Thursday, June 25, 2015
Hate as a Political Weapon
Hate as a political weapon
Resentment turned to anger turned to hate, along with fear,
has become a political weapon. Hate and fear are dynamic while their opposites,
love and contentment, are passive. So if you want to build a constituency and
mobilize people you need only give them something to hate or something to fear.
Love and contentment will result in their sitting back and enjoying their good
fortune.
Because of this reality, politics has degenerated into the
demonizing of opponents and scaring the public with issues for which no one has
a viable solution. Then the demagogues can claim that they have the solution
and that if you just throw out their evil opponents and give them control life
will be wonderful.
They claim that if they are in charge they will ensure
social justice, end poverty, homelessness, hunger, illness, crime and war. Oh,
I forgot, and they would also guarantee total freedom. Wouldn’t that be
paradise? If only you would support them and put them in charge.
This is how all the tyrants of the 20th century
came to power, Lenin/Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro to name the most famous.
It’s interesting that in their rise to power they all had
the support of academics and intellectuals both native and from around the
world. Once they consolidated their power the first thing that they did was
persecute, incarcerate or execute the native academics and intellectuals.
The question you must ask yourself is: How can these
demagogues give you paradise without taking away your freedoms and making you
totally dependent, which is the definition of bondage? They can’t.
Today’s left, the Progressives, are the current incarnation
of the ancient Greek Sophists. (Sophist: A rhetorician skilled at making
foolishness sound like wisdom.) Their Siren song permeates academia and the
national media thereby luring their trusting victims into crashing on the rocks
of subjectivity.
History shows that their goal all along is the wealth and
prestige that accompanies power. In the words of Benjamin Franklin:
“Sir, there
are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men. These
are ambition and avarice; the love of power, and the love of money. Separately
each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but when united in
view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent effects. Place
before the eyes of such men a post of honour
that shall at the same time be a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it.”
The main difference between the Left and the Right is that
the Left lives in a theoretical world while the Right tries to understand
reality. The Left believes that more government is the solution, the Right
believes that too much government is the problem. The world is a dangerous
deadly place and the above listed tribulations will always be with us. The most
we can do is try to minimize their impact on society.
Again, history tells us that the way to do this is to
nurture a civil culture where self-discipline and a devotion to personal
responsibility permeates: This was the teachings of Christ distilled to their
simplest construct. Our Founders understood this. That is why, despite the
corrupt history being taught today, they all supported the teachings of the Ten
Commandments, the Golden Rule and the Judeo/Christian Bible. To read their
pronouncements, go here: http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=63
There is a subtle almost unrecognized conflict taking place
in America. The conflict is between those who believe God is the ruler of the
universe and those who think that man is. Those who believe in God’s law and
those who believe in man’s law. God’s law is codified, divine and immutable.
Man’s law is situational, emotional and subject to the whims of whoever happens
to be in power.
While no law is without violators the efficacy of a law
should not be judged by its violators but by its impact on society.
Man made law is subject to the passions and prejudices of
those in power and therefore ever changing with the transfer of power whether
peaceful or violent. This results in those in favor escaping penalty while
those out of favor suffer persecution. This creates chaos the result of which
is a tyrannical society that uses force to create order.
Natural law based on a set of principles the first of which
is that all men are equal under the law. When the principles are codified in a
constitution and taught and understood by all the result is a peaceful orderly
society in which force is only needed for miscreants and enemies of the state. This
was America until the ‘60s when the Corruption of the Constitution by the 16th
and 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act began to impact our
society.
Today the law has become malleable with selective
enforcement and executive orders and our market economy has become the victim
of Crony Capitalism.
When Benjamin Franklin exited the Constitutional Convention,
he was asked by a woman, “Sir, what have you given us?” His immediate response
was, “A Republic, ma’am, if you can keep it.”
A very prophetic reply.
Historically man’s law results in a civic structure
consisting of a ruling elite with all the power and wealth, a military to
protect the ruling elite from foreign conquest and domestic rebellion, and the
rest of the people who are considered subjects (slaves?) of the ruling elite and
do not have the rights of property
necessary for liberty. (Either all property belongs to the “king” (read ruling
elite) or as in communism all property belongs to the “people” (read state).
In ancient times there was a sect called Jews that tried to
live by God’s law. They pretty much worshipped and kept to themselves not
assimilating into the dominate culture ruled by man’s law. Then the Jew Jesus
was born and began to teach God’s law to the masses. As the numbers of his
followers grew the world began to change from one of barbarism instructed by
man’s law to one more civil instructed by God’s law.
Those who tried to live by God’s law tended to be persecuted:
Sometimes by men using God’s name to justify man’s law.
A new land was discovered 3,000 miles from old world
religious persecution. Those seeking freedom of worship (mostly Bible reading
Christians) began to migrate to this new land. In time towns, counties, cities
and states emerged with one thing in common: They tried to live their lives
according to Biblical teachings.
The left thinks that they can pass laws to accomplish this
so they spend their time passing more and more laws usually called man-made-laws.
As a result it is almost impossible for an active person to get through a day
without breaking some law even though he is not caught. This results in
selective enforcement which is the main instrument of tyranny. Another problem
with man-made-law is that it does not endure: It changes with each passing of
power from one person or oligarchy to another.
Our Founders favored Natural law. Natural Law is immutable
and defined as: A body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for
all human conduct.
This is not an argument for giving up and ending the fight
to reduce these tribulations. Nor is it an argument for ending freedom. It is
an argument for recognizing the complexity of the problem and rejecting simple,
feel good solutions offered for the purpose of gaining political advantage.
Another problem with the Left is that once they formulate a
theory they marry it. No matter how many times it fails, they cling to it “till
death do they part.” A classic example is Communism (Socialism). Instead of
questioning the theory every time it fails, the left just proclaims that it
wasn’t done right but if they were in charge they would do it right.
Since the Left emerges out of the theoretical world of the
university, their influence spreads even to the world of science. The most
important attribute of a scientist is to be skeptical about his own findings.
Due to the influence of the Left, scientists are more and more becoming
advocates for their initial findings. Scientists talking about a “consensus” is
an oxymoron. Either the experiment rising from research can be consistently
replicated or it can’t. If it can’t, then the theory that initiated the
research is flawed and therefore should be discarded. There should not be a
poll as to how many scientists agree with the theory. It is just as foolish to
accept scientific evidence without question as it is to reject empirical
evidence out of hand.
Finally, it has been my experience that any attempt to have
a philosophical discussion with a Leftist is turned into a “right fight” by the
Leftist. If you offer them an unassailable fact, they ignore it, go off on a
tangent, or make an ad hominem attack (Bush lied, Bush is Dumb, etc.) They are
right and anyone who disagrees with them is evil because they are just trying
to make the world better. Of course whenever a theory fails, the theory wasn't
flawed, it just wasn't properly implemented.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
