Thursday, September 18, 2014

Utah's Attitude Toward Darien Hunt

On June 18th of this year, Salt Lake Police were engaged in a search for a missing boy. During the search an officer shot a Weimaraner that was in a person's backyard.

There was a huge outpouring of rage over the shooting followed by support and demands for a change in the callous policies police have towards dogs. The site Justice for Geist is campaigning for change.

When Darrien Hunt was shot in Saratoga Springs, I was expecting a similar response. Instead I've encountered really strange reactions. So, I've spent a good part of the last two days following Utah social media and talking to people about the shooting.

Outside immediate friends and relatives, I've discovered that most people have not heard about the shooting. Those that have heard of the shooting generally repeat the official talking points with statements such as: "Darrien Hunt? is he the black guy who attacked police officers in Provo?

Utahans who've started researching the issue seem to be concluding that the shooting was justified.

I don't like recounting private conversations. Here is a public post by Semperfivirens made on on The Guardian which seems to reflect Utah sentiment.
They guy [Darrien Hunt] obviously should have been committed to a facility by his family. They didn't and instead chose to cherish his child-like nature. A child-like nature that involved threatening people with a samurai sword.

The general opinion appears to be that Darrien deserved what happened. Semperfivirens is saying that the shooting is the fault of the mother.

Other Utahans are trying to counter the idea that Darrien was engaged in Cosplay or are pushing the idea that his replica sword was a real sword and not a costume play sword. (The term "cosplay" is short for "costume play." It means playing a game in costume.)

I agree with the statement that we should wait until after the official investigation before making any judgments about the police officers in the case; However, comments about the reporting of the event, the fantasy role playing culture in Utah, and about the direction of the investigation are appropriate.

For example, I've been trying to point out that a large number of people engage in costume play in Utah County. Others are discussing Utah's lax open carry laws. If many are engaged in open carry and many people are engaged in costume play without being confronted by police, then this information is relevant.

Much of the conversation in Utah is focusing on the fact that Darrien had been arrested earlier this year. The Guardian was displaying this mugshot. The Guardian cites Darrien's aunt Cindy Moss who claimed that Darrien was jumped at a drinking party and that he was the only one arrested at the event reportedly because he was the only one over 21. The mugshot shows a bandage and Darrien's face appears roughed up. Hopefully the police have photos of the other kids in the fight.


But back to my original sentiment. There appears to have been more outrage in Salt Lake over the shooting of a dog than the shooting of Darrien Hunt.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Cosplay in Happy Valley

Darrien Hunt was shot by police in Utah County. The police want us to believe that young men engaged in cosplay is so unusually as to warrant extreme measures.

Utah County, known locally as Happy Valley, is home of numerous cosplay events. For Example, Happy Valley claims to be home of the world's largest Princess Festival. Below is an advertisement for the 2014 event that took place at the Castle Park Event. (Yes, there is an events center a few miles from the shooting designed like a castle for costumed events.)


There appears to be two young men wearing costumes with toy swords in this publicized event not far from Saratoga Springs.

Full Text of Saratoga Springs Post

The Daily Dot ( www.dailydot.com/news/darrien-hunt-shot-by-police-while-cosplaying/ ) printed a longer piece of the text from the Saratoga Springs PD Facebook page. This page was posted then deleted after it invoked outrage. I highlighted words that leapt out in the second half of the post:
Everyone should remember that the news outlets have ratings they need to gain. They don’t report facts. They use innuendo, opinion and rumor and then report it as fact. The same thing happens here on FB and other social media. The real facts are being determined by an independent investigation, and not in a rushed or haphazard manner. When those facts are gathered and analyzed, they will be reviewed by independent legal authorities. There is no cover up and there is no corruption. While this process is played out, we ask all persons to have patience with the process and allow the process that has been legally established to go forth. No one has been charged with any crime. The law has established that there must be probable cause for charges to be filed. Then even when and if charges were filed, in this country, all persons are innocent until proven guilty. This protection is extended to all persons, including cops.

The highlighted text says: "No one has been charged with any crime"!!!!!

What about Darrien? Darrien is dead at the hands of law enforcement officers. Killing a person is the absolute most extreme act performed by law enforcement. I have no idea what idiocy exists in the minds of Utah Law Enforcement, but shooting a person until dead is magnitudes greater than writing out a ticket to charge a person with a crime.

The only possible explanation for this post is that the Saratoga Springs Police Department was so focussed on defending its officers that if failed to see Darrien Hunt as a fellow human being and that the use of deadly force in law enforcement implies that the person killed was engaged in criminal act.

The Saratoga Springs PD says that no-one was charged with a crime. Well, I say that Darrien Hunt was someone and that who-ever wrote this post should be out of their cushy government job.

A No Show Event

According to KSL (from page: www.ksl.com/?sid=31585440&nid=148&title=saratoga-springs-police-chief-defends-officers-as-hunt-family-plans-funeral&s_cid=queue-2 ):

" A Facebook page appeared Tuesday morning, rallying against Saratoga Springs police, and organizers also set an event planned for noon on Tuesday to picket the police department.

In the end, no one showed up."

In all likelihood this event was poorly publicized. But quite frankly I find the lack of outrage in Utah over the shooting of Darrien Hunt disconcerting.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Outrage is Needed When Outrage is Due

Personally, I like to avoid public outrage over events. But outrage is needed when outrage is due. I think that outrage is due in the shooting of Darrien Hunt on September 10th of this month.

A few days after the Salt Lake ComiCon, police in Saratoga Springs fatally shot Darrien Hunt, a 22 year-old black man who was wearing a loud red shirt and had a replica sword.

Fantasy role games are extremely popular in Utah. In addition to ComiCon, the state boasts multiple Renaissance Fairs and one often comes in contact with people engaged in cosplay (costume play) in parks and on the street. The biggest Fall social event in Utah County [aka Happy Valley] is the Halloween Half Marathon with thousands of costumed people. Three days after this shooting, Provo organized a scavenger hunt with 2097 attendees!

Costume play is not unusual in Happy Valley. The only thing that was unusual about Darrien Hunt's  cosplay in Happy Valley was the color of his skin and his curly afro.

FWIW: I recently came between two brothers in their teens brandishing swords playing out a war between the Nephites and Lamanites. These kids were swinging their replica swords over their heads. A Picture by Jocelyn Hansen shows that Darrien Hunt had his replica sword sheathed just before the fatal confrontation.

The initial reports of the shooting said that officers shot Darrien as he lunged at them with the replica sword. News Reports claim that a private autopsy ordered by the family shows that Darrien was shot in the back.

In a really bizarre twist, reports claim that the officers involved in the shooting have not been officially interviewed. It is as if the investigators are more concerned with protecting the government than trying to find out what happened in this horrible event.

If I were investigating an incident, I would want one team to engage in intense interviews as soon after the events as possible. I would then have a forensics team gather data then scrutinize differences between the witness reports and forensics reports.

From what I've seen in the media, it appears that the Saratoga Springs police are more engaged in the media campaign around the investigation than on the investigation itself.

According to KSL ( www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=31573619 ). The Saratoga Springs police put out then removed the following statement on their Facebook page:
“Everyone should remember that the news outlets have ratings they need to gain. They don’t report facts. They use innuendo, opinion and rumor and then report it as fact. The same thing happens here on FB and other social media. The real facts are being determined by an independent investigation, and not in a rushed or haphazard manner. … There is no coverup and there is no corruption.”

Criticism of the media is a propaganda technique. One should be wary whenever one sees a political group leading into a story with criticism of the media. Ironically, this very post is exactly the type of media that the Saratoga Springs Police Department is criticizing. This post is using innuendo on social media platform to influence public opinion. The post is an example of projection. Classic projection is an act in which one accuses others of one's own faults to deflect attention.

My hinting that you use innuendo to win your your arguments is innuendo.

But what is really interesting in this post is the use of the word "fact." The Saratoga Springs Police seem to be claiming that whatever is in the official report is fact. The people writing the report are human. So, it is possible for a report to contain errors or have intentional misdirection.

The people doing the investigation might state what they believe to be facts. These stated facts might not be the actual truth, just as stated facts in the newspaper might be wrong.

The facts I want to put forward are that people in Utah often engage in costume play was was seen at ComiCon. (This ComiCon girl is carrying a really scary weapon.) In the same week as this shooting two people showed up at a Scavenger Hunt in the same county. This data was measured and verified by Guiness and Google.

Thousands more will run in costume events this October.

The Saratoga Springs Police appear to be engaged in a media campaign to deflect attention from the shooting in which the primary cause of the shooting appears to be race.

While the outrage in Ferguson may have been over the top. Both the shooting of Darrien Hunt and the response of the Saratoga Springs Police Department deserve outrage.


Monday, September 01, 2014

Labor Day Post

It's Labor Day! Time of the annual Labor Day Post.

Predictably, the Left is holding protests to raise the minimum wage. There is furor over the Burger King merger with Tim Horton's. As hamburger flipping is pretty much the only career opportunity for large segments of the American population, the state of hamburger franchises and minimum wage are big issues.

Burger King is engaged in a type of merger called a "tax inversion." The headquarters of the new company will be in Canada which has lower corporate taxes than the US. Most the employees will be in the United States which has a lower income tax.

Conservatives use the merger to point out that high taxes drives corporations from the US. Progressives are inflamed by the fact that companies react to taxes and are demanding new regulations. Unfortunately, when one is in a low margin business like hamburger flipping, the tax burden makes a huge difference.

The effect of the tax burden becomes more pronounced on learning that Burger King is majority owned by Brazilian investors. Burger King sales have been stagnant in the US and booming abroad.

The other strange thing I learned was that this merger was arranged by Warren Buffett's company Berkshire Hathaway and that Buffett, who is a major supporter of Obama, is the primary benefactor of the tax inversion.

The billionaire arranging the merger is a hyper-progressive who is closely knit with the Obama Administration. There is an interesting pattern. The people who are most adept at playing the system are self identified as progressives. Joseph Kennedy made his billions by stock manipulations. George Soros made his billions by manipulating currencies. Madoff was a progressive. The derivatives and mortgaged backed securities that crashed the economy were the brain children of various progressives.

More often than not, one finds progressives behind the financial manipulations that progressives want to cure by government regulations that never actually manage to solve any of the problems.

But lets get back to BK. Apparently, Tim Hortons is a huge donut chain in Canada. They tried a merger with Wendy's and are now eying this merger with Burger King because they want the relation to launch an international expansion.

I admit that the BK/Tim Hortons merger is a good move. I lament that the small Main Street businesses that I love are doomed to failure under the yoke of unrestrained taxation and regulatory burdens. I see no fault in the company's that flee the US because of our oppressive business culture.

On this Labor Day, I am simply left with the uncomfortable knowledge that, if our government continues its destructive path of destroying American businesses, that labor will suffer the fallout and that if we really wanted to help the poor we would move beyond these absurd little protests about the minimum wage and enter a more substantive discussion about the nature of poverty.

Poverty is not simply the lack of jobs. Poverty is the result of the lack of ownership.

By definition, a poor person is a person who owns nothing. A rich person is a person who owns a lot.

A person could be slaving away 100 hours a week at a job and still be poor if that person is prevented from building ownership in his career.

The increasing gap between the rich and poor is the result of concentrated ownership. The annual Labor Day protests divert attention from the fact that it is the distribution of ownership and not the size of wages that matter.

The meat of this post will sound strange:

Meat of this Labor Day Post


The economy is a product of the human mind. The economy that we see is influenced by the economic theories developed at our elite universities.

The modern economic theories flowing from the universities see mankind simply as labor. The idea that human beings are primarily labor is found at the heart of both Conservative and Marxian thought.

Historical Note: Modern Conservatives defend "capitalism" as it was defined in Marx's "Das Kapital." Because conservatives defend capitalism as Marx defined the term the conservative economic view is surprisingly similar to the Marxiann view.

If there were people who were authentically interested in reducing the gap between rich and poor that group would do well simply by starting a conversation that viewed people as something greater than just labor. Imagine a conversation which saw all people as spiritual beings living in a material world.

Imagine a conversation that envisioned each person as a whole being with a body and soul looking at this great universe from different points of view. If such a conversation existed, such a conversation could solve problems that the annual protests about minimum wage cannot.

BTW, I guess I should mention. The conservation that I wanted to have about health care for the last six years actually begin with the radical asssertion that individual humans are whole beings that matter and that health care should be applied to the whole being and not just to classes of people.

So, once again, I find myself back imagining world in which people could actually talk to each other about issues. Unfortunately, I live in a conservative state where discourse is suppressed and ideas are are all succinctly silenced.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

What If It's All Just Noise?

It is possible that the GOP is nothing more than a noise making machine that sounds off when it is in the minority so that sounds off when it's in the minority then bows to rogues of the worst sort when in the majority.

If this is true then the GOP is leading our nation to ruin.

One pattern that I see repeating regularly is that people who are legitimately seeking to improve the world come in contact with the central political machine of the right. They become so despondent that they turn to any opposition to stand against the evils of the GOP.

For example, the political pundit David Brock was deeply disturbed by the Left wing attack machine that went after Clarence Thomas during his nomination for the Supreme Court. Mr. Brock was so disturbed that he researched the issue and wrote a book called "The Real Anita Hill" which called in to question the attack.

Right Wing thugs like Hannity and Limbaugh made so much noise about the book that Brock quickly discovered that his research on the Left Wing attack machine placed him squarely in the center of the same type of irrational attack machine on the Right.

Exposing the inner workings of a left wing attack machine was not leading to a better form of discourse. It simply fed fuel into a right wing noise machine. This noise machine was not seeking to better our society. The GOP was simply making noise machine to capture power for a corrupt centralized party and its cronies.

When the GOP use and abuse idealists like Brock and Huffington, the idealists viciously turn on their abusers.

Brock wrote a book called "The Republican Noise Machine" that argues that the GOP is as vacuous as the left wing attack machine that went after Clarence Thomas. Brock went on to create a progressive think take called Media Matters to expose the vicious partisanship that defines right wing media.

The observation that the Right is as bad as the Left is not surprising when one realizes that the Left and Right were produced by the same reactionary partisan forces.

The great left/right split which dominates politics came from the French Revolution. The Left sought to use big government to impose radical social change, while the right sought to preserve the class structure of the ancient regime.

Both sides (and the middle) of this reactionary movement were opposed to the American Experiment in Self Rule and the ideals of our founders.

In philosophy the term "modern" refers to anyone in the intellectual tradition of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Hegel 1770-1831 used Kant's work to create modern logic. Modern logic is a paradoxical way of thinking that denies the fundamental laws of classical logic. In his Philosophy of History, Hegel created a formula in which the pundit presents history as a series of conflicts with the pundit selectively presenting aspects of the conflict which advances the pundits partisan cause.

Hegel's Philosophy of History is essentially the business plan behind Fox News which presents news as a series of conflicts with an eye on framing its partisan cause as the champion.

Hegel loved word play games that framed slavery as freedom and freedom as slavery. The slave who lives in the castle lives like a king in the lap of luxury while the king is a slave to the demands of the state. Hegelian logic says that the ultimate freedom is found in slavery. Modern Liberalism, which holds that people will find ultimate freedom in a totalitarian state, flows from Hegel's Modern Logic.

The Radical Left, Reactionary Right and Dialectical Center all have the same reactionary movement in the 1800s. The Left/Right split comes from the French Revolution. Modern Liberalism (aka progressivism) and Modern Conservatism flow from Hegel's Modern Logic.

Read Hegel's Philosophy of History then watch Fox News. Fox News is Hegelian thought put into play.

Read Hegel's work on logic and you will find the foundations of the Democratic Party.

The Left and Right are from the same mold. The two sides of the coin are made of the same metal. Brock was upset about the attack machine on the left to find the same noise machine on the right. This happens because Conservatism and Progressivism are from the same mold.

Americans have lost the ability to engage in discourse not because of the noise, but because we have accepted a failed framework for discourse.

The Role of Noise

Noise is not, in itself, evil. When people are being abused by their government they need to make noise to seek redress.

Noise has its place in politics. When rational discourse breaks down, the disenfranchised must make noise.

Noise is not the problem. Things break down when there are no substantive issues behind the noise. In the case of Clarence Thomas, there was an attack machine that viciously attacked a Supreme Court nominee without substance.

The Health Reform debate has me livid. Health care reform is probably the single most important issue of our generation. My direct experience is that the GOP is happy to see people make anti-Obama noise. But that it puts down substantive talk about free market health care reform.

This formula of attacking Obama while actively suppressing talk about free market alternatives to PPACA creates a dynamic in which there are no adequate alternatives to PPACA on the table. Since there are no alternatives on the table, electing in members of the GOP will not provide us with a better system of care.

Making noise is not, in itself, evil. Quite frankly, noise is the only recourse for the disenfranchised. But, if there is no substance behind the noise and when the people making the noise simply have partisan desires for power, then the noise is nothing more than partisan nonsense destined to lead our nation down the wrong track.

The rhetorical question behind this post is: "Is it all just noise?"

Conservatives make a greate deal of noise about Obamacare but they actively suppress discussions of free market health care reform. Conservatives appear to be making noise with no interest in finding solutions. Since Modern Conservatism has the same origins as Modern Liberalism. I am led to concede that the GOP is nothing but a vacuous noise making machine.

Monday, August 11, 2014

Can Conservatism Save Us

In the last two years, my mind has been dominated by the question: "Can Modern Conservatism save us from the problems caused by Modern Progressivism?"

The answer, of course, is a resounding NO!

The US Founders had a Liberal Arts education steeped in classical logic and Christian ethics. They applied classical logic to the question of governance. They realized that government is a limiting force on people and that, by creating a Constitutionally limited central government, they could create an unlimited people.

Conservatism is a reactionary partisan ideology of the 1800s that accepted the framework of modern logic and co-evolved with Modern Liberalsim (also known as Progressivism).

Conservatives often trace their intellectual heritage to Plato, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and Edmund Burke. (Edmund Burke was a member of the British Parliament.)

Yes, the current breed of Conservatives love playing on the image of the founders, but conservatism and the ideals of the US Founders are fundamentally different. 

It is impossible to restore the American Experiment in Self Rule by pursuing a path which is fundamentally at odds with the ideals of the US Founders.

Yes, Republicans love waving the Constitution, but I beg Republicans to tell me where the Republican Party appears in the Constitution!

It doesn't.

The great Left/Right divide that dominates all aspects of modern politics came in the generations after the Founders.

The Left/Right split of the French Revolution was one with a radical left seeking a fundamental change in the social order and the reactionary right seeking to preserve the class structure of the ancient regime.

This split led France to ruin.

Why is it that the GOP is so dedicated to this split?


The US Founders engaged in a rational discussion about the foundations of government.

Conservatism is a reactionary movement to preserve a class structure. The idea that a reactionary movement to impose a class structure will restore a rational argument about the role of governance is absurd.

Anyway, Conservatives trace their ideology to Plato, Machiavelli, 'Hobbes and Burke.  By following theses philosophies one ends up undermining the American Experiment in Self Rule.

People here wave the flag and promote the image of the US Founders but suppress rational discourse.

I spent six solid years with the goal of finding a conservative willing to discuss free market health care reform only to discover that Conservatives have no interest in preserving freedom.

I jokingly refer to Utah as the most conservative state West of Iran.

Conservatives here often profess a deep hatred for all things liberal. When I look to the Middle East, I fear that I am seeing the direction that Conservative ideology leads.

When I look at ISIS and Hamas, I see right wing religious zealots who hate and denounce the US and Israel as Liberal. Conservatives are partisans who hate liberals. Hamas and ISIS are conservative partisan groups lobbing missiles at Israel and beheading Christians because they see these groups as a Liberal threat.

Here in the US, loud screeching partisans pronounce a deep hatred for all things liberal then shove everyone aside in their grub at political power.

I live in the most conservative capitol west of Tehran. This notion that people denounced as liberal must be driven out of the community and the Conservative oligarchy must suppress political debate leads a free society to ruin.

Conservatives and their intent on restoring the class structure of the ancient regime leads to serfdom just as progressives with their faith in a totalitarian state leads to serfdom. Conservatives, who are seeking the restore the class structure of serfdom are actually taking a more direct road to serfdom than the progressives.

ISIS is a right wing group of religious zealots. ISIS and Hamas are shades of Conservatism.

The US Founders wanted to avoid the factions of Europe. This Left/Right split was an import of European factions. The Radical Left and Reactionary Right create a sounding board that magnify the troubles of the day and allow the formation of a ruling elite.

The Left/Right split amplifies conflict until people are divided into warring factions willing to follow strong leaders who will oppose their partisan opponent.

If we wish to restore the promise of America, we must reject this Left/Right split. Marching down the path of conservatism does not lead to freedom, it amplifies the split and leads to an entrenched class based society.

Sunday, August 03, 2014

Perception Filters and Absolutism

A guy is getting a large number of retweets with a banner saying:

"With all this 'gun control' talk I haven't heard one politician say how they plan to take guns from criminals, just law abiding citizens."

When I listen to the gun control debate, I hear people driven by a desire to keep guns out of criminal hands. The primary focus of many gun control laws is criminal background checks, certification classes and waiting periods designed specifically to keep guns out of criminal hands. There is a slew of criminal law and probation law aimed specifically at convicted criminals.

The guy posted this message and those retweeting it are all admitting to a perception filter.

One of the biggest problems in discourse today is that people neither listen to nor try to understand the arguments of others. We simply lump the people on the other side of the partisan divide into a single category, dismiss their arguments and deflect.

Personally, I think a large part of this problem came about because people trying to defend the American way stupidly accepted the label "conservative."

One of the synonyms of "conservative" is "closed-minded."

Americans have traditionally been one of the most open-minded and rational people on the planet. By trying to adapt to the image of "conservatism" people start acting in foolish ways.

There are people on the left who want an absolute ban on guns. These absolutists play the same game. They dismiss the arguments in favor of the second amendment. They project false images on their opponents and deflect any criticism of their poisition.

Yes, a person who is arguing for a gun ban is not arguing for a balanced system of gun control.  The person arguing for gun bans is arguing for a complete criminalization of gun ownership.

Undoubtedly, these absolutists are not engaged in open conversation. However, when we look back at the conservative banner we see a reactionary who used one absolutist position to justify another. The term "not one" is an an absolutist statement.

"With all this 'gun control' talk I haven't heard one politician say how they plan to take guns from criminals, just law abiding citizens."

I love this statement because it shows clearly how people hone their perception filters into absolutes.

I suspect that the people retweeted this post were so focused on showing the absolutism of their foes, they failed to see the absolute introduced into their tweet stream.

Unfortunately, the process of developing perception filters is inherent in the label "conservative."

I think that people who had learned logic and who were truly engaged in the defense of liberty, such as our nation's founders, would have caught this error. For this error is a grave error.

Our partisan perception filters ultimately destroy our ability to communicate allowing the political class to divide us into warring factions which invariably lets the worst in our society rise to the top.

Through the years I've realized that the most common form of absolutism is the projection of absolutism on others. If Peter projects absolutism on Paul, Peter is the absolutist, not Paul.

If I develop a perception filter where I see all your statements in absolutes, then I am the one who is bing the absolutist.

(OOPS: I lost track of the tweet with this banner. It was retweeted in my time line multiple times.)

Friday, August 01, 2014

On Divergent Philosophies

I see two distinct approaches to governance.

The straightforward approach starts with the simple question: What is the best way to govern a society?

A second approach begins when a group sees itself as a ruling class. The members of the ruling class then ask: "How do we rule over those people?"

This ruling class mentality creates an environment where the conversation taking place among the leaders diverges from the conversation taking place among the people. I will call this approach divergent politics.

I believe that the US Founders were sincerely engaged in a straightfoward about organizing society.

The US Founders had a Liberal Arts Education steeped in classical logic and Judeo/Christian ethics. They applied classical logic to the question of liberty and created a Federation of States with a Constitutionally limited central government.

I like to call the application of a classical education to liberty "Classical Liberal."

The founders despised the factions that controlled Europe. Oddly, the Left/Right split that dominates all aspects of American political actually came from the European factions the founders disliked.

Partisans seek power by dividing the people into warring factions.

In the French Revolution, the faction on the left sought radical social change while the faction on the right sought the preservation of the class structure of the ancient regime.

Partisans in the 1800s adopted a modern logic that denied the foundations of classical logic and created the extremely devisive forms of discourse that we see in politics today.

The invention of modern logic is a historical oddity. It just so happens that the Hanoverian Kings of England (King George I, II, III, etc.) were German. The Hanoverian Kings of England financed much of the German University system. After the US Revolution, the monarchy tasked the German University with finding ways to frame the monarchy as progressive. The universities responded by creating a new way of thinking called modern logic. This modern logic turns classical logic upside down. Modern logic presents paradoxical word games that framed freedom as slavery and slavery freedom.

Classical logic is the foundation of science. People put together syllogisms and see how well the syllogisms describe reality.

Modern logic is a bizarre system that places paradox at the foundation of reason and conflict at the surface. A fundamental premise of modern logic is that meaning of terms change with usage. This muffling of meaning is called "sublation." Terms often take on opposite meanings.

The classical liberal sought to limit government and empower individuals. Modern liberals sublated the term "liberal" and seek an unlimited government with regulated individuals.

I believe that both the left and right (progessive and conservative) are inherently divergent. Both the left and right have adopted modern logic as given.

Politicians on the left encourage rhetoric about unity, economic inequalities, and social justice. Once in power politicians divide people into warring factions. They then reward their friends and punish their enemies. In doing so the creates greater economic inequality and social injustice, but are able to skirt the issue by projecting their faults on the conservatives.

Politicians on the conservative right invoke images of the US founders and promote public talk about liberty and limited government. When in power, conservatives expand government in attempts to legislate morality then engage in the process of rewarding friends and punishing enemies.

Members of the Tea Party are perplexed in that the GOP keeps putting forward candidates such as Eric Cantor who come to power arguing for limited government. Once in power, Cantor became a defender of the machine.

This duplicity is inherent in "conservatism."

Remember, conservatism came from the French Revolution. The goal of conservatism was to preserve the class structure of the ancient regime. Modern logic was created by the monarchy. Conservatives adopted this bizarre modern logic as it allows conservatives to campaign on the image of the US Founders will supporting economic and political centralization.

I've been reading histories of the conservative movement. Intellectuals who self-indentify with "conservatism" tend to trace their beliefs to the likes of Leo Strauss, Edmund Burke, Thomas Hobbes, Machiavelli and Plato.

Thinkers like Hayek tend to identify with the classical liberal tradition.

The US Founders came before the left right split. They came before DeStutt de Tracy coined the term "ideology." The founders had a classical liberal arts education steeped in classical logic and Judeo/Christian ethics. They applied this education to the question of liberty and came up with a Federation of States with a constitutionally limited central government and protection of individual rights.

When one applies classical logic to the question of liberty one finds themself on a similar path as the founders.

The US Founders predated the Age of Ideology. I believe the best name for the path the founders followed is "classical liberal."

Modern Liberalism (progressivism) and Modern Conservatism are partisan ideologies that developed in the generations after the founders.

The partisans who create these grand political philosophies were seeking to rise to power by dividing people into factions.

Both the Left and Right developed divergent philosophies. Politicians on both the left and right have developed systems in which they say onething to get power then work on consolidating power once in power.

It is the modern logic at the heart of modern conservatism that created the dynamics of the modern GOP which holds a divergent philosophy in which members of the GOP campaign on the image of the founders (Classical Liberals) then impose the leviathan of Thomas Hobbes once in power.

If you are looking for people who are sincere about restoring the American Experiment in Self Rule, you will not find them in conservatism, because the underlying divergent philosophy of conservatism will always undermine efforts to restore the classical liberal ideals of the founders.

The duplicity of Conservatism is not surprising. Both Modern Conservatism and Progressivism (Modern Liberalism) are partisan ideologies that came from Europe and are based on a corrupt system of modern logic that was created with the express intent of framing the monarchy as progressive.

The goal of these partisan ideologies is to rise to power by dividing people into factions. Both sides of this false dichotomy seek political and economic centralization. Both sides of the partisan divide have narratives which diverge from their policies.

Both Modern Liberalism and Modern Conservatism accept modern logic as their foundations.

The two sides of a coin are made of the same metal. Because of the nature of conservatism it is incapable of breaking us out of the malaise created by Obama and the Modern Liberals and Modern Progressives.

Don;t you get it? The Left/Right split came from European intellectuals. The Left reached its ultimate expression with Communism and the right with Fascism. The end result of both the left and the right are the same.

You will not find the path to restoring America by reading Leo Strauss, Edmund Burke, Thomas Hobbes, Machiavelli or even Plato.

We could restore America if people were to apply classical logic to the question of liberty as was done by the US Founders (aka classical liberalism).

Unfortunately, this conversation cannot take place in the ranks of the GOP because Conservatives believe they must drive classical liberals (Hayek, et al) out of the party.

Conservatism is a reactionary ideology of the 1800s that seeks to restore the class structure of the ancient regime while playing on the image US Founders. Modern Cosnervatism, as the name implies, flows from Modern Logic. It is inherently divergent. If we want to restore America, we need to engage in the straightforward conversation that comes by applying classical logic to the question of liberty.