Tag Archives: human nature

Culture, Economics, Education, Elections, Family, Politics 2023, Religion

HATING THE HATE

Leave a comment

HATING THE HATE

Don’t you just hate it when people (it seems more often to be young women and gays) declare that they “hate” this or that movie, or a restaurant or some celebrity or… well, whatever?  “Hate” is tossed around like a beach ball at high-school graduation in that it has nothing whatsoever to do with what’s actually going on at the moment.  This is not to say that “hatred” isn’t a powerfully destructive and corrosive reality, it’s just that most people who hate things really don’t, in fact, which means that non-hating people have to be on the lookout for real hatred so that we don’t get caught down in it when it’s being tossed about like a beach ball: never staying in one spot long enough to start an infection.  On the other hand, playing with hate can leave reasonably intelligent people open to mob – or group – hatred campaigns while not actually recognizing when “party-hate” has become consuming “hatred,” so foul that it can change people’s personalities.

One person, reasonably intelligent and reasonable, might learn of something with which he or she strongly disagrees and privately bemoan the fact of a bad political or legal turn of events, but never descend into actual hatred of anyone as a result.  In a group of equally angered partisans, however, the formerly reasonable person might break laws and demonstrate, agitate, hold signs and shout hateful slogans while comforted by the like-mindedness of other proto-haters.  The real hatred spews out when counter-protesters show up, arguing directly against what the mob “hates.”  There is no worse hatred than pops out when opponents start to poke holes in the dislikes of the originating protesters.

The worst haters also seem to be the most likely and virulent accusers of hate in others.  Why this is so can be debated by psychologists, but it has something to do with the mental neighborhood in which they live.  In many cases it is a matter of hating themselves and finding it impossible to love others.  Hate is their currency.  It should be no surprise that “members” of the LGBTQ+ “community” are among the most active haters, especially transgenderists.  One could speculate that a person who “transitions,” even if only emotionally, bears the impossible burden of hating who he or she is… so much so that emotional and mental energies can be almost wholly committed to convincing oneself and others that he or she is, in fact, someone else, an enormous weight to carry.

Another activist group that accentuates its hate for opponents is that comprised of those who are pro-abortion.  As a qualified arm-chair analyst, Prudence can see clearly why this is so: people who are “pro-choice” or, in fact, pro-abortion, have first to believe a series of lies relative to the nature and effect of various abortion procedures, which means tricking themselves or lying to themselves, something that is psychologically unsettling in the first place, and then act with or support those who will act on an utter hatred for the proto-human trying to grow and live.  Only then could the death of that unborn child be rationalized.  Prudence believes that hatred begets hatred – jumping into the shallow end of a pool will ultimately wet the jumper just as thoroughly as would happen by first entering the deep end.

Pro-lifers, on the other hand, tend to be more religious and more Christian in beliefs and actions.  For them, life is sacred and fetuses are entrusted to mothers in God’s name; they can’t be killed for any reason.  Essentially, the two sides cannot compromise.  Having reveled in 50 years of nearly unrestricted abortion rights, pro-abortion forces now feel victimized by forces directly opposed to their beliefs in a right to abort the unborn for virtually any reason, including convenience of the mother and / or the father or of any other person with influence over the mother.  To those who have reversed the ostensible “right” to abort, pro-abortionists have only hate.  Those who can actively or acquiescently cause or accept the death of entirely innocent unborn babies are already steeped in untruth and hatred.  It is a small shift to hate those who have attacked their convoluted premises of justification.

Hate readily erupts from people on the Left, and the reasons seem complex, but they’re not.  Socialism is fundamentally premised on hatred.  Many who are attracted to this or that sympathetic-sounding promise of socialism, would vehemently deny Socialism’s connection to hatred of any color. Socialism is just “helping” the (choose all that apply:) downtrodden, oppressed, poor, disadvantaged, illegal, incarcerated, undocumented, impaired, incapable, marginalized, indigent, ill-informed, illiterate, iniquitous, intemperate, impregnated, introverted or invasive.  Such “help,” however, inevitably costs the recipients freedom and sovereignty.  By definition, each type of “help” places the recipient in a group henceforth identified by their weakness or dependence.  It all becomes political, as the government grows to encompass all the help it can imagine providing, and the recipients form advocacy groups for their type of neediness.

Nowhere in the socialist corrosion is there a solution to or cure of any need… just nuance and expansion of groups.  All the needy will likely vote to increase the levels of help and the numbers of helpless previously unrecognized.  Many will be hired to administer the distribution and identification of needed help.  It has been said that Socialism denies human nature and is therefore fatally flawed as a means of organizing governance to the benefit of the majority of citizens.  In fact, Socialism functions and gains power by promulgating the WORST tendencies of human nature and is therefore fatally flawed as a means of organizing governance.

It is clear that some people, due to momentums from earlier existences or due to unfortunate nurturing, even while in the womb, will be de-motivated to work and otherwise take care of themselves.  Such will comfortably accept support from others or, worse, have few compunctions about stealing what they need from others.  They are examples of basic beliefs being the foundation of morality.  Like most – not all, but most – humans, these individuals’ beliefs may be changed with appropriately provided education and rewarded actions.  It is a task that successful societies will undertake and accomplish… failed societies will excuse it and even encourage it as some aspect of “rights.”  It is, rather, an aspect of rewarded “wrongs.”  Continuous welfare creates resentment among recipients, not gratitude.  The relative status of dependents is low; those who have gained the skills to set their own economic path – path of personal “worth” – are obviously treated better, even revered.  Those who are economic “losers” are tolerated at best and scorned at worst.  There is no pleasure in dependency.  Dependents eventually hate the providers.  Any change in status for recipients, required by providers, will increase resentment.  A relatively minor trigger event could yield widespread hateful, destructive action.

Politically, disgruntled, economically dependent populations are fertile ground for opposition groups and philosophies.  A little guidance as to whom to hate, and how, can bring mobs to the streets and actions into riots, scaring the bejeebers out of decent citizens and civil authorities.  It can also guide volumes of votes at election time.  “Defund the Police” can actually gain political relevance.  There are politicians who are so craven as to capitalize on the political will and hatreds of the forces of social failure.  For shame.

One political party has shifted its basis to one of hatred, and it’s not the Conservatives, who tend toward belief in the potential and value of every person.  Rather than support and profit from their self-destruction, conservatives, more than likely Christian in outlook, believe in the possibility of rehabilitation and conversion of welfare recipients into productive, successful members of the greater society.  Welfare must be temporary, in our view; self-support is constructive and self-enhancing; work is its own reward as well as the means of self-support.  Everyone is valuable.  Unfortunately, for 60 years we have avoided fighting for our beliefs, attempting only to temper the failed and failing beliefs of leftists.  For another shame.  It is the politics of conservatism that has failed, not that of the left. 

There is a fundamental hatred expressed by leftists to keep people in the welfare morass.  The waste of their lives and their children’s lives, whether by imposed helplessness, victimhood or crappy education managed by other leftists, is an expression of hatred for those so trapped.  What a cruel outlook on politics and power.

Ultimately, as we are witnessing in 2023, there is a general hatred of American Constitutionalism and its “negative rights,” as Barack Obama calls them.  Theirs is a hatred of free speech, legal protections of religious expression, unreasonable search and seizure, Fifth Amendment protections and all the rest.  This readily becomes hatred of those Americans who believe in and defend the majesty of our Constitutional Republic.  As those same leftists cement into place the ability to control the outcomes of elections, their hatred for honesty, truth and fairness is clear.  Shame on them.  Conservatives are still whistling past the graveyard of failed civilizations, hoping against hope for fair treatment in elections.  I hate that.

Culture, Economics, Education, Family, Governance

WHY BARRETT MATTERS

Leave a comment
We’ve all come to look for America….

WHY BARRETT MATTERS

We have developed, in our vapid superficiality, a habit of judging politicians and one another on the basis of who our secular  judges are, most particularly who are on the Supreme Court.  What escapes most of us is that those judgments extend to ourselves.

President Trump has taken perhaps the best step in his first term in the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to our highest court.  One can learn from the reactions  to her new status… and likelihood that she will help decide the course of America’s future.  The nation that became the United States was formed by religious people – mostly Christians and some Jews – men, and probably more importantly, women: their hands rocked the cradles.

While our comprehension of Biblical and other somewhat contemporaneous texts has certainly changed, the essential value of religious morality to the strength and success of the U. S. of A., can be denied only in ignorance.  Ignorance, sadly, doesn’t inhibit that class of “deniers” to any great degree.  In other words, a strong moral code, passed from generation to generation, is both crucial and comforting.

Enter Amy Coney Barrett, who has attracted vitriol – not political difference, vitriol – for what those somewhat aligned with her worldview can see no justification in the slightest.  Where does it come from?  How is it that half of the polity apparently distrusts or resents – if not hates – a thoroughly moral and honest person?

A large component of that vitriol comes from women.  Those like Senators Diane Feinstein, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris and the legendary Masi Hirono, are unable to avoid nonsensical, disdain-laden questions or comments that leads one to deduce, it is Prudent to say, that they not only hate her politically, but are, in fact, envious of her.  But, envy aimed at what, exactly?

Moral rectitude.  Females who have spent decades denying their crucial roles of both civilizing – moralizing – their men, and of keeping their children on a morally straight path as they (ostensibly) learn to become adults in charge of cultural norms applied to economics, commerce, production and defense of family and community, find themselves so uncomfortable with the responsibilities of woman-hood, that a woman who has no reason for such discomfort is to be deeply resented.

Inherently there is a threat to many women that Amy Barrett, and not they, will be a best example of American woman- and mother-hood.  Even her college sorority has virtually disavowed her and her extraordinary success.  The “sisterhood” apparently depends not on gender, a reactionary concept, but on the purity of one’s rejection of religious-based morals.

Barrett doesn’t waver; her moral pillar requires neither comparison nor negotiation.  It need not be measured against fads or trends or popular opinion.  Whether one shares her complete philosophy or not, he or she ought to have the wisdom to respect it… and her.  That sort of respect has not been – and is not being – inculcated through the institutions of society that are its only source: parents (mothers AND fathers), churches and, as reinforcement, schools.  Barrett exemplifies and makes real, the superiority of the two-parent, responsible family model… and it is frightening.

If a society wished, freely and collectively, to restore and strengthen the one form of foundational social engineering proven successful: two-parent, economically independent families, that society would formalize through government and every reinforcing institution, every possible encouragement of that structure.  The question, automatically posed by the stark and living color example of Amy Coney Barrett’s family, to those who wonder about the future of the United States, is whether we have the collective sense to shift our policies toward her model of success?

We’ll have to cleanse our education and purge public schools of socialist teachers and administrators.  We’ll have to teach our children all of American history, both bad and good, and pass along the best of our founding philosophy so that our next generations recognize how to repair, adjust correct, improve the application of those ideals to inevitable problems of complex civilization.

We’ll have to change our entire approach and process of delivering public assistance such that the worst tendencies of human nature are not rewarded, and the desire – or ability – to attain to better lives is rewarded.  By itself, this change to public policy holds the greatest promise for the quality of life and continuation of the American dream for ourselves and all other nations who aspire to freedom and the end of poverty.

Trump has placed the American success model at center stage.  One hopes those who feel badly or resentful can examine their own philosophies, perhaps to reform them.

Economics, Governance, Representation, Responsibility

A Few Words on Capitalism – Part 1

Leave a comment


Every one of us is a “capitalist.” This, in the sense that we all strive to obtain as much safety, comfort, material goods and security for old age, as we possibly can for the least amount of effort necessary. It doesn’t matter for whom we vote. Many of us simply want to be free TO acquire what we need; others wish to be free OF the need to acquire. In both philosophies we are attempting to gain with minimum effort.
But that’s not the whole story, is it?

Every person is motivated to act differently. We all have our own “profits” that cause us to expend MORE than minimal effort necessary to take care of ourselves and our family. Some are motivated to gain as much as possible in terms of material goods and “wealth.” Some want to be charitable and will work more than necessary so as to give to others. Some are motivated by artistic expression, drama, music or writing. Some by the gaining of power over others, one way or the other. Many profits.

The invention of money both simplified and complicated capitalism. For some, in twisted ways, the accumulation of money, itself, became their “profit.” Such people are able to “buy” the necessities for which others strive, but they are also consumed by numbers and the quantities of money they represent. They have different fears and joys than “regular” people. Unfortunately, they come to realize that they can also “buy” power – influencing government-types to protect their accumulated wealth.

Government types come from those for whom “profit” means power over others, over “public policy” and over taxation and, unfortunately, over “public” budgeting. Tapping into the “profits” of others, familial, financial and charitable, provides the most ways to acquire at minimal effort for those so motivated. They concentrate in governments. Almost inevitably and partly because much of their effort is arcane, they come to believe in their own mental superiority over “regular” people whose concerns are familial, local and unobtrusive.

Meanwhile, capitalism, which in the U. S., OUGHT TO MEAN the right to own private property, and by extension, the right to own the fruits of one’s labors, carries on, inherent in every person. It is human nature.
Some aspects of human nature can, if unchecked by society and hence by government, cause damage and destruction to that society. Many control-worthy human aspects are checked by “agreement.” That is, members of society “agree” that murder, rape, theft, fraud and other forms of false witness, greed, sloth and envy, are to be controlled through various codified sanctions. Lately the list has grown to include littering of various degrees, like pollution, and, in an extraordinary reversal, discrimination against sexual oddities, a change that has led to “intolerance” becoming a worse social transgression than some actual crimes. Western societies must now “tolerate,” if not celebrate, anti-capitalist “lifestyles” that include essentially welfare careers. These things actually threaten the social order and every other right protected by the Constitution, our fundamental social agreement.

A tremendous strength in American capitalism has been the high integrity of our contracts, both with one another and with our governments. This phenomenon makes modern trade possible as well as the millions of debt contracts that describe modern economics. But today, we ignorantly embrace a new form of socialism based on twisted concepts of “social justice,” which intends, fundamentally, to cause guilt-ridden government types to alter the underlying concepts of private property, and to discard natural human capitalism. This need not be an inevitable slide toward the only economic future possible.

It is a slide the basis of which is ignorance, willful and otherwise. It is a slide that attempts, as all socialist plans inevitably do, to replace human nature with a government-directed one. While there may exist the technical possibility of directing every person’s life and economic decisions, governance based thereon cannot prevail. It devolves into tyranny or revolution, perhaps to a new tyranny or, once in a great, great while, into a new form of governance based on self-discipline and personal sovereignty, one in which the governed grant their governors limited powers, and where the tyranny of the majority is carefully sanctioned and where tyranny of the minority is unheard of.

Inherent in a government based on individual freedom and personal responsibility are the concepts of private property and ownership of the fruits of one’s labor: essential free-enterprise.

Capitalism gets fully mucked up when it is politicized, which is to say when limited governments attempt to create economic “fairness.” It seems that no “free” economic and democratic system can refrain from favoring certain industries in return for maintaining power for those who are already “in” government. Much of the favoring is done to “make things fair” or to “level the playing field,” but almost without exception, the net effects are to limit competition for those industries and to limit competition for those in power. These are tendencies that a wise and educated citizenry would create institutions in society and government to carefully limit, if not make impossible. In our growing ignorance we are failing at this essential part of citizenship.

A great strength of capitalism is that it doesn’t reward failure… it replaces it with something that can succeed, success measured in profitability and ability to destroy debt. In this is a lesson for all with eyes to see and ears to hear. Among our people, however, those who get the message are now considered hateful while those who refuse to see or hear are empowered, or re-elected. Ours is fast becoming a system hobbled by the removal of the pillars of individual freedom and personal responsibility. We are rewarding failure.

Immediately this statement will be attacked with charges of cruelty, but this stems from ignorance, which is to say, it’s a charge leveled by those who, for whatever personal profit, IGNORE the distinction between those who are capable and willfully refusing to take responsibility for themselves, and those who are incapable and needful of charity and public support.

The greatest value of capitalist profitability is the creation of surplus – productive surplus – of which a portion may be used to care for those who cannot care for themselves. The greatest flaw in capitalism’s opponents is their creation of and acceptance of a thousand reasons why individuals may be grouped among those who cannot care for themselves. They unfortunately become codified and form a malevolent inhibitor of success. And here we are.

Uncategorized

Conservational Conservatism

Leave a comment

Real conservatives are also conservationists.  Liberals, of course, will scoff at this, but Prudence tells us that this is a logical relationship.  The nature of true conservancy can illuminate the right thinking of true conservatives.

Those who fight for conservation of nature have drawn political lines mainly along economic – often anti-economic – lines.  The in-group of conservationists tends to view all those who are not as rabid about conservation as they as somewhat backward, perhaps rapacious exploiters who care about only profit… even if it will “destroy” our home planet.  Planetary destruction is a tall order, but humans have been quite industrious about modifying our environments, plural, although the greatest, planet-wide climatological changes have occurred with no human input whatsoever.  Still, our increasing need for energy has changed the lower atmosphere, at least, making humans ever more suspect.

As defined by conservationists, conservatives are all greedy, overweight and driven by profits; very conservative people, however, see such people as enemies of honest capitalism similar to their being enemies of conservation.  Real conservatives are not in favor of unregulated, monopoly capitalism, like that which results from close connections to politicians and their overreaching governance.

Real conservatism is not reactionary, but it does desire to conserve good philosophies and, with them, the best of ethics for organizing and governing our society.  This also means conserving the best of our culture, not plural.  It is, viewed without hate, not all bad.

Some conservationists would sacrifice human civilization to preserve a pristine habitat for every other form of life, or at least, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants wouldn’t be missed, especially if snail-darters would then thrive.  Once enthralled by being smarter and more sensitive than everyone else, rabid conservationists tend to ally with others who are equally so convinced.  Political power follows.  Now, the very overreaching government that makes so-called capitalism an enemy of vast majorities, is seen as the one force needed to assure adherence to their beliefs – whether conservationist, abortionist or racist (anti-white).

True conservatives can discern which of these causes should be opposed and which are worth working with.  We oppose abortion-on-demand and racism of all colors.  We believe in non-wastefulness, non-pollution, and clean environments.  We tend to be religious and we do NOT seek for the government(s) to enforce our beliefs, but to protect them.  We oppose globalized, monopolistic crony-capitalism since it tends toward organized theft of both wealth and sovereignty.  We trust individuals to perfect themselves, yet we insist on firm application of laws and sanctions for wrongdoing… for everyone.

Conservatives believe in balance and in courtesy toward all.  We tend to accept others as good or, at least, right-motivated until proven wrong.  To true conservatives, what someone feels is not nearly as important as what one DOES.  That is, anyone who is willing to ACT like an American, including respect for our laws and for other people, is welcome to live in America.  It’s fairly simple.  Respect for other people includes respect for their environment – everyone’s environment, while enabling economic opportunity and private property rights that make it possible for individuals to be FREE to the greatest degree possible… FROM GOVERNMENT.

The most passionate conservationists are well-advised to be conservatives, as well, and to recognize human nature as individual and not monolithic.  Conservationists seem to have fallen into encouragement of a police state that will enforce conservation as they see it; conservation that pits its desired ends AGAINST people, requiring, therefore, government to force compliance with conservationists’ corner on a part of science.  This ignores other parts of science, particularly that of human nature, yielding a somewhat fascist liberalism that has rendered America a rich-appearing debtor, barely able to afford conservation or even self-defense.

The success of the American experiment will be recognized in the shrinkage of government, not its growth, and in its honesty of education, not its bias.