family, Governance, Race

NEW LIFE TOWN

Leave a comment
Side WALKS no longer: semi-permanent housing.

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?

Culture, Education, Immigration, Race, Responsibility

SURVIVAL

Leave a comment
Define: Individual…

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.

Culture, Governance, Politics 2017, Responsibility, Trump

The New Tyranny

1 Comment

Everyone decided to chide President Trump for privately describing New Hampshire as a “drug-infested den.” Oh, the horror! Why, there are genuinely nice people living in New Hampshire; how could he say such a derogatory thing about them?

Well, he didn’t, of course, and the release of the content of that conversation was a crime, but who cares if discomfiting Trump is the possible result. Let’s use our brains, now, and realize that the point Trump made was that even in New Hampshire, for more than 200 years the veritable definition of good, clean living, based on religious morals and flinty work ethic, the corruption of drugs had penetrated every town and city, and was destroying the heritage of “New-Hampshire-ness” with little to stop it.

It is no wonder that closing the southern border is taken so seriously by Trump and many others. The worst flow of drugs into our nation – and into New Hampshire – begins in Mexico and points further south. Making it harder to get drugs into the country is a good thing. I’m pretty sure of that, but why?

First, let’s stipulate that human beings are remarkable products of evolution and more. The “more” is best described as a foundation of religiously sourced and codified morals. Whether you choose to accept any religious “truths” or are an affirmed atheist, it is clear that the hundreds of religious histories and traditions on Earth have brought us to a fairly honest and moral civilization, capable of correcting and perfecting itself. One of our greatest mores is that we call “freedom.”

We may think freedom is inherent, but it really is intensely fragile, is it not? Historically, since the organization of city-states, freedom has been merely forms of servitude, some quite oppressive. In fact, the age of kingdoms, kings and subjects, or warlords and serf-protectees, was marked by various forms of tyranny. Granted, some was less benign than others, and the basis of great folk-tales. Robin of Locksley and his Merry Men describes the battle for freedom from oppressive taxation and government incompetence – I didn’t invent that irony.

Anyway, back to drugs. None of our heroes in the perpetual fight for freedom, is also described as drug-addled. Indeed, much effort today is described as helping addicts to achieve freedom FROM drugs. So, it seems logical, a free people, ever jealous of their freedom from tyranny, must, by definition, be drug-free as well. Keeping drugs out of America is the logical path to follow IF, and only IF, a leader of Americans is attempting to keep them free. Now we need to look at the headlong rush by various governments within America to actually PROFIT from the cultivation and sale of drugs to their free citizens.

A large element of states’ argument FOR drug legalization, is that it costs too much to enforce laws against marijuana and, besides, isn’t the use of drugs an exercise of the very freedoms governments are supposed to protect? Well, no, not at all, but we seem to have talked ourselves into this twist of “freedom.”

Free people are also responsible for the defense of freedom. This is called citizenship. That is, as we grant powers to an organizing and defensive government, limited by a Constitution that we the people approved of, we also assume an obligation to ourselves, our children and all of future history, to defend those freedoms that government was constituted to PROTECT. That is, by all logic, we are FREE to be FREE, but not free to enslave ourselves, as we do in the grip of drugs.

Oh, come on, you say, pot is no worse than alcohol! Well, perhaps not, that’s arguable, what with alcohol being metabolize-able and being only ingestible and not smoke-able. Too-heavy ingestion of alcohol will kill liver and other cells and disrupt neural communications for some time, until naturally removed from the body. The same could be said about marijuana, except that the danger is directly to the lungs, about 20 times that of tobacco cigarettes. The body does expel a lot of the elements of marijuana smoke, but does a poor job of removing THC, tetra-hydra-cannabinol. THC has the friendly quality of being easily absorbed into fat cells.

Fat cells are found all over the body but one of the greatest concentrations is the brain. This is good because fat cells are hardy and relatively long-lived, but it’s also a liability when exposed to certain toxins like… well, THC. THC tends to store in fat cells – not only brain cells – which is why it’s a risk for lactating mothers to smoke pot, but it is a “freedom,” right? Back to brain cells.

THC stores in brain cells and surreptitiously clogs up the intricate, microscopically tiny connections that enable complex thoughts and memory. “Maybe for real pot-heads, but not me,” you say, “I hold down a job and have no problems smoking pot for relaxation on weekends and once in a while other times. No problem at all… did I say that already?”

From the standpoint of defending freedom, however, the softening and dulling of voters’ intellects is perfect ground for planting illogical political distinctions, thereby guiding voting patterns in the direction most beneficial for those in power. Faced with a population clamoring for “freedom” from pot-related criminal records, all the Sheriff of Nottingham had to do was come out in favor of legalizing pot and his hold on POWER would have been unshakable. Populist “Robin Hoods” could dash themselves against that rock to no avail. Look around us – it’s what we have, now.

Even better than political strength, our state budgets are overspent and there are “revenue short-falls.” Actually, there are “spending long-rises,” but the important thing is that potheads will buy the stuff and pay the taxes so that we, your most-benevolent governors can take care of the children. You wouldn’t deny us that heartfelt mission, would you? You right-wing fascist bastard? After all, taxes on tobacco have declined dangerously and we have so many vital needs that only government can take care of – you see that don’t you?

And we bought into this. We accepted, first, that medical marijuana was medical. That’s a good one. You could get it at CVS if that were true, but, if they’ll buy that they’ll buy anything. They’ll even accept that the pay of legislators is somehow related to the incomes of corporate giants. Let’s test that by voting ourselves 60% raises and see what happens…

This in no way belies the fact that there are medical values to some marijuana components. There are medical values to lots of plants and thank God we have discovered those we have. It doesn’t mean that addling our intellects is a goal of a free people, does it? And so we argue about how high the taxes should be now that legalization has been voted-for, with the murder by a pot-stupefied driver with a medical marijuana prescription, of a State Trooper, a mere hiccup in the process. Pot is so benign, in fact, we should recommend it to heroin addicts to help them get off of the “real” drugs.

It has been a big, long-term sale, and we bought it.

Maybe if Trump simply tried a few tokes he could stop hassling druggies, damned right-wing fascist bastard.

Voting for pot legalization is a lot like voting for socialism, the other lie of non-responsibility. “Hey, man, it’s like, a free country, man, and health care is a right, not a privilege, man.” And not a responsibility? Next you’ll be telling us that you’re entitled to your freedoms and the government better make sure you keep ‘em, man. If it doesn’t then you’re voting for whoever is in favor of legalizing pot everywhere. Did you know that George Washington made rope out of hemp?