Washington crossing the Delaware

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpation of the national ruler, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the ruler of an individual State. In a single State, if the person entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measure for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo.”

“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.” Publius, Number 28, The Federalist

Helotism

A conservative’s comments:

While Alexander Hamilton’s sentiment is one I can agree with, the trouble is knowing where to start the fight. The statist enemy is vague and formless; they are as prevalent as the air we breathe. The seeds of this pervasive network were planted long ago, and now many varieties of the roots of the evil system have invaded every home. The vast majority of the levers of power are not in the hands of the elected officials but of appointed bureaucrats. Special interests, lobbying firms, and labor unions remain in their places to ambush new congressmen on the rare occasion that they are replaced. They are increasingly rarely replaced (“held accountable”) due to gerrymandering. Speaking of gerrymandering, you ain’t seen nothing yet now that Rahm is in control of the census!

The point is, if some simpleton were to decide that it was time to take America back to the founding principles by force, there is not a single person, institution, branch of government, or special interest group that stands out as the obvious first target. Eliminating the top 10 or even 50 leading statists or statist groups would not even make a dent in the ways and speeds with which statism is encroaching on the culture. Frankly, the only way forward is to win hearts and minds with good conduct and good logic, looking for those “teachable moments” when individual leftists catch a glimpse of the true nature of the Emperor’s new robes.

All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. And we good men did nothing as wave after wave of cultural evils swept over our society. Our ability to appeal to logic and reason is useless against the typical Obama voter, as 14 years of indoctrination in government schools is specifically designed to produce unquestioning, compliant workers incapable of critical thought. They know how to sort out their feelings on a myriad of issues, but they can’t work out simple problems of cause and effect. Most have been converted to the new state religion of environmentalism. Most believe that ethics are situational, the ends justify the means, that the majority should universally prevail over the individual, and that proposed new leftist government programs will miraculously be efficiently proctored by angelic beings unsusceptible to sloth, graft, and corruption.

On top of all that, the typical American “conservative” is not actually a free moral agent or a free thinker. It isn’t learning new stuff that is so hard, it is deprogramming oneself and unlearning all the myths, half-truths, and PC garbage that was almost subliminally implanted due to the earliness of its insertion. A conservative is willing to speak out, unless they are at work or someplace where the PC police will come down on them like a ton of bricks. Until this changes, nothing else will. Conservative and Republican are not synonyms, but many people think they are, and so they consider their biannual pulling of the ‘R’ lever their sufficient contribution to the cause. Much work remains to be done to root the corruption and unconstitutional and fascist policies from the Republican party. Having a pro-life plank does not make the Republican party the party of God.

Turning the tide is going to require on an individual basis braver outspokenness, conviction in the truths of limited government and laissez-faire economics, clear and concise articulation, the wisdom and humility to brush off boilerplate ad hominem arguments, and an ability to patiently wait for, spot, and seize those teachable moments in the lives of government-indoctrinated individuals. We must realize that children are no longer being taught about the greatness of our founding. The founders are actually cast as villains, depending on their interactions with slaves and Indians. We must be versed in topics such as Natural Law, Austrian Economics, and the fallen nature of man, and ready to be a history teacher at a moment’s notice. Focus on the basics. Leave advanced topics such as the evils of central banking, judicial review, and foreign policy for some other year. Some will risk their jobs and their status in their communities. Many will risk their family relationships. All must be willing to risk something in order to save our grand republic.

Read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg and Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin. Go to mises.org and brush up on the many errors of Keynesian economic theory. Be sure to read L.Scott Smith’s book, American Unraveling, a Politically Incorrect Analysis of Public Faith and Culture.

Also, never forget that the root cause of all of our troubles is a morality crisis. There is a spiritual dimension to our present age. We have set ourselves adrift from earlier absolutes of right and wrong, with obviously disastrous results. Nevertheless, even the most stalwart Obama supporter has a law of transcendence written upon their heart, in parlance we call this a conscience. Most people begin to see more clearly once they get beyond their indoctrinations, emotions, and the party line talking points.

H. L. Mencken September 12, 1880 – January 29, 1956

Quotes:

"Democracy gives the beatification of mediocrity a certain appearance of objective and demonstrable truth. The mob man, functioning as citizen, gets a feeling that he is really important to the world - that he is genuinely running things. Out of his maudlin herding after rogues and mountebanks there comes to him a sense of vast and mysterious power—which is what makes archbishops, police sergeants, the grand goblins of the Ku Klux and other such magnificoes happy. And out of it there comes, too, a conviction that he is somehow wise, that his views are taken seriously by his betters - which is what makes United States Senators, fortune tellers and Young Intellectuals happy. Finally, there comes out of it a glowing consciousness of a high duty triumphantly done which is what makes hangmen and husbands happy."

"The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

"The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."


THE FALL OF AMERICA

Struggles are not new to America. I am referring here to the struggles we go through to maintain our economic health, our citizen’s freedom, our public faith, and our traditional values that made us the richest and most powerful nation in the history of man.

There are problems now, struggles as it were, facing America that, although not exactly new, are escalating at an exponential pace. These problems are easily named: Relativism, multiculturalism, socialism, egalitarianism, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, and fascism. Each presents a formidable problem for traditional America. Which is the worst of these and which will defeat us first?

If we look to the future, we might name multiculturalism. Muslims believe that, like Europe, they will take over the West, including America, without firing a shot. They will succeed by simple procreation. We repeat ourselves at 1.7 children per family, while they do so at 8 children per family. When that happens, our freedom will be lost to Sharia law.

We could name relativism, the philosophy that morality is dependent on circumstances, culture, and the right to do as one wishes, however aberrant that might be. Who can say what is right and wrong in a complex world? In a progressive world, the idea of the constant principles of the Constitution becomes outdated and counterproductive. It is part of the bowtie crowd, as tattoo enthusiasts like to say, whose ideas are dying in the dust.

We might postulate that “Global Governance” is not only the solution to the world’s environmental health but all other ills the world struggles with as well. And herein lies the looter’s philosophy reminiscent of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, a New World order that cries for a level playing field among the world’s businessmen. An idiotic idea that plays to the fair treatment of people to the demise of talent and productivity.

We could allude to our bending toward socialism, an appealing ideology to those who want government to take care of them: A system that demeans merit and productivity. Americans have become consumers, yet their greatness came from industrial giants whose productivity was unparalleled in history. We have given our productivity away, sold to the highest bidder, in favor of materialist squandering.

Or we could mention, to everyone’s disbelief if not chagrin, that we are in the midst of economic ruin. The question is, which of these problems will promulgate the fall of America first?

Forecasting the profusion of alternate cultures into our own by Central and South America, Asia, and the Middle East, experts put the downfall of America at approximately 50 years from now.

The rise of left-wing, liberal socialism is racing on a fast track to capturing America’s political identity. This movement dovetails with multiculturalism and must precede it. So … 20 years, if not tomorrow? With the election of Obama to the king’s throne of Pelosi, Reid, Holder, and others of their ilk, we might be there today.

While all of these problems cast clear and present dangers to America, our failing economy has reached critical mass. Our budget deficit is beyond repair. No amount of taxes will save us. Ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan will not save us. Nothing will save us. The most apparent deficit is our federal leadership. They are gutless cowards. They will not save us. They cannot meet their promises, promises they only made to illicit votes, preying on our own ignorance. They knew they were cowards just as well as they knew they were politicians elected to represent us. Their cowardice, strangely mixed with arrogance, and profound stupidity has led to the ruin of America.

We need not wait for tomorrow or for that pale horse; we are in the midst of the fall of America as we speak. But with full bellies and an accompany lethargy, if not apathy, we not only don’t see our ruin but believe it can’t happen to us. It is said that people in love do stupid things. Hope is not far removed from love. Both represent an abstract concept that comes from the heart and not the brain. America’s hope is now revealed as stupidity, the result of millions of separate piles of chemicals with egos giving way to the circus barker selling promises.

We have betrayed our industrialists, our entrepreneurs, our innovators, our producers, and our powerful businessmen, whose government should answer to their well being and not the other way around. The return of the back slapping good ol’ boy is better than the bed wetting looters who wish to control our wealth.

The elite among us have become the ardent souls of hypocrisy.

Only by rising up from our denial, only by picking ourselves up from our lethargy, our fear, and our pain, and only by aggressively taking America back can we save ourselves. Only the principles of killology in concert with an intellectual revolution will turn our struggle around before blood runs in the streets.

Denial has no survival value.

Dr. Mortimer J. Adler (December 28, 1902- June 28, 2001). The Institute for Philosophical Research

Quotes:

- A man is not free who is not held responsible for his actions. jlg

- Complete freedom in a whole life would be possible only for an omnipotent being. Practical freedom is a matter of degree dependent both upon external circumstances and upon the nature of our desires. Bertrand Russell

- Some restraints are inevitable, some opportunities must be denied, simply because men have to live with one another and move differently to the attainment of antithetic desires. Harold J. Laski

- Although the necessity of some form of government and law must for the present be conceded, it is important to remember that all law and government is in itself in some degree an evil, only justifiable when it prevents other and greater evils. Hence, the problem we have to consider is not how to do without government, but how to secure its advantages with the smallest possible interference with freedom. Bertrand Russell

The Idea of Freedom

Freedom is an illusive concept and, like many other words we use, is often defined within the construct of those using it. Some have said that if the Constitution and its articles were abolished save the First Amendment, they could rebuild them. Others make a similar claim about the Second Amendment.

Are Liberty and Freedom the same? They are basic concepts like love knowledge, justice, and law. And, according to Mortimer J. Adler, “all make a substantial contribution toward the clarification of the central idea to which they are all related – the idea of man.”

Yet, men are existentially different, living and moving about in alternative realities. Though man is a communal animal, he is alone, occupying that space which no other animal or object occupies. Even so, his movements and decisions are often guided or coerced by external forces beyond his control. Thus his freedom is not absolute.

“The dialectic task is to remove the human element of diversity from the conversation, reporting from a purely objective, impartial, and neutral observation of the facts.” And while that is a noble undertaking, it is almost impossible to do. For example, is one’s freedom restricted or enlarged by the law? Does a socialist nation have more or less freedom than that of a Republic? Is freedom enhanced by more government or by less? The answers differ with perspective and diversity. Can we use language to dig beneath the surface of language to truly engage the thoughts of others?

Can man remove the bonds that tie him to his reality? If one is born and matures within a community, he seldom knows what lies beyond. His identity is tied to the rituals, the culture, and the sacred that reside there. He responds to the laws that tie his community together, those restrictions imposed on all in the community to provide security and reduce chaos to a minimum. And within the community, all else is directed by his freedom to choose within those restrictions. Does the introduction of outsiders marginalize his freedom or provide him with new, broader freedom enhanced by the addition of opportunities he had no knowledge of before?

If we do not agree on definition, we are discussing different subjects. Problematically, our alternative realities force us to define concepts differently. A small group of people were discovered on a Philippine island several years ago. They lived without shelter, simply huddling under trees during rain, spending the rest of their time foraging for food. They did not wear clothes or speak any intelligible language. The tribe had lived there in that manner for hundreds of years but had been reduced to just twelve members. They were the living example of in the introduction to Plato’s Cave. Yet, unlike what had happened so many times before, scientists, archeologists, anthropologists made the decision to leave them alone.

They were ungoverned, had no economy, no laws, and little knowledge beyond what it took to acquire food. They were restricted solely by their environment. Were they free? But, had they not been left alone and forced to be what we call civilized, they would be free from hunger, cold, heat, other animals, and insects. Yet they would be restricted by their inability to cope with a fast paced society that lived beyond their island and by laws they undoubtedly would not understand or see the value of. The list of restrictions on their freedom is almost limitless in our society. Who is freer?

One would believe that in America we do not have such alternative realities. Is it true? Diversity within our culture continues to grow, making it difficult to understand or agree with others who were, as well, introduced into our community. And that diversity is accompanied by the reduction of and imposition of our freedom. The atheist hopes to rid the American community of public faith, or better yet, faith period. The socialist hopes to rid the American community of capitalism, placing rigid guidelines on businessmen, giving his money to those with no penchant to earn their own. A revolutionary president hopes to “change America.” A growing liberal front hopes to deter individual responsibility with the assumption that freedom is enhanced by doing so. The First Amendment, a statement of freedom, is oft times adulterated in its absolution. And in doing so, allows acts that are abhorrent to most people. Whose freedom is being breached?

Though we hope for a peaceful and intellectual revolution, a turning point as it were, back to the community we knew, is it possible? Or is the chasm between our diverse natures too deep to overcome with reason, with dialectic, and with a return to the values of our past? Is America on the verge of violence and bloodshed once again?

The ruthlessness of absolutes is not part of a dynamic society. The Constitution was provided to assume that role. Moving outside its boundaries is leading us down a dangerous path in American History. Can anyone agree that America is freer with countless czars directing the efforts of private business enterprise? Can anyone say that the American Idea of Freedom is safeguarded by our new conciliatory foreign policy? Is debt, the likes of which we have never experienced before, a course or a stabilizing canon upon which America shouts of her freedom?

The Freedom that America holds dear is a standard bearer of the values of her citizens, their culture, their public faith, and their economic system. Those standards are eroding. Multiculturalism, the relativism of the far left, the growth of atheistic activism, the exponential growth of government, and the nationalization of industry are antithetical to freedom.

Statism is raising its ugly head. If one considers Freedom as “circumstantial freedom”; “acquired freedom”; and “natural freedom,” which does it affect? The last freedom might be defined as innate, by virtue of one’s human nature. The first defined as freedom as a result of favorable circumstances, while acquired freedom is a result of a certain state of mind. The move to socialistic doctrine denounces all aspects of man’s freedoms.

Has America become a misnomer? Does the wind lift our flag in the air and pronounce our liberty or our sacrifice?

If you find the promised land, don’t let go. Our fathers left it to us, how can we not hold on for dear life?

Ayn Rand – Born Alissa Rosenbaum, 1905-1982
Quotes:

- The goal of the “liberals”—as it emerges from the record of the past decades—was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot—by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the “conservative” was only to retard that process.)

- Statism survives by looting; a free country survives by production.

- That the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals—that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government—that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.

- Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation’s troubles and use as a justification of its own demands for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen.

Who Is John Galt?

“John Galt is a fictional charater in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged. Although he is absent from much of the text, he is the subject of the novel's oft repeated question, "Who is John Galt?", and the quest to discover the answer. As the plot unfolds, Galt is acknowledged to be a creator and inventor who embodies the power of the individual capitalist. He serves as an idealistic counterpoint to the social and economic structure depicted in the novel. The depiction portrays a society based on oppressive bureaucratic functionaries and a culture that embraces the "stifling mediocrity" and egalitarianism of socialistic idealism. In this popular mass ideology, he is a metaphorical Atlas of Greek methology, holding up the world.” Wikipedia.

Rand and Orwell, like many writers, photographers, and painters across our globe, have made use of art forms to put on display their vision of humanity’s social interaction, or intervention as it were. Language, as used by Rand and Orwell, has been and will continue to be the primary medium for social, philosophical, and political communication. Our politicians and university professors do not normally take pictures or paint. The world’s media, however, do. This combined bombardment through the use of modern technology is difficult to do battle with.

Without you having read these authors, the terms Statist, Looter, and Limiter are defined through context and inference in the last blog. Though provocative and interesting, they do not serve our immediate purpose well. If we cannot converse within the confines of a common language, we cannot converse at all.

Exact terms within the fabric of the current government hedgemony is important. The term “Patriot”, for example, is used by both the left and the right (the definition of both of which is vague as well) but often with different meanings. One can say, “He is a criminal, but a Patriot.”, or “Yes, he voted against every war ever faught by America and dodged the draft, but he is a Patriot.” The dictionary defines patriot as “One who loves, supports, and defends one’s country.”, and patriotism as “Love of and devotion to one’s country.” There are many who the government sees as criminals but who would still fit these definitions. There is even logical support for pacifists, draft dodgers, and those who would vote against any war, although others would believe that logic faulty. If a staunch conservative and capitalist were to yell, “Let all patriots gather round and defend what is right.”, it might draw an entirely different crowd had the call to rally been issued by a left-wing socialist.

Even some conservatives stand in disdain of Rand’s strong individualist capitalist personalities. But how far does that disdain go? Beware that it does not go too far, for by it socialism is born.

When I was a young man, I met a genius with whom I became friends. He did not know he was a genius, and to this day I doubt he knows it. But his quotes are filled with poignant irony.

“When I finally get around to writing my personal Declaration of Independence, the last line will be something like, To these principles I pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor, as long as it does not rain, there is nothing good on television, and it is not inconvenient.” LP

And, with the flare of Sherlock Holmes,

“When all sane explanations fail to explain behavior, then insanity must be the truth.” LP

It is with such foreboding that I ponder the inexplicable campaign words of President Obama. I assume I paraphrase. “America is the greatest nation on earth. Help me change it!” And indeed, all the language of Obama is inexplicable. There is little doubt that Obama is a shining example of an alternative reality within my definition of Patriot. There is certainly irony.

And if an Intellectual Revolution is filled with precise and understandable language, and if it is characterized within the principles of Killology, and if it is couched within the traditional confines of America, and yet it fails … what then?

If Ayn Rand is wrong, is she wrong in this?

“I have given it no thought at all and, off-hand, I would say, no, the government shouldn't control guns except in very marginal forms. I don't think it's very important because I don't think it is in physical terms that the decisions and the fate of this country will be determined. If this country falls apart altogether, if the government collapses bankrupt, your having a handgun in your pocket isn't going to save your life. What you would need is ideas and other people who share those ideas and fighting towards a proper civilized government, not handguns for personal protection.”

I invite you to watch the 3 part Ayn Rand interview, which gives some idea of Rand’s Objectivism philosophy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMTDaVpBPR0&NR=1

Although at first shocking, do the points made pave a clear avenue for American economics and the moral ground upon which socialism drowns? Or are we too altruistic to save ourselves?

George Orwell – Born Eric Arthur Blair
Quotes:
- In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.
- If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
- War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength (On the manipulation of language
for political ends.)
- But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.

Words We Use

The Principles of Newspeak – Newspeak was the official language … and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought – that is a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc – should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. George Orwell - 1984

Sometime during the last five years I reread George Orwell’s anti-utopian novel, ‘1984.’ I was a teenager the first time I read it and I thought it was a science fiction story. Consequently, I was disappointed and found the book to be boring. There were no bug eyed monsters, no ray guns, and no space ships. When I reread the book, I found it a terrifying scenario describing some of the situations that are possible when Looters are not constrained.

Orwell included an appendix to his book, which I did not bother to read the first time. The appendix is entitled ‘The Principles of Newspeak,’ the official language of the government in the novel. The Appendix is a description of that language and the design of the grammar used. When I read that Appendix, about 2004, I was impressed by the power of language, as presented by Orwell, to suppress critical or rational thought. The Newspeak of 1984 is a powerful metaphor of the language of Political Correctness in 2009.

The language of the Looters tends to have the same effect on their followers as Newspeak did on the citizens of Ingsoc. I am developing some material comparing Newspeak and 21st century political correctness.

Weapons of War: One of the things that is important in a big engagement is to destroy, capture, or spike the big guns of the opposition. One of the big guns of the Looters is the categorical label ‘Racist.’ Usually a single barrage of Racist clears the opposition from the field. The person or group at which it is fired find themselves disarmed and unable to continue the attack. The big gun, ‘Racist,’ and all similar heavy artillery, such as ‘sexist, homophobe, ageist, isolationist, speciest,’ and such have presented a problem to our assault troops every since the civil rights movement. In Orwell’s world instead of accusing a person of being a Racist they would accuse the person of committing ‘Crimethink.’ In our world, although it is not against the law to be a Racist, it is proscribed and not permitted.

Even when Limiters capture the big guns and turn them on the Looters it does us no good for they are adequately protected by the armor of their ideology. ‘Only those afflicted with whiteness can be racists.’ The Looters safely ignore any such assault. So it appears capturing their guns avails us little or nothing.

As a practical matter, the Looters will continue to use their big guns as long as they are effective in sowing confusion and baffling the Limiters. The big guns are only words and consequently are manufactured in any quantity that a particular situation requires. It takes only a keyboard or vocal chords to produce these big guns. It is obvious that we cannot destroy or deprive the Looters of these weapons. This leaves only the third alternative of our battlefield analogy. We must spike them so they are no longer effective weapons of either offense or defense.

The reason so much of what the Looters do and say appears insane or irrational to us is that they and we exist in alternate realities. We hold different truths to be self-evident and use a different metric to measure reality. Their big guns are only effective on the alien terrain of their alternate reality. If we can shift the battlefield to our reality, those guns become useless to the enemy; they are spiked. The desire to combat the Looters with precise language and rational discourse is an attempt to fight on our own turf. The Looters will attempt to drag us back over to their reality where their weapons work better.

Currently we have witnessed a dustup over a statement that Judge Sotomayor spoke a decade or so ago. Her statement was something like, “My experience as a Latina makes me wiser in adjudicating cases than a white man.” When this statement became widely know, some spokesmen of the Limiters grabbed the big guns of the Looters and commenced to bang away. Ann Coulter said “If the judge believes what she said, then objectively she is a racist.” Newt Gingrich solemnly intoned, “There is no way to deny that this is a racist statement.” Sean Hannity repeated, for several days, “The judge claims to be anti-racist, but she makes racist statements and is therefore a hypocrite.” This carpet-bombing with the Looter’s own big guns left the judge unscathed. She did not receive a scratch.

The Looters were bemused by the silly ranting of the Limiters, because they knew that only those whose identity was whiteness could be racists. To a Looter, to call a woman who identified as a Latina a racist, is an oxy-moron. The field of battle was alien terrain.

To fight the battle on our turf would have been easy, in my humble opinion. Whether the person is a racist or not should be as unimportant, to us Limiters, as the person being a Jew, Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, or Muslim. Only Looters care about a person’s personal beliefs about race. It is not against the law to be a racist, so why should anybody care. In the land of the Limiter, what is important is the behavior and actions of the person and the quality of their thinking and speech.

If the validity or truth content of what she said had been examined, then the battlefield would have been moved into the world of reality’ the world of us Limiters. Her statement could have been cast into about twelve propositions for consideration. For example:

1. Because of her life experience, this Latina is wiser than all white men.
2. Because of their life experiences, all Latinas are wiser than all white men.
3. Because of their life experiences, some Latinas are wiser than all white men.

Anyway, you get the idea. Out of the twelve the one that seemed, to me, to make the most sense, within the context of her statement is - Because of her life experience, this Latina is wiser than some white men. Some means more than one and there are a lot of white men who are idiots. The problem is the statement is now so trivial that although it may be true, there is little value in it. Why would she brag that she is wiser than an idiot, or a dozen idiots?

An examination of why a Latina’s life experience makes her wiser than the experience of white men would begin to expose the whole silly, hateful body of identity politics and its illogical assumptions about the world, society, and politics. Such an examination would call the quality of the judges thinking and judgment into question. Why did she choose to be a Latina, a victim, in the world of the Looters?

Of course, the Looters would fire their big guns, as soon as the inquisitors made their first inquiry, and call them Racists for questioning a Latina. Our response should be that that is an entirely irrational response to questions about experience, wisdom, and comparing the wisdom of Latinas and white men. If they persist in lobbing volleys of artillery, the Limiter can dismiss their entire spiel by simply shaking his head sadly and loudly saying ‘Duckspeak,’ or ‘badthink.’ (See the endnote on these words.) If we can maintain our footing in the land of reason, and avoid being pulled back into the mad world of Looter emotion, we win the skirmish, and their guns are spiked.

The wisdom of my white man life experience is that our worldview approaches reality much more closely than the alternate universe of the Looters. I also believe quite strongly that reality bites if you ignore it for very long a time. Therefore, I have faith that when reality bites, the Looters will lose big time. Unfortunately, they do not seem to learn from experience, and they just keep coming back. That is why our founders told us about the necessity of Eternal Vigilance. We failed to be vigilant and let our guard down and look what happened.

ENDNOTE:

“Newspeak, indeed, differed from almost all other languages in that its vocabulary grew smaller instead of larger every year. Each reduction was a gain, since the smaller the area of choice, the smaller the temptation to take thought. Ultimately, it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centers at all. This aim was frankly admitted in the Newspeak word duckspeak, meaning “to quack like a duck.” … Provided that the opinions which were quacked out were orthodox ones, it implied nothing but praise, and when the Times referred to one of the orators of the Party as a doubleplusgood duckspeaker it was paying a warm and valued compliment.” 1984 Appendix

Duckspeak is an effective one-word rebuttal to all the Big Guns of the Looters. It would also work on those who spout identical talking points on every TV and media outlet. Imagine some outraged Looter yelling “That’s racist,” and the response being a look of bemusement, or confusion, a shrug of the shoulders and “That’s duckspeak” as a response.

If several thousand persons began referring to Obama’s programs and initiatives as badthink, and calling him a doubleplusgood duckspeaker, enough persons have read 1984 to make the connection and begin doing it themselves.

Doublespeak notwithstanding, it makes good sense to render the Looter’s defense indefensible.

Noah Webster


AN INTELLECTUAL REVOLUTION

"Achilles [famous as the quickest of all Greeks at Troy] can never overtake a tortoise; because by the time he reaches the point from which the tortoise started, it will have moved on to another point; by the time he re- reaches that second point, it will have moved on again, and so forth ad infinitum.” Zeno, a disciple of Parmenides


Although you may find the quotation somewhat convoluted and at best ridiculous, it signifies a step in our intellectual evolution of understanding of the world around us. We refer to the Scientific Revolution and the thinking of Locke, Rousseau, and others, who took from a previous century to make strides in our understanding of man in the next, to help us deal with the ideas of today. And, I will admit, that here too, the title An Intellectual Revolution is, itself, a misnomer.

Then and today we convey ideas through many forms, the primary of which is language. But language is often vague and subject to misinterpretation. What, in today’s world, is the meaning patriot? It means different things to different people. The English language in particular is filled with many meanings of the same word and is rife with innuendo. It is difficult to be clear, artful, succinct and at the same time include a precise definition of every word used.

What, even, do the words intellectual and revolution mean? I am using Microsoft word to write this. The synonyms listed for each are:

Intellectual: thinker, academic, brain, scholar, rational, logical, cerebral.
Revolution: rebellion, revolt, uprising, insurgency, insurrection, riot, mutiny

Thus, my use of the phrase intellectual revolution could mean: a thinker’s riot, an academic’s insurrection, a rational uprising, a scholar’s rebellion, etc. A paranoid government might see this blog as meaning one thing, while a conservative reader might interpret it as meaning something quite different. Thus, I am obligated to define the term intellectual revolution with some precision. I could do it by defining what it is not. For example, it is not a call to violence; it is not a call for secession; it is not a call for a coup. Or I could define it by what it is: A call to debate on a scholarly level, with rational, logical, and precise terms. It is a call to unite people of similar beliefs, culture, and values with the use of precise terms that are clearly understood and that follow the precepts of traditional America based on the constitution and founding documents.

Here again we are being vague because people see the policies that arise from that differently. However, can anyone truly believe that the constitution and founding documents call for the behemoth government bureaucracy of today? One might even side with the Anti-federalists on that point.

I invite you to analyze the following statement alluding to a previous blog:

“You and your Republican Party need to pull your head out of the sand and realize that you are living in the past. Your tactics of “thrashing” your competition do not work any more. Bill Clinton is one of the many very capable Democratic leaders of our great country, and has proven himself so. President Obama slam-dunked your Republican candidate in the past election because he focused his campaign on benefits for the majority of the American people and not on privileges for the affluent few. America is about the welfare of the Majority of its citizens as it has always been, and should be. Until you can be fair-minded with your Blob, please don’t send me any more or your trash.”

The terms used are reasonably straight forward, being on about an eighth grade reading level. I don’t mean that as an insult. Most writing is and should be on an eighth grade level, since the majority of Americans might not understand it otherwise. Again, not an insult. The majority of Americans are busy providing a living for their families, not spending time memorizing the dictionary. Good so far. The writer is also clearly upset. The statement, “pull your head out of the sand and realize that you are living in the past.” is both unclear and troublesome. Pulling your head out of the sand is a metaphor meaning to see things as they really are. But what are they, really? Living in the past. Now that can host a whole variety of meanings. Does he mean that we should relent to becoming a Muslim state or a multicultural entity, leaving behind our traditional culture? Does he mean that we should forgo the constitution since it was scribed some 200 years ago, and things have changed? Should what was once considered deviant sexual behavior be redefined by relativism and the passage of the hate crimes bill? Does he contend, or rather infer, that Obama will bring benefit to the majority of Americans, but will exclude the affluent? That might indicate that he is pro socialist, and if he is, is he for changing everything America stood for? Note that I said STOOD for. I can go on, but need I? The point is that this paragraph is anything but intellectual in its revolutionary content. And yes, it is purulent, socialistic revolutionary double speak. How is that for “trash” talk?

The idea that Achilles cannot catch the tortoise is based on an undefined premise as well as taken out of context. Does a moving body redefine itself in continuum? It is understood by most people that we define ourselves by our environment and the boundaries set by our senses, prescribed as they are. We know that what we see is not what is. What we do and what we perceive is affectation. Thus man has built around himself a construct in which chaos is minimized, and he can live within some amount of structure that is reasonable, if not comfortable.

That construct is partly of self-defined, and he refines that definition as time passes and more information becomes available. It often amuses me that I first took a degree in philosophy at the university, but switched to mathematics and engineering out of disgust for the vagary of philosophy. Two plus two is always four, right! But is it really? The reality, I am sad to say, is that mathematics and physics are both vague and changing as new information becomes available. When I graduated, Newtons laws were thought to be the end of physics. There was simply nowhere else to go. Yet Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and many other elite mathematicians have shown Newton’s laws to be incorrect. Yes, I will admit that Newton’s laws still work acceptably for many things we engineers use to build what people want. Yet String theory, a developing branch of theoretical physics that combines quantum mechanics and general relativity into a quantum theory of gravity, is showing Newton to be wrong.

Ah, yes, you say, but what has all that to do with an intellectual political revolution? As the coming rallies and protests against the bailouts, the stimulus packages, the take over of some of America’s major corporations, the arbitrary earning ceilings on corporate managers, the regulating of an entrepreneurial and capitalist society, the acquiescence to our enemies, and the apologies for protecting freedom around the world unfold, this blog will devote itself to outlining an intellectual approach to what is rapidly becoming an American revolution. The conscious use of precise language is the key to revolutionary success.

KILLOLOGY - Bullet Proofing the Mind

KILLOLOGY, (n): The scholarly study of the destructive act, just as sexology is the scholarly study of the procreative act. In particular, killology focuses on the reactions of healthy people in killing circumstances (such as police and military in combat) and the factors that enable and restrain killing in these situations. This field of study was pioneered by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, in his Pulitzer-nominated book, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society.

An unprecedented phenomenon is occurring with the election of President Obama, his administration, and the Democrats gaining control of government. Try to order ammunition, reloading components, or a semi-automatic rifle. They are almost impossible to find because people are buying and hoarding them in record numbers. Manufacturers are working 24/7, trying to keep up with demand. Why is this happening?

When I ask people that question, the answer is always the same. They believe that President Obama’s administration will begin to enact laws that will curtail their ability to own weapons. That begs the question: Why do people think they need a weapon? I remember the day nearly 40 years ago when the government tried to outlaw revolvers with 2” barrels, calling them Saturday Night Specials. Many people I know bought one just to oppose the law for the sake of principle. And that is partially the case today. In other cases, people believe that crime is on the rise, and they want a weapon to protect themselves. But a smaller number believe the constitution’s Second Amendment went much deeper than that. Its concept was to prevent an oppressive, authoritarian government taking control of the nation.

All that is fine, but is benign if the government resorts to confiscation. But I am getting ahead of myself. Let’s look at what the people did who bought these weapons. Some do so and take the additional step of obtaining a concealed weapons permit (CWP). Others are unwilling to obtain one based on their reasoning that the federal and state governments have no right legislating their ability to protect themselves, and besides, doing so, they believe, puts them on the list of “low hanging fruit” for confiscation. As one who is involved in the training of law enforcement (LE), military, and civilians in the use of handguns, close quarter battle rifles, and long-range precision rifles, I am aware of several problems inherent in all of this.

Most people, even some LE and military personnel, and almost all civilians who use weapons are caught up in the inconsistency of philosophy versus action, which prevents them from using weapons effectively. Here is a “happens too often” scenario: The person decides he or she ought to have a handgun to protect him or herself. He or she buys a semi-automatic handgun, takes a CWP class, which consists of a combination of classroom study, filling out of paperwork, and a shooting qualification test, often completed in one day. This qualification test is accomplished by having the student stand in front of a life sized silhouette target at three close range distances and score above some preset standard. For the most part students are given a permit if they breath, can point the muzzle down range, and have the strength to pull the trigger. If new CWP holders are reasonable about all this, they show up at some indoor or outdoor range a few times and shoot at static targets from the standing position. If they understand the psychology of carry, the weapon becomes a part of their daily life. However, almost all never do, or do so for only a few months before the act becomes burdensome, and they stop. But then their ability is not as much in question as their right to have a gun to defend themselves.

By far the majority of people who buy weapons for self-defense have no idea how to use them in combat. Of course they think they do from watching television. Often this results in problems of its own. I don’t know who is the consultant on these sets, but if they are any good, their advise must be overruled by the producer as not being macho enough. I have watched almost no action on TV or the movies where the gun handler had any idea how to use a weapon in a self-defense or combat mode. The truth is that many people freeze in a self-defense mode, or their adrenaline and stress are so high they can’t find the safety, fumble with trying to load a round, or have no idea how to clear a jammed weapon, and often don’t know who the bad guy is. Some just freeze from Pre Traumatic Stress Disorder. That is, they are traumatized by what they perceive will happen, like the security guard who stood with his weapon drawn but was unable to fire while a sociopath continued to shoot innocent people. The guard was both traumatized by what was going on and by denial.

None train to continue shooting if wounded. They don’t train to shoot with either arm if the other is incapacitated, or how to reload or work the slide with one hand, or know how to approach a doorway, or hit a moving target. That is why I tell people who know they will not practice to buy a revolver. Pull the trigger and they always go off. Of course semi-autos look neater, appear more macho, and carry a lot more ammo to effect the spray and pray technique. 100, 000 rounds were required for every kill in WWII, 250,000 in Korea, and 450,000 in Vietnam. Why? Because the effective use of guns was put aside in lieu of the spray and prey method of fighting.

Success in combat comes less from hardware, ie, the weapon, than it does from software, ie, the brain and the heart. I never met a Special Forces soldier who had Pre or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), yet I have met many conventional soldiers who were stricken with one or the other. Why? Combat in the military is fought primarily by youngsters in their teens or early twenties after only six weeks of training, which includes Basic Training, Combat Infantry School, and then their MOS, for example radio operator, medic, etc. Special Forces soldiers on the other hand are often much older, have some higher education, maybe have some military already behind them, and are trained for 2.5 to 3 years prior to being deployed, depending on their MOS.

What does all this boil down to? In the last blog I said that many people see Publius as one who complains a lot, but provides no answers, to which the response was that the solution is contained in two parts: An intellectual revolution and Killology. And further, that this blog is not advocating killing anyone. Then why all the ink spent on talking about weapons, self-defense, etc.? Because to succeed in an intellectual revolution we must first change the attitude of the masses. The mental management concepts within Killology will allow us to do that.

First one must understand that the world is made up of predators and prey. In the vernacular of Col. Grossman: sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves. Sheep refers primarily to the masses and is not meant as a derogatory term. Unfortunately, most people, like sheep, are always in denial. They prefer to think that the bad guy will not hurt them or their children; they prefer to think that the government, in the final analysis, will do the right thing; they prefer to think that situations will not affect them personally, particularly if they remain passive. And because of that, they seldom protest, unite, or do anything but huddle in the corner when the wolves come, believing that the sheepdogs, i.e. the police and military will take care of the problem, or that the perpetrator will take pity on them alone.

People can and need to change their mindset. Being a sheepdog, one who protects the flock from the wolf, is a learned response. A metaphor often used in Texas is, “Cowboy up.” Hollywood portrays everything as a pity party. Stop trying to identify yourself with such drivel. If you are knocked down, get back up. If you are so scared you shit in your pants, change them and forge ahead.

Col. Grossman is fond of saying, “Denial has no survival value.” And further,

"Stay in shape. Piss on golf. Real Americans go to the range. Choose a sport with cardio or survival skill benefit. If you see a cop carrying golf clubs, do one thing for me. Look him in the eye and say 'baaa!'" Plan A is the British Model. Disarm everyone. It's not working. Plan B is the Israeli Model. Train/ arm everyone. Israel has few golf courses and a lot of rifle ranges!"
I encourage you to google Killology and become familiar with its concepts of mental management.
If you are going to Take America Back, you need to cease being the prey. But do not follow the example of Iran and other nations that cannot seem to lift themselves from the 13th century. The use of threatening words and behavior in protest is not the answer. If 100 million people were to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, their theme being to return to traditional American values, things would change. But coarse confrontations, profane acts, and the childish behavior of a few do not serve our values or our ideals well.

The time has come to initiate an intellectual revolution. Like the person who takes up the gun, but has no idea how to use it, protestors take up the cause with no idea how to empower it. The next blog will be devoted to both the use of mental management taken from Killology and the use of language. For example, why do we use the term Patriot, when, in fact, that term has become an abstraction without definition?