Saturday, March 1, 2014

Growing up American

Hayek's general idea was consistent with the American Ideal: To keep individuals more responsible for managing their own affairs within a general, not intrusive, framework of law. Let each individual assimilate and absorb the moral principles that necessarily accompany civilized freedom and dignity. The second such responsibility is stripped from individuals and delegated to elitists in order for them more efficiently to prescribe social justice is the second social justice begins to recede into totalitarianism. Nazis and Muslims have perfected a one-two punch: big deceit followed by ruthless force. They joyously relish running people before them as cattle. Rulers learn to mask themselves behind such a state in order to fool the people into believing they are being herded either consistent with principles or with unopposable force. Once the people are reduced to herds of cattle, there is no dignity left in them. They are divided, shrouded, and conditioned to believe whatever the regime says simply because it says it. (From 1984 -- "We have always been at war with Eastasia.") Thus, the masses are precluded from the dignity of pursuing their own cognitive consonance. Rather, they are taught simply to trust their rulers -- right up to the salt lick and then into the bowels of the slaughterhouse.

The more the masses are made to trudge in this mud-storm of deceit, the more the prescribers and enforcers for the regime come to believe in their own bs (barry soetoro). They begin to lie to themselves to feel better about their self aggrandizement, as if they were pushing a principled struggle forward.

America's Constitution was founded on an idea of freedom of expression, enterprise and association. However, agglomerations of wealth and corporate rule came to overpower the Constitution, because the institution of slavery was attempted to be reconciled with the general checks and balances that were meant to preserve freedom and dignity. Thus, the Declaration of Independence was made to cohabit with an irreconcilable contradiction. We were a house divided at the inception.

Instead of fashioning correctives to the general system of checks and balances, opportunistic Marxist proponents of "social justice" used the disorder to convince the people that elite wizards of the central government needed to be given great and intrusive power to regulate all minutiae of our lives. This was the Great Betraying Taquiyya. So now, instead of objective scales of justice, we have affirmative, reparational scales of justice, weighed not by each person's conscience before the Reconciler, but weighed by race baiting pimps for cronies posing as fair minded saints of Progressivism.

Thus we will have a Department of Brother's Keepers. Perpetual welfare for preserving enough Judas cows. Reduction of all workers to compete with the cheapest labor, worldwide. Invention of new Gov-God myths and foils, such as Warmism, Social Justice, and Evil Dead White Men. The regime controls the institutions of political persuasion, and the masses are conditioned to accept its cognitive dissonance with the fanaticism of any true believing defender of the faith. So, no small voices will be tolerated to say, "Hey, wait a minute. This makes no sense. If Whitey must carry affirmative obligations or pay reparations, then what about this: Should not Black men owe special reparations for at least seven generations to Black women? Have they not wilfully fostered a culture of irresponsibility, which has resulted in single parent families that are rife with dependency and crime?"

Of course, that would be asinine. But it would be asinine for the same reason that it is asinine to allow rulers to use central gov to select certain class of citizens to serve other classes, in perpetuity. It is time to phase out the EEOC and to let individuals grow up to become adults who are more responsible for themselves. Instead, Marxists are using the idea of social justice to double down on elitist patrimony for the masses, to make them ever more divided, incompetent, dependent, and farm-able.


Anonymous said...

While I agree that non-believers can be "as good as any other mortal," I doubt that can be true unless they appreciate or believe in some quality of goodness --- whether or not they see the connection. I doubt the USA would have been formed had there not been believers in a Reconciler of human dignity, and I doubt the USA will much longer persist as a bulwark against totalitarian depravity in the absence of such belief. The founding Ideal was to avail a self-healing, legal framework for the decent pursuit of freedom and dignity. However, once that Ideal was ignored, forgotten, and replaced with an alliance of elitist excuses for cheap peasant thrills and oligarchic power lusts, the self healing ceased.

For we mortals, I don't think goodness itself is reserved to any particular thing by itself. Rather, goodness abides with a relationally appreciative quality, with which we are continuously subjected to renormalizing reconciliation under a Guiding Principler. Goodness is in a quality for pursuing civilizing appreciation of communication of meaningfulness. Goodness is not a utopia that converts people to widgets, frozen over by elitist, non-empathetic, knowitall, robotic Progressives unto Borgdom. Our nation is now filled with a majority of mush minds that pursue only pleasure and power. They hate to be reminded of higher principles. When their disrespect for the Reconciler brings them to grief, their first inclination is to lash out and blame those who still believe in a Source Guide for decency and goodness. They say our pigeons have come home to roost, but they are the pigeons.

Anonymous said...

Fairman is less concerned about doing or being good than about pursuing good. We don't in this life obtain happiness. We pursue it. We don't obtain perfect goodness, but we can, in good will and good faith, pursue it. What is good seems in this life to be often like a receding and changing mirage. Yet, there is hope, because the mirage is in respect of a Guide. The idea, I think, is that, in respect of hope and good will and good faith, we may more likely stumble upon and apprehend actual experiences of goodness. Sometimes, seemingly simple concepts change shades and seem among the most difficult to appreciate. The eternal Guide is more important than the evanescent deed. What is needed to guide one person will not necessarily be digested in quite the same way to another. The Guide abides, reconciling the experiences and interpretations of each of us. Like Sisyphus, we, and Fairman, push on.

Anonymous said...

If liberty does not exist, then why does it need to be censured? If only fate exists, then why must it be helped? Won't fate occur, regardless of whether it is helped? To continue not to exist, must unicorns be censured? Is it not possible to devise genetic forms that would produce unicorns? If such potential is possible, then why ought it to be proscribed? If what comes into manifest existence depends partly and participatorily on contemporaneous will and interpretation, then why "ought" such will to be constrained in any particular ways? If a thing ought to be, then, if we are equal in human dignity, ought there not to be liberty in each one of us to suss it out for ourselves? Within the possibilities of infinity, what are the possible doors that contemporaneous participation can determine ought to be opened or closed? And why ought we entrust anyone to prescribe how we must live, merely because they assert they are akin to angels of perfect knowledge with only our best interests at heart, rather than corrupt devolving demons self selected to be best for farming us?