This absurd Left/Right split is the most frustrating thing on the planet. The shrill idiots who blindly cling to their partisan ideologies of progressivism and conservatism have done so much harm to this world.
I live in a hell-hole called Utah where discourse is routinely shut down by people called conservatives.
For decades there's been a shrill debate about who is the most severely conservative of all the conservatives.
For decades I've held that Tehran was the most conservative group on earth with Mecca taking a close second.
Mecca does a good job by excluding all people who do not belong to the chosen religion, but Iran has a brutality behind its conservatism that sets Tehran apart.
Please don't get me wrong. There are many other conservative points on this planet.
Sudan and Pakistan have had some severe moments of conservatism with the periodic stoning of young women. Stoning a woman to death for marrying outside the faith is an act of deep and true conservatism. You can't get more conservative than killing your own daughter for religion.
Although honor killings are an act of extreme conservatism, they are still just individual acts.
Conservatism hits its shrillest form with mob action. In the last few years we've been seeing the rise of a new Conservatism in the Middle East that is full magnitude shriller and brutal than the Conservatism of Tehran.
I am referring to the ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) Movement.
ISIS is led by a religious scholar named Abu Bakr al Baghdadi who seeks to establish an Islamic Caliphate.
ISIS imposes Sharia Law in the land it captures and routinely flogs and executes people.
Flogging and executing people in the name of a religious law is Conservatism.
If you call yourself "Conservative" you should be jumping up and down in joy at the rise of a Conservative Caliphate in Iraq and Syria. This religious Jihad is even more Conservative than Tehran!
The Left/Right split that dominates politics came a generation after the US Founders. The Left holds a strange idea that freedom is slavery and slavery freedom. The progressive left holds that the ultimate expression of liberty comes with the rise of a totalitarian state.
The right holds that a capitalist society will impose a top down social order and will evolve into a new perfect class society with a very small number of owners controlling society with the bulk of mankind reduced to servitude as wage laborers.
Both the left and right are stupid. The left holds that one finds liberty in totalitarian government and the right holds that one find social order in a capitalistic liberty. (NOTE, Capitalism is defined by Karl Marx in a book called "Das Kapital.")
Fascism is the ultimate expression of the Modern Right. Communism is the ultimate expression of the Modern Left.
I beg all of the shrill people who kickdown their neighbors in the name of "Conservatism" to look at the senseless slaughtering of people in Syria and Iraq.
A religious scholar who routinely flogs and kills people under his control while committing acts of terrorism to set up a religious state is a Conservative.
Blindly clinging to this word "conservative" leads us to ruin just as surely as blindly clinging to the words "liberal" and "progressive."
The video below was published in January. ISIS is much bigger after its invasion of Mosul. I like the video because it shows how hyper partisan groups like this emerge as it gets in power counter insurgency groups form and everything gets worse. The type thinking behind the Left/Right split and the Sunni/Shia split lead to brutality.
Friday, June 13, 2014
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
A Strange Thing Happened Several Decades Ago
I live in Utah which is run by the LDS Church.
Several decades ago a really strange thing happened to me at work.
I was busily working in my cubicle. A coworker who was new to the firm ambled up to my desk and said a really strange thing. He said: "Let's go to lunch."
I live among Mormons. Human kindness and civility is a rare thing in this neck of the woods; So I was perplexed.
We had lunch at Hardees and talked about business. Apparently he had read in a book that people are supposed to use lunches to network with coworkers.
After the lunch, my bosses boss pulled me into a conference room and grilled me for an hour about the lunch then demanded that I write down everything said during the lunch. I was told that in the future I needed permission to eat lunch with coworkers and was advised to not do that again.
I never did that again.
Mormons are taught that people outside the political hierarchy of the church are Servants of Satan. Joseph Smith taught that those not in the political hierarchy of the church must be cut out and isolated. This notion that you need to oppress people and prevent them from communicating is one of those quirky Mormon things.
The LDS Church keeps detailed records on people in the state. I worked in companies where people were essentially assigned to keep tabs on who is talking to who with human interaction carefully regulated.
The NSA located its largest spying facility in Utah because the people here already have the right skill set.
This idea that people not in the political hierarchy of the Church must be watched and cast out is fundamental to the LDS Church.
The Book of Commandments (also known as the D&C) is considered the Supreme Law of the land. The snippet about the United Order of Enoch is the most important line in all of Mormondom. Before reading it, I want to emphasize that Mormonism appeared in a time when Hegel was the rage and Left/Right split that dominates current politics was new. Joseph Smith was creating a Right Wing Conservative Ideology. You can find photocopy of the plate on The Institution for Religious Research.
The Book of Commandments demands that the central authority take from each according to his ability and give to each according to his needs
This document says that God demands people give all their property to the central authority and be reduced to stewards over what they once owned with the bulk of the funds used to construct buildings that gloriify the central authority.
Those outside the political hierarchy of this totalitarian theocracy are to be cast out.
The Book of Commandments is the most right wing conservative document ever written. This document is considered to be the law written directly by God into the mind of the prophet, seer and relevator Joseph Smith. One cannot get more conservative than that!
What amazes me is that the most Conservative of all documents ever written says almost exactly the same thing as the most left wing progressive document every written (Marx's Manifesto written thirty years later).
I stare at this farcical Left / Right division and see only a difference in image and not in form.
Personally, I am fond of the US Founders and the Classical Liberal Tradition. The founders supported property rights and sought to limit and not glorify the central authority. They most likely would be horrified fundamental documents telling the people to cast out their neighbors.
I do not claim the power to see the mind of Christ. I suspect Jesus Christ would reject the words that Joseph Smith was trying to force into God's mouth.
Living in the most Conservative part of this country West of Tehran, I stare in horror at both conservatives and progressives who I see as simple mirror images of each other.
In the big upset election in Virginia. Eric Cantor was a conservative. He was engaged in Congress in a truly conservative manor. The conservative methodology is to use classical liberal rhetoric to gain power then to use political power to enhance the central authority.
I watch in horror as left wing and right wing rogues rip our nation apart and desperately want to do something.
But I am stuck here in the most Conservative State West of Tehran and can do nothing except sit and gripe online because of Conservative Oppression.
Several decades ago a really strange thing happened to me at work.
I was busily working in my cubicle. A coworker who was new to the firm ambled up to my desk and said a really strange thing. He said: "Let's go to lunch."
I live among Mormons. Human kindness and civility is a rare thing in this neck of the woods; So I was perplexed.
We had lunch at Hardees and talked about business. Apparently he had read in a book that people are supposed to use lunches to network with coworkers.
After the lunch, my bosses boss pulled me into a conference room and grilled me for an hour about the lunch then demanded that I write down everything said during the lunch. I was told that in the future I needed permission to eat lunch with coworkers and was advised to not do that again.
I never did that again.
Mormons are taught that people outside the political hierarchy of the church are Servants of Satan. Joseph Smith taught that those not in the political hierarchy of the church must be cut out and isolated. This notion that you need to oppress people and prevent them from communicating is one of those quirky Mormon things.
The LDS Church keeps detailed records on people in the state. I worked in companies where people were essentially assigned to keep tabs on who is talking to who with human interaction carefully regulated.
The NSA located its largest spying facility in Utah because the people here already have the right skill set.
This idea that people not in the political hierarchy of the Church must be watched and cast out is fundamental to the LDS Church.
The Book of Commandments (also known as the D&C) is considered the Supreme Law of the land. The snippet about the United Order of Enoch is the most important line in all of Mormondom. Before reading it, I want to emphasize that Mormonism appeared in a time when Hegel was the rage and Left/Right split that dominates current politics was new. Joseph Smith was creating a Right Wing Conservative Ideology. You can find photocopy of the plate on The Institution for Religious Research.
25 Thou 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.
The Book of Commandments demands that the central authority take from each according to his ability and give to each according to his needs
This document says that God demands people give all their property to the central authority and be reduced to stewards over what they once owned with the bulk of the funds used to construct buildings that gloriify the central authority.
Those outside the political hierarchy of this totalitarian theocracy are to be cast out.
The Book of Commandments is the most right wing conservative document ever written. This document is considered to be the law written directly by God into the mind of the prophet, seer and relevator Joseph Smith. One cannot get more conservative than that!
What amazes me is that the most Conservative of all documents ever written says almost exactly the same thing as the most left wing progressive document every written (Marx's Manifesto written thirty years later).
I stare at this farcical Left / Right division and see only a difference in image and not in form.
Personally, I am fond of the US Founders and the Classical Liberal Tradition. The founders supported property rights and sought to limit and not glorify the central authority. They most likely would be horrified fundamental documents telling the people to cast out their neighbors.
I do not claim the power to see the mind of Christ. I suspect Jesus Christ would reject the words that Joseph Smith was trying to force into God's mouth.
Living in the most Conservative part of this country West of Tehran, I stare in horror at both conservatives and progressives who I see as simple mirror images of each other.
In the big upset election in Virginia. Eric Cantor was a conservative. He was engaged in Congress in a truly conservative manor. The conservative methodology is to use classical liberal rhetoric to gain power then to use political power to enhance the central authority.
I watch in horror as left wing and right wing rogues rip our nation apart and desperately want to do something.
But I am stuck here in the most Conservative State West of Tehran and can do nothing except sit and gripe online because of Conservative Oppression.
DeCantoring the GOP
This is interesting: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost to some Brat from the Tea Party. Cantor outspent Brat by 25 to 1 and still lost.
It is rare for senior political leaders to lose their primary challenge to outsiders; so the election took everyone by surprise.
Personally, I had considered Cantor to be one of the better GOP leaders. But, on listening to Cantor's concession speech, I am glad for the change.
Like so many people in power, Cantor appears to have developed a top down view of the economy in which the governance is the principle actor in life and the people are just workers.
Just a note on terminology. The idea that the wealth of the nation flows from God through kings and lords is the heart of classical conservatism.Classical liberalism holds that the wealth of the nation bubbles up from the people.
The talking heads on TV are making hay about conservatism when Cantor seems more in line with the classical conservative view than Brat.
I watched several YouTube videos featuring Dave Brat. I couldn't really wrap my head around the meaning of Brat's win.
It seems to me that the driving force in this win is that people know that there is something dreadfully wrong in Washington and are looking for an answer.
Although I liked Cantor, I am thrilled with this turn of events.
It is rare for senior political leaders to lose their primary challenge to outsiders; so the election took everyone by surprise.
Personally, I had considered Cantor to be one of the better GOP leaders. But, on listening to Cantor's concession speech, I am glad for the change.
Like so many people in power, Cantor appears to have developed a top down view of the economy in which the governance is the principle actor in life and the people are just workers.
Just a note on terminology. The idea that the wealth of the nation flows from God through kings and lords is the heart of classical conservatism.Classical liberalism holds that the wealth of the nation bubbles up from the people.
The talking heads on TV are making hay about conservatism when Cantor seems more in line with the classical conservative view than Brat.
I watched several YouTube videos featuring Dave Brat. I couldn't really wrap my head around the meaning of Brat's win.
It seems to me that the driving force in this win is that people know that there is something dreadfully wrong in Washington and are looking for an answer.
Although I liked Cantor, I am thrilled with this turn of events.
Saturday, June 07, 2014
Sacred Wilderness
Here in the Western US, mountains are considered sacred wilderness. Most mountains are government owned and considered public domain.
Young kids from Idaho, especially those on the fringe of society, grow up seeing mountains as a sacred sanctuary. No matter how bad things are in town, anyone can simply walk up into the sacred mountains for solace.
Bowe Bergdahl was a home schooled kid in the Sovereign Redeemer Presbyterian Church growing up in Hailey, Idaho with a population under 8,000.
In Afghanistan, the mountains are a military stronghold that tribal warlords have held for millennia.
A confused home-schooled kid from Idaho fighting a war in Afghanistan is likely to see the military strongholds of Afghanistan and harken back to his ideals of a sacred wilderness.
BTW, I happen to be a big supporter of home-schooling. IMHO: People who are home-schooled have a delightful independent streak that adds to the diversity of this nation.
That a home-schooled kid from Idaho ends up separated from his platoon and is captured by the Taliban does not surprise me in the least. That a kid has empathy for the Taliban doesn't surprise me either.
Empathy is a good thing.
What disappoints me is the viciousness with which the right-wing press is attacking Berghdahl.
I happen to think that Obama fumbled on this prisoner exchange.
But when I look at the viciousness with which the right wing press is going after this poor home-schooled fundamentalist Christian, I find myself sympathetic to Obama's position.
Surprisingly, the argument for releasing prisoners from Gitmo at this point in time are largely the same arguments for holding prisoners without trial at Gitmo in the first place.
The detainees at Gitmo are prisoners of war. One holds prisoners of war, without trail, during the war to prevent them from returning to the battlefield.
Prisoners of war are held in relation to the war. In normal circumstances one would expect a release of prisoners of war at the end of the war. The problem we face is that the Gitmo prisoners are terrorists who are likely to engage in a civil war against the elected government of Afghanistan or who might engage in international terrorism.
As we exit Afghanistan, we should be looking for ways to release the prisoners of Gitmo.Obama fumbled this process by not seeking advice of Congress.
Even worse, by negotiating a hostage release with the Taliban has revitalized and relegitimized a terrorist organization.
Pointing out the pathetic job done by Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry did on this issue is not a bad thing.
The vicious attacks on a home schooled kid who foolishly went into the mountains is showing the right is as out of touch as the left.
Young kids from Idaho, especially those on the fringe of society, grow up seeing mountains as a sacred sanctuary. No matter how bad things are in town, anyone can simply walk up into the sacred mountains for solace.
Bowe Bergdahl was a home schooled kid in the Sovereign Redeemer Presbyterian Church growing up in Hailey, Idaho with a population under 8,000.
In Afghanistan, the mountains are a military stronghold that tribal warlords have held for millennia.
A confused home-schooled kid from Idaho fighting a war in Afghanistan is likely to see the military strongholds of Afghanistan and harken back to his ideals of a sacred wilderness.
BTW, I happen to be a big supporter of home-schooling. IMHO: People who are home-schooled have a delightful independent streak that adds to the diversity of this nation.
That a home-schooled kid from Idaho ends up separated from his platoon and is captured by the Taliban does not surprise me in the least. That a kid has empathy for the Taliban doesn't surprise me either.
Empathy is a good thing.
What disappoints me is the viciousness with which the right-wing press is attacking Berghdahl.
I happen to think that Obama fumbled on this prisoner exchange.
But when I look at the viciousness with which the right wing press is going after this poor home-schooled fundamentalist Christian, I find myself sympathetic to Obama's position.
Surprisingly, the argument for releasing prisoners from Gitmo at this point in time are largely the same arguments for holding prisoners without trial at Gitmo in the first place.
The detainees at Gitmo are prisoners of war. One holds prisoners of war, without trail, during the war to prevent them from returning to the battlefield.
Prisoners of war are held in relation to the war. In normal circumstances one would expect a release of prisoners of war at the end of the war. The problem we face is that the Gitmo prisoners are terrorists who are likely to engage in a civil war against the elected government of Afghanistan or who might engage in international terrorism.
As we exit Afghanistan, we should be looking for ways to release the prisoners of Gitmo.Obama fumbled this process by not seeking advice of Congress.
Even worse, by negotiating a hostage release with the Taliban has revitalized and relegitimized a terrorist organization.
Pointing out the pathetic job done by Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry did on this issue is not a bad thing.
The vicious attacks on a home schooled kid who foolishly went into the mountains is showing the right is as out of touch as the left.
Friday, May 30, 2014
Photoshopping People Out of the Community
First on the international front: A CONSERVATIVE family in Pakistan stoned to death their pregnant daughter for marrying outside the family's wishes.
Yes, Standing in a circle and throwing stones at your daughter until she dies is an active of CONSERVATISM.
Anyone who is standing up waving CONSERVATISM as the answer is either a troglodyte or an idiot.
There are good answers in this world.
Liberty is an answer. The ideals of US Founders make for a good answer. There are many great answers found in religious traditions. I, myself, am quite fond of forcing ideas through the rigors of logic, mathematics and science.
As for CONSERVATISM; I've never seen anything there beyond senseless reaction.
There are two possible ways for coming to the worst possible answer. The first is POGRESSIVISM and the second CONSERVATISM.
For example, Health Care is an extremely important issue. I argue that it is the most important issue of our generation.
For the last hundred years, health care has been dominated by progressive thinking. People have fallen for the line that group funding of health care is the only possible way to fund health care. Progressives want the collective owned by the state (socialism) and conservatives want the collective owned by big business (fascism).
Both sides of this argument are wrong.
The VA is one of the best implementations of group funded health care going, and we routinely see people thrown out and dying.
I believe that a free market could give our veterans far better care than received in the VA, but, since the single minded issue of Conservatives is the preservation of the social order, there will never be a day when Conservatives discuss free market health care reform.
Conservatives are such a cowardly and pathetic lot, they will not even discuss the issue of free market health care reform.
If Conservatives are unwilling to discuss free market health care reform, what are conservatives willing to do?
I live in Utah. Utah is the most conservative state West of Iran. Because Utahans are constrained by the Constitution, Conservatives have not been able to institute the time honored practice of stoning women, but folks in this state are really good at publicly humiliating and casting people out.
A case in point happened at Wasatch High School up in Heber City. The Modesty-Nazis at the yearbook took it upon themselves to photoshop away exposed shoulders and raise the necklines of the senior girls.
Does anyone seriously believe that these conservatives who photoshop girls' photos in the yearbook to meet their personal aesthetics would ever actually do anything to advance liberty in this nation.
I've lived in the most severely conservative state West of Iran. I've never personally witnessed a conservative defending freedom. The idea that Conservatives will deliver freedom is about as far fetched at the idea that Progressives can deliver social justice.
Both sides of the left/right split are poisonous. I am happy that our nation was founded by truly great men who attempted to reject this base partisanship to craft a Constitution that takes a stab at defending liberty. Because of the founders, Conservatism in America is just petty acts like photoshopping out shoulders and ostracizing people and not stoning.
Yes, Standing in a circle and throwing stones at your daughter until she dies is an active of CONSERVATISM.
Anyone who is standing up waving CONSERVATISM as the answer is either a troglodyte or an idiot.
There are good answers in this world.
Liberty is an answer. The ideals of US Founders make for a good answer. There are many great answers found in religious traditions. I, myself, am quite fond of forcing ideas through the rigors of logic, mathematics and science.
As for CONSERVATISM; I've never seen anything there beyond senseless reaction.
There are two possible ways for coming to the worst possible answer. The first is POGRESSIVISM and the second CONSERVATISM.
For example, Health Care is an extremely important issue. I argue that it is the most important issue of our generation.
For the last hundred years, health care has been dominated by progressive thinking. People have fallen for the line that group funding of health care is the only possible way to fund health care. Progressives want the collective owned by the state (socialism) and conservatives want the collective owned by big business (fascism).
Both sides of this argument are wrong.
The VA is one of the best implementations of group funded health care going, and we routinely see people thrown out and dying.
I believe that a free market could give our veterans far better care than received in the VA, but, since the single minded issue of Conservatives is the preservation of the social order, there will never be a day when Conservatives discuss free market health care reform.
Conservatives are such a cowardly and pathetic lot, they will not even discuss the issue of free market health care reform.
If Conservatives are unwilling to discuss free market health care reform, what are conservatives willing to do?
I live in Utah. Utah is the most conservative state West of Iran. Because Utahans are constrained by the Constitution, Conservatives have not been able to institute the time honored practice of stoning women, but folks in this state are really good at publicly humiliating and casting people out.
A case in point happened at Wasatch High School up in Heber City. The Modesty-Nazis at the yearbook took it upon themselves to photoshop away exposed shoulders and raise the necklines of the senior girls.
Does anyone seriously believe that these conservatives who photoshop girls' photos in the yearbook to meet their personal aesthetics would ever actually do anything to advance liberty in this nation.
I've lived in the most severely conservative state West of Iran. I've never personally witnessed a conservative defending freedom. The idea that Conservatives will deliver freedom is about as far fetched at the idea that Progressives can deliver social justice.
Both sides of the left/right split are poisonous. I am happy that our nation was founded by truly great men who attempted to reject this base partisanship to craft a Constitution that takes a stab at defending liberty. Because of the founders, Conservatism in America is just petty acts like photoshopping out shoulders and ostracizing people and not stoning.
Saturday, May 24, 2014
This is Conservatism. Is This Really What You Want?
I've been asking the question: "Can Conservatism save America?"
The answer is a resounding "no."
Conservatism is a belief in a class society held together by a systematic moral condemnation of the underclasses.
It is exactly the system of thought thought that the US Founders fought against.
A prime example of conservatism is taking place in Sudan. According to Al Jazeera a Sudanese Court ordered a pregnant woman to be hung for apostasy along with 100 lashes. Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag's crime was to convert from Islam to Christianity. The execution was ordered for the Conservative cause of defending the faith.
A large number of people are protesting the verdict and want to see Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag liberated. This desire to see this person liberated is called "liberal."
To all those people who call themselves conservative, do you really believe that this young woman should be put to 100 lashes and executed.
Beating and killing a woman to defend the faith is an act of Conservatism!
The Judge who ordered the woman to be beaten and murdered is a conservative. His verdict is a Conservative judgment. To all of those people who call themselves "conservative," do you really love standing with this judge?
I am horrified by the judge and find his self-righteous condemnation more abhorrent than the alleged apostasy.
My guess is that most Americans who call themselves "conservative" abhor this verdict as well, and that most conservatives have failed to spend time thinking through the meaning and history of conservatism. Quite frankly, I think that most of the people calling themselves conservative would stop if they simply thought through and researched the history and meaning of conservatism. Conservatism is not the ideology of the US Founders.
The Left/Right split came after the US Founders. The US founders had a classical liberal arts education steeped in classical logic. They applied their liberal arts education to the question and came up with a system with a limited government and unlimited people. I like to call this system "Classical Liberal."
The Left/Right Split came from the the French Revolution. The Right sought preservation of the social order of the ancient regime and the left sought radical social change. Both sides of this split adopted forms of Modern Logic (Hegelian Dialectics). This dialectics is simply a conflict driven approach to governance. Conflict driven politics necessarily leads to conflict driven governance. We see both the left and right doing terrible things to their partisan foes when they get power.
I stand with the liberals who wish to see Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag freed, and detest the conservatives who wish to see her executed.
The answer is a resounding "no."
Conservatism is a belief in a class society held together by a systematic moral condemnation of the underclasses.
It is exactly the system of thought thought that the US Founders fought against.
A prime example of conservatism is taking place in Sudan. According to Al Jazeera a Sudanese Court ordered a pregnant woman to be hung for apostasy along with 100 lashes. Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag's crime was to convert from Islam to Christianity. The execution was ordered for the Conservative cause of defending the faith.
A large number of people are protesting the verdict and want to see Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag liberated. This desire to see this person liberated is called "liberal."
To all those people who call themselves conservative, do you really believe that this young woman should be put to 100 lashes and executed.
Beating and killing a woman to defend the faith is an act of Conservatism!
The Judge who ordered the woman to be beaten and murdered is a conservative. His verdict is a Conservative judgment. To all of those people who call themselves "conservative," do you really love standing with this judge?
I am horrified by the judge and find his self-righteous condemnation more abhorrent than the alleged apostasy.
My guess is that most Americans who call themselves "conservative" abhor this verdict as well, and that most conservatives have failed to spend time thinking through the meaning and history of conservatism. Quite frankly, I think that most of the people calling themselves conservative would stop if they simply thought through and researched the history and meaning of conservatism. Conservatism is not the ideology of the US Founders.
The Left/Right split came after the US Founders. The US founders had a classical liberal arts education steeped in classical logic. They applied their liberal arts education to the question and came up with a system with a limited government and unlimited people. I like to call this system "Classical Liberal."
The Left/Right Split came from the the French Revolution. The Right sought preservation of the social order of the ancient regime and the left sought radical social change. Both sides of this split adopted forms of Modern Logic (Hegelian Dialectics). This dialectics is simply a conflict driven approach to governance. Conflict driven politics necessarily leads to conflict driven governance. We see both the left and right doing terrible things to their partisan foes when they get power.
I stand with the liberals who wish to see Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag freed, and detest the conservatives who wish to see her executed.
Friday, May 23, 2014
Conservatism in Action
I live in the most "conservative" state west of Iran. Utah is unique in that the first big wave of pioneers were people who left the United States to establish a totalitarian theocracy. Utah Territory and California were acquired by the United States after a war with Mexico. The US Army invaded Salt Lake City and forced on the people the ideals of a limited government and individual freedom (aka Liberalism).
"Conservatives" in Utah still aspire to a totalitarian state like Iran. So it's always fun to look East to see Conservatism in action.
The big news in Iran is that six people used their iPhones to create a tribute video to a song called "Happy" by Pharell Williams. The young videographers were promptly arrested and imprisoned.
There was a huge social media campaign to free the dancers. The Conservative regime of Tehran finally let up and freed the happy dancers with stark warnings about their behavior.
Anyway, here is the video.
I wish to challenge anyone who believes in "conservatism" to tell me why these people should be arrested?
"Conservatives" in Utah still aspire to a totalitarian state like Iran. So it's always fun to look East to see Conservatism in action.
The big news in Iran is that six people used their iPhones to create a tribute video to a song called "Happy" by Pharell Williams. The young videographers were promptly arrested and imprisoned.
There was a huge social media campaign to free the dancers. The Conservative regime of Tehran finally let up and freed the happy dancers with stark warnings about their behavior.
Anyway, here is the video.
I wish to challenge anyone who believes in "conservatism" to tell me why these people should be arrested?
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Roots of Conservatism
Modern Conservatism is as problematic for lovers of liberty as modern progressivism.
In someways modern conservatism is worse than modern liberalism because so many people these days confuse "conservatism" with the ideals of the US.
Conservatism is a partisan dialectical ideology that traces its roots to Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Edmund Burke and incorporates the modern logic of Hegel.
This reactionary philosophy holds the US Founders as naive. Conservatives have carefully constructed a partisan thought system in which one plays to the image of liberty without actually advancing liberty.
The US Founders despised Machiavelli and the partisanship of Europe. The partisan conservative has whole-heartedly adopted the very form of discourse the the US Founders sought to shed.
The key to understanding both the US Founders and the American Experiment in Self-Rule is that the Founders had a classical liberal arts education steeped in the classical tradition of Aristotelian logic. They applied classical logic to the question of liberty.
NOTE: Conservatives of 1776 had the same Liberal Arts education which they had applied to the class society of feudalism.
Conservatives of 1776 stood shoulder to shoulder with the British and leveled their musket fire at the US Founders. The claim that the US Founders were Conservatives and the monarchy was left wing progressive is absurd. Conservatives of 1776 opposed the Founders and immediately set in to undermine the American experiment in self rule.
The key to restoring the American Experiment in Self Rule is not conservatism. The key to restoring America is to rediscover the classical liberal ideals of the US founders.
The shrill Hegelian Dialectics of Sean Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck does not lead to a promising future. It leads to greater division.
Yes, it is true that Conservatives wave flags and play to the image of the US Founders. But when one looks beyond this thin facade one finds the underlying structure of Conservatism (ie, Machiavelli, Hobbes,. Burke and all) is not only incapable of restoring liberty. Conservatism, as it was envisioned by the reactionaries of 1776, is apt to undermine the American Experiment in Self Rule and return America to serfdom.
Those seeking to restore liberty must learn to stand against both the Left and Right, for the liberty envisioned by the Founders is not a partisan ideology and one cannot restore this beautiful vision with partisan bickering.
Modern Conservatism will lead us down as dark a road as Modern Liberalism. The Left/Right split did not come from the US Founders. It came from the parliaments of Europe. Both sides of this negative partisan divide lead to dark ends. We are foolish to seek our restoration on either of these paths.
In someways modern conservatism is worse than modern liberalism because so many people these days confuse "conservatism" with the ideals of the US.
Conservatism is a partisan dialectical ideology that traces its roots to Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Edmund Burke and incorporates the modern logic of Hegel.
This reactionary philosophy holds the US Founders as naive. Conservatives have carefully constructed a partisan thought system in which one plays to the image of liberty without actually advancing liberty.
The US Founders despised Machiavelli and the partisanship of Europe. The partisan conservative has whole-heartedly adopted the very form of discourse the the US Founders sought to shed.
The key to understanding both the US Founders and the American Experiment in Self-Rule is that the Founders had a classical liberal arts education steeped in the classical tradition of Aristotelian logic. They applied classical logic to the question of liberty.
NOTE: Conservatives of 1776 had the same Liberal Arts education which they had applied to the class society of feudalism.
Conservatives of 1776 stood shoulder to shoulder with the British and leveled their musket fire at the US Founders. The claim that the US Founders were Conservatives and the monarchy was left wing progressive is absurd. Conservatives of 1776 opposed the Founders and immediately set in to undermine the American experiment in self rule.
The key to restoring the American Experiment in Self Rule is not conservatism. The key to restoring America is to rediscover the classical liberal ideals of the US founders.
The shrill Hegelian Dialectics of Sean Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck does not lead to a promising future. It leads to greater division.
Yes, it is true that Conservatives wave flags and play to the image of the US Founders. But when one looks beyond this thin facade one finds the underlying structure of Conservatism (ie, Machiavelli, Hobbes,. Burke and all) is not only incapable of restoring liberty. Conservatism, as it was envisioned by the reactionaries of 1776, is apt to undermine the American Experiment in Self Rule and return America to serfdom.
Those seeking to restore liberty must learn to stand against both the Left and Right, for the liberty envisioned by the Founders is not a partisan ideology and one cannot restore this beautiful vision with partisan bickering.
Modern Conservatism will lead us down as dark a road as Modern Liberalism. The Left/Right split did not come from the US Founders. It came from the parliaments of Europe. Both sides of this negative partisan divide lead to dark ends. We are foolish to seek our restoration on either of these paths.
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
Business Ownership a Privilege
The Don Sterling scandal is important in that it highlights a theme being developed by the left. The theme is that business ownership is a privilege, and that the ruling elite should have the power to yank ownership at a political whim.
In this case, Don Sterling's personal secretary made a secret recording with remarks that inflamed outrage. The case ends with political authorities banning Sterling from the NBA and an attempt to strip Don Sterling's ownership of the LA Clippers. (which presumably will end up in the hands of politically favored billionaires).
In my last post, I listened to the Don Sterling tape on YouTube. V. Stiviano, who was recording a private conversation, appeared to be baiting the conversation. The things she was saying about skin were as inflammatory as Sterling, but she said them in a mild tone. Don Sterling was clearly exasperated about the conversation.
The political fire-storm from this tape led NBA Commissioner Adam Silver to ban Mr. Sterling's from the NBA and to seek taking Mr. Sterling's business away.
IMHO, this issue of whether or not the ruling elite should be able to strip businesses from people they find politically incorrect is an extremely important question.
A week ago, I broke down and read Mein Kampf. In Mein Kampf, Hitler frames as race of people as the people's enemy. Once in power be began the process of stripping the Jewish people of their businesses and their property. He finally devolved into committing genocide.
BTW, Mr. Sterling is Jewish. This act of stripping a person of a business for being judged politically incorrect is a sterling case of history repeating itself.
The important issue in the Sterling case is: Should the ruling elite have the ability to strip people of their business when they are judged politically incorrect?
There is a possibility that Don Sterling is a racist. Is this sufficient cause to strip someone from their business?
The tape that led to the seizure of Sterling's business was recorded privately by a person who was having an argument with Mr. Sterling. Arguably, the tape was made to bait Mr. Sterling into making a racist comment.
The debate about whether or not Mr. Sterling should be stripped of his business is made even more compelling by the possibility that he was set up? When we have a society where the ruling elite are able to strip people of their business, then we have a situation where players can set up people for a fall. If you pretend that you are Perry Mason and that Don Sterling was your innocent client who was being baited, you will see this possibility in the tape.
The fact that Mr. Sterling is Jewish makes the debate even more interesting because the case appears to be one in which history is repeating itself. Just last century ago, Jews were having their businesses and property stripped from them for political reasons.
I am inclined to see business ownership as a right and not a privilege. I believe that stripping a person of his business is wrong even if the person is an ugly 80 year old Jewish man. I fear that our country is headed into an ugly era if we revive the notion that the political elite should strip people of their business if they are politically incorrect.
In this case, Don Sterling's personal secretary made a secret recording with remarks that inflamed outrage. The case ends with political authorities banning Sterling from the NBA and an attempt to strip Don Sterling's ownership of the LA Clippers. (which presumably will end up in the hands of politically favored billionaires).
In my last post, I listened to the Don Sterling tape on YouTube. V. Stiviano, who was recording a private conversation, appeared to be baiting the conversation. The things she was saying about skin were as inflammatory as Sterling, but she said them in a mild tone. Don Sterling was clearly exasperated about the conversation.
The political fire-storm from this tape led NBA Commissioner Adam Silver to ban Mr. Sterling's from the NBA and to seek taking Mr. Sterling's business away.
IMHO, this issue of whether or not the ruling elite should be able to strip businesses from people they find politically incorrect is an extremely important question.
A week ago, I broke down and read Mein Kampf. In Mein Kampf, Hitler frames as race of people as the people's enemy. Once in power be began the process of stripping the Jewish people of their businesses and their property. He finally devolved into committing genocide.
BTW, Mr. Sterling is Jewish. This act of stripping a person of a business for being judged politically incorrect is a sterling case of history repeating itself.
The important issue in the Sterling case is: Should the ruling elite have the ability to strip people of their business when they are judged politically incorrect?
There is a possibility that Don Sterling is a racist. Is this sufficient cause to strip someone from their business?
The tape that led to the seizure of Sterling's business was recorded privately by a person who was having an argument with Mr. Sterling. Arguably, the tape was made to bait Mr. Sterling into making a racist comment.
The debate about whether or not Mr. Sterling should be stripped of his business is made even more compelling by the possibility that he was set up? When we have a society where the ruling elite are able to strip people of their business, then we have a situation where players can set up people for a fall. If you pretend that you are Perry Mason and that Don Sterling was your innocent client who was being baited, you will see this possibility in the tape.
The fact that Mr. Sterling is Jewish makes the debate even more interesting because the case appears to be one in which history is repeating itself. Just last century ago, Jews were having their businesses and property stripped from them for political reasons.
I am inclined to see business ownership as a right and not a privilege. I believe that stripping a person of his business is wrong even if the person is an ugly 80 year old Jewish man. I fear that our country is headed into an ugly era if we revive the notion that the political elite should strip people of their business if they are politically incorrect.
Friday, May 02, 2014
Donald Sterling Tape
It appears that Americans are losing the ability to distinguish image from substance.
Talking heads on TV are outraged by a tape of a conversation between a person called Don Sterling and V. Stiviano. The NBA actually demanded that Don Sterling give up ownership of his team because of this conversation. People were making such a big deal of the recording that I decided to listen to it. I knew nothing of Don Sterling other other than the feigned outrage and that he is losing millions because of the tape. Here is a YouTube of the conversation:
The conversation involves the topics of age and race; so the age and race of the speakers matters. I Googled the names. Don Sterling is 80 (born in 1934). He was born Donald Tokowitz. He is of Jewish descent. V. Stiviano is thirty-something and of mixed race. She changed her name from Maria Vanessa Perez.
The two had some sort of relationship in which Don Sterling, a billionaire, was getting companionship and V. Stiviano was getting things and access to people. The conversation was apparently preceded by an argument about pictures posted on Instagram. It appears that the conversation was recorded secretly by V. Stiviano.
While listening to the conversation, it is important to understand that Ms Stiviano knows about the recording. Mr. Sterling does not. The recording starts with Mr. Sterling recognizing that they were currently in a fight. Ms. Stiviano's claim that she is not fighting is obviously untrue because she is recording the conversation. The rest of the conversation is simply one in which Ms. Stiviano calmly throws out bait with Mr. Sterling deflecting.
If you think about the words of the conversation, the bait that Ms. Stiviano calmly tosses out is actually much more incendiary than the gruff deflections of Mr. Sterling.
Much of the conversation is about the irony that Jewish people, who were clearly victims of persecution, treated black people claiming to be Jewish poorly. People in the House of Israel claim to be descendents of a given family. There is natural skepticism of people who appear to be a different race making claims to that heritage.
Here in the United States, people in the Navajo Tribe are dubious of white people who walk onto the Reservation claiming to be Navajo. Quite frankly, I find more fault with white people who falsely claim to be Navajo than with Navajo who react to such claims with resentment.
A primary theme of the conversation is about changing culture. Ms. Stiviano says that she wants to change culture. Mr. Sterling says that he has no desire to change culture and is content to leave people as they are.
Which of the two views is more racist: A person who is content with letting people have their cultures with all their cultural faults or people who set forth to change the culture of others?
The persecution of the Jewish people was punctuated with well-intentioned people who took it upon themselves to change the Jews.
I am inclined to see those who set forth to change the culture of others as "cultural imperialists." I see cultural imperialism as a deeper form of racism than those who are willing to let people be with all of the faults that people have.
The terrible part of the conversation comes at the end. Apparently Mr. Sterling had been giving Ms. Stiviano tickets to invite personal friends to the games. Mr. Sterling had not been clicking with those friends. It is not uncommon for people to dislike the friends of their friends. Ms. Stiviano had made race the focus of the conversation to this point, and Sterling takes the bait.
There is an important question here: Does a person have to automatically include people of different races into their network of personal friends to prove non-racism? Mr. Sterling had included Ms. Stiviano in his network of friends. She was mixed race.
Judging solely on this conversation, I find that I am more offended by the baiting done by Ms. Stiviano than with the gruff deflections of Mr. Sterling. IMHO, the people who are raising this conversation as an example of "racism" are doing the world a disservice. Mr. Sterling might be a racist, but the form of the conversation does not prove it.
The person who is recording the conversation and who is controlling the conversation with baited statements is using a very simple tactic. She is using a calm tone while making baited statements. The person who does not know the conversation is recorded is deflecting the bait with a gruff voice. I fear that the pundits who pounced on this conversation confused tone with substance. The tone of the person recording and controlling the conversation is clearly contrived.
I find the media and political reaction to the tape far more troubling than the substance of the tape. If the media is incapable of recognizing an obviously baited conversation, then we are all in trouble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)