The Will To Act

Other than the reality that the humans of today have weapons that can destroy the world. Nothing much as changed since a humanoid applied a sharpened object onto a stick.

As a nation-state, we, as with our ancestors, have enemies foreign and domestic. Respective of wishing otherwise figurative and physical walls along with a potent armed force remains a critical defense to our offense. Wars won, or loss did not and does not deter the continuance of warring.

Importantly, however, the United States, since 1945, the most powerful nation within the free world, demonstratively lacked the will to eliminate worldwide threats to democratic principles and governess. From the end of WWII to present, America has expended trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, rivers of blood, and gore for little to no measurable gain. Fearful of addressing the apparent and more concerned about the next election, then opening their eyes, political leadership has chosen meaningless words over decisive action. Eisenhower won the presidency by declaring that he will end the war in Korea. NOT if elected, I will ensure victory. Because of such non-action, Korea is a nuclear-armed gangster nation, a rouge menace to world stability.

This nation’s (presumed as enlightened) leaders, when threatened by a foreign enemy, are inclined to seek common ground, find an alternative, and as with governments of the past, exampled by North Korea offer bribes.

We Americans have developed and embraced a naivete more suited for a movie script or a comic book of Superman, Batman, and Captain America, than the actuality of inter-nation contesting.

Americans cannot accept the historical evidence that peace is a sublime idyllic. Peace is a non-achievable ideal and therefore should never be considered an actual policy goal.

It is not if I am right that has stupendous ramifications. It is if those that think and vote other wise are wrong that enables socialism via non-recourse statutory legislation and executive orders that matters.

Abruptly speaking: Withstanding the numerous mistakes of our past, if the Democratic Party wins the next election, America, as we conservatives have known, is trashed. Socialist and socialism will dominate every and all aspects of the heretofore American way of life. China and Russia will have won.

Does Life Have Value?

The fiefdoms of blue-state cities are managed by precedence driven Democratic politicians. Each more interested in their position of power than the citizenry they pledged to serve. Willfully lost in the academia of leftist ideology, steeped in an uncompromising theoretical radicalism and a clinical hatred of President Trump, they, them, and those have adopted violence as the means to an acceptable end.

ANTI FA and their cohorts pledge to end American fascism by utilizing the tools and tactics of totalitarianism. This concept is a contrarian enigma, so befuddling one needs to attend (as a student or professor), Princeton, Yale, or Harvard to comprehend.

Black Lives Matter, expressed or implied by their title, declare that lives are of value. They zero in on black lives suggesting that white lives, not so much; of course, it is white people that monetarily and physically support their efforts. How upside-down crazy is that?

The pretext is that human life is exceptional to all other living beings on the planet.

Within the context of poetic expression, heartfelt words of prose, legal declarations, and general conversation, the affirmation that “life is precious” rings aloud. The adage is considered a truism. Theoretically, and as we wish it were so, precious,  applies to human life. Of course, within the pragmatic world, we all know that such  an idea is utter nonsense.

Acts within and outside the law, to origins rational or incoherent, by means moral or immoral. The answer as to the worthiness of one’s life depends on which of the varying degrees of contingencies and natural consequence apply.

Hypocrisy is an operable and deep-seated human endeavor. We regularly hear that the loss of one life is a tragedy. Well, if that is the truth. Why don’t the highway and byways set and enforce a twenty-five mile an hour speed limit? The cost of transportation will drop by half, insurance by ninety percent, hospitalization due to car accidents almost nonexistent, close to zero deaths, gas prices back to thirty-cents a gallon, and the wear and tear on one’s vehicle negligible.

We all know that expediency is of a higher value than human life. We also acknowledge that living requires killing other living things. Humans eat other animals, fish, fowl, plants, and just about everything else on earth. Unprovoked aggression is an inherent human feature. Defense and offense are tactics learned at a very early age.

Jacob Rees-Mogg Back-up Group

   I took the liberty to edit the distributed original

The letter (below) is an alleged response from Oxford University to black students who demand the university removes the statue of Oxford Benefactor, Cecil Rhodes.

Interestingly, Chris Patten (Lord Patten of Barnes), The Chancellor of Oxford University, was on the Today Program on BBC Radio 4 on precisely the same topic.

The Daily Telegraph headline yesterday was Oxford will not rewrite history. Lord Patten commented that “Education is not indoctrination. History is not a blank page on which one can write our version of what it should have been according to our contemporary views and prejudice.”

To those two students who desire the tearing down of the Rhodes statue:

“Cecil Rhodes’s generous bequest has significantly contributed to the Education and well being of many generations of Oxford students – a good many of them-I dare conjecture was better, brighter and devilishly more deserving than the two of you. One does not necessarily require the approval of everything Rhodes did in his lifetime to benefit from his generosity- but then we don’t have to. Cecil Rhodes died over a century ago.

Autres temps, autres moeurs. If you don’t understand what this means – and it would not remotely surprise us if that were the case – then we think you should ask yourself the question: “Why am I at Oxford?”

Oxford, let me remind you, is the world’s second-oldest extant university. Scholars have been studying here since at least the 11th century. From the 12th-century intellectual renaissance through the Enlightenment and beyond. Our alumni include William of Ockham, Roger Bacon, William Tyndale, John Donne, Sir Walter Raleigh, Erasmus, Sir Christopher Wren, William Penn, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Samuel Johnson, Robert Hooke, William Morris, Oscar Wilde, Emily Davison, Cardinal Newman, Julie Cocks.

We’re a big deal. And most of the people privileged to come and study here are conscious of what a big deal we are. Oxford is their Alma mater – their dear mother – and they respect and revere her accordingly.

And what were your ancestors doing in that period? Living in mud huts, mainly. Sure we’ll concede the short-lived Southern African civilization of Great Zimbabwe. But let’s be brutally honest here. The contribution of the Bantu tribes to modern culture has been zilch. You’ll probably say that’s “racist.” But it’s what we here at Oxford prefer to call “true.”

Perhaps the rules are different at other universities. Black Lives Matter; the creeping relativism of stifling political correctness; what Allan Bloom rightly called “the closing of the American mind.” At Oxford, however, we prefer facts, free and open debate juxtaposed against petty grievance-mongering, identity politics, and empty sloganeering. The day we cease to do so is the day we lose the right to call ourselves the world’s most excellent university. Of course, one is within one’s sovereign to squander the Oxford experience. Interest in the silly and disturbing does not compliment scholarly pursuit. (Though it does make us wonder how stringent the vetting procedure is these days for Rhodes scholarships and even more so, for Mandela Rhodes scholarships), We are used to seeing undergraduates – or, in your case – postgraduates, making idiots of themselves. Just don’t expect us to indulge your idiocy, let alone genuflect before it.

You may be black – “BME” as the grisly modern terminology has it – but we are color blind. We have been educating gifted undergraduates from our former colonies, Empire, Commonwealth, and beyond for many generations. We do not discriminate over sex, race, color, or creed. We do, however, discriminate according to intellect. That means, among other things, that when our undergrads or post grads come up with inanely foolish ideas, we don’t pat them on the back, give them a red rosette and say: “Ooh, you’re black and you come from South Africa. What a clever chap you are!”  No. We prefer to see the quality of those ideas tested in the crucible of public debate. That’s another vital part of the Oxford intellectual tradition you see: you can argue any damn thing you like, but you need to be able to justify it with facts and logic – otherwise, your idea is worthless.

This ludicrous notion you have that a bronze statue of Cecil Rhodes should be removed from Oriel College because it’s symbolic of “institutional racism” and “white slavery.” Well, even if it is – which we dispute – so bloody what? Any undergraduate so feeble-minded that they can’t pass a bronze statue without having their “safe space” violated does not deserve to be here. And besides, if we were to remove Rhodes’s bronze image under the premise that his life wasn’t blemish-free, where would we stop? As one of our alumni, Dan Hannan, has pointed out, Oriel’s other benefactors include two kings so awful – Edward II and Charles I – that their subjects had them killed. The college opposite – Christ Church – was built by a murderous, thieving bully who bumped off two of his wives. Thomas Jefferson kept slaves: does that invalidate the US Constitution? Winston Churchill had unenlightened views about Muslims and India: was he then the wrong man to lead Britain in the war?” We’ll go further than that. Your Rhodes Must Fall campaign is not merely fatuous but ugly, vandalistic, and dangerous. We agree with Oxford historian R W Johnson that what you are trying to do here is no different from what ISIS and the Al-Qaeda have been doing to artifacts in places like Mali and Syria. You are murdering history and who are you, anyway, to be lecturing Oxford University on how it should order its affairs? I understand the two of you originated in South Africa mentored by a black activist famed for declaring: “whites have to be killed.” One of you is the privileged son of a wealthy politician and a member of a party whose slogan is “Kill the Boer; Kill the Farmer.” Another of you, who is only in Oxford as a beneficiary of a Rhodes scholarship, has boasted about the need for “socially conscious black students” to “dominate white universities, and do so ruthlessly and decisively! Great. That’s just what Oxford University needs.

Some cultural enrichment from the land of Winnie Mandela, burning tire necklaces, an AIDS epidemic almost entirely the result of government indifference and ignorance, one of the world’s highest per capital murder rates, institutionalized corruption, tribal politics, anti-white racism, and a collapsing economy. Please name which of the above items you think will enhance the lives of the 22,000 students studying here at Oxford. And then please explain what it is that makes your attention-grabbing campaign to remove a listed statue from an Oxford college more urgent. More deserving than the desire of probably at least 20,000 of those 22,000 students to enjoy their time here unencumbered by the irritation of spoiled, ungrateful little tossers on scholarships. These Black Lives Matter nincompoops don’t hesitate using racial politics and cheap guilt-tripping to ruin the life and fabric of our beloved university. Understand us and understand this clearly: you have everything to learn from us; we have nothing to learn from you.

Mayhem The 2020 Election

Because of the 1607 acceptance of slavery in Jamestown and subsequent statutory approval of enslavement throughout colonial America. The need to fight a civil war to legally eliminate the sin of slavery yet lawfully embrace the Supreme Court doctrine of “separate but equal.” Followed by “Jim Crow”  violations of the Constitution and the suppression of African American voters Americans bare a particular responsibility to Americans of African decent.

Racism has an extensive litany of meanings and characterizations, all culminating in the phobia of otherness. Xenophobic, even supremacist illogicalities, contextualize the feelings and thus the meaningfulness of racism. What is its origin?

As with other animals, humans survive by killing and digesting other living things; fear of other humans is a justifiable fifty thousand-year-old underlying innate. So, from the very beginnings of Homo sapiens life, the concept of us versus them was embedded into the human physic. Remembering that the typical first act of a community was to construct a wall.

Motivated by the competition over resources, greed, envy, and behavioral dysfunction, violent conflict as a reality or in preparedness for such a reality is the central theme of humankind.

Humans are the most dangerous animal on earth. A human’s most lethal predator is another human. It is, therefore, sensible that the co-mingling of suspicion and the fear of other humans’ is a natural response.

Ad hominem attacks are a prevalent method of demonizing another being. In WWI, the Germans were called the Huns, WWII the Japanese were Nips, Vietnam the Gooks, the list of such name-calling is voluminous and common.

The content above attempts an explanation of the how and why of our present situation. Of course, the destroyers, looters, assailants, Ne’er-do-well bystanders of our cities inclusive of office holding leaders careless to not-at-all about halting the protesting mob; they are frightful incompetent cowards.

“Black lives matter,” forbade the acceptance that all lives matter. Are followers and sympathizers of BLK point-blank zeroed in on intolerance? Does this organization seek domination of thought through harassment, intimidation, and physical coercion? Absolutely! Is BLK justified? Hell no!

In a polite enlightened society, disagreements settled by-elections indicate that law and order have prevailed. I fear our present divide is so vast the forthcoming election will not be accepted.

In every measurable way, the 2020 election will not constrict to lawful obedience. The Democrats will not support a Trump victory nor restrict their actions to the proper and legal. Disorder, mayhem, and blatant disregard will rule the day.

Law Order or Chaos

There is a definitive definition of the morally good; knowing right from wrong is the basis, the keystone of lawful conduct.  At a very young age, one has a working comprehension of what is right and what is wrong. The know-how of one from the other did not however deter (from time to time) the wrong from societal prevalence.

Therefore, lawlessness is a common phenomenon. Any grouping of humans consisting of more than one is subject to criminal acts. Coercion and incarceration vetted through the governing system is the mainstay of law and order. Respective of one’s belief in a righteous protest, chaos is not a lively alternative to order.

Humankind suffers from (a clinical diagnostic) behavioral dysfunction. Prompted by the known such as greed, jealousy, hate, and predominated by the behavior of unknown catalyst. Society is, for most of recorded history, at war, at crime, at some antisocial counter-cultural endeavor. Therefore, humans and their governmental creations require askant surveillance. A person in power, even when legitimately placed, cannot be blindly entrusted.

The Constitution, because of hundreds of judicial and legislative alterations, revisions, adjustments, and whimsical interpretations, is no longer the safeguard of liberty and justice for all. Attorneys and their lawsuits have perverted the meaningfulness of free enterprise. The existence of truth and fairness has nothing to do with a just judicial system when settling a case cost less than winning.

The mania of a mob has no conscious. It is energized by the amok of bewildering sentiments resulting in psycho-pathological behavior.

America is once again in a crisis. The hatred of President Trump, as the media reports is bugling throughout. Violent conflict and general discontent has suppressed the commonness of rational deduction and reasonable action. We are a few steps away from roving gangs of ideologically motivated vigilantes beating down opposing points of view with baseball bats

Above The Law-BLK

What is the definition of a racist? What is the difference between prejudice, racial or not, and one’s preference? Can the government, by lawful coercion, impose moral sensibility?

Since the inception of “Black Lives Matter,” the nonsensical acceptance of unsubstantiated factoid delivered anti-police, anti-white people falsities have propagated and heretofore suppressed rational deduction in favor of fearful hesitation.

Views and perspectives counter to BLK acceptance are demonized as racists. Or, the open wide shrilling of white supremacists whose at best beliefs mirror the 1896 supreme court rulings of “separate but equal.”

People of all ethnicity, skin color, religion, gender, and ideological viewpoints have or can generate prejudice founded on irrational or rational inclinations. Homo sapiens can and often do exhibit dysfunctional, irrational, unreasonable behavior. Therefore, without abundant tolerance and a “live and let live” understanding exampled by the words of Rodney King’s “Please, we can get along here,” the continuum of senseless violence will generate more of the same.

The leadership of BLK and their proponents declare systematic racism as the primary scourge of America, the raison d’etre of their struggle; this declaration is not only unfounded. It is a scurrilous baseless untruth propagated in the style of Goebbels, Lenin, and Mao.

Minneapolis, Washington D.C, Atlanta, Detroit, Chicago, and New York are cities  within a State managed by Democrats. Wherein leaders at every level of governing many of African descent liberal progressives are the leaders. How is it feasible that these Americans of African descent could implement then execute racists policies?

We Americans have a system of and for governing riot, burn, loot, and destroy is rightly outlawed within our governing system. Outlaws are arrested and prosecuted. There are lawful authorities enacted to enforce the laws of the land. However, unless utilized, the legitimately legal alternative to disorder are useless while the lawless run roughshod unabated in the pursuit of their lawlessness.

The matters of black lives are not above the law. BLK members, enthusiasts, and allies must express their displeasure within the four corners of the laws of the land or face legal consequences. America is the land of the free and home of the brave it is also the land of law and order.

Expert Progressives

Public health epidemiologists submitted to President Trump the following irrefutable conclusive. That according to monitored models, cognoscente knowledge, and clinically indicative observations of the lethally contagious COVID-19 virus unless the world’s most exceptional economy from sea to shining sea is abruptly disabled. The nation’s citizens locked down in their homes and immediate adherence to strict social distancing enforced. The infection would hospitalize hundreds of thousands and kill millions of Americans.

Fear of the unknown innately prompts desperate expressions. The pretense of knowing the kinetic properties of a newly formed virus and its effect on its host enables holistic rumors, conjecture, as well as, arm wrestling controversy—the changing of self-help deterrents for avoiding the coronavirus created as much confusion and anxiety as comfort.

One does not require a medical degree from Cornell University to deduce that older people, particularly with underlying ailments, are at a higher risk of any virus; therefore, as evidence displayed, facilities that harbor senior citizens are of particular concern.

Then why, is it that the epidemiologist experts like Doctor Fauci let the apparent slip into the land of Oz? Governor Cuomo forced the nursing homes to accept the infected onto the non-infected resulting in thousands of deaths. Seemingly, those matters are untouchable detractors mostly because, although he tried, Cuomo could not tag Trump as the blame.

There are many unanswerable whys. However, because the answers would expose incompetency, idiotic mistakes, and the silliness of actions motivated by political intent, the whys remain unanswered.

Noticeably, the Blue States openings are snail-like in comparison to the Red. The media and the Blue are fiercely anti-Trump; therefore, anything (at all) that works to defeat Trump is not only acceptable; it is a sublime duty.

I have become less tolerant and less understanding of the progressive agenda and persons. I now consider a compromise nothing less than an ignominious rout of my principles and values.

Liberal Progressive Thought

Liberal progressive governors and mayors are bewildered by the “in plain sight” substantive. They muddled in the midst of what is empirically apparent. Like a deer frozen by the oncoming light, these politicians, despite the present rioting and looting crises, prefer to favor the lawless actions of rioters (they call them protesters). While begrudgingly and ineffectively deploying police forces to ostensibly protect life and property.

It is discernibly obvious, Blue State leadership cannot lead and refuse to follow.

In this age of perpetuating news coverage calculatedly or unintentionally, media of every determined perspective stoke the embers, and fuel the impending chaos. By repeatably imaging the destruction of yesterday and rerunning the knee to neck murder violent behavior is proportionately readdressed and regenerated.

The videoed killing of George Floyd evidenced in the reoccurring present exemplar the very worst of apathetic behavior. However, the act was wickedly foul because  the torture evolving to the death of George could have been stopped. Instead of concentrating on i-phone filming for nine minutes this person could have responded to George’s plea of help: “I can’t breathe,” instead onlookers including the attending officers of the the law looked on instead of saving this man’s life.

The inability of onlookers to act they simply gawked and helplessly gaped for nine minutes. The struggling victim asks for relieve nonetheless the onlookers took no action. These observers would not step forward to save a life. This inability to act is (for me) startlingly shocking. It is as if the onlookers were seated in the Coliseum of 1st century Rome viewing the killing of gladiators, slaves, riffraff, and lions.

We all want to believe that human life is precious, but when opportunities emerge to validate that premise all too often, we fade and retrograde into our shell of wantoned indifference.

This year there is a presidential election. I do believe that Blue State’s inaction on the present craziness and the coronavirus lock down revolves around the political calculations of attaining a political advantage. I also think that if the Republicans are not victorious, the constitutional state of affairs will bend a knee to progressive socialism. If that possibility becomes a reality we better start teaching Mandarin and agree to submit to the interest of the collective.

Within the Land of the Free

The result of compromise is a policy of half-measures and partial acceptance; therefore, the inclinations of the Red should never compromise with the ideological proclivity of the Blue. Assertions between persons of one political philosophy to the other evidence the hopelessness of the Red or the Blue to find an actionable cause to cede any relief to the other.

Ideological divisiveness within a community is not unusual; indeed, such differences are common. Disagreements, no matter the argument, is divided into a three-part division—one part for, one part against, and one part disinterested. Within today’s Red versus Blue controversy, the intensity of aggravation betwixt those for whatever and those against whichever defines a continuum of belligerency.

Citizenry disinterest in the workings of government is the coup de grâce of a democratic republic. Indifference begets statutorily compliant corruption. The wastefulness of tax revenue. The legislation of legal ambiguity, an ever-expanding bureaucracy, all of which necessitates the creation of a multi-trillion dollar black money economy.

Liberal progressives may have read John Locke’s Natural Laws and Natural Rights, Baron de Montesquieu’s novel concept of separation of powers, and after Lord Acton’s insightful statement: “All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” They just don’t believe that these writings or the U.S. Constitution take precedence over the collective enticements of socialism.

The thesis to the progressive/socialist electoral success is to promise each voter fiscal surety, wide-ranging benefits, and free stuff. Why not! Since Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, this formula has elected progressives from both political parties. Then there was Donald Trump. New game, new rules, and different players.

The adjustment has been difficult for the anti-Trump persuaders. But now, out of nowhere, this coronavirus and its subsequent effect have created an opportunity for mischief. So those on the Blue team, thinking that the economies’ recovery might serve the interest of Trump are doing their very best to stop, hold back, and or divert the reopening of our economy.

Such is the state of affairs in the land of the free, home of the brave.

Power to Governments

Before the ink dried on the constitution of 1789 by means wittingly and unwittingly, wholly legal, extralegal, conniving manipulation, deceitful ambiguity, or blatant widespread disinterest, all implemented by fraudulent inducement the republic as envisioned by Franklin, replenished by Lincoln, and managed by Coolidge no longer exist.

“Of the people, for the people, by the people,” has perished from this earth. But then, when citizens employ trust instead of askance, how else could this purely experimental idea of governing have evolved?

The inherent power of every branch of the federal, the state, county, city, compared to the power of the individual citizen, is convincingly immense. Who knew that the governments could shut down one’s means of livelihood and keep it shut until some arbitrary goal attained? That the citizen cannot evaluate personal or collective jeopardy, take acceptable precautions, and via the determination of self-reliance assume prescribed risk as inherent to living.

A woke itinerary, wonk experts, and at all levels, a coercive executive branch has replaced the merits of individualism, self-reliance, and personal liberty.

There is a dichotomy of behavior that is puzzling. An American will volunteer to risk life in some foreign destination but refuse to vote for representation. This same citizen has since 1789 freely sometimes enthusiastically traded personal liberty and freedom for the ruse of government’s promise of cradle to grave guarantees.

Within a democratic republic, the operating qualifications intrinsic to efficient governance rests entirely on a citizen’s engagement. Therefore, service to one’s government does not automate heroism. The ordinary obligation of serving one’s community or nation does not merit panegyric glorification. Such patronizing lowers the bar of exceptionalism as well as veracity.

Power for the sake of attaining power is boundless; it is a potent elixir that begets the need for more never less. Government grows in contrast liberty diminishes; stop feeding the beast.