Posts Tagged ‘truth’

   At times it can be difficult to avoid coming across as accusatory when drawing conclusions. Even when presenting objectively verifiable fact the tendency is to project our subjective “take” on matters. This is especially true when attempting to ascertain motive. I fear that possibility with the material I now present and can only assure that I do not intend to judge/condemn motive. Caveo Lector!

   Finding a thread of commonality among apparently vastly differing groups of people is remarkable. That’s all it is if we are considering mere trivialities. But when we are dealing with matters of life and death the remarkable becomes profoundly serious. The commonality I present can hardly be called a thread; it is more of a rope or steel cable. Here it is presented as a question.

What do the following groups have in common?
Slave owners of the antebellum South?
The Turk empire of the early 1900’s?
The Khmer Rouge of Cambodia?
The Weimar Republic of Germany?

   Admittedly, there may be many things shared in common between these groups but what if we add one more group to the list, say…American Liberals and Progressives?
The disturbing commonality of these diverse groups is their dedication to disarming the citizen.

   This is objectively verifiable fact and is disturbing because of what resulted in the cases where citizens were actually disarmed: Genocide and wholesale murder! Consider the following;
One million Armenian men, women and children were slaughtered by the Turks.
Two million Cambodians were butchered by the Khmer Rouge.
Six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis.
Slavery inflicted untold human suffering in America.

   Please note that no causality is here implied. I merely make the observation that an unarmed population presents little deterrent to the tyrannical, the maniacal, the evil-doer. That is the only conclusion I wish to point out here.

   Americans who believe that the right to defend themselves is God-given and, therefore, inalienable and that the second amendment to the Constitution is an instrument guaranteeing that right are not on the lunatic fringe. They are, in point of fact, on solid logical, philosophical and moral ground.

   So…rather than jump to conclusions about why Liberals and Progressives try to somehow interpret this individual right collectively let’s let them explain for themselves.
Why do you support the abridgement of the fundamental right of every person to self defense?

Thanks for reading!

The racial reality is that there is only one race, the human race!

Any law, policy or administrative directive based on skin color (race) is manifestly unfair and utterly ridiculous. There can be no other logical, reasoned conclusion because there is only one race: the human race.

Yet we find an entire system encompasing education, welfare, health and a slew of other issues where decisions are made based primarily on the color of a person’s skin. What makes the situation even more disturbing is that the system has all the authority and coercive power of government.

There was another time in this nation when decisions about a person’s educational opportunities, access to health care and other personal matters were made based on skin color. The system was called slavery.

So it would seem we have not come as far as we might have once hoped. We have, it seems, traded a privite system for a public one. How sad, how sad!

Conclusion:
If it was morally reprehensable for a member of the human race to have personal opportunity systematically determined by skin color in the past then merely tranfering the system to government does not make it any less reprehensable. The only result is the continual fomenting of hard feelings based entirely on somethin as utterly inconsequetial as…skin color.

Thanks for reading!

What is Truth!?

That question, posed over two thousand years ago by Pontius Pilot to Jesus, still reverberates with monumental relevance for us today. America cannot, as Pilot did, ask rhetorically. His subsequent actions betrayed how little he cared about truth. I wonder how future generations will judge our concern regarding truth?

Truth is approached in our nation primarily from two very separate, distinct and disparate vantage points often referred to as Liberal and Conservative. But the labels are themselves misleading. Liberals believe in surrendering liberty to state control and the individual freedom advocated by so called conservatives is, historically speaking, quite radical! I choose to employ terms which are more accurately descriptive of the ideas behind the two groups; Statist for liberals and Individualist for conservative.

If you carry away nothing more than what I write in the next sentence I will consider my efforts a success. Truth is always a radical proposition! We will consider three topics universal in scope yet very personal and practical in application in order to demonstrate the radical nature of truth.

The Truth About Human Nature.

Men and women are by nature and by choice selfish. We all tend to work diligently at those things we believe beneficial to us and our families. This situation obviously puts some at a disadvantage. The weakest and most helpless members of our society are subject to oppression and cruelty.

Individualists recognize the truth of human nature as well as the absolute futility of attempting to change or circumvent that nature. One practical outworking of this reality is the understanding that equality of outcomes is impossible. People are too unique to guarantee this kind of “equality.” Even if it were possible the individualist would not do it because the price in human dignity is just too high. Because the individualist values personal freedom and personal responsibility he turns to government to protect the rights of the citizen. A free market is the natural consequence of free people engaging in transactions absent force and coercion.

Statists find the human condition unacceptable and believe “change” can and must occur to achieve equality of outcomes. Practically speaking this means taking from those who earn and giving to those who do not. There must be a mechanism for this confiscation and transfer of wealth so the statist turns to nameless, faceless government. Only a powerful, centralized government has the means necessary to accomplish the goal. Basically, the statist ignores the truth about human nature and attempts to circumvent it by relying on coercion and force.

The Truth About Human History

The history of mankind is a sordid and sorry tale about the abuse of power. The weak and poor have ever been dominated, oppressed and even enslaved by those in power. Centralized political power has almost always been the means to create and sustain the tyranny.

The Individualist acknowledges the regrettable reality of human history and proposes an altogether radical solution; Self government by responsibly individuals. The primary, immediate and only legitimate role and activity of government is the protection of the individual from outside powers and from criminals inside the nation. It boils down to life, liberty and property. That’s it!

The Statist finds human history an inconvenient truth and prefers to believe that we are more enlightened and somehow able to avoid the problems which have perpetually plagued mankind. Rather than dealing squarely with the truth about human history the statist simply rewrites it. This offers double advantage to the statist by avoiding embarrassing facts as well as providing propaganda with which to “educate” the unlearned and young. (I am constrained here to point out the intent of deception has ever been, and can only be, maniacal.) Summarizing, the statist avoids and denies the truth about human history.

The Truth About Human Existance

Now we enter the bloodiest of battles and the crux of all other issues. What is the nature of human existence? What does it mean to be human and what are the implications of our answers?

Metaphysical is the term used to describe intangible reality. Emotion, willpower and desire are quite real and yet quite intangible. They represent reality outside and apart from the physical realm. Metaphysical reality forces men and women to face uncomfortable possibilities.

The Individualist understands the question to be whether man is meat or spirit. Can personality arise from nonperson? Individualists acknowledge the immaterial part of man as valid and worthy of examination and exploration. From such explorations have come the ideas of human dignity and human rights. These are ideas worth protecting and defending.

The Statist finds it difficult to broach metaphysical reality because of where the implications lead. “What is the Source of human dignity and human rights?” If the Source is transcendent then the statist is obliged to seek for the Source. Stated bluntly, if the Source is anything other than man or the state then the statist has no moral high ground from which to force and coerce. Ultimately, in order to deal with the truth about human existence, the statist is forced to invent a new religion whose only tenant is Tolerance; Tolerance of and for virtually anything…well…anything but an Individualist.

See what I mean about truth being radical?