The Critical Series – Points of Analysis 2: Governing Thought & Political Acts

Contact Your Elected Officials

Read Part 1: The Critical Series – Points of Analysis: Education & Capitalism

Read Part 3: The Critical Series – Points of Analysis 3: Illicit Law

Read Part 4: The Critical Series – Points of Analysis 4: Brandished Logic


(as prophesized in the Testaments)

The key to saving the soul of a nation (through point analysis) is the same as saving the soul of a single individual: identify your faults, repent, and lean toward a salvation grace.

Philosophies of the Lame

C(1)      Every system of potential “government” is fraught with an inherent menace: endeavor to govern thought without invoking (absolute) “governance of all thought”. Whatever the formulations-basis of that appropriate amount of compulsion, “rule” will always suffer from irregularities in gesture and an unwelcomed impression, deserved or not. With some scholarly restraint, I have respectfully divided these systems into six groupings, more or less typified by ten philosophies of coerced thought.

Group 1 – Naturalism (also known as First Tribalism)

Group 2 – Socialism (Naturalism but with social responsibility imposed)

Group 3 – Welfarism (herein conceived as an extreme state of anti-Naturalism)

Group 4 – Communism (Socialism by command; devoid of individual demeanor or deliberation)

Group 5 – Parliamentarianism (consisting of Libertarians, Liberals, and Conservatives)

Group 6 – Americanism (consisting of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents)

There is nothing particularly discrete or precise about any of these classifications, which may overlap from time to time; except, later, as I choose to bring criticism to their measure and applications.

 Of the six major groupings, Naturalism is as close to “as God made us” given a willful collective body of still cooperative human beings. Nature itself is a grand taskmaster, pre-ordaining the sick, the old, the disabled, or functionally cumbersome should expire, or otherwise “be cut off from among God’s people”. Leadership develops by destiny of fate, heir apparency, or confrontational resolution. The tribal (family) leader is usually not so much a belligerent tyrant as a crusty drill sergeant, wrought to bring impolite enforcement, like it or not, unto accepted natural (customary) norms (and loyalty to the host). In criticism of its operational suppositions, Naturalism denies sympathetic morality (as understood today), moved to express a heartlessness toward anyone not in fit service or service fit to the tribe. Members must accept their fate, whether in social duty or civil destiny (e.g. marriage). The system bids no remorse (or grace) for sin. Morality is maintained by majority rule (at best) — interjecting all truth with an ordered intent. Rejection (ejection) is tantamount to nothingness. Like a child born naked, a man-tribe must be blessed by nature, nestled through the climate of pain, swaddled in clothes by the tribe, and everything else more or less left to hardship, trial, and effort to make happen along the way. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or happenstance of being) is probably the type of Naturalism our founders originally envisioned for a hardy America.

C(2)      Socialism began benignly enough as equal communion (commune) together. Its pastors were the spiritual directors of the congregation. What was not expressly convened or incensed by Nature would be given (lent) as a passive guide for living. All work effort would be voluntarily appointed and virtuously assumed with respect. Over the expansion of time and personnel, workers became known as “the salt of the earth”. Into their hands (to be only moderately  challenged) would be placed the scepter for social and economic control … except as natural forces arose in tragedy, or private desires began to percolate up, causing a staged revolt against inefficiency and occasional ruthlessness. Criticism: their salt is self; their philosophy — to be trampled underfoot when exhausted. Thirst and appetite are not full measures of body health and mental wellness.

C(3)      Reaching far more extensively than our understanding today, Welfarism instructs that it is the mandatory duty of the strong, the powerful, and the wealthy to aid, assist, and suffer (dual meaning) the weak and the less fortunate. A compulsory draft is thereby taken of all who are substantially able to participate. Even charity is by decree. Critically analyzed, a nouveau class of the (spiritually) poor is created; while also separating the ‘receiver’ from the ‘giver’, and both from the rewards of grace.

C(4)      Communism tears from Socialism its own injunction for being and services oppression. It fears from Democracy a freedom concession and religious conviviality. Production and distribution for all is by all in practical obedience to all. According to that compliance, there can be no bowing to other gods or sufficing for oneself a protective private island of distinct material existence. Be it five or ten years of community planning, perfection will always be distorted through the cataclysmic performance of the hierarchal medium and through the disavowal of the singular contribution subtending the need for natural want, inspiring a sense and desire for a better, more worthwhile future.

C(5)      Parliamentarianism is not nation-specific, but prefers a strong legislative body over a weak (symbolic) executive or ruler. In response to religious determinism (predestination), a counterview arose giving accession to the notion of “free will”, hence an equality to God in this regard. Later, skeptics would vent to dislodge mankind’s divinity and adjudge any presumption of “free will” as just an illusion, giving overwhelming significance back to fated existence. With the coming philosophy of libertarianism, credit would again be restored to a discernible “free will”, to be translated as a cultural premise for living, though not extorting ‘liberty’ as a cornerstone, nor any particular ‘liberal’ beliefs as its necessary foundation. Beyond what is do-able with free will, liberalism (as herein delineated) confers a running prompt to “live and let live” – at least for oneself. More radical liberals have entrenched the notion that anything wrested by means of “free will” must, for the most part, conditionally “will” its (true) appropriateness. A modern liberal might exclaim, “This is my body; therefore, I should be able to do with it whatever I please” — be that in contrivance of habitual unsafe sex, having an abortion, driving a car recklessly and excessively fast, imbibing dangerous drugs, keeping company with murderous criminals — and thereafter attempting to excuse all responsibility for one’s actions. Regardless of which form you like, libertarianism or liberalism, which I have only superficially addressed here, both philosophies fall short of a universally-sufficient system of political thought. Conservatism, likewise, provides only a limited sense of viability for the practitioner of its faith, meaning a conservative seeking to preserve (conserve) that which has always worked best (politically, religiously, and culturally) or at least brings stability to himself and/or society. If that causes sacrifices, delinquencies of merit, strikes, or compromising encumbrances, so be it. Conservatives thus tend to have a more realistic view of liberty. ‘Free’ exercise is not without its costly reservations.

C(6)      Scheduled politics of the American style, or Americanism, can include any or all of the above. Traditionally, however, political parties have been founded on factions served rather than ideals forwarded (or previously ordained). For many decades, the Democrats prided themselves on a kind of populism in loyalty to the majority of numerous lower and middle-class workers desiring only a ‘say’ in government and very little assistance. That service has been turned completely around in recent times with the intentional advent of many immigrants, some of whom are actually hostile/indifferent to the American ideals of freedom, prosperity, and upright traditional concerns. The Republicans, by contrast, started out as hardcore freedom lovers, solidly anti-slavery, as personified in Abraham Lincoln — a true man of the people. During the first half of the 20th Century their party became more allied with the powerful and (never idle) rich. Lack of favor turned them back to being primarily traditional conservatives. Against their own interests, wealthy financiers on Wall Street and billionaires controlling the media turned anti-American, funneling large amounts of open (and secret) money to the Democratic Party in an attempt to transform America into a mindless Communist utopia in the model of Stalin’s dream and Orwell’s nightmare. Independents in this country should not be mistaken for citizens or politicians caught in the middle somewhere, estranged in the heart from a basic dissatisfaction with the two major parties. Some are principles-oriented, meaning, unhappy with the weakness or overbearingness of the other philosophies. Others may think of themselves as political rogues — God’s chosen — high-minded messengers imploring the people to make a prophetic change. More ambiguously, their soul-searching political agenda gives bearing to an admixture of addresses: Republican Conservative, Leftist Liberal Democrat, or Independent Freedom Fighter. What all these (10) philosophies have in common is that the voters, and ostensibly conscripted believers, are not generally deterred by the inherent irregularities of their thinking or the congestion of loose psychological phlegm condemning their logical breathing.

C(7)      Naturalism probably had its heyday early in America’s settlement period. Originally residing in frontiersmen, pioneers, then self-sufficient farmers, ranchers, and townsfolk, little was expected of or demanded from local or federal government except maybe law enforcement and the upholding of property rights. As the country people were restocked and rebranded as builders of industry, factory workers, construction contractors, specialty clerks, and the like, a dependence-reliance began to emerge with unions, pension planners, and eventually social security and a host of government handouts (early welfarism). Not long thereafter, socialism and communism could be sarcastically credited with bringing the notion of equitable sharing — a goodwill appeasement meant to deprive followers of single will, and most of their privately-owned goods besides (totalitarianism). Liberalism and conservatism, like a couple of disinterested drunks, brought at best some assurance of rights and privileges. Nothing in politics should ever be thought of as ‘essential’ or even a ‘cost driver’ of events and the economy.

C(8)      Farbeit from being a human transplant, naturalism takes its origins and justification from natural pressures favoring continuation of the species over the survival of a single individual. So, then, the subservient employee, indentured citizen, even the foolishly-deceived customer, must find humble submission next to the greater glory of the company and the state — genuflecting to their station and greater status — sometimes to the utter capitulation of one’s emotional soul. By its gross displacement of size, pagan politicians can forcefully proclaim the ramblings of the State as constituting the Word from on High. But in the schism of things, (High) politics must rid itself of all Divinity. No election makes Man indomitable. Though a community/nation/society always possesses a collective intelligence greater than any single individual, carrying forward a (dangling) God complex only serves to sever the nation’s supplicating prayers, and make idols of the Church’s confirmed objects of faith.

C(9)      We subscribe to liberalism and libertarianism the remnants of individualistic thinking, but only until they both espouse their joy in creating tycoons and magnates. The soft side of every hardhat is his indulgence for capitalism. Neither agent nor would-be devotee recoil from the realization that, lone fortunes sometimes derive from a unique equity vision.

C(10)    Conservatives remain somewhat covetous of the unknown. Dispatching less institutional baggage therefor than the average socialist, conservatives took Nature at her word when she practically commanded that the transactionally decrepit and the business inept should die or be shunned-to-pass-away; although not hardly or rashly assessing the same level of cold-heartedness toward its entreated customers. All things working properly, morality is meant only to keep the industrial system advisably pristine and in reasoned desirability of rolling common sense. Endeavors outside of this economic court clog the gears of intramural gaming and make tumble the rugged walls of overlaying commonality.

C(11)    When everything is politics, nothing is the truth. It’s amazing to watch the Democrats during this political season (2016) — how the hounds all band together in fevered pitch … the politicians, the news media, the entertainment industry, the government agencies, even the justices … each in glorious (dis)respect of the redoubtable two-party system stirring far from the best interests of the people toward an urgent destruction of the enemy (the Republicans). They (the Democrats and Republicans) are supposed to represent an enterprise of competing forces meant to test each other’s ideas and plans … meddling and muddling through the poignant comments and polemic attitude to reach a compromising civility of mind. Destruction or expulsion should never be their battle goal. Having faith in what one believes is fine; but adherence to a ‘greater’ principle will mean nothing if the socialists and the liberal progressives win and progress towards their intended goal for the dissolution of democracy. Surely, many of these Republicans are two-faced as well. Going out of their way to argue grievously for the common man, then pleasantly complimenting the opposition for putting up such a ‘good fight’ in rich bastard defiance. Observational caution must be taken by Republicans, at all times, knowing full well that their position is somewhat akin to many friendly Muslims too afraid to speak out against their easily-upset Jihadist neighbor. From the start, a pall looms over any Republican who decides to run for office, perceiving that the lunatic radicals and the hawkish members of the media, and the activist clansmen of the Democratic KKK will use every devious trick and employ any dangerous device to dig up scandalous dirt in his backyard — planted there or not. A vast number of good Republicans have already been blackmailed and/or quietly buried in their grave-sunk scandal.

A puzzle is then shaken as to how membership within the Democratic fold remains so cohesive and its minority participation so overwhelming (government payouts aside), given that the lives of blacks, Hispanics, and even poor women have not been appreciably enhanced under their own tutelage and (suffering) support. No doubt, defectors from the party orthodoxy must exist; nonetheless, most abstain from speaking out or lie low else they be immediately attacked as Uncle Toms or Benedict Arnolds. For most adherents of the order, I suspect that what maintains their indefatigable loyalty is the gangster cabal mentality — not unlike a band of thieving outlaws in the old West rustling, thieving, burning, and raping in coordinated unison — benefitting them as a group. Though in the back of each outlaw’s mind, he may realize that he is likely to be left behind someday unflinchingly at the scene of their next (spoiled) bank robbery attempt, unaided, unmissed, un-mourned; or perhaps butchered during  the night over a money grubbing incident or a jealous fight over a woman, the young rookie outlaw is not perturbed by this distended strife, and sticks to his guns literally, clinging with the lawless in spurious magnification of their combined strength and shameful infamy.

In more romantic times, the tussle between the two major parties could be envisioned as halfway between a boxing match and a drunken dispute at a family reunion. Mostly, in actual demeanor, the fight is artificially manufactured for show purposes: real-life players in hurtful performance of the lame — of the foolish and the greedy, sporting their sanguine color of fake movie-blood — driven mad by their constant dissent in partisanship to each other’s insistent sameness. The political difference which marks (mocks) them is not one of Democrat versus Republican, which merely occupy, as the old saying goes, opposite sides of the same disingenuous coin. Real scrapping only occurs when one side’s favorite lobby handout is stolen from under the table.

C(12)    What experts stylishly call American politics is not true democracy (anyway). The United Nations, ah, now there’s a true democracy, where the opposition is neither loyal, patronizing, or anything else but hustling patriotic (of the homeland); where the Executive is essentially powerless, and no real branch of judiciary brings moderating or sanctioning balance; i.e., no stamping (stomping) approval for the actions of the law-making body. Upon assembly, members are primarily motivated toward stealing satiation for their own irritating national gain. Peaceful interventions and cooperative programs are thwarted by infighting and the ever-shifting alignment of pluralistic flow. Here, saying, too many people talking makes truth uncertain, and government disaffecting, until downy settlement conjures up a hard-packed agreement. But a hardier jounce would only stir the waters of an already poisoned well. Those who may yet hold innocent faith in the wisdom of many — bargaining an amenable United Front — should remember Barabbas.

 C(13)   Despotism is without debut or recourse; democracy is a used outfit riven in its recut. If a tyrant should appear, he will almost certainly be riding the train from the east, for they will have summoned him. It was never inlaid for mainline consumption — an eternal piety, a universal ethic, as would be possible for only the Divine. Revolutionary history offering, instead, in the skiff of a Washington crossing over, absent the divine — a safe democracy; that is, a democracy made safe by the presupposed inherent goodness of (marginal) Man in eminent domain. With the loss of this backdrop, democracy ceases to be safe: enveloping even dictatorship, the very antithesis of democracy. Because the gentle vaccine was rejected (a spot of morality denied), all mankind might have to suffer the real illness: the disease in all its virulent potency.

C(14)    You say he has the right to speak, to express his belief; but he has no right to impose his morality on me. This, then, is your morality and dictation; and you have forced him to submit to it or be excommunicated — in the liken of dictators. Aye, democracy has a complement; it has an opposite: a despotic trial pleading with handcuffs on … the bewilderment of an unopen hearing.

C(15)    A fallacy has spun the lathe of an American government resting upon a single pillar – subject to the people’s right to be equal masters of a less-than-pleasing coalition. This is nonsense. Even a stool needs three legs to stand competently: democracy (body), moral integration (mind), and pious allegiance (spirit). Years ago, it was my school’s staff policy to let students select their own teammates when weather caught them inside; and my short size and stature did not qualify me for first-round pick or any other round usually. Have we not seen this play frequently performed before? Somebody higher up (the staff) establishes the two captains, who would in turn make the overall team selections unaided, irrespective who gets left out. There was no real democracy in this institutional show: a non-deity set up the basis for voting, and a worth was attested through sighted friendship, or upon simple presence. No poll brought forth substantive tally or gave merit to positions awarded. All was sanctioned bias only.

C(16)    Suppose a similar argument used to preserve the Union when the Civil War broke out between the North and the South had been applied (prattled) against India, Pakistan, East Pakistan (Bangladesh) before they split apart, or to the two Vietnams, or to the two Koreas before their respective wars. Under populism, does not everyone have the right to ‘choose’ their party, their relative affiliation, their sacred homeland? Incorporated within the concept of the popular vote are the invited ordeals of friendly contest ere the chains of conquest. By right of proposition, Lincoln could only appeal to a higher authority. Would the Lord’s (Lincoln’s) admonition have brought reconciliation of a “house divided” to these other nations or only more grief and death?

C(17)    Cultural historians have looked back with despair at the record of so many (smaller) countries with seemingly blossoming democracies (e.g., in Asia and Africa) which then failed miserably, on liberty’s watch and dispensational account. In the wake of either democratic or economic decline, many countries turn to tyrants or to communism to save them. Giving humans everywhere the benefit of a doubt, it probably wasn’t because the citizens lacked determination and dreams or the willingness to work hard; rather they fell short for the lack of proper education and became bereft the robust injection of spiritual destiny. Morality, unlike evil, must be cultivated and tilled from its earliest setting out as seedlings through its final harvest as mature plants. Democracies only pre-tend to perform rightly over the long haul if its citizens are in-formed rightly come every generation with civil deliberation and affirmation — educated and coached beyond criticism in matters of public interest, private effort, and social responsibilities.

C(18)    Really, no mystery begrudges the thoughtful as to why nations (empires) fall. Natural and home advantages that once served jointly with size and demographics, geographic location, economic dominance, cultural training, or other blessings, in time swing out of favor, slacken with resource draining, become inebriated by the hangover of lost ambition, over-extension, soft-living, or prolonged guardian sleepiness. Selfish hollows befit the range of the excessively bored.

Is not the end of your decadent freedom to accommodate all variety of want — branching out the delta streams till “all men are equal” or, more accurately, bodies drawn and quartered equally? Reclusively, this speaks too late the need for a vacation travel getaway — upon whose evacuation road is reserved now only for escape of imminent nuclear attack. Staying home will never bring paradise to your door. Freedom is an escape from your own domination.

C(19)    Never has a country been so suicidal, or its people so bent, so fully dedicated to the path of self-destruction as these people are. Why did our ancestors come to America but to flee the bonds of serf indenture to castle Lords and palace Kings, only to be taken captive by new masters of political media and the material hungriness of commercial servitude? To paraphrase an historic prime minister, buried in another blitz, “never have so few done so much evil to destroy the lives of so many good people”. Not even Nuremburg in remonstration will spare this generation of children (and grandchildren) from their appointed share of slaughter and ancestral shame.

C(20)    You would measure personal success in life using smoke and mirrors — by wealth acquired, painting in silver the privileges received, in glorious titanium the strength of party control. Like cryptocurrency, fools brandish what they cannot see, value what they do not have and can never take title over by franchise estate. Un-taut, a fairer democracy casts justice in even comfort spread.

C(21)    At confrontation’s exclusionary meet, cordial tones reverberate and goodbyes are waved, where scarcely moments before only scorning thoughts resounded. Decisions were struck to no one’s tagged admission, satisfaction, or redemption. Resolutions were raised, uplifted for signing, yet left disarrayed, all loyal creatures to slither on their usual way in cold apathy, clothed in snakeskin hides and circular square-dancing. In this wrestling for turnovers, there were no competitor take-downs. The occasional shouts for homers veered headlong the missing goals of little scoring and less adulation, temperate the warning of the next certain session of vengeful reckoning.

All so to say, finding the politician a lifetime of years later, a “statesman” without peer, extremely proud of his experience and accomplishments — in others’ minds, always ahead of his time, never out of sync; and compassionate. Hence, spawning future historians to ponder, why bygone scholars and past colleagues did not swoon or make more of this man. “So great was his nobility and calculated winning”, this man, at last to be served a dish of fine platitudes and praises of salty fish, with a swearing off his dried-out tongue.

Straightening The Political Backbone

D(1)   Capitalism and socialism … both borne alike and born killers? A drought has stricken some third-world country. An appeal is made for outside assistance and resources to lessen the hardship and alleviate the people’s suffering. Afterward comes the sandflies of carpetbaggers, the rapacious businessmen, and the relentless political advisors — each clamoring for certain changes promised over time to make that country a better democracy, their citizens commercial wizards, and their leaders wealthy. Their true aim is to wrench rule and property from the already wretched, to wrest power from the rustic. Let us capitalize our earnings by leaching a lesson from the Soviet playbook: watch us sweep in on an already doomed Poland to divide the spoils with a fellow conquering Hun invader.

D(2)   The faults of Democracy:

  • Those who need the most help don’t possess the standing to get it (by means of voting or fiscal influence). They are the unborn, the babies, the young kids, the poor, the sick, the handicapped, the homeless, Nature, and the environment.
  • Every voter proclaims his rights, but few rise to proclaim their responsibilities (those which cannot be waived).
  • Voting decides authority for democratic control, but does not prohibit the arch-nemesis of democracy (totalitarianism) from participating in the system; nor does it move to exact concessions from non-democratic groups like Nazis, fascists, socialists, jihadists, etc. whose aim is to bring the system down. Eventually, such infiltrators will take control despite their assurances, just as most politicians pledge allegiance to the Constitution but undermine the Law and suborn the Courts. In government practice, agencies like the EEOC and the Justice Department have already done this.
  • As Tocqueville (1835/1840) said, democracy will end when the people vote themselves ‘just’ and make themselves heirs to too many entitlements.

D(3)   Another prod against America has been felt, adding to the warnings of Tocqueville. Once its citizens settle down from the ‘natural’ state and lose their independent streak for self-guidance, and a too-popular government starts leasing out (those) welfare benefits, the cost of renting will come to outstrip righteous living and right-serving behavior. Remember … the populist take on freedom is to take (literally) what is freely given. Nowadays the populace has forsaken its soul by turning dog-treat circles to the wishes of the master who feeds them. Prompted by vice and enticed by greed, the people perform their stupid, demeaning tricks at voice-command. Selves can’t resist the benefits of Social Security, subsidized health care, free basic education, and free lunches for their children; granted college tuition, HUD assistance and rent relief, busing allowances, do-nothing affirmative-action civil jobs — gamed in theft, resentfulness, and civil inefficiency. Care taken in the lifting of the poor … sinks the government treasure chest to the depth of its unheeded mis-fortune.

D(4)   Next a confession of a deadlier creed — a suicide knife is placed in the hand of any individual bowing to Communism. By overreach of social engineers and bureaucrats in equity of the masses, the socialist projection of community sharing (hiding offensive control) will eventually eliminate the right to hold private property (for the sake of the common good). The comportment to an unstructured life is on a government train heading to an internment camp. Practical statists have said this could never happen in America – the economic home where the great interests of so many fat capitalists sit in overriding teeter-balance of the thin unscrupulous hordes. Such is a freeway only lately made a toll road.

D(5)   The “progressive” leadership in Europe and America constantly yield to the demands of the enemies of peace and Christianity. Many activists and Muslim extremists are clever enough… despicable enough … to manipulate the democratic electoral process to seize control of weak-minded nations, and unfortunately, take advantage of unsuspecting voters. In some countries they have already accumulated enough power and consolidated enough black-belt influence to toss by (dumb) weight of the proletariat body any conventional move of their critics.

D(6)   Curiously, even the U.N. has a voting security council. Recall the politburo had its executive committee and from time to time its plebiscite on war and policy making. All attendance moves in jest of democracy wherever despots compete. And though the Emperor may conquer the Republic, tyrant cannot succeed tyrant indefinitely, nor peacefully. Mortality has its own claim-time on how long rulers stay, and on what fiery rhetoric tyrant-dragons can breathe forth to enflame.

D(7)   Modern democracies struggle to seal the freedom of the people in a social and technological bubble. Accomplishments of smarter, fancier, more powerful equipment rarely make persons wiser, superlative over their shortcomings, or in greater jurisdiction of their personal lives. Cries to government for more equity, representation, or minority reform seldom make resounding the clamor for the calm beneficence of grace. Futile is the appetite for whetted sandstones amidst the dry scratching of the pointless view. Within the mind, the hospitality of the emergency room is limited by the capacity of the haunted morgue.

D(8)   In your journals, you trace the evolutionary path of today’s red-light runner from the drivers of yesteryear who turned on red at will. And even though your studies refuse to document it, the libraries and the bookstores are filled with stories of stars and ordinary persons leading the country into the fast lane of alcohol and medication ending in a soft wall of hard drugs. So, in similitude, then, the press recoils from its own slippery-slope of ever identifying its sources, lest all freedom is lost. Abortion proponents reject any limitation on time or situation, fearing it would be a precursor to the elimination of all death on demand.

Where is your conservatism? Time was — when womanizing, and playboying, and slutting, and golddigging, and romantically lying, and being unfaithful to your vows were all viewed with disdain, as degrading to others, disruptive of the family. Now, they are not only permissible, they are nearly deemed a prerequisite to social acquiescence and homely abiding. Hardly a day goes by that the entertainment industry doesn’t flood the airwaves with episodes of exhibitionism, dabbling, grappling, molesting, fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. Did they come from nowhere? Are they not leading us somewhere? Will there ever come a time when you will stand up against brother and sister making love in their childhood beds, against the father committing family incest, against youngsters abusing animals in the field? No, you will not, owing to the way you have aligned yourself with mental aberration and identified yourself with behavior perverse, queer, and aggressive. A freedom rinse is too little bid where honest baptism is scalding.

D(9)   Before federalists drew off most state’s rights, before the secularists and the child molesters took over the educational system, before many citizens owed their livelihood, well-being, and home welfare to government-run agencies, before the defense department began to emasculate the military and brainwash civil servants — imagine a time when clubs kept private residence, organizations could swear benign neutrality, and Sunday bells rang freely the calling of the faithful to service. Government intrusion, interference, and domination are a squandered lesson too late for the learning, an insidious rash … turned scar … too large to be covered.

D(10)   Even as the casualties of society’s loosened moral values are brought in beaten and battered and stretched afore you, dream not yourselves as doctors of the judgmental … as though in pretense of understanding any conception of impartiality, by sense of scientific objectivity and superiority. If this is the case, why not be impartial about treating diseases, indifferent about cuts and lesions, non-committal about healing cancerous infections and fixing organ malfunctions? Why not live and let live … and let the patient die, as the case, and as my profession, calls for it? The side you chose medically in these unwanted conditions … supposedly on behalf of good health and beneficial medicine … is the same side which society must choose for its own protection, not in support of some liberal agenda. Society too has its social diseases, its virulent infections, its violent wounds, its structural dislocations. There must be rules and guidelines giving transcendence to the functioning of the physical body and the socially-conforming mind. Why can you not see this, instead of accepting every racist attitude and trite liberal excuse to bend the truth?

Psychiatrists retort, “I am able to say what is best for myself, though not for others”. But isn’t that your doctoral profession, telling people what’s wrong with them? Still you disclaim, “I believe what I believe, and he believes what he believes: this is on his part or on her part; and sometimes it is best to take no part at all”. His or her? Don’t you mean “it”, since no one has a set gender any more … a fixed agenda, yes, but not a fixed gender. How is what you believe “impartial”? In a society, you and everyone else should be in all parts, effused in all points sharing, all points of view showing. When you at first have your own interests at heart, then that of your family, then your neighborhood, then your state or country, then the world, and finally the whole universe, then you may bear the health and welfare of everything that concerns you, with all parts taken up in you. Until then, you are a poor doctor, because you are a poor arbiter of the truth. Impartiality does not mean unconcern; it means without division. What is more estranged in this matter, impartiality means having no uninvolved parts — no parts in which you do not have some interest or where your caring does not have a vested belonging.

Love the Truth first; then you may love the vicissitudes of all life as though your self were in them. So now you shall know what it means to be impartial: to have a stake, but on whosoever side you share, you consecrate Wisdom more, for the protection of the innocents. And may heaven punish anyone who violates the Spirit of Truth.

D(11)   We all reason through the colored light of winsome vanity. One would think, then, given this conscious recognition of inherent bias and vulnerability to self-deception, that each of us would take respite or give pause before ever brashly, blindly, or thoughtlessly voicing our opinions. At least one should refrain from offering unsolicited advice (as I do here). But such is its own vile retainer and evil sustainer. Precisely because we instinctively judge from outside the context of impartial reason, but rather in alignment with our ignorance and personal prejudice, we dare think our ideas are notable and worth consideration; and, consequently, daunt expressing.

D(12)   The decline of another institution, the American Judicial System, is posited, though political winds tear apart its gossamer wings of traditional fairness for all. A Supreme Court was mostly enabled to step in only to resolve bilateral impasses, as between the other two branches (legislative and executive), or to decide conflicting opinions at the lower court level. Lower courts were pressed to decide intermediate and civil matters, handling appeals as they were referred. Across the system, there once was at least a corresponding range of standard punishment and restoration for each standard of guilt proven and exacted, including as what might apply by coincidence to third-party collateral damage (e.g. children of divorce). For the many voiceless entities listed above (e.g., children, the mentally-ill, the environment, and so forth), in theory they had a voice in the courtroom. Over the past half century or so, the Supreme Court has been asked to intercede whenever any political group became dissatisfied with the decision of the legislators or couldn’t bribe enough executive agents to carry forth their private deceits. Sizable activist groups, with weighted financial advantage over the common person, and using the money and influence of the media, can now literally pervert democracy by overturning the will of the American people.

Untended and often unwanted power has thus been given to (little known) judges to make politicized decisions regarding strange matters outside their expertise, such as sexual affairs and caravans of immigrants carrying tons of cartel drugs. Judges who used to act with discretion and who restrained themselves from favoring contesting elements, now discard those impartial roles for the party hats, suits, and sponsored songs of the political band. Preferential treatment has now been extended beyond the upper class of (financial) elites to include gays, transgenders, red socialists and green environmentalists. Up until very recently, most of these social deviants would have needed medical passes or ankle bracelets to be allowed anywhere near the court normally left for law-abiding citizens to plead their cases. Fancy a court now more like a stock room where various fleshes of famished livestock are shuffled in for auctioneering. Inside the federal slaughterhouses, the gavel hammer is slammed on the poor and the truly needy. There can be nothing ‘judicious’ about their trials except the speedy timing of their passthrough. Men in dress skirts with their swinging genitals have lunaticked their way into the courtroom as freely as they have into women’s bathrooms and girl’s showers. Nowhere on the judiciary plate has been the slightest taste for the victims so psychologically maimed and abandoned.

Several changes come readily to mind. The first is for honest, impartial judges to bring their own interpretation of the law. Separate from the “equity” principle in Accounting, the whole of the Judicial system should apply an equity provision, belaboring and maybe overturning any case not based strictly on the law. Onto the justice’s scale should be more than just hard facts, conditional and circumstantial evidence, whenever determining substantiation of guilt or innocence. Taken into consideration also in the trying of the case would be pursued at what price of legal craftiness, community activism, focus on situation addiction or impoverishment — brought (bought) suspected undue influence on the court to handle that case inequitably and without universal referendum.

The second is retribution for what failings the Executive and Legislative branches have extruded from “justice” itself. Congress has bailed on its duty to the American public. If an obvious corruption has been noted in the Executive enforcement area, by not following the letter of the law or intentionally deviating from its true intentions, then Congress’s own majority rule should defer from impeachment proceedings and other actions to make appeal to the Supreme Court in satisfaction of immediate justice. Then, as sought by those persons in a civil lawsuit, they should seek relief by court order to prevent further imminent harm. A stay issued by the Supreme Court would put a hold on this deleterious breach of duty until both branches can present their cases and evidence of defilement before the Court. Any officer of the Court, including the Attorney General and the head of the FBI, must stand in judgement for disobedience to the rigors of the law. If the President, Homeland Security, the Treasury, the IRS, etc. can currently assume for itself a disregard for its own officially-dictated procedures as summarized in their coded regulations (e.g. Tax Code); if they can override duly passed Congressional laws or decide for themselves which laws should be followed and enforced and which not (e.g., DOMA, Immigration, double standard of criminality); if the Executive Branch can just create new laws out of the blue, in defiance of Congressional approval (e.g., executive orders); then the Judicial Branch should take it under its wing to make sure every fledgling facet of the Justice System is operating serendipitously in moderation and fulfillment of those legal proceedings. That means overseeing the actions of every lawyer, attorney, judge, and bailiff brought into the vicinity and affinity of any official courtroom. That means every attorney general, director, and enforcement officer should not act in defiance of the law by failing to recognize basic civil rights and that other related extensions of Human Decency are being accessed without prejudice or ruthlessness. District Attorneys should not have the right to refuse prosecution of the guilty or charged, or to let repeat offenders just walk out of a refrained court decision to commit more crimes. Every judge, every officer of the court, every law enforcement agent, in office or in the field, must be able, of their own mental accord, to distinguish between … also proving themselves in knowing action thereof … what is right and what is wrong, between what is sacred and profane (being disgraced therefor); moreover, putting aside the formalities of human-ordered conditioning, be able to distinguish between what is clean and unclean (in frowardness of natural law). Both Democrats and Republicans are politically bound, and are too corrupt, too tethered to their rich donors, to ever be trusted with doing what is fair and honorable. It would be a crime of legal vanity for judges to say, “Sorry, we must wait for the case to come before us”, in bowing out of justice claims; thereupon to excuse judicial action for the entire duration of World War II, “We don’t really have a full count of how many Jews have been gassed or slaughtered yet that we may bring trial and make pronouncement in totality against the Nazi killers”.

The role of the Court as third-party advocate is “to apply amelioration to the procurement powers of Congress in its budget-making process”. A Congressional body that doesn’t attempt to create a budget, balanced or otherwise, doesn’t care about the looming excessive debt, doesn’t investigate or move to control wasteful spending and program overruns, doesn’t realize its long-term effects on the government finances, the economy, and global stability … commits an act of aggression on the Country and the children of tomorrow.

Regardless the controversy and the inevitable backlash from the other two branches, the Court should at least confirm the upright nature of its own system. American citizens, in demonstration of their patriotic founding, should set forth and establish a CB.P Board, acting in preservation of Checks & Balances in Principle, in remembrance of Check & Balances on Power. To keep the Board cleansed of Anti-Democratic components like communists, fascists, jihadists, etc. a loyalty oath must be sworn with immediate dismissal for disobedience (no trial pending). Their role by definition is on contingency of satisfactory service. Only honest, deliberate members seasoned in peaceful ambition and veteran devotion and trained in the Jeffersonian ideal of democracy would sit on the Board.

D(13)   Categories of Liberalism

Liberalism is easily criticized when it serves the selfishness of the unbridled, or turns aside a conscious hearing on the sincerity of other (more) conscientious thinking. It wasn’t always so clear-cut. At various points in historical presentation, a person could call himself/herself a liberal if he/she was a:

  • (L1)  broad-minded person very open and tolerant of other’s behavior
  • (L2) libertine holding convention within, but dismissive of imposed restrictions
  • (L3) liver of a profligate existence, without conventions or concern for others’ well-being.

There is scant little reprehensible to be said of a liberal of the L1 category, except that there are very few of them left today; and there is nothing ‘polite’ about the political to ever see them return in kind and freer motion. In its most benign analysis, liberals L2 and L3 are a reference to situational ethics gone amuck. “Do anything you want as long as you don’t get caught” (L3); or “do anything you want as long as it doesn’t hurt others (too much)” (L2). Neither version is philosophically justified.

D(14)a Liberalism: Lack of Philosophical Standing – Daring the Absolute (L2)

Again, do anything you want as long as it doesn’t hurt others (too much), An immediate problem is derived. Who shall determine the depth and extent of the damage? One person may venture outside on a bright, sunny, fairly warm day and receive a nice tan only; another may go out and suffer a burn within a few minutes, or a sunstroke if staying longer. Some people might think it causes no real harm letting their young child use his age and size to bully younger, smaller kids. Someone might find great dishonor in being socially ostracized by everyone; others may glorify in the independence of that aloneness. One person may be tough-skinned and shrug off rebuke or offensiveness without getting angry; another might be touchy given the slightest unkind word. When a person uses his power, his wealth, his fancy judge’s robe to verbally and legally steamroll his defenseless opponents, what ambulatory care and medical insurance shall you provide? Human feelings, unlike real events, are not easily witnessed or resolved. Recognition of disturbance — afterwards — does not prevent discomfort beforehand, or the vague feelings it tenders long after. An ambassador must enter every designated position and station of service with manners and garb already respectfully addressed.

What will happen to your (simpler) self-centered focus: “everyone should do what he likes to do” rule when science is biologically able to predetermine the being, appearance, and the likeness (literally) of everyone genetically from birth? Will there be a (lower) class created precisely for the exclusive purpose of humbly serving a specially formulated administrative elite (upper class) — like slaves of a new test-tube plantation South? Before reaching perfection of choice, a person must be of a stature, a will, and a perfect desire to decide.

By despair of absolution, the simple (extended) proposition of “do anything you want as long as you don’t hurt others” urges the invite of a necessary referee to judge actions, the inevitable harmful consequences, and the probable engaged parties involved; though here, again, the caveat is such that the referee cannot judge himself. According to the Einstein proposition, “everything is relative” (to myself at least). If everything is relative, then nothing can be absolutely in the wrong (or right). I decide what I want to do. I decide if these acts appeal to my mind as seeming right or wrong. I decide if others should be reckoned as being ‘involved’; and so, press the conference of circumstantial effect (hurt). Outside claims are meritless unless they can be substantiated through the real-feelings framework of my own free-roaming lifestyle: delivered in sanctimonious revelation, “there can be no morality apart from that which confirms my right to do whatever I want to do”. Conceiving one’s own morality thesis up front suspends social pressure and overrules any group-think of upsetting moral order. Universal (commonality) standards would no longer apply since each person’s feelings and desires are different and predisposed to self-reasoning. Anything that might reject or protest the libertine, such as a moralistic religion, would be labeled antithetical to the liberal’s egocentric dogma. Communally, only a collective pact by mutually believing liberals — stuck in the mud of their own un-sharing willfulness —would prevent a complete breakdown of society.

The posture of the liberal, after all, is to abide alone, living remotely on an island of disdain, pretending that all of his isolated acts and reactions have absolute distinction. In vain dissertation, contrariwise, he thinks that outsiders have no influence or passage into his hinterland. Their actions and interjections are considered disposable or unworthy of judgement. Nothing ‘out there’ is reliant upon him, and he boasts himself as never relying upon others. Driving a car much faster than the speed limit may be illegal, but if it does not exceed the limits of his physical boundaries or freedom; then it’s okay. And if he is an excellent driver, he will usually and regularly get away with it. However, driving while drunk impels a danger to himself, to other drivers, and threatens the safety and lives of any passengers in his car, beyond any physical damages that may result; and, indirectly, affecting the insurance rates of many other drivers. A similar argument applies to operating heavy machinery after taking some types of medication. Using prescribed medicine with technical legality, even under the penumbra of honorably trying to perform your job at great effort, does not excuse that person from the incidental damages caused by taking the medicine. Human ego and licensed free will does not give warrant to spurn reality or deny common sense. A light now shines on liberalism reflecting its inherent philosophical error: of letting externalities to preface or hold contingency over what should be palpable free expression. Observe how an engineer may test a new prototype of motor for dependability of (normal) service by running it harder, hotter, faster, and longer than ever before until it at last breaks down. Automatically speaking, unless a machine has the combustion and durability built mechanically within, its limits can never be really prescribed and it can never really be externally manifested a constant assurance of ‘normal’ operation. A somewhat extreme liberal might think it appropriate to always be “living on the edge” — constantly inviting danger and death like Evel Knievel. Anything less would not satisfy his desire to be exultantly ‘free’.

D(14)b Liberalism: Lack of Philosophical Standing – Beholden to Others (L2)

Whatever the overriding standard chosen for someone’s philosophy, the liberal must be sure that any exercise (offensive discharge) is not taken as a hurt or uttered affront to others. Once the testimony of individual responsibility is introduced, — if only for the preservation of yourself and the safety of others — then unhampered liberalism disappears altogether. No liberal entities deserving of being called a ‘mother’ or ‘father’ would dally forth on a camping trip with their very young children into a distant rugged wilderness for days at a time, then promptly commence to sit down, start taking hard drugs and thereby stoning themselves out of mental awareness — leaving the inexperienced kids at the mercy of wild predatory animals or severe weather or slowly to suffer in anguish and starvation. The couple’s marriage was a commitment, as was their created truth. The arm extended … serves to define and breakthrough any defensive liberal wall of their isolated island existence.

No employer would appreciate someone coming to work on Monday totally hungover or still wailing from the weekend shock of drug abuse, perhaps praying for a little boost to make it through the day ahead. Consideration for family, the workplace, and even the general social environment intrinsically curtails the “rounds” of imbibed freedom, as surely as the hazard-string of cordoned scene behavior. Only a king or emperor has that magnitude of indifference or disconcerting sense of personal power to turnstile circumstances and people to his will. Surmising the hurt further down the line, how could a “successful” drug-using father, who has somehow managed to keep his life together and escape condemnation, ever take umbrage of his children partaking also? Vision thus a school playground with an infested sandbox as dangerous as a snake-pit or alligator swamp.

 Concentrating the capriciousness into a single illustration, suppose a man and a woman go out on a swinging date, as they are frequently and liberally wont to do. After a night of drinking and partying, they playfully agree to have unprotected sex, wherefrom the woman later discovers she is pregnant. If the liberal in her decides to carry on with the pregnancy until birth, but the liberal in him decides against it, whose attitude carries forbearance? More than just depriving the gestating woman of assistance, and thereafter he being neglectful of child support for the mother, what is yet to be made of the missing father’s supportive presence and parental guidance for the child (an undefined hurt)? Has he not most likely condemned the child to a life of poverty and depression? Has his slack behavior and non-support added to society’s woes (statistically speaking), while committing an immoral act of non-valor? Some men in our disgraceful society go out of their way to impregnate as many women as they can, or any girls they “freely” convince and presume to rape — leaving it for society to raise dozens of children out of wedlock, and often out of luck. If having ‘free’ sex is your liberal right, then is not nurturing and raising the product of that conception an affiliated obligation? Or if a man believes he has the freedom to mate with anybody or anything, what strongarm of the law should keep him from having sex with a minor, a sister, a brother, an animal? Should he still be entitled to receive treatment for any contracted disease or child disability therefrom? This whole philosophy is merely a rationalization of sin, giving exemption to acts of indiscretion and major lapses of malfeasance.

Dissecting the characterization of fault even beyond these would-be miscarriages of justice, when should any two independent liberals ever give consent to join together in any act for which they are not of one accord? Consider the case of two wholly-dedicated liberal lesbians, both manhaters in their hearts, nonetheless were granted permission to adopt and raise a male infant? Assuming the coupled pair are honorable enough not to let their inner hatred of all men to manifest itself in the boy’s presence, what sympathetic strain is still placed on the growing boy having no one at home to teach him how to become a proper “masculine” male, nor act as model, nor render unto study any semblance of the nobility of man? For that matter, the same could be said of any couple (man and woman) taken with wedding vows. Marriage portends a relationship rife with compromise or else it doesn’t work: each perforce conceding some measure of their fondly-held values, until rented, their rights and privileges are also made twain. Upon parenthood, even so, will either parent have the integrity to demonstrate the modelling of service and the strength of supervision necessary to make the children sympathetic to any apportioned human condition? 

Numerous other cases of the aforementioned liberal position serve to puncture the bubble of their isolated existence. Whenever beholden-ness is recognized and credence is afforded to fellow human beings, to animals, and even to plants, liberality (as described) is forsaken. Who would buy a dog then refuse to feed it properly or on a timely basis; or deny the responsibility to train it and prevent it from at least attacking and killing other people? Who would go to a national park and not keep it clean, or be so presumptuous as to bring home unpermitted artifacts as souvenirs? Does not demanding the right to buy guns (which you did not create yourself) imply responsible gun ownership and safety training as requested by the law? More controversially, does not demanding the right to vote under normal or extraordinary circumstances imply providing some proof of ID to verify the certification thereof? Does not the voting in favor of any law imply an acquiescence to any of its associated mandates, interest, and penalties — who, while also, not knowing further down the road, all of its unforeseen harmful effects? At the global level, shall not the liberals’ partaking of the (undeserved) blessings and resources of this earth (e.g., rare metals for electric vehicles) owe a compensatory backflow of reparation to all the natives from whence they were taken, the short-shrifted poor, and their looted descendants?

D(14)c Liberalism: Lack of Philosophical Standing – Laissez-faire (L2)

Falling back on a transportation analogy, a more circumspective liberal might give nostalgic repair to days long gone when all vehicles, their mechanics, and other accompanying responsibilities were much simpler and handled with little guide or training. Maybe if all cars still had roll-down windows and no A/C, no GPS or other modern gadgets, not even signal lights or bright headlights. Wouldn’t we all be less bothered – more free to be more free? As in the actual very early days of the automobile, there would be no need for licenses or registration or insurance. On the road there would be no stop signs or traffic lights to restrict our movement beyond cordial politeness; and no police screaming their intersection. The most controversial aspect of this reminisced free-for-all, speaking politically now, not metaphorically, would be that this simple open allowance and freewheeling would apply to all platforms and all forms of belligerent tact: from liberals to communists to radical Muslim terrorists. Every faction would be ‘free’ to campaign and appear on the ballot, maybe occupying a more-than-provisioned share at the election table. Totalitarianism, with its compunction for arresting, imprisoning, torturing, and killing their opponents would have a field day rounding up all the freedom lovers, the concerned capitalists, and the laymen bystanders.

Giving credit also to the past, it could be argued that liberalism is merely a personal facsimile of the larger maxim: “The best government is that which governs least” (Thoreau, 1849), carrying forth an ideal suggestively messaged in Jefferson’s writings years before. The best of liberal life is one which is hindered least. We can somehow sense its original intent whenever we read, “Congress shall make no law respecting … prohibiting (infringing) on” (free speech and religion). Such a contrapositive stance would then bring into question whether any true liberal — thereupon or thereafter — would ever owe even a minimalist allegiance to that government state — in deference to any law passed without bother and no preset structure of minimum compliance. Stern liberals might yield to the government no virtue – since it gives little or no assistance to individuals. Others might grant bare-bone accreditation for the sake of national defense, police, and fire, and the like. Some cooperative gestures might be conceded for the schools and the capital marketplace. A hardcore separatist might prefer a shift back to “naturalism”, despising all social order or needs beyond medical necessity. Fearing the imposition of harsher limitations, a natural liberal might dispose himself to an ideology paraphrasing Descartes (1637): “I am that I am”, and disavow government altogether. At such a roadblock, community (moral) standards might go by the wayside — becoming meaningless to convey, much less enforce; leaving wrong attitudes, bad feelings, and outright insurrections only for the police and the vigilantes to resolve (for when they got “caught”, mentioned earlier).

D(15)a Liberalism: Perversion of Self and Those Around – Attitude of Affluenza (L3)

It has been said, mockingly, that most liberals suffer from a mindset of “affluenza”, a psychiatric term roughly equating to a fixation on wealth and a jealousy for the power of influence thus privileged. One famous case involved a remorseless teenager who only received probation for the 2013 intoxication manslaughter of four people, thanks to his family’s carefree upbringing and highballed funding of masterful lawyers (Eustachewich, 2018). In conjunction, some immodest liberals love to dawn celebrity robes and ceremonial headdress, then go around renouncing their rich status and lifelong privileges, while simultaneously claiming victim-hood or ethnic entitlement for what everyone else have put them through in life. It is clearly evident to everyone except the liberals, who never seem to look at themselves honestly in the mirror, that most of them either overlook or just reject the notion of their own implication with the sorrows in our world; i.e., their participation with the “Axis of Evil”; moreover, seldom ever pausing to wipe the splashes of mud and blood away from their “Animal Farm” faces. Despite a vapid propensity for disparaging the wild and dangerous environment, which they daily strive to foster and extenuate, they never see themselves as complicit or, alternatively, never suspect themselves as one day becoming hunted prey of the predator-regimes they fiendishly unleash. Selves always demand they be the ones being waited on subserviently; famously preserved from attack and saved from deserved death throes by throwing others to the lions.

A strange picture-analogy appears of an unkempt, self-protective liberal whirling in dervish spinning style around and around with a knife or a sword trying to keep at bay all the circular forces trying to infringe on his (but not necessarily anybody else’s) civil rights. Less active, more legalistic versions of this cultist stream would simply attempt to cordon off the world with police tape – preferring an influential buyout from crossover harm.

Haplessly, I dare to say, many liberals even think of themselves as “redeemed”, having earned a place in the hereafter by their wealthy stance and disposition, and by their foundational support of liberal causes in particular, arranged in spectacular technicolor presentation, the sponsorship of royal weddings, opera houses, museums, cathedrals, PBS cultural dramas, exposes of travels throughout Europe, or ventures on luxurious cruises. These constitute their tithing, their door-passes to a fanciful heaven. Whereas, had they any faithful service or any real God-fearing in them, they would not promote, often hideously, all the dirty little tricks of politicians, elitists’ theft of the poor, and the intentional destruction of the natural environment just to maintain their wealthy lifestyle. Rather, like the Sierra Club and other do-good environmental organizations who do their best to keep ordinary Americans out of their parklands and wilderness areas, they openly advocate for and welcome an unlimited number of illegal aliens into the country, often trampling down the virgin meadows and burning down the verdant brush as they cross sacred places. Most of America’s current environmental problems are caused by overpopulation, which is nearly all driven by illegal federal immigration policies, resulting in urban sprawl, disruptions in the natural water cycle, rising levels of carbon dioxide emissions, and millions of tons of plastic and other trash entering our oceans (Center for Immigration Studies, 2019). Had liberals any actual awareness of life-care, they would not financially support the many heinous undercover operations aimed at destroying democracy, to invoke wars from which they profit, and to condemn millions of poor people to daily starvation and destitution. They would not prop up third-world dictators as long as their oil, gold, and other minerals were flowing. At home, they would not push to sustain corruption in government and society by brain-trusting the FBI and giving financial aid to supposedly “civil rights” groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, the BLM, Antifa, and the ACLU — just so they can create “civil unrest”, burn down stores, and murder police officers. Liberals would not “entertain” vile Hollywood causes and propagandize the hatred and the downfall of America.

When confronted with their own hypocrisy, a special indulgence is bartered of themselves for simply following the “natural order” of things, such being in type like ruffians on the playground, teaching the foremost lesson that all children must master: how to lie, steal, and bully others as the only dispensational measure for standing out, overcoming resistance, and defeating your fellow playmates (while staying invisible to monitors). A Passover sense is thus encouraged as to how much un-leaven they must endure for the sake of their own sanctity. Because they are or were free-thinkers from the beginning and don’t want government interfering with their choices and personal actions, liberals are willing to accept in social trade-off some very disagreeable practices by others or in companionship of other’s love-making. Being also tolerant from the start (L1), buys them a window port – deliberately left open – on a doomed ship in the midst of a hurricane gale. For the sake of their selfishness and non-existent honor, they would be willing to abide dirty business dealings, disgusting and aggravating social leaders, money-wasting politicians, and occasional frisking (shakedowns) by whimsical security forces. Socially, they will weather (whether) so-called friends and flamboyant acquaintances who brazenly flaunt their infidelities (and national loyalty), their bigamy, incest, homosexual sodomy, their Jeffrey Epstein paraphernalia and parting flights; yes, even their sadomasochism and their bestiality in heart and mind. Somewhat perniciously, they may pay others to overlook (or watch over) such sins in themselves; or pay despicable a-moral teachers to pro-pound (compound) them before and into crucified children, hard-thrusting them early on so that they may have a warehouse backup supply of confused, abused, and mentally circumcised patrons in the future. Let no one be denied the ‘liberty’ of a libertine existence. Besides, they tell themselves, whatever variance or reservations society may foreordain as sinful (evil) is prolonged in the habit of an irreverent life, being an inevitable and welcomed by-product of consorted-dating freedom. A little street violence, drug-taking, crime, and depravity is not a great price to pay. Everything is wired within the fallback plan of first-class seating and garnered private jet accommodations of the liberal wealthy.

D(15)b Liberalism: Perversion of Self and Those Around – Vanity Unleashed (L3)

Behind the fashions of liberalist clad is their oddly iconoclastic look. When everybody, when every minor person in society reveres herself to be an arbiter of freedom — “do what you want as long as you want, until you drop”; adherence to this principle has all the earmarks and summoned alarm of a flash mob gutting through an extravagant clothing shop, or breaking the glass ceiling (and all the other countertops) of a high-end jewelry store. Everybody takes what they want before someone else gets it first. Or numerically speaking, in a less dramatized example, the effect of this kind of looting resembles the continued splitting of dividends on the market over and over again — as a crop-sharing enterprise — until the value drops below the worth of buying. An injected lesson is thus reinstituted of the practice of socialism (assuming tyranny does not stomp first), when everything stolen from capitalism is by decree divided out evenly among the people in their rioting masses until at political end a point is reached when the resultant ‘social’ attainment and distribution is no longer material, and progress not worth sustaining, hence, not worth living. (American) capitalism was supposed to have a counter-check on this economic overreach — resting in the armchair of self-governance, acting to make sure there is no “pilfering in the wilderness” on a “first come-first serve” (most manually dissolved) basis. Some remnant of decency, conscious order, and future inheritance must be deposited in foundry preserve of mineral resources, open parklands, and industrial factors upending and upwelling fresh entrepreneurship.

Sincerity of belief is not enough. Structured faith must have a framework of someone caring, something worthwhile, and on the outside a carrying on beyond oneself. A fair-minded individual (as opposed to just an open-minded one) must have a concerted sense of assurance that faith has merit and an upright view that gives witness and wisdom to virtue-tending. Conviction must reside on both sides of the observant self. Liberalism must yield to practical experimentation in order to be universally astute. No organism or organized entity can gather momentum through whose instruments consist purely of individual flagellates beating themselves and packets of nutrients along. Any such protozoan in nature would quickly founder in scalier environs or be devoured by more environmentally-adept predators (i.e., communism and fascism). A passive economic school of thought renders the supposition of “absolute advantage” to corner the market or to bring prevalence to a union/commonwealth in singular advantage of blessings that other nations do not hold in right by labor, material, or process. Were this economic castling an invincible play for natural survival, then the European continent would not have suffered all those devastating wars in the last century, their unlimbered colonies would never have flourished on their own, and a country like Germany would not have admired a mad man like Hitler as it did — proclaiming world domination at the risk of national destruction — and who in practical excerpt would send SS troops throughout the continent aiming to rob every bank, and to steal every nation’s artifacts and art, just to acquit itself of its many resource shortcomings. Another economic expression applies to us (the U.S.): “run on the banks”. For such when liberals see dire consequences approaching, instead of proposing solutions and make kinship offerings, they fan the flames of a different run: “on the consumption of justice”; leaving everybody else to fend single-handedly, and pushing the system into a heartless, self-motivated derailment.

D(15)c Liberalism: Perversion of Self and Those Around – Disparate Treatment & Rights Violation (L3)

During a recent campaign, the candidate gave his mandatory glorification of the constitution, especially the First Amendment. Immediately after fooling a sufficient majority on the promise of giving everyone a voice, he then proceeded with his real agenda and steadfast devotion to drive all conservative voices off the airwaves and to ban such belief from social media. His life is a perfect notarization of the faithful abbot: climbing the grand staircase of the monastery on bended knees — only to spit in the face of God at the top of the temple. 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion … “. From every school hallway have social-activist zealots removed the religious plaques, statues, and memorials; and their wreathes of remembrance burned. Christ’s name has been dispensed from the secular calendar. Yet every rapist, every hoodlum mug, and every street gang have a judgement-free holiday bolstered by corrupt attorneys and a maniacal press. Escorts are dispatched and parades arranged for visiting stars of licentious fame. Rap idols and mongrel chiefs demand police reform and compensating white killings.

November’s (2014) election spiked an already biased process by allowing hundreds of thousands of illegals, criminals, and other unentitled persons to vote. California alone had some 2.3 million unauthorized immigrants at that time, but also allowed all residents to apply for a driver’s license, which automatically added them to voter registration (Tuttle, 2017). In Colorado, any ‘so-called’ resident was permitted to just print out a ballot on the computer, then send the form in or cast the vote in person. Residency requirements had been trimmed down to only 22 days — making confirmation of any one resident (between two or more jurisdictions in question) essentially impossible (Brennan Center for Justice, 2013). Adding in (already acknowledged) many decades of illegal busing of voters, ever faulty machines, and discounted audits, that means true elections were never more possible, if they ever were, and that the civil rights of genuine citizens were being violated without recourse. Disparate treatment is per se a civil rights violation, particularly when it’s applied in order to favor illegals over legal citizens.

Stirred by personal hypocrisy, a wave of political unequal treatment flows like blood from liberal knives – in the name of supposedly excising the country of unfair treatment and racism. A majority of violent crimes in America, including theft and murder, are committed by blacks and other gang-associated minorities; yet white people, especially white conservative men, are saddled with nearly all the blame by the liberal media (FBI Crime Data Explorer, 2020). The Justice Department raid on Mar-A-Lago for one stash of allegedly “classified” documents, which if taken as President, Trump had the power to declassify by self-authority, sparked never-ending controversy at the possible damage done to American security. Contrast this with the current President (Biden) for whom stashes have been found in numerous locations, including his homes and at a university facility with strong connections to China (Comer, 2023). Not only do some of these documents predate his presidency, they may well clarify the Biden family’s illegal connection to Ukraine and elsewhere. Liberal activist groups like Antifa and BLM have never been fully investigated, much less arrested and jailed, for nearly two years of rioting, looting, burning, violence, and killing. Even if some of them were arrested for attacking and taking over a police station and other facilities, high-level progressive politicians back in Washington like Kamala Harris soon bailed them out (Keene, 2022). January 6 protestors, on the other hand, who didn’t carry weapons and never acted to steal historic memorabilia, to destroy anything, or to kill anyone, were held in solitary, unsanitary confinement for many months, before being sentenced to years of imprisonment. A person standing in front of an abortion clinic citing prayers for the dying is forcibly arrested and hauled off to jail; but when the militant abortion rights group “Jane’s Revenge” loudly, obnoxiously, and threateningly protests Supreme Court Justices outside their homes, which is against the law, saying, “if abortions aren’t safe, you’re not either”, no one gets arrested (Dutton, 2022). Liberal investors carry no shame for providing capital to firms enslaving Uyghurs in China (Cavallaro, 2021) or operating sweatshops in India (Assoune, 2022). The list of social and political infractions goes on and on, as well as their misconstrual of logic itself. But these ongoing liberal offenses seldom make the mainstream, thanks to the media providing cover-fire for their fortress-bomber runs.

None of the black athletes who recently knelt in protest of the national anthem and America seem to have any knowledge of human history, which encapsulates the suffering of ‘everyone’, not just those currently preaching victimhood. In their minds, every white person is a racist, even those who fought, suffered, and died to end slavery in the 1800s (a ‘first’ among humanity), or all the soldiers who struggled and died during World War II to prevent the Nazis from doing to blacks (as they wanted) what they cruelly did to the Poles and the Jews. One need only look back at Ferguson, Baltimore, Philadelphia and other urban areas where (un-)civil rights riots raged, and were enraged, to adjudge their real intent, as fomented by comfortable liberals in their gated communities. Often, the residents there were as likely to riot and destroy property after their hometown team lost in the playoffs, or when immigrants took over their local stores. Racial discrimination and police brutality were hardly foremost in their downcast minds. Suffer us to take what we want and to hurt who we want, anytime it pleases us … in the name of comparative equity. We need not wonder who taught them that creed.

A fuller amplification of the liberal’s life-affirming motto might be paraphrased like this: “I’ll do whatever I want and you can do whatever you want. Unless your wants conflict with my wants, there is no problem.” Over the past several decades, you have heard media hosts and personalities echo a very similar mantra: “I have my opinion; and you have yours. Neither of us is wrong; we just disagree”. Please, spare us the hyperbole of your self-sanctification — this conspiracy of drawn shades against the light of independent truth. Sheltered hibernation provides theft storage and is used as the hiding place from all criminal prosecution, even murder. The media is its own elite class in society, choosing amongst whom they will censure or encase in cartridge-shielding protection. In years past, they were appalled at the Catholic Church for their altar-boy scandals; today they won’t say a word about their gay friends permeating all of society or invading school lunchrooms to partake of their next pedophilic meal.

The most obvious symbol of their contradictory lives is evidenced in their fondness for immigration and completely open borders, regardless the harm being done to the nation. Behind their stubbornness to allow anybody into the country is the liberal Democrat’s earnest desire for continuous exploitation of illegals for future political gain. Inciting BLM and the other saber-rattling hate groups to riot and burn, steal and murder, assures that the normal solutions of law and order: arrest, conviction, and confinement no longer apply because they can never bring about equal justice and enlightened settlement regarding any border crisis involving relatively unequally educated people.

Summary of Rights Violations and Discrimination against Legal Citizens

  • Existing and recently-certified citizens are subject to many laws and restrictions, purely on the basis of having legal residence. Various taxes include income, property, vehicular, and personal property and transfer charges. A commercial business may be subject to business income taxes, license and registration fees, tariffs and inventory taxes, along with required insurance coverage. An individual may be saddled with public encumbrance or inducted for involuntary service like jury duty. Violations of the law are quickly enforced, no matter how falsely accused or innocently performed by the obedient middle class, subject to fines, penalties, and occasionally time spent in jail. At any given moment, the government can seize your property through eminent domain, tax sale, or the invoking of quarantine. By contrast, illegals are allowed into the U.S. without CoVid check or suspension, and transported free of charge across the country. Immediately, they become entitled to medical care, temporary quartering, social services, and eventually access to full-time housing, job assistance, plus free schooling for their children, free lunches, and later as dreamers, free college tuition and political amnesty. Other benefits are appropriated from legal citizens living in sanctuary cities. No burden of public responsibility is ever placed on an undocumented person’s gifted doorstep.
  • If present citizens ever become delinquent in their taxes, mortgage payments, or any other type of debt, they may fall prey to creditors or government agents threatening to take away anything they own. Real property may be confiscated, either knowingly or unknowingly, through adverse possession or government condemnation. Civil laws deemed inimitable or sacred to the person, such as the right to work and police protection, may be overturned by conscription or simply as a judgement against your sex or the color of your skin. None of this concerns illegals, since they are, by definition, a protected species (classes) fully deserving of all the benefits of citizenship, but none of the responsibilities, and have full (ethnic) immunity by virtue of that component. In many states, their mere presence gives them the right to drive, to vote, and become eligible for any form of affirmative action. All of this occurs at a time when many poor Americans, the handicapped, the veterans, the elderly, and numerous others are left without homes, clothing, and medical treatment — anguished moreover by their inability to receive assistance and even achieve application to legitimate public representation. Disparate treatment is not separate (but equal) treatment; it is a cold-hearted violation of civil rights under the only document that should matter: The Constitution. The overruling right of diversity, as liberals personally define the concept, inevitably leads to dissension – spoiling for dissolution and disaster within society.
  • They who followed the right steps and stipulations of the law to become legal citizens have since seen their hard-won rights dismissed without fanfare. They who worked tediously to make America a better place for fulfilling their dreams of life, liberty, and happiness, must now feel like dopes and chumps for honoring the conditions of admission and legal acceptance. After paying in their dues and contributing more than their fair share to economic development, they have become — ironically — just like long-term natives: citizens of the legally rebuffed and the officially un-naturalized.
  • At an historic Woodstock, hippies and music freaks danced to the beat, trampling down the grounds of an easy-going farmer who happened to be kind enough to let carefree kids enjoy their summer fun. Accepting more and more undocumented immigrants only depreciates the value of the worker force at the lower income levels, degrades the minimum wage, and takes jobs away from long-time residents and existing legal immigrants. The strain that such a flood puts on our school system and on our social services, plus teaching them and the instructors a second language, will inevitably reduce the caliber of their output of graduating students.
  • Just opening the borders and letting everybody in portends a natural calamity. More people means more lumber needed for homes and apartments, more clearing and leveling of the land, more utilization of resources for building and heating, more pollution of the air and grounds, and greater destruction of the already unstable temperate environmental zone. Needless to say, it also puts millions of acres of otherwise protected fertile land under the plow to feed them.
  • The onslaught of this new influx will make our parks and recreation facilities unusable, too unclean, or too crowded to be worth visiting. The natural creatures living there will flee from the noise and traffic, and the visitors will hate being there with all these mobs of destructive strangers with variant attitudes and different tongues rubbing against and irritating each other rather than enjoying the wildlife in peace and quiet. Progressive liberals have long planned for this day, encouraging the inflow, spurring the ethnic anger, and stirring the people into race riots like the 1970s or the protests of another George Floyd incident. This planned spike in resentment and racial enmity on both sides will put the country back on the historic road to another Civil War, from which liberal financiers will benefit, just as they have always taken advantage of created conflicts throughout the globe. Not coincidentally, schools in Arizona, New Mexico, and California — already overrun with Mexican immigrants filled with latent hatred — will heighten their long-standing story-telling in schools, brainwashing the children into believing all white Americans are interlopers on the continent, which they actually “own”, forgetting there were aboriginal natives here long before the Spanish came and whom the Hispanics of various nations tried mightily to wipe out through disease, slavery, and outright massacre (Seidl, 2011). Peering forward into America’s ramshackle future foresees millions of poorly-educated children forced to live off the streets selling themselves and using drugs, robbing, and joining violent street gangs to create even more chaos and destruction.
  • Worse still, open-border immigration will further quicken the deterioration of existing social institutions; for example, the Churches, the community centers, and the already over-utilized social-aid organizations. Unconfirmed background checks on many immigrants suggest that they have a very obtuse and problematic view of capitalism, having been born in Socialist societies toward which they had to swear tyrannical allegiance and create alliances with shady characters just to survive. As much as they might love to work hard for family and self-improvement, they have little training in venture capitalism and little sense of sympathy for and companionship with all those who preceded them here. The illegal who killed Kate Steinle in California back in 2015 seemed unmoved by her needless, irresponsible death, and showed little gratefulness to the idiotic judicial system which let him off without punishment (Crane, 2022).

Now, an enshrining of diversity shackles us in newly forged chains. Geographical areas that were once diverse and fairly-well mixed a few years ago have reformulated themselves into communities that are 90%+ Hispanic or Black or Asian. Astonishingly, proud progressives who once sang chorus on “We are one!” commercials and pasted COEXIST stickers on their bumpers now boast of their single-faced workplaces and colorless vision of residential togetherness. Music always sounds happier and more in tune when heard from miles and miles away. The song of irony was not mis-taken by all the white people living on Martha’s Vineyard who somehow could not resort themselves to accepting all the bussed-in brown immigrants recently, so they immediately used their privileged influence to shuffle them off to a military facility (Nerozzi, 2022). Long ago, I predicted with scarcely any pain (or plan of likeness) that all programs of affirmative action will cease on their own cognizance and that all diversity inclusion will end by their own device (division). Once a formerly-listed minority becomes a demographic majority in that area, they will use their inbreeding to exercise repressive control over ever extending “preferences” to anyone else for purposes of equality enhancement — their conciliatory invite being now rescinded under the new (non-placating) all-encompassment. No one will contest these injunctions against universal inclusion — on the same grounds (guise) that (white) liberals and progressives today manhandle and exclusively restrict membership within the country club of the elite. Political correctness is just another name for selective ethnic prejudice. Similar to meteorological (weather) fronts, changes in pressure cause constant battles between demographic groups of people each seeking social domination. Diversity will always reach its terminal-end stasis locally when one race overrides all others.

Inasmuch as “slavery” was a stain upon the history of the nation almost since its outset, “affirmative action” and “diversity inception” has become a stain upon the American human culture. Such concepts only inseminate society with racial hatred and incentivize activists to remove people they don’t like or who don’t think the way they do. Those who endorse their proliferation and bigotry are merely advocating for a more convenient and acceptable means for expelling outsiders. The victims whom they remove are often as distraught and historically beaten down as any other ethnic group, whether by harsh taskmasters or orders leaving them economically stripped. These fallen are therefore modern holocaust victims — in rebroadcast of the movie-tone capture of safari bearers for tasteful sampling and native feasting by elite tribes of cannibals.

Foolishly some may think that by opening the borders and allowing all colors and manner of people in, the deciders can then proportionalize the workplace and temporize the truth, beyond the need for all future healing. The Lord did not create “diversity among species” as an archetype for humankind’s proposed existence. Variation among the stars and other heavenly bodies serve to set the course of casual interchange and causal movement: to signal, test, and approve the physical laws of the universe. The fate of creatures and creations turn long-fully toward conserving the patterns of a striving competition. Harmony resolves itself in playful song. Innate differences of the skin must give blind picture-work to the flesh-boundedness of universal morality. 

Seasonal Sense:

Spring – study whilst passing through its initial phases … prospects still ahead

Summer – study during its heyday … engrossed in favors and suspected faults

Fall – study whilst moving into decline … problems and odds of transformation

Winter – study during its wane and death throes … reclamation or dissolution


Assoune, A. (2022). 13 fashion brands that still use sweatshops in 2022. Retrieved


Brennan Center for Justice. (2013, May 10). Colorado governor signs bill modernizing elections.

Retrieved from

Cavallaro, O. (2021, March 8). These brands sell products made by slaves in

Chinese concentration camps, a coalition reveals. Christian Daily. Retrieved from

Center for Immigration Studies. (2019, January 16). The Sierra Club’s Immigration Obsession.

 Retrieved from

Comer, J. (2023, February 9). Biden’s silence on the classified documents is deafening.

Retrieved from https://mypost/2023/02/09/the-silence-on-the-classified-documents-scandal-is-deafening-joe-biden/

Crane, E. (2022, June 7). Illegal immigrant cleared in Kate Steinle’s death gets time served for

gun charge. Retrieved from

Dutton, J. (2022, June 24). What is Jane’s Revenge? Abortion rights group vows ‘night of rage’

over Roe. Retrieved from

Eustachewich, L. (2018, April 2). ‘Affluenza teen’ walks free. Retrieved from

FBI Crime Data Explorer. (2020). Hate crime in the United States incidental analysis.

Retrieved from

Keene, H. (2022, August 30). Minnesota bail fund promoted by Kamala Harris freed convict

now charged with murder. Retrieved from

Nerozzi, T. H. J. (2022, September 16). Migrants bussed from Martha’s Vineyard to US military

base, US attorney seeks DOJ ‘input’ on response. Retrieved from

Seidl, J. M. (2011, April 28). Update: see shocking excerpts from Tucson’s

Mexican-American studies curriculum. Retrieved from

Tuttle, L. (2017, June 26). How many illegals vote in US elections. Retrieved from

Biden Doesn't Have Americans Best Interest At Heart