Tuesday, April 22, 2014
The problem, however, is that conservatism does not come from the US Founders. The Left/Right split which dominates modern politics came from Europe. In the French Revolution, the Left sought radical social change. The Right sought to preserve the social order of the ancient regime which they saw as the Natural Aristocracy.
The partisan thought that developed in the United States in the early 1800s is equally ugly. In the early nineteenth century America reactionary thinkers sought ways to preserve the peculiar institution of slavery. So, even here in America there was already a great perversion of thought going on as groups sought to preserve unjust social institutions.
The US Founders despised the partisanship of Europe. The Constitution does not mention the Parties.
It is absurd to claim that one party represents the ideals of the US Founders while the other does not simply because the Founders abhorred such partisan nonsense. You, as an individual thinker might support the ideals of the founder. Your party, however, is a souless entity that does not think.
I happen to believe strongly in the American Experiment in self rule and have been trying to find ways to preserve this experiment. I believe that health care is the absolute most important issue of our day, and that if Americans do not act to replace PPACA with free market reform that this experiment will come to an inglorious end.
It just so happens that I live the most conservative section of the United State. One has to travel to Iran to find a more conservative place than Utah. Here in the most Conservative place West of Tehran, I've found zero interest in defending health freedom. The arch conservatives that run this state like a dictatorship will not even talk about health care.
It is not just that Conservatives won't talk to me. In six years of actively looking, I've found only one public event specifically addressing health care. This was the national Stand Up For Freedom Rally which was poorly attended (See Photo).
I am not surprised that people ignore me. Being a free-thinker in a Conservative state, I am accustomed to being kicked down at every turn. I would expect nothing less.
What bugs me is that Conservatives, who claim to support the ideals of the Founders, are doing nothing to defend health freedom in this time of great need.
So, for this last year I've been reading "conservative" literature to try and figure out just what is wrong with the Conservative movement. My sad conclusion is that Conservatism is as inherently evil as progressivism.
Conservatism and Progressives simply mirror each other. All of the faults of the Left exist on the Right and all the flaws of the Right exist on the left.
As you see, the Left/Right Split is a false dichotomy. Both sides of a false dichotomy are false. It is the nature of partisanship that the parties simply mirror each other. The two sides of a coin are made of the same metal.
The moderate position in a false dichotomy is also false. The proper response to a false dichotomy is to reject the dichotomy itself. This is not as hard to do as we imagine. It does entail challenging both sides of the dichotomy.
So, I've been reading Conservative literature with a critical eye and decided to conclude this endeavor by reading on peculiar piece of right wing literature titled "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler.
American Conservatives tend to balk when they see Mein Kampf categorized in with right wing literature. Such conservative have forgotten that the lauded Left/Right split came from Europe. The radical left in Europe sought radical social change. The reactionary right sought to preserve the social order of the ancient regime. Hitler was a reactionary thinker who witnessed the collapse of the Austria-Hungary Empire and the defeat of the German Empire in World War I. Hitler's dream of a Third Reich was a revival and expansion of these empires.
So, Mein Kempf is not just conservative. It is conservatism on steroids. The book I read was a PDF published by Noontide Press. I have no desire to link to this book.
Before writing this review. I want to emphasize that most people in the US who call themselves "conservatism" are people who want to preserve the ideals of the US Founders and the Western Christian Tradition. Both the Western Christian Tradition and the US Founders came before the modern Progressive/Conservative split.
If you are standing out in the street calling yourself a "conservative," I beg you to please reconsider your position. Conservatism is not what you think it is. It is an ugly reactionary movement set on preserving a class society. What we need to do in America is defend freedom. Conservatism is the wrong way to do this.
What one finds in Mein Kampf is Conservatism in its rawest form divorced of Christian ethics and void of the common sense of the US Founders. In Mein Kampf, Hitler presents a racially based world view claiming that there is a Natural Aristocracy. His goal is to restore that order through total war and racial genocide.
Hitler, like many Conservative pundits, is a dot-connector. He does strange things like connect the ancient tradition of Judaism with Marxism. Judaism is an ancient religion from the Middle East. Marxism is a modern ideology in the line of Kant and Hegel.
As a youth, Hitler moved through leftist circles learning the dialectics and connecting the dots. He finally concluded that the only solution to the mess made by the Social Democrats was for a great leader to rise and stand opposed to Marxism.
"If Social Democracy is opposed by a doctrine of greater truth, but equal brutality of methods,
the latter will conquer, though this may require the bitterest struggle."
The idea of using the tools of one's enemy to destroy the enemy is as old as the hills. This idea is in both Sun-Tsu and Machiavelli. Using the tools of one's enemy to destroy one's enemy is the heart and soul of Marxism. Marx spent most of his life penning a tome called "Das Kapital." The goal of Das Kapital was to create a top heavy version of the free market destined to tumble to a social revolution. Marx's tactic was to destroy the free market by redefining it in a way that would collapse. Marx sought to use the tools of his enemy to destroy his enemy. The great irony here is that Karl Marx is the father of Modern Capitalism.
Just as Marx sought to use the tools of the capitalist to destroy capitalism, Hitler sought to use the tools of communism to destroy communism.
As a youth Hitler was confronted by Left Wing labor movement. Hitler realized that standing against labor was futile; so he took a more cunning tact of capturing labor and turning it into a nationalist movement.
"In my Viennese years I was forced, whether I liked it or not, to take a position on the trade unions."
Hitler saw that the anti-labor stand of the bourgeoisie was alienating a vital component of the economy; so he sought to create a right wing alternative to left wing labor.
"For to call the trade-union movement in itself unpatriotic is nonsense and
untrue to boot. Rather the contrary is true. If trade-union activity strives and succeeds in
bettering the lot of a class which is one of the basic supports of the nation, its work is not only
not anti-patriotic or seditious, but 'national' in the truest sense of the word."
Hitler's strategy was to use the trade unions as a tool to rebuild the empire.
Hitler was a dot connector. He saw that several left wing writers were Jewish. So, he connected dots and framed Marxism a Jewish conspiracy. This dot connecting allowed Hitler to disassociate Marxism from Germany, as Marx was German.
Hitler had a really deep hatred of democracy and the parliamentary process which he saw as an affront to the natural Aristocracy. (Most conservatives I've met share disdain for Democracy and repeat the meme that the US is a Republic not a Democracy).
He realized that it is easier to unite people against a foe than to solve problems: "In general the art of all truly great national leaders at all times consists among other things primarily in not dividing the attention of a people, but in concentrating it upon a single foe." (Of course, both parties in the US are guilty of this flaw.)
This next little gem is the anthem of all "dot-connectors": "It belongs to the genius of a great leader to make even adversaries far removed from one another seem to belong to a single category, because in weak and uncertain characters the knowledge of having different enemies can only too readily lead to the beginning of doubt in their own right."
Hitler then goes on to say: "Once the wavering mass sees itself in a struggle against too many enemies, objectivity will put in an appearance, throwing open the question whether all others are really wrong and only their own people or their own movement are in the right."
BTW, I should insert here that I personally am a firm believer in objectivity. The converse of this statement is that one can encourage objectivity in a society by pointing out that there is not one single evil player that we must struggle against but a complex world with good and evil in all people.
Hitler wanted to create a single enemy to fight against; so he created a fantasy in which Marxism and Judaism were some how linked and that he was fighting to save the German people from this two headed monster:
Hitler was not a Left-wing Marxist. In Munich Hitler declared Marxism his enemy (page 117): "In the years 1913 and 1914, I, for the first time in various circles which today in part faithfully support the National Socialist movement, expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism."
Page 127 provides an example of how Hitler combines two of his declared enemies into one: "Marxism, whose goal is and remains the destruction of all non-Jewish national states, was forced to look on in horror as, in the July days of 1914, the German working class it had ensnared, awakened and from hour to hour began to enter the service of the fatherland ..."
During World War I, Hitler set out to become a master of propaganda. On page 137 he states: "The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly."
Hitler fought in WWI. He loved the military and disliked cowardly civilians. This is what he wrote of peacenik-liberals on page 144 after his return to Berlin: "Here for the first time I heard a thing that was still unknown at the front; men bragging about their own cowardice! For the cursing and 'beefing' you could hear at the front were never an incitement to shirk duty or a glorification of the coward. No! The coward still passed as a coward and as nothing else;"
He also spat out these words: "to be a slacker passed almost as a sign of higher wisdom, while loyal steadfastness was considered a symptom of inner weakness and narrow-mindedness. The offices were filled with Jews. Nearly every clerk was a Jew and nearly every Jew was a clerk."
The darkest moment of Hitler's struggles came when the German Monarchy was transitioned from a monarchy to a Republic. He describes this event on page 152: "I, too, was present at the short speech. The dignified old gentleman seemed all a-tremble as he informed us that the House of Hollenzollern should no longer bear the German imperial crown; that the fatherland had become a ' republic ' [...] everything went black before my eyes; I tottered and groped my way back to the dormitory, threw myself on my bunk, and dug my burning head into my blanket and pillow."
To Hitler, the transformation from a monarchy to a republic was a moment of great darkness. This brings me back to this stupid ideology called "Conservatism." People pretend that "conservative" has some sort of universal meaning when the term "conservative" is simply relative to what one is trying to "conserve," just as progressivism is relative to what one is trying to progress.
Conservatism is such an ugly ideology. Here in Utah, I routinely hear the brown-shirts of the Conservative movement denouncing the moral relativism of progressivism, when conservatism shares the exact same relativism. Conservatism is relative to what one is conserving.
Hitler's entry into politics was prompted by the transformation of a monarchy into a republic. He launched into his study of political-economics. He realized that he could do so by capturing the labor movement and turn it into a nationalist movement: "I began to study again, and now for the first time really achieved an understanding of the content of the Jew Karl Marx's life effort. Only now did his Capital become really intelligible to me, and also the struggle of the Social Democracy against the national economy, which aims only to prepare the ground for the domination of truly international finance and stock exchange capital."
NOTE: Marx was of Jewish lineage but baptized Lutheran. Clearly, Marx was more into Hegelian philosophy than he was into religion.
But back to Hitler's struggles. The conservative nature of his ideology shines in the section on the collapse of the German Empire (which he called the German Reich). Hitler blames this collapse on Jews, the Parliament weak intellectuals and the press. Here is a little section on education and the press on page 179:
"The state, therefore, has the duty of watching over their education and preventing any mischief. It must particularly exercise strict control over the press; for its influence on these people is by far the strongest and most penetrating, since it is applied, not once in a while, but over and over again. In the uniformity and constant repetition of this instruction lies its tremendous power. If anywhere, therefore, it is here that the state must not forget that all means must serve an end; it must not let itself be confused by the drivel about so-called 'freedom of the press' and let itself be talked into neglecting its duty and denying the nation the food which it needs and which is good for it;"
Notice how Hitler ties the Liberal Press, Marxists and Jews into one tight package: "The so-called liberal press was actively engaged in digging the grave of the German people and the German Reich. We can pass by the lying Marxist sheets in silence; to them lying is just as vitally necessary as catching mice for a cat; their function is only to break the people's national and patriotic backbone and make them ripe for the slave's yoke of international capital and its masters, the Jews."
In Mein Kampf, we find numerous bursts of moral outrage such as: "Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and stimulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth."
One page 196, Hitler shows a strange contempt for religion while promoting religious dogmatism: "Also noteworthy is the increasingly violent struggle against the dogmatic foundations of the various churches without which in this human world the practical existence of a religious faith is not conceivable. The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude." Essentially, because the masses are not philosophical like he is, we need religious dogmatism to keep the masses in check.
Hitler spews forth with a bunch or racist nonsense on page 207. The racism is based on the idea that there is a natural order to things in which the master races must subjugate inferior races for the good of all. He gives warnings to those who deny the natural order of things. It turns out that Jews and Marxists are the ones guilty of denying this natural order. This is the type of garbage spewn: "The man who misjudges and disregards the racial laws actually forfeits the happiness that seems destined to be his. He thwarts the triumphal march of the best race and hence also the precondition for all human progress."
Progress is dependent on a racial hierarchy with the Aryan race being the bearer of culture. In Hitler's fantasy, being the bearer of culture is a great altruistic thing. "This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture. From it alone can arise all the great works of mankind, which bring the founder little reward, but the richest blessings to posterity."
BTW, this idea that there is a natural order to things was fundamental to the ancient regime. This set of ugly ideas in Mein Kampf can be labeled as "conservative." What he is doing is conserving all of the top-down thinking that dominated Europe during the Dark Ages.
This is why the term "conservative" is so problematic. The effect of "conservatism" is dependent on what is being conserved.
I suspect that most American "conservatives" want to conserve the American Experiment in Self Rule. Unfortunately, I fear, the American conservative movement has undermined these ideals through their methodology. The left/right split came from Europe and the dialectical methods used by both Modern Liberals (progressives) and Modern Conservatives come from the Kantian/Hegelian tradition.
Hegelian dialectics (modern logic) is a paradoxical system of thought in which the two sides of the conflict end up mirroring each other. To be blunt, Stalin is the natural outcome of left wing thinking and Hitler the natural outcome of right wing thinking. Both corrupt methods of thinking end up in brutal dictatorship.
As a society, we cannot get to where we want to be by following this dialectical path. The Left/Right split is a false dichotomy. Both sides of a false dichotomy are false. The middle of a false dichotomy is as irrational as the extremes. The way out of this mess is to recognize the false dichotomy as a failed and to reject the whole ball of wax: left, right and center.
Well, I got to the end of volume one of Mein Kampf. I just can't take it any more. The right is clearly not the remedy for the left. Fortunately, Americans are blessed with a way out. We have the American Experiment in self rule started by the Founders of this nation coupled with a rich Judeo/Christian heritage. I say we dump this foolish notion that the Right side of the French Parliament of 1787 had the right path to follow and follow this American Experiment in Self Rule instead.
Friday, April 11, 2014
To an untutored layman, Gaskill's work appears to be on par with most of the stuff streaming out of BYU.
What I find interesting is the fervor with which LDS pundits are denouncing Notovitch and Gaskill. Many of the LDS apologists denouncing Notovitch would go apoplectic if anyone used the same words in regards to Joseph Smith.
BTW: I recently I discovered that LDS Apologists get upset for seemingly benign statements like "Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Moses." Apparently, the LDS claim is that Joseph Smith was channeling Moses, Enoch and Abraham when the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mosses flowed from Joseph Smith's pen in the 1830s.
The seemingly benign statement that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Moses is considered blasphemy and a vile attack on the LDS Faith and must be shouted down.
Anyway, here's a link to "The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ" by Nicholas Notovtich written circa 1887.
I quickly scanned Notovitch's text and decided to render my unlearned judgment of its authenticity. So, here goes:
The first thing I noticed was that the book is written in a narrative style akin to HG Wells.
As everyone who's read the King James Bible knows: God speaks with an Old English Accent.
If "The Unknown Life of Jesus Christ" were authentic, it would be written in King James style Old English. Dag-nabbit!
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
The Internet is written in a language called HTML (Hypertext Mark Up Language). The defining characteristic of HTML is the Hyperlink.
HTML lets you link one web page with another web page.
The interesting aspect of the Internet is this network of links.
At the dawn of the Internet, there was a big question on everyone's mind: Would the Internet develop into a robust structure with millions of thriving web sites, or would it devolve into a stagnate structure dominated by a few players like Google, Facebook and Twitter.
I figured that the linking structure of people in local communities would determine the question. If a large number of people were actively engaged in making link pages and if the public used these link pages, then we would have a robust internet.
So, I decided to concentrate my efforts on studying and promoting the local linking structure. I figured that the best way to start this project was to travel to small towns and encourage people to create networks of links within their local communities. I began buying and developing geodomains.
I sold and gave away most of the first domains I worked on.
In developing geodomains, I wanted to create extremely simple structures that included all of the links I could find for a community. I wanted structures that reflected the community and not structures the sought to define the community.
My initial desire was to create a business structure where I worked on the back in structure of the web site while other people worked on the front end structure of linking and social networking.
Sadly, I've never found any people who were all that interested in exploring the ways in local social networks are presented on the web.
If find the structure of the local community much more interesting than politics. This blog is political.
I confess, I have classical liberal leanings.
Government, by its nature, is a limiting factor. Government is a network of constraints placed on the people.
The statement "limited government" is a double negative.
Removing negative things from a society is a positive act. However, arguments for a double negative quickly become convoluted.
Everyone's heard the adage: "Two wrongs don't make a right."
Removing constraints from a psychopath who enjoys killing will end up in bloodshed.
The act of limiting government removes constraints from the people. Eliminating constraints has the potential of empowering the people and creating a more robust society.
But, to win the argument for increased liberty, we need to move beyond debating double negatives and find ways to talk about ways in which a free society can solve the problems of the day.
The Internet just happens to provide a wonderful structure that people could use to discuss the structure of a free society.
The best starting point for such a discussion is the local community.
If there were people who were interested in advancing the cause of freedom, I just happen to be sitting on a veritable treasure chest of information.
In contrast, simply yammering in double negatives is unlikely to lead to a restoration of freedom because such arguments are simply too easy to manipulate.
Anyway, I've spent the last twelve years and several thousands of hours trying to find ways to get people involved in this fascinating discussion about the structure of the local internet. I am currently developing geodomains in three states. Here are the projects: Arizona, Colorado and Utah.
BTW, I've worked on this project since about 1999. I started the projects up in Idaho and Montana, where I received a great deal of positive feedback. I moved back to Salt Lake City for the 2002 Olympics. In twelve years, I've not once received positive feedback on this project.
I occasionally get feedback on the sites I've developed in Colorado and Arizona. Isn't that strange?
In the America of old, people would turn to their neighbors before turning toward the government.
The result of this neighborly mentality was that Americans developed extremely diverse communities held together by strong independent local institutions.
The founders realized that government is a structure that limits the people. The secret to prosperity is to limit this artificial governance. By removing artificial constraints on the people, the American Experiment in Self Rule led to widespread prosperity.
In this classical liberal vision the people are the positive space. The government is a negative limiting factor.
Unfortunately, limiting government alone does not lead to prosperity.
Remember. in this vision, the people make up the positive space. The way people organize themsleves determines the outcome of limiting the government.
Imagine, for example, that we had a limited government in a slave economy. The slave owners would take advantage of the limited government to enslave more people and to become more brutal in their slavery.
Because the society is dysfunctional, limiting the government makes things worse.
Limiting governance in a society where people feel that killing and robbing to get ahead is a virtue leads to a large number of thefts and murders.
Limited government alone does not lead to prosperity. The way people think and the way that people self organizes determines the outcome of the limited government.
The argument for limited government is incomplete if there is not a robust discussion about
In the classical liberal vision is, People comprise the positive space. The government is a limiting factor on the people.
Our attention should turn from government to the private sector.
I happen to be one to put my money where my mouth is.
For the last decade and a half I've the structure of the local community the primary focus of my attention. Politics is a minor annoyance.
I realized at the dawn of the Internet that we would either see an Internet dominated by a few multinational players or we would see a robust community focused Internet.
What I've done through the years is to develop geodomains with a tight local focus on communities in Utah, Colorado and Arizona.
The goal of the Community Color project is to show the way that the structure of our local communities is represented on the Internet.
The heart of this project is an attempt to tell people to focus on the positive aspects of a free society and avoid spending too much time on the negative aspects of governance.
While I have despaired about the political scene. In the long term our future depends on our ability to restore the robust independent communities which are being systematically destroyed by progressive ideologies.
Dammit I just wish there were people who wanted to save the beautiful independent communities our fore fathers had built.
Limiting government is only a small part of the vision. The real vision comes with the process of building robust independent communities.
What is so frustrating is that Conservatives seem to miss the biggest part of the picture. Limited government is only a small part of the vision of a free society. The activities and interactions of the people are primary space of our society.
The reason to limit the government is that governance is a constraint on the people. The people compose the primary space. To win the war the freedom movement needs to move from a myopic focus on government and actively engage in the community and talk about ways that a free society solves the challenges of the day.
Conservatism fails in this regard, of course, because the initial spark of conservatism is simply a desire to preserve existing social structures.
But a free society has a dynamic continually changing social structure. The conservative desire to create a static social structure is antithetical to a free society.
So while I've despair about the GOP, I will continue to pour my heart into what really matters and what really matters is the people and the ragtag remnants of the beautiful vision of a free society given to us by our founders and the sacrifice of those who strove to make America great.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Sadly, I finally had to concede that the GOP and Democratic parties are simply mirrors of each other. The two sides of a coin are made of the same metal. Everything I dislike about the Democratic Party is in the GOP and visa versa.
The biannual two party coin flip is simply.
I keep mentioning that, for the last six years, I've had a single minded goal of attending or hosting an event about free market health care reform.
The fact that for six years I've been unable to find either an event or a group interested in free market health care reform within 700 miles of Salt Lake City is quite troubling.
It is impossible for us to repeal PPACA (Obamacare) and enact free market health care reform if no-one is willing to talk about free market health care reform.
Conversely, it becomes easier to repeal PPACA if a group spoke about free market health care reform.
The fact that neither the GOP nor the Tea Party have held open meetings about the most important issue of our day--health care reform--is not just strange. It is troubling.
BTW: I am not asking for something outrageous. I am simply asking that a group meet for an evening to talk about free market health care reform. In six years of actively looking, I have not found a single group in Salt Lake City discussing this issue.
I look pretty hard. I maintain a calendar for Salt Lake events. I troll the web for events. In the last six years I've found tens of thousands of events, but not one event in which free market health care was the primary concern.
I spent $10,000 traveling to Phoenix, Denver, Reno and Las Vegas and was unable to find people interested in discussing free market health care reform.
The only way to repeal PPACA is to discuss the issue, but Conservatives slam the door the moment a person mentions free market health care reform.
When movement like the Tea Party or the GOP have such a contorted rational theory that they are incapable of holding meetings to discuss the most important issue of the day, then one has to write off the movements as inherently flawed.
The flaw of conservatism, of course, is that conservatism is not a constructive movement. It is a base reactionary movement.
To understand conservatism, we need to look back to the founding of this nation.
Contrary to conservative claims, the US Founders were not reactionary conservatives.
The US Founders had a classical liberal arts education steeped in a refined version of classical logic. The US Founders applied their liberal arts education to the question of liberty and came up with something wonderful ... The American Experiment in Self Rule.
I like to call the application of classical logic to the application of liberty "Classical Liberalism."
A hallmark of Aristotelian logic is a desire to avoid absolutes and paradoxes. Absolutes generally lead to paradoxes.
Aristotle taught that any virtue pushed too far became a vice. In the Aristotelian definition of tragedy, the tragic flaw is not a vice. The tragic flaw is a virtue pushed to the point that it causes a calamity.
On applying classical logic to liberty, one realizes that giving the people the freedom to enslave others leads to slavery.
The classical liberal approach to liberty is a balanced approach to liberty that recognizes that one's freedom stops at the doorsteps of others freedom.
The US Founders were not conservatives. The Conservatives of 1776 stood shoulder to shoulder with the monarchy and leveled their musket fire at the US Founders.
After the US revolution, Conservatives, wanting to preserve the social order of the feudal system and the peculiar institution of slavery, began weaving intellectual contortions to preserve the social structure of the ancient regime and the freedom to hold others as slaves.
As conservatives wanted to avoid social change, they set in at once on projecting negative images on liberals.
Back in Europe, the Kings of England were spinning their own intellectual contortions.
King George I, II and III were actually from Hanover, Germany. The Kings of England directly funded the German University System. Notably, they were the founders of the University of Gottingen in Hanover.
The Hanoverian Kings of England funded the German University System and charged the university to come up with contortions to reframe the monarchy as progressive. It is not happenstance that the German University system developed new systems of thought which framed centralization under a strong government as progressive. They were paid by the monarchy to build such a frame.
The best example of reactionary post revolutionary thinking is found with Georg Hegel (1770-1831).
Hegel developed a contorted system of thought called Modern Logic. Modern logic denies the basic rules of thought held by classical liberals. While classical liberals sought to avoid paradox, Hegelian thinkers embraced paradox. Hegel actively sought out every case where he could present freedom as slavery and slavery freedom.
In Hegelian thought, this process in which terms take on contradictory meanings is called "sublation."
The US Founders believe that liberalization came by limiting government and economic decentralization.
Hegelians exploited the paradox of freedom and sublated the term "liberal" and came up with claims that liberalization and social progress comes through economic centralization and expanding government.
The Hegelian Right lapped up this new modern logic as they saw it as a way to preserve the social structure of the ancient regime in the modern age. The Hegelian Left were seduced by Hegel's promise that economic and political centralization leads to progress.
The great left right split that dominates politics today did not come from the US Founders. The US Founders despised the partisanship of Europe. The left/right split that dominates politics today came from the French Revolution. It finds its intellectual base in the modern dialectics of Hegel.
I believe that the Modern Liberal who holds that freedom is slavery and that we need to seek a totalitarian state to achieve a higher liberty is more deluded than the Hegelian right that simply loves playing word games in a base grub for power.
But, when it comes down to it. I am adamantly opposed to the Hegelian Right and Hegelian Left.and dialectical center.
Much as I wanted to attend a caucus. I realized that both the right and left are corrupt and if I wish to stand for the Founders vision of a free society, I need to stand against both of these monstrosities.
It is true that the GOP is the lesser of two evils. But the way I see it, supporting the GOP is a greater capitulation in the stand for freedom than the act of giving up on both caucuses and trying to find a way to influence the GOP from within.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Because of that debate, I really wanted to go to a political caucus this year.
Throughout the years, I've crashed both Democratic and Republican caucuses.
BTW: I should mention. I like to engage in critical thinking happen to believe strongly in the classical liberal ideals of the US Founders. Both parties want members who are malleable sheep who engage in group think. Both the major parties have made it abundantly clear that critical thinking is not allowed in the party.
The Utah Democratic caucus was on the 18th. I definitely had no interest in attending their crime against humanity. The GOP caucus was on the 20th. Conservatism is a dialectical ideology that appeared in the 1800s with the aim of preserving the social structure of the ancient regime.
Conservatism uses free market rhetoric to gain power. Once in power, conservatives use their influence for economic and political centralization.As a classical liberal and critical thinker, I stand against squarely the Conservative party. I want candidates that support both limited government and economic decentralization.
The GOP has made it abundantly clear that I am not welcome among their ranks. To be truthful, I've completely given up on the GOP.
For the last six years I've been wanting to attend or host a meeting in which people spoke about free market health care reform. In six years I've been turned aside by every conservative group.
If the GOP is not even willing to talk about the most important issue of our day, then they are useless.
As the GOP caucus approached, I had to admit to myself: I am not a Republican. Through the years, the GOP has made it clear that people like me with a classical liberal bent and a tendency to critical thinking are simply not welcome in their ranks.
The Republican Party is their party. I am neither welcome in it nor a member of it.
Since I am not a member of their party, what business do I have in crashing their party and trying to influence their internal elections?
As the caucus approached, I realized that I have no business going where I am clearly not welcome. I am not going to go to a meeting and claim to be a Republican when I adamantly opposed to the hypocrisy of the GOP.
BTW, I really don't have a problem with not being welcome.
Much as I wanted to go to a caucus this year, I ended up staying at home.
Staying at home led me to contemplate a major problem with the two party system:
There are millions of people like me who are disgusted with both the GOP and Democratic Party. The two party system leaves us locked out of the candidate selection process. The end result of locking independent and critical thinkers from the political system means that, no matter what, we will end up with a government set on economic and political centralization.
This problem is inherent in the two party system. It is not a problem of the caucus system used by the parties.
Just as I have no business attending a caucus of a party that I don't belong to, I have no business voting in the primary election of a party I don't belong to.
Instead of having a debate about the caucus system, I wish we had a debate about this absurd party system. The party system creates a dynamic in which independent thinkers are routinely locked out of the election process and each election tends to culminate in a vote between the lesser of two evils.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Both the Left and Right have adopted the philosophical foundation of Hegel. The term "modern" actually refers to a slate of crazy theories that became popular in the early 1800s. Hegel's modern logic is a system with paradox at the foundation of reason and conflict at the surface.
This form of reactionary thinking started on the right and was picked up on the left. I've written a slew post showing the Hegelian influence in right wing groups.
I find that Eric Fromm's work "Marx's Concept of Man" does a good job of showing how this Hegelian world view became entrenched on the Left.
Rightwing thinkers like to position Marx as an enemy of liberty and themselves as the staunch defender of liberty. The more complex truth is that both the right and left have developed paradoxical definitions of liberty. They then use their paradoxes to create a political climate that benefits their friends and punishes their enemies. This quote from Mr. Fromm's preface encapsulates the Marxian feel towards liberty.
"Marx's philosophy is one of protest; it is a protest imbued with faith in man, in his capacity to liberate himself, and to realize his potentials."
The Left believes that freedom comes through the act of revolution. Leftists target people as their enemy, they then launch into a shrill never ending protest (revolution) against their enemies.
In the bizarre Marxian world view, man is by nature a pile of contradictions. The revolutionary exploits these contradictions. Leftists will do things like label a group as "oppressor" then launch into a campaign to oppress the group (naively failing to recognize that they are now the oppressor). Leftist community organizers will unite half a community against the other half in their grub for power, failing to realize that they are the source of the division.
My favorite example of Marxian Nonsense is the historical fact that Marx is the father of Modern Capitalism. Marx spent the bulk of his career penning the multi-tome work called "Das Kapital" which lays the logical foundation for the economic foundation that they rail against.
The great historical irony is that right-wingers have taken to defending Marx's view of Capitalism rather than defending the Classical Liberal Concept of a free market.
Personally, I think "Marx's Concept of Man" does a better job of explaining the paradoxical foundations of Marx's thought than either "Das Kapital" or Marx's "Manifesto." "Das Kapital" was written to define and project negative images on to "Capitalism."
I cannot repeat enough: Karl Marx is the father of Modern Capitalism. Capitalism as practiced on Wall Street is from a dark fantasy written by a person who wanted to destroy the free market.
The Manifesto was written to raise people in rebellion against the strawman that Marx created in Das Kapital.
In "Marx's Concept of Man," Eric Fromm presents some of Marx's philosophical writings which help expose why Marx took this divisive approach to economics. To repeat: Das Kapital creates a strawman. The Manifesto raises people in revolution against the strawman. Neither of these works explains why a person would do such a hateful thing.
Marx's Concept of Man shows Marx's paradoxical view of mankind and his naive notion that revolution would release man's potential.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
A free society, by nature, is an open society.
The closed society that we see today was imposed on us by powerful interest who sought to dominate the community.
The ideology behind the closed society was developed in the early 1800s as a reaction to the US and French Revolution.
I call this process of dividing people "Modern Dialectics." The formula is simple. Intellectuals create grand theories with paradoxes at the roots of reason and conflict at the surface.
People love paradoxes. "This sentence is false." But if the sentence is false, then it is true which makes it false.
Golly, I am ever so clever. I stated a paradox!
Intellectual rogues manufacture conflicts that reflect the paradox. People then get so wrapped up in these dialectical constructs that they become incapable of communicating with each other.
For example, a community organizer might use dialectics to unite half a community against the other half. The paradox is that uniting people against each other is an act of division. The people who fall for the flowery rhetoric of the organizer are drawn into oppressing and putting out their neighbors.
The US Founders hated the partisanship of Europe. The Constitution makes no mention of party. The Left/Right split that dominates life today came in the generation after the founders as political rogues formed parties in the grub for power.
The Left/Right split came from the French Revolution. The French left sought radical social change. The French Right sought to preserve the social structure of the ancient regime.
Both sides of this split use similar dialectical processes to unite people against each other. (Uniting people against each other is a paradox). The dialectical center exploits the conflict, playing the two sides against each other in their effort to gain power.
BTW, it is possible to frame any position as left, right or center. Civil rights and Conservation were once positions held by the Right that were captured by the Left. The parties routinely switch positions on major issues.
The important issue is the underlying thought process behind the positions. The Left/Right and Dialectical Center share the same convoluted dialectical thought process. They use conflict at the surface and paradox at the roots of reason. It is a simple matter of dividing and conquering.
The Left, Right and Dialectical Center share the same underlying methodology of dividing and conquering the people. The two sides of the coin are made of the same metal.
The press has been making hay of divisions among Conservatives. Conservatives are divided because Conservatism is inherently dialectical.
Conservatism and Progressive are identical in form. There is conflict on the surface and paradox at the foundation of reason. Progressives, Conservatives and the Dialectical Center manufacture a conflict then launch into shrill diatribes over the manufactured conflict.
The partisan camps are so thoroughly invested in their paradoxes and convoluted thinking that they lose the ability to communicate and society soon devolves into a base system of personal attacks.
I live in Utah. Utah is run by the LDS Church, which holds as foundational a particularly pernicious form of Hegelian Dialectics (see Mormon Dialectics). This Mormon Dialectics completely destroys the ability for people to community.
Mormon Dialectics holds that the Heavenly Father created this terrestrial realm as a test. Mormon dialectics holds that there is a great war between the gods in heave (Satan and Jesus) and that the conflicts on earth reflect this conflict among the gods.
According to Mormon Dialectics, the Heavenly Father revealed the truth of this conflict to Joseph Smith who was to form a new church. The members of the new church are "The Righteous." The Righteous are in an eternal conflict with the gentiles who are Servants of Satan who need to be exterminated. (Sidney Rigdon, cofounder of the LDS Church called for a War of Extermination against non-Mormons on July 4th, 1838.)
"And that mob that comes on us to disturb us; it shall be between us and them a war of extermination, for we will follow them, till the last drop of their blood is spilled, or else they will have to exterminate us: for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses, and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed."
I emphasized the word "mob." In an interesting display of "projection," Mormons often use the term "mob" to describe everyone who is outside of their political hierarchy. It is also interesting that the Mormon dialectical style inspired Sidney Rigdon (a cofounder of the LDS Church) to declare a War of Extermination against this nameless mob.
This pattern seems to be common for people seduced by modern dialectics. The dialectics divides people into isolated groups. The people in these isolated groups start vilifying those outside the group. The shrill rhetoric within the group rises to the point where people start talking about exterminating their neighbors.
Historian shows that the Hegelian Right reached its ultimate expression with Fascism and Nazism. The Hegelian Left reached its ultimate expression with Communism. Groups that employ this modern dialectics invariably lead to fractured and self-destructive societies.
The antidote to dialectics is Sound Rational Thinking. Unfortunately, once people have been seduced by dialectics, it becomes extremely difficult to communicate with them. How can one engage in any sort of rational discourse with people who've been indoctrinated since youth to see those outside their group as servants of satan?
Sunday, March 09, 2014
Here's the joke: The CPAC Convention is telling people that a group of people called "Conservatives" is standing against the establishment.
The best part. The people at the CPAC convention are telling this joke with a straight face.
Now for the bad part: Conservatives are pulling this joke on the America people and I fear some Americans will fall for it.
Modern Conservatism and Modern Liberalism as based on partisan dialectics. The two sides of a coin are made of the same metal. Both Ideologies undermine American freedom.
Six years into ObamaCare. Conservatives still have nothing to offer. This is because conservatives aren't seeking to restore freedom. Conservatives simply want their hands on the reigns of power and the totalitarian state.
Wednesday, March 05, 2014
Mormon Dialectics, like Hegelian Dialectics, redefines freedom. The Mormon redefinition of freedom is "free-agency." Man was given free agency as a test to see if he would follow the dictates of the prophet.
People who do not obey are cast out. Latter-day Liberty is an absurd paradox: You are free to obey. You will be "cast out" if you do not.
I happened on to a 20/20 documentary about the FLDS. The FLDS practice Mormonism as it was practiced by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The video looks at people who've been banished and forced to live in isolation by the prophet Warren Jeffs. This is what Mormonism is!
The FLDS are Fundamental Mormons. They practice the faith as it was taught by Joseph Smith. The section below is part of Joseph Smith's Book of Commandments (Later revised and Doctrine and Covenants). This commandment is theoretically equal to the Ten Commandments of the Bible:
25 Thow knowest my laws, they are given in my scriptures, he that sinneth and repenth not, shall be cast out.
26 If thou lovest me, thou shat serve me and keep all of my commandments; and behold, thou shalt consecrate all thy properties, that which thou hast unto me, wih a covenant and deed which cannot be broken; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church, and two of the elders, such as he shall appoint and set apart for that purpose.
27 And it shall come to pass, that the bishop of my church, after that he has received the properties of my church, that it can not be taken from the church, he shall appoint every man a steward over his own property, or that which he has received, in as much as is sufficient for himself and family:
28 And the residue shall be kept to administer to him who has not, that every man may receive according as he stands in need:
29 And the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer the poor and needy, as shall be appointed to the elders of the church and the bishop; and for the purpose of purchasing lands, and the building up of the New Jerusalem, which is hereafter to be revealed; that my covenant people may be gathered in one, in the day that I shall come to my temple.
Mormon Dialectics gives the paradox: "You are free to obey. If you do not obey you will be cast out!"