The Hegelian Right came before the Hegelian Left.
The movement was very much a royalist movement formed in reaction to the American and French revolution.
King George I, King George II, and King George III were jointly kings of Hanover and of England. Frederick the Great was an ally of England ruling over the kingdom of Prussia.
The Founders of the United States had a classical education. They fought for liberty. They saw liberty as self-rule. "Kingdom" meant rule by a king. "Freedom" meant free people who ruled themselves. The US Founders might be called "classical liberal."
The goal of Hegel was to frame the monarchy (the state) as the source of progress and to discredit the classical liberals.
In the Art of War one learns that the way to destroy an enemy is to define the position of the enemy.
To discredit the classical liberals, Hegel undertook an intense study of the master/slave relation and the paradoxes of freedom. The result of this was a new paradoxical understanding of freedom. The paradoxes of freedom were immediately relevant in the newly formed US because the United States had inherited slavery and couldn't figure out how to get rid of it.
Closer to Germany, the French Revolution was an ugly affair in which the revolutionaries sought to impose social change. It broke down into factions with a distinct left and right. It included genocide followed by the rise of Emperor Napoleon.
Hegel adored Napoleon.
Living in a world of conflict, Hegel applied oppositional dialectics to create a philosophy of history in which the world spirit evolved through conflicts on the world stage.
The Hegelian Left came a generation later when Feuerbach showed how to radical anti-religion to consolidate power. Marx followed with a philosophy centered on class conflict. The Hegelian left took Hegel's paradoxical definition of "liberalism" and ran with.
The Modern Liberal seeks freedom in slavery. The left holds that freedom reaches its highest level when the state is absolute. The enemy of the Hegelian Left is the Hegelian Right.
The tell tale sings of the Hegelian Conservative is that the philosophy is based on a paradoxical definition of liberalism.
When you watch Fox News and the Main Stream Media, you will notice that the reporters present news as conflict. They push a paradoxical view of "liberalism" and often spend more time defining the position of their opposition than their own position.
I contend that this new think (oppositional dialectics) is the cause for our systematic loss of liberty.
Conservatives who are dependent on the perverted definition of "liberal" are as much to blame for the lost of our liberty as the Hegelian left which runs with the perverted definition of liberal.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Saturday, August 11, 2012
The Hegelian Right
The Wikipedia Article on Hegel (drawn 8/10/2012) contains the following sentence:
The article implies that there is distinct left / right split in the Hegelian tradition. I believe that this split was influential in the left / right split that came to dominates American politics.
Aspects of American Conservatism seem to come from Hegel.
The first American Conservatives were the Tories who supported the English crown in the revolution.
An odd historical fact is that King George III was of the House of Hanover. The Kingdom of Hanover was in the general area of the modern German State of Saxony (Saxony as in Anglo-Saxon).
Wikipedia says the Hanoverian dynasty in England ran from 1714 to 1901. Interestingly, King George I (1660-1727) was established as King of England because Queen Anne's direct relatives were Catholic.
King George II founded the Georg-August-Universität in Gottingen in 1737. This royal charter university sported professors from Gauss to Hilbert and was the center of the German Romantic movement producing writers like the Bothers Grimm. During the 18th century,
During the American Revolution, conscripted Hessian soldiers fought for the British. Hesse is just south of Hanover. Germans and English were later allies in the Napoleonic Wars.
There was an immediate and direct connection between English royalty and the German intellectual community.
The monarchy was in chaos after the American and French Revolutions. I contend that, during the tumultuous period, the intellectuals in both England and Germany were spinning in circles trying to figure out how to reframe the arguments of the monarchy and the power structure (including the universities) that surrounded the monarchy.
Enter Hegel. Hegel was a master of philosophy, he knew how to spin a philosophy to the interest of his patrons.
He would draw on philosophers from Plato, Machiavelli, Kant and more to spin a philosophy that would justify the actions and desires of his patrons.
Hegel miraculously created a new philosophy of history (and of logic) that was sympathetic to the royalist cause.
For example, the during the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers fought for liberty which they saw as self-rule. To the founders, kingdom meant rule by a king. Freedom meant self rule.
Hegel spent a great deal of time redefining freedom. Hegel studied the master/slave relation and came up with all sorts of arguments to claim that freedom was slavery and slavery freedom.
The modern definition of "liberalism" clearly comes from Hegel and not from the US Founders.
Hegel's philosophy of history was a foolish thing claiming that the world spirit evolved through thesis/antithesis conflicts on the world stage. The American Revolution was just a hissy-fit and the people would soon come back to a centralized totalitarian state.
Hegel's logic was this foolishness where you would hold paradoxes at the foundation of reason and conflicts at the surface.
The cause of freedom is rife with paradox. Does a free person have the ability to deny freedom to another?
The founders believed in freedom of religion. But what happens if a religion demands political domination as a tenet of its faith?
The original Hegelian right favored radicalized religions that pushed paradoxical definitions of freedom and demanded individual subservience to the collective.
Hegel lived in a day when the monarchy was in crisis and spoke words that was immensely popular to the halls of power and to the reactionary forces that opposed the American and French Revolution.
Oddly Hegel was called an idealist, when in actuality, Hegel adored Napoleon and echoed Napoleon's hatred of ideology.
THE KINGS OF ENGLAND WERE GERMAN! The rise of Hegelian (modern) dialectics was not something taking place in a remote and foreign land. This stuff was direct and immediate.
Back in the states, we find that the founders were dealing with an ugly issue. They had inherited slavery from colonial days. Many founders had borrowed against their slaves, and people were looking for ways to justify the continuation of slavery.
The newly formed states were eager to import new ideas from Europe and the newly formed United States was fertile grounds for Hegelian dialectics in the early 1800s.
The tell-tale signs of Hegelianism is a belief that history progresses through conflict. Adherents to this position love to produce fantastical histories with great conflicts centered on thesis/anti-thesis. Early Hegelians favored radicalized religion and were prone to produce mythologies blatantly false claims such as the claim that Blacks were the descendants of Cain (thus deserving slavery) or that the American Indians were a lost tribe of Israel.
The final tell-tale sign of Hegelianism is a paradoxical redefinition of freedom.
The Hegelian Right came first. The generation after Hegel produced a number of people called "Young Hegelians" which defined the Hegelian Left. This group includes folks like Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) and later Karl Marx (1818-1883).
The Hegelian Right used radicalized religion. Feuerbach created a radicalized anti-religion. Marx used oppositional dialectics to create a fantasy history in which history evolved through class conflict. In Marxian dialectics, the intelligentsia would unite with the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie and bring about a new stage of evolution called Communism.
In this Hegelian tradition, there is a very ugly Left/Right split with both sides being power mongering rogues.
Hitler typifies the Hegelian Right, Stalin typifies the Hegelian Left.
I should point out that there is also a dialectical center. The dialectical center claims that they are the fair and balanced center between clowns on the left and jokers on the right.
Conclusion:
The Left/Right split that dominates political discourse did not come from the Founding Fathers. The left/right split appeared in the early 1800s.
The split appears to have come from the French Revolution. The logic of the partisan split appears to fall along the Hegelian Left/Right split. The Hegelian split uses ugly thought processes based on paradoxical thinking with conflict on the surface.
The Hegelian Right came before the Hegelian Left. Both lead to bad ends.
Some historians have spoken of Hegel's influence as represented by two opposing camps. The Right Hegelians, the allegedly direct disciples of Hegel at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, advocated a Protestant orthodoxy and the political conservatism of the post-Napoleon Restoration period. The Left Hegelians, also known as the Young Hegelians, interpreted Hegel in a revolutionary sense, leading to an advocation of atheism in religion and liberal democracy in politics.
The article implies that there is distinct left / right split in the Hegelian tradition. I believe that this split was influential in the left / right split that came to dominates American politics.
Aspects of American Conservatism seem to come from Hegel.
The first American Conservatives were the Tories who supported the English crown in the revolution.
An odd historical fact is that King George III was of the House of Hanover. The Kingdom of Hanover was in the general area of the modern German State of Saxony (Saxony as in Anglo-Saxon).
Wikipedia says the Hanoverian dynasty in England ran from 1714 to 1901. Interestingly, King George I (1660-1727) was established as King of England because Queen Anne's direct relatives were Catholic.
King George II founded the Georg-August-Universität in Gottingen in 1737. This royal charter university sported professors from Gauss to Hilbert and was the center of the German Romantic movement producing writers like the Bothers Grimm. During the 18th century,
During the American Revolution, conscripted Hessian soldiers fought for the British. Hesse is just south of Hanover. Germans and English were later allies in the Napoleonic Wars.
There was an immediate and direct connection between English royalty and the German intellectual community.
The monarchy was in chaos after the American and French Revolutions. I contend that, during the tumultuous period, the intellectuals in both England and Germany were spinning in circles trying to figure out how to reframe the arguments of the monarchy and the power structure (including the universities) that surrounded the monarchy.
Enter Hegel. Hegel was a master of philosophy, he knew how to spin a philosophy to the interest of his patrons.
He would draw on philosophers from Plato, Machiavelli, Kant and more to spin a philosophy that would justify the actions and desires of his patrons.
Hegel miraculously created a new philosophy of history (and of logic) that was sympathetic to the royalist cause.
For example, the during the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers fought for liberty which they saw as self-rule. To the founders, kingdom meant rule by a king. Freedom meant self rule.
Hegel spent a great deal of time redefining freedom. Hegel studied the master/slave relation and came up with all sorts of arguments to claim that freedom was slavery and slavery freedom.
The modern definition of "liberalism" clearly comes from Hegel and not from the US Founders.
Hegel's philosophy of history was a foolish thing claiming that the world spirit evolved through thesis/antithesis conflicts on the world stage. The American Revolution was just a hissy-fit and the people would soon come back to a centralized totalitarian state.
Hegel's logic was this foolishness where you would hold paradoxes at the foundation of reason and conflicts at the surface.
The cause of freedom is rife with paradox. Does a free person have the ability to deny freedom to another?
The founders believed in freedom of religion. But what happens if a religion demands political domination as a tenet of its faith?
The original Hegelian right favored radicalized religions that pushed paradoxical definitions of freedom and demanded individual subservience to the collective.
Hegel lived in a day when the monarchy was in crisis and spoke words that was immensely popular to the halls of power and to the reactionary forces that opposed the American and French Revolution.
Oddly Hegel was called an idealist, when in actuality, Hegel adored Napoleon and echoed Napoleon's hatred of ideology.
THE KINGS OF ENGLAND WERE GERMAN! The rise of Hegelian (modern) dialectics was not something taking place in a remote and foreign land. This stuff was direct and immediate.
Back in the states, we find that the founders were dealing with an ugly issue. They had inherited slavery from colonial days. Many founders had borrowed against their slaves, and people were looking for ways to justify the continuation of slavery.
The newly formed states were eager to import new ideas from Europe and the newly formed United States was fertile grounds for Hegelian dialectics in the early 1800s.
The tell-tale signs of Hegelianism is a belief that history progresses through conflict. Adherents to this position love to produce fantastical histories with great conflicts centered on thesis/anti-thesis. Early Hegelians favored radicalized religion and were prone to produce mythologies blatantly false claims such as the claim that Blacks were the descendants of Cain (thus deserving slavery) or that the American Indians were a lost tribe of Israel.
The final tell-tale sign of Hegelianism is a paradoxical redefinition of freedom.
The Hegelian Right came first. The generation after Hegel produced a number of people called "Young Hegelians" which defined the Hegelian Left. This group includes folks like Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) and later Karl Marx (1818-1883).
The Hegelian Right used radicalized religion. Feuerbach created a radicalized anti-religion. Marx used oppositional dialectics to create a fantasy history in which history evolved through class conflict. In Marxian dialectics, the intelligentsia would unite with the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie and bring about a new stage of evolution called Communism.
In this Hegelian tradition, there is a very ugly Left/Right split with both sides being power mongering rogues.
Hitler typifies the Hegelian Right, Stalin typifies the Hegelian Left.
I should point out that there is also a dialectical center. The dialectical center claims that they are the fair and balanced center between clowns on the left and jokers on the right.
Conclusion:
The Left/Right split that dominates political discourse did not come from the Founding Fathers. The left/right split appeared in the early 1800s.
The split appears to have come from the French Revolution. The logic of the partisan split appears to fall along the Hegelian Left/Right split. The Hegelian split uses ugly thought processes based on paradoxical thinking with conflict on the surface.
The Hegelian Right came before the Hegelian Left. Both lead to bad ends.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Back from the Wedding
I am back from the wedding in Spokane. The round trip was just about 1500 miles with a stop in Salmon.
I got some pictures of the Riverfront in Spokane and a ton of the wedding pictures. Sorry, the wedding pictures are only for the bride, groom and family. I will post the pictures of the riverfront later this week.
On the way up, we ate at the Signal Grill in Hamilton. I love traditional diners. On the way back we dined at Lou and Me in Malad, Idaho (the Sunday service was understaffed)..
It is always a great relief to get out of Utah to places where people are open and friendly.
The oppressive nature of Mormonism has been bearing down on me in the last couple of years.
My goal for the last four years has simply been to find a small group willing to spend a day discussing free market health care reform. The theme of the discussion would be that the problem is the use of group funding of individual consumption and the solution is to create an alternative to insurance based on self-funded care (NOTE An HSA + High Deductible Insurance is still insurance).
IMHO, the weakest point of ObamaCare is the insurance mandates. The mandates are based on the false assumption that insurance is the only way to fund health care. I contend that, if a group of patriots defined a viable alternative to insurance, they could use the alternative to directly attack ObamaCare and socialism at its weakest point.
This is the issue I want to discuss.
The peculiarities of Mormonism (and the left-wing reaction to Mormonism) means that I have to go some where else.
I do not want to talk about Mormonism or why it is oppressive.
I actually feel the same way about vampire movies. There is no truth in vampire movies; so I prefer not to waste any time discussing vampire movies.
I want to discuss health care. If the proponents of socialized medicine based their position on vampire movies, I guess I would be forced to discuss them, but only reluctantly.
Suffice it to say: Every major politician fronted by the LDS Church (Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, Governors Leavitt, Huntsman and Herbert) favor socializing medicine through State Run Health Exchanges.
They simply disagree on which group should wield the ring of power. Harry Reid wants exchanges run by the states that are regulated by the Federal Government. Romney wants exchanges run and regulated by the states. The Sutherland Institute (a supposedly free market group) wants exchanges run by the states and regulated by a non-elected government entity called a Health Compact.
The argument about who should run the socialized health exchanges is a false dichotomy.
The LDS Church has billions invested in insurance. Discussing alternatives to insurance would be political suicide in Utah. Both the left and right in Utah are for socialized medicine.
End of story.
I've accepted that, if I want to discuss free market health care reform, I have to travel (at my own expense) to somewhere else. The one and only way this could work is if a group of Libertarian minded folks organized the meeting.
Anyway, during the long to Spokane and back, I decided to write a post about why we need to worry about certain elements of the right.
Rather than writing about Joseph Smith (1805-1844), I thought I decided to write about Hegel (1770-1831) whose writings were all the rage during the early 1800s. Hegel is famous for his philosophy of history and as a founder of modern logic.
Hegel's philosophy of history is not all that new. It was extremely popular during the early 1800s (especially among conservatives). He invented an oppositional dialectics that claimed the world spirit evolved through conflicts on the world stage. He had a bizarre definition of freedom which is closer to the Mormon concept of Free Agency than to the Founders concept of Liberty (The founders saw liberty as self rule. They understood a kingdom as rule by king, and freedom as self rule.)
Of course many say it is absurd to think that a German philosophy born in 1770 could possibly have influence on an American born in 1805.
My next post will be titled "The Hegelian Right." I leave you to judge whether or not Mormonism was influenced by Hegelianism.
I got some pictures of the Riverfront in Spokane and a ton of the wedding pictures. Sorry, the wedding pictures are only for the bride, groom and family. I will post the pictures of the riverfront later this week.
On the way up, we ate at the Signal Grill in Hamilton. I love traditional diners. On the way back we dined at Lou and Me in Malad, Idaho (the Sunday service was understaffed)..
It is always a great relief to get out of Utah to places where people are open and friendly.
The oppressive nature of Mormonism has been bearing down on me in the last couple of years.
My goal for the last four years has simply been to find a small group willing to spend a day discussing free market health care reform. The theme of the discussion would be that the problem is the use of group funding of individual consumption and the solution is to create an alternative to insurance based on self-funded care (NOTE An HSA + High Deductible Insurance is still insurance).
IMHO, the weakest point of ObamaCare is the insurance mandates. The mandates are based on the false assumption that insurance is the only way to fund health care. I contend that, if a group of patriots defined a viable alternative to insurance, they could use the alternative to directly attack ObamaCare and socialism at its weakest point.
This is the issue I want to discuss.
The peculiarities of Mormonism (and the left-wing reaction to Mormonism) means that I have to go some where else.
I do not want to talk about Mormonism or why it is oppressive.
I actually feel the same way about vampire movies. There is no truth in vampire movies; so I prefer not to waste any time discussing vampire movies.
I want to discuss health care. If the proponents of socialized medicine based their position on vampire movies, I guess I would be forced to discuss them, but only reluctantly.
Suffice it to say: Every major politician fronted by the LDS Church (Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, Governors Leavitt, Huntsman and Herbert) favor socializing medicine through State Run Health Exchanges.
They simply disagree on which group should wield the ring of power. Harry Reid wants exchanges run by the states that are regulated by the Federal Government. Romney wants exchanges run and regulated by the states. The Sutherland Institute (a supposedly free market group) wants exchanges run by the states and regulated by a non-elected government entity called a Health Compact.
The argument about who should run the socialized health exchanges is a false dichotomy.
The LDS Church has billions invested in insurance. Discussing alternatives to insurance would be political suicide in Utah. Both the left and right in Utah are for socialized medicine.
End of story.
I've accepted that, if I want to discuss free market health care reform, I have to travel (at my own expense) to somewhere else. The one and only way this could work is if a group of Libertarian minded folks organized the meeting.
Anyway, during the long to Spokane and back, I decided to write a post about why we need to worry about certain elements of the right.
Rather than writing about Joseph Smith (1805-1844), I thought I decided to write about Hegel (1770-1831) whose writings were all the rage during the early 1800s. Hegel is famous for his philosophy of history and as a founder of modern logic.
Hegel's philosophy of history is not all that new. It was extremely popular during the early 1800s (especially among conservatives). He invented an oppositional dialectics that claimed the world spirit evolved through conflicts on the world stage. He had a bizarre definition of freedom which is closer to the Mormon concept of Free Agency than to the Founders concept of Liberty (The founders saw liberty as self rule. They understood a kingdom as rule by king, and freedom as self rule.)
Of course many say it is absurd to think that a German philosophy born in 1770 could possibly have influence on an American born in 1805.
My next post will be titled "The Hegelian Right." I leave you to judge whether or not Mormonism was influenced by Hegelianism.
Monday, July 30, 2012
The Human Mind is the Source of Economic Growth
Small business is not the engine of economic growth.
The individual human mind is the engine of economic growth. Small business is one of the best manifestations of the human mind.
Reviving America is not simply a matter of removing regulatory constraints from small business. A true revival would start by recognizing the individual as the basic economic building block.
If you hold the individual in high esteem, then you will necessarily end up holding the small businesses formed by people in high esteem.
IMHO, The first step to renewing America is to recognize each person as a whole being who lives, works, owns, invests, and associates with others.
A common theme of the proposals I make on this blog (like the Medical Savings and Loan and The Object Tax) all have the goal of making the individual the primary economic focus.
Legislation built on the premise that small business is the engine of economic growth will be as flawed as legislation built on the assumption that government is the engine of growth or that big finance is the engine of growth.
The individual human mind is the engine of economic growth. Small business is one of the best manifestations of the human mind.
Reviving America is not simply a matter of removing regulatory constraints from small business. A true revival would start by recognizing the individual as the basic economic building block.
If you hold the individual in high esteem, then you will necessarily end up holding the small businesses formed by people in high esteem.
IMHO, The first step to renewing America is to recognize each person as a whole being who lives, works, owns, invests, and associates with others.
A common theme of the proposals I make on this blog (like the Medical Savings and Loan and The Object Tax) all have the goal of making the individual the primary economic focus.
Legislation built on the premise that small business is the engine of economic growth will be as flawed as legislation built on the assumption that government is the engine of growth or that big finance is the engine of growth.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
How About Denver in October?
Health care is the most important issue of the day..
Sadly both the Republican and Democratic candidate favor socializing medicine via state controlled health exchanges.
Neither party is willing to even discuss real free market health care reform.
Republicans favor socializing health care with exchanges captured by big business. Democrats want health exchanges captured by corrupt government bureaucrats.
Neither side of the false dichotomy is willing to discuss real free market health care reform.
All eyes are on the presidential election.
Now, imagine for a moment that the American people rose up and voted for third party candidates in droves. Imagine that enough people voted third party that neither side could claim victory or a mandate?
Since Tea Partying patriots are more upset than Democrats, the split vote is likely to leave Obama as a lameduck president facing an opposition Congress.
Imagine for a moment that the American people rejected the false dichotomy between Left and Right and voted for a third party candidate?
(Remember when Clinton was a lameduck with a Republican Congress? The result was the only balanced budget in recent history.)
If independents and libertarians voted third party in November and split the presidential, both parties would respond by adopting a free market agenda for 2016.
Anyway, I just had a cool thought. For the last four years, I've been wanting to have a conference that discusses health freedom.
Colorado is a swing state. What if the conference took place in Denver in October?
The conference would be a non-partisan event. During the conference, I would propose creating "The Medical Savings and Loan" as a free market alternative to insurance.
The problem includes arguments on why insurance leads to inequities and show why plans like an HSA+HDHC just makes things worse. The conference would welcome both Tea Partiers and anyone from Occupy Wall Street who is sane and open-minded (if there are such people).
NOTE: The conference for health freedom is against big finance ... but not for socialism. It is essentially like the campaign to take money out of the big banks and putting it in a locally owned credit unions.
The Medical Savings and Loan is a business model, it is not a political policy. The message is that financing health care is a business problem and not a political one.
The message of the conference is that politics only makes health care worse, and both parties hurt are guilty of using health care to grub power.
Holding a conference in a swing state just before the election would through a sabot in the wheels of both the left and right political machine.
It would be fun to hold a conference in Denver. Sadly, I can't pull off such thing without any help.
If anyone in Colorado is sick of the false dichotomy of left and right who would like to help me organize a conference on health freedom, please contact me.
Friday, July 27, 2012
A Copyrighted Copyright Notice
This copyright notice is copyrighted by ME.
If you want your own copyright notice, you are going to have to go out and write one yourself.
None of this: "Oh, I think you have a cool copyright notice, I am going to copy it and paste it on my web site and look all cool!"
To be very clear: I DO NOT give you permission to just go out and copy my copyright notice.
This copyright notice is mine. It's not yours ... It's mine! It's mine! It's mine!
I put a lot of effort into thinking up just exactly what I wanted to say in my copyright notice and I am not about to let some Johnny-come-lately waltz right in and copy it. No How! No Way!
I even went as far as to put an HTML entity (ampersand, copy, semi-colon) followed by the date on my Copyright Statement, I am that serious.
© 2012 by ME!
So There!
If you want your own copyright notice, you are going to have to go out and write one yourself.
None of this: "Oh, I think you have a cool copyright notice, I am going to copy it and paste it on my web site and look all cool!"
To be very clear: I DO NOT give you permission to just go out and copy my copyright notice.
This copyright notice is mine. It's not yours ... It's mine! It's mine! It's mine!
I put a lot of effort into thinking up just exactly what I wanted to say in my copyright notice and I am not about to let some Johnny-come-lately waltz right in and copy it. No How! No Way!
I even went as far as to put an HTML entity (ampersand, copy, semi-colon) followed by the date on my Copyright Statement, I am that serious.
© 2012 by ME!
So There!
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Reactionaries Carrry the Imprint of the Opposition
There is a great deal of pseudo science, superstition and outright fantasy in the environmental community and radical left.
Because their ideas are based on pseudo science the greens keep steering people wrong.
Reactionary conservatives loudly react to the pseudo science. The loud reactive voice invariably becomes the leading voice of the Conservative Party.
This process of a reactionary right screaming against an unbalanced radical left is a form of poisonous thought process called "Dialectics."
Here's the problem: The thoughts of the loud reactionary voice is based on pseudo science and superstition just like the radical green voice.
It is the nature of dialectics that the loud reactionary voice accepts underlying fallacies of the radical left.
The negation of pseudo science is not science. In the long run, it proves to be as much mindless mush as the pseudo science itself. The shrill nondebate allows the worst rogues of society to sweep in and take political control.
A better example of the way reactionary thought undermines society can be seen in the definition of "liberalism."
The term "liberal" meant something different in the 1700s. The "Liberal Arts" was a curriculum based on the Trivium (Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric). Liberal has the same root as liberty.
In the Left/Right split of the French Revolution radical partisans captured the term "liberal" and reactionary conservatives reacted.
Through the dialectical process, the term "liberal" essentially came to mean its opposite. Today, "liberalism" is lock in step with totalitarian socialism.
Today, conservatives voice a philosophy that is similar to classical liberalism. Reactionary conservatism is based entirely on a shrill denunciation of the radicalized liberalism.
Don't you see the problem?
Reactionary conservatives and radical liberals are both cut from the same dialectical mold.
Reactionary conservatives claim to hold a philosophy based on liberty. The reactionary conservative undermines liberty when they perpetuate the perverted definition of liberal.
Modern conservatives are cut from the same dialectical mold as liberals.
It is this dialectical model which is destroying our society.
The dialectical conservative invariably reaches the same results as the radical liberal. The dialectical conservative does stupid things like elect in the author of RomneyCare to defeat ObamaCare, when the two structures are identical.
Reactionary conservatives create new regulatory bodies like the Health Compact to do battle with the new regulatory bodies created in PPACA. Creating a new regulatory body to fight over regulation does not reduce regulation in health care. It creates dueling bodies seeking regulatory power.
The dialectics is a process in which the rogues of society take control through contrived arguments. The radical left, reactionary right and dialectical center are all part of a system which systematically strips people of their liberty.
Sadly, the best formula for restoring liberty is found in the classical liberal tradition (Aristotle through the US Founders). The shrill dialectical process destroys our ability to re-examine this tradition.
Because their ideas are based on pseudo science the greens keep steering people wrong.
Reactionary conservatives loudly react to the pseudo science. The loud reactive voice invariably becomes the leading voice of the Conservative Party.
This process of a reactionary right screaming against an unbalanced radical left is a form of poisonous thought process called "Dialectics."
Here's the problem: The thoughts of the loud reactionary voice is based on pseudo science and superstition just like the radical green voice.
It is the nature of dialectics that the loud reactionary voice accepts underlying fallacies of the radical left.
The negation of pseudo science is not science. In the long run, it proves to be as much mindless mush as the pseudo science itself. The shrill nondebate allows the worst rogues of society to sweep in and take political control.
A better example of the way reactionary thought undermines society can be seen in the definition of "liberalism."
The term "liberal" meant something different in the 1700s. The "Liberal Arts" was a curriculum based on the Trivium (Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric). Liberal has the same root as liberty.
In the Left/Right split of the French Revolution radical partisans captured the term "liberal" and reactionary conservatives reacted.
Through the dialectical process, the term "liberal" essentially came to mean its opposite. Today, "liberalism" is lock in step with totalitarian socialism.
Today, conservatives voice a philosophy that is similar to classical liberalism. Reactionary conservatism is based entirely on a shrill denunciation of the radicalized liberalism.
Don't you see the problem?
Reactionary conservatives and radical liberals are both cut from the same dialectical mold.
Reactionary conservatives claim to hold a philosophy based on liberty. The reactionary conservative undermines liberty when they perpetuate the perverted definition of liberal.
Modern conservatives are cut from the same dialectical mold as liberals.
It is this dialectical model which is destroying our society.
The dialectical conservative invariably reaches the same results as the radical liberal. The dialectical conservative does stupid things like elect in the author of RomneyCare to defeat ObamaCare, when the two structures are identical.
Reactionary conservatives create new regulatory bodies like the Health Compact to do battle with the new regulatory bodies created in PPACA. Creating a new regulatory body to fight over regulation does not reduce regulation in health care. It creates dueling bodies seeking regulatory power.
The dialectics is a process in which the rogues of society take control through contrived arguments. The radical left, reactionary right and dialectical center are all part of a system which systematically strips people of their liberty.
Sadly, the best formula for restoring liberty is found in the classical liberal tradition (Aristotle through the US Founders). The shrill dialectical process destroys our ability to re-examine this tradition.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Radicalized Religion
Prior to Marx, socialists used radicalized religion to hawk their poison.
By the mid 1800s, the world was littered with failed Utopian experiments that used various forms radicalized religion to bind adherents to the community.
The Young Hegelians (Marx, Feuerbach, etc.) realized that they could use radical anti-religion.
By building on anti-religion as a theme, they were able to attack the core of a free society while being able to dismiss the failures of Utopian societies as being caused by religion .;.. and not a fundamental fault of communitarianism.
Centuries after Feuerbach and Marx, we have a world in which many people associate socialism and anti-religion.
One odd danger we face is that the socialist left can very easily change theme and start pushing radicalized religion ... blaming the failures of socialism on its anti-religious nature.
The dichotomy:: "Should the socialist utopia be based on religion or anti-religion?" is a false dichotomy.
When people are drawn into a false dichotomy they will end up being pushed in directions they would otherwise not travel.
Sadly, many conservatives seem to be reacting to the Obama administration by taking a radical view of religion. A radicalization of religious can come back and hurt us as the forces of tyranny are skilled at using radical religion to harm society.
By the mid 1800s, the world was littered with failed Utopian experiments that used various forms radicalized religion to bind adherents to the community.
The Young Hegelians (Marx, Feuerbach, etc.) realized that they could use radical anti-religion.
By building on anti-religion as a theme, they were able to attack the core of a free society while being able to dismiss the failures of Utopian societies as being caused by religion .;.. and not a fundamental fault of communitarianism.
Centuries after Feuerbach and Marx, we have a world in which many people associate socialism and anti-religion.
One odd danger we face is that the socialist left can very easily change theme and start pushing radicalized religion ... blaming the failures of socialism on its anti-religious nature.
The dichotomy:: "Should the socialist utopia be based on religion or anti-religion?" is a false dichotomy.
When people are drawn into a false dichotomy they will end up being pushed in directions they would otherwise not travel.
Sadly, many conservatives seem to be reacting to the Obama administration by taking a radical view of religion. A radicalization of religious can come back and hurt us as the forces of tyranny are skilled at using radical religion to harm society.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Power Player Arrested
A rising star of the Utah GOP was arrested yesterday charged with multiple counts of rape. The power player in question hosted a prime Utah GOP event called the Rocky Mountain Conservative Conference. The power player was a little darling of Utah's right.
The video below shows a few of the GOP stars that flocked to the conference. The video below for the conference has some of the best free market rhetoric that you will find anywhere.
The freedom movement faces that challenge that the rogues of the world use the powerful sounding rhetoric for dubious ends.
I am interested in free market health care reform. I also happen to be stuck in Utah; so, over the last four years, I've repeatedly tried contacting every single person in that video.
I've been rebuked or ignored at every turn.
Then again, I am not a conservative.
A conservative is a person who uses free market rhetoric to grub power.
I consider myself a "classical liberal." By classical liberal, I mean a person who applies ideas from classical logic (and classical mathematics) to the question of liberty.
The US Founders had a classical education and applied classical logic to the question of liberty and created the constitutionally limited republic.
The Conservatives of the US Revolution were called "Tories." They fought for the British. The great left/right came from the French Revolution. The Conservatives on the right supported the ancient regime, and those on the left were blood thirsty lunatics.
Both sides of the left/right split are corrupt.
I care not a lick for power. I love ideas. Specifically, I am intrigued with the way that a distributed economic system outperforms as top-down power structure. The idea I want to discuss is how one can replace top heavy insurance companies with a distributed system based on self-funded care. Such a system would outperform the current one.
I would love to get something like that Rocky Mountain Conservative Conference going. Imagine a group of patriots meeting at a mountain resort to discuss real free market health care reform.
I like real people, not power players. My hope was to get together a group of real people to discuss real health care reform.
By real reform I mean AN ALTERNATIVE TO INSURANCE. Rather than raping the maid, the goal of the conference would be to create a business network that would allow people who are under-served by insurance a way to opt out of insurance.
I watched the video several times and am left wondering: Why are conservatives so readily attracted to disgusting power players and why are they so completely and thoroughly unwilling to discuss ideas?
With the exception of Mia Love, I cannot even imagine a single one of the GOP darlings in the video ever sitting down to discuss real free market health care reform. The second they realized I was challenging their precious little insurance companies they would toss me out the door.
If you are a GOP, why are so unwilling to discuss ideas what what is the great attraction that you feel for all of these power players who simply use empty rhetoric to gain and consolidate power?
The video below shows a few of the GOP stars that flocked to the conference. The video below for the conference has some of the best free market rhetoric that you will find anywhere.
The freedom movement faces that challenge that the rogues of the world use the powerful sounding rhetoric for dubious ends.
I am interested in free market health care reform. I also happen to be stuck in Utah; so, over the last four years, I've repeatedly tried contacting every single person in that video.
I've been rebuked or ignored at every turn.
Then again, I am not a conservative.
A conservative is a person who uses free market rhetoric to grub power.
I consider myself a "classical liberal." By classical liberal, I mean a person who applies ideas from classical logic (and classical mathematics) to the question of liberty.
The US Founders had a classical education and applied classical logic to the question of liberty and created the constitutionally limited republic.
The Conservatives of the US Revolution were called "Tories." They fought for the British. The great left/right came from the French Revolution. The Conservatives on the right supported the ancient regime, and those on the left were blood thirsty lunatics.
Both sides of the left/right split are corrupt.
I care not a lick for power. I love ideas. Specifically, I am intrigued with the way that a distributed economic system outperforms as top-down power structure. The idea I want to discuss is how one can replace top heavy insurance companies with a distributed system based on self-funded care. Such a system would outperform the current one.
I would love to get something like that Rocky Mountain Conservative Conference going. Imagine a group of patriots meeting at a mountain resort to discuss real free market health care reform.
I like real people, not power players. My hope was to get together a group of real people to discuss real health care reform.
By real reform I mean AN ALTERNATIVE TO INSURANCE. Rather than raping the maid, the goal of the conference would be to create a business network that would allow people who are under-served by insurance a way to opt out of insurance.
I watched the video several times and am left wondering: Why are conservatives so readily attracted to disgusting power players and why are they so completely and thoroughly unwilling to discuss ideas?
With the exception of Mia Love, I cannot even imagine a single one of the GOP darlings in the video ever sitting down to discuss real free market health care reform. The second they realized I was challenging their precious little insurance companies they would toss me out the door.
If you are a GOP, why are so unwilling to discuss ideas what what is the great attraction that you feel for all of these power players who simply use empty rhetoric to gain and consolidate power?
Saturday, July 07, 2012
Undocumented?
The nations of this world are very good at documenting people. The term "undocumented immigrant" implies that there is a large number of people wandering about who have never been documented in any way.
This is absurd.
I suspect that there is tons of documentation about the people who fall into the class of "undocumented," and that the term "undocumented" is just a politically correct absurdity.
If a person came into the United States on a visa, and violated the terms of that visa by staying longer than the contract allowed; then there is documentation for that person.
Calling such a person an "undocumented immigrant" is incorrect because such people actually have signed document. They have a contract that they made with our country which they chose to violate.
Allowing widespread visa violations and calling the violations "undocumented immigration" is dishonest at its core. Such a political stunt will ultimately backfire by creating a more oppressive system of documentation. It might also harm the world by making international travel more difficult.
Allowing people to discard documentation of contracts they signed is problematic for it calls into question all contracts entered by the people of our nation. The consequences of losing the rule of law are staggering. If discarding a visa is considered acceptable in the US then the whole international system of visas is called into question and will eventually hinder the ability to engage in world travel.
This is absurd.
I suspect that there is tons of documentation about the people who fall into the class of "undocumented," and that the term "undocumented" is just a politically correct absurdity.
If a person came into the United States on a visa, and violated the terms of that visa by staying longer than the contract allowed; then there is documentation for that person.
Calling such a person an "undocumented immigrant" is incorrect because such people actually have signed document. They have a contract that they made with our country which they chose to violate.
Allowing widespread visa violations and calling the violations "undocumented immigration" is dishonest at its core. Such a political stunt will ultimately backfire by creating a more oppressive system of documentation. It might also harm the world by making international travel more difficult.
Allowing people to discard documentation of contracts they signed is problematic for it calls into question all contracts entered by the people of our nation. The consequences of losing the rule of law are staggering. If discarding a visa is considered acceptable in the US then the whole international system of visas is called into question and will eventually hinder the ability to engage in world travel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)