Categories
For LinkedIn Health and Fitness Philosophy Politics Religion Religion, Politics and Philosophy

Standards – Religion and Politics

Simply put, if you allow yourself to be “pigeon-holed” into a specific pre-defined ideology, rather than thinking for yourself, you’ll get what you’ve got. On the other hand, if people are willing to think for themselves, they can work to get out from under the heavy jack-boot of an oppressive national government that has long been far over-reaching. Your choice, but if you choose the former, rather than the latter, don’t be surprised by the end result.

“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” – King James Bible, Ephesians 4:14

If you’ve been reading my commentary on the world for any length of time, you’re aware that I’ve clearly said more than once, that the political “spectrum” has been “moving leftward” for some time.

I’ve pointed out that the speeches of people like John Fitzgerald Kennedy, once considered a staunch leftist in the United States’ definitions, look like they were written by people far to the right of modern day rightists—much less those wet noodles, of which national and local politics are so full.

These days, what used to be considered standard, sane, Republican, center-right, Conservative values and statements are considered “kook-fringe rightism.”

Considering the tendency on the part of many to be “carried about with every wind of doctrine” rather than to, as it were, rest on that which is known and true. This should be no great surprise to anyone.

In fact, such swings should be more or less an expected facet of any society with no moral underpinnings.

The fact that the shift is toward the left is only surprising when one consider that the left has been busily selling itself as “the tolerant end of the spectrum.”

If one uses the definitions I prefer for right and left (farthest right being basically anarchy, farthest left being ruthless totalitarianism), it would be obvious that by definition this is untrue. Unfortunately, this is not what is currently accepted.

How many people have referred (moderately successfully, if totally incorrectly) to people on the right as Nazis, and Fascists.

Again, if you’ve read my more recent articles, you will see that I discuss what happened in World War II, where Republican leaders, far more conservative Americans, and former colonial powers, stood staunchly and strongly against both Nazism (read here, “National Socialism”) and Fascism (ala the leadership of Italy at the time), as well as Imperialism.

I’ve also pointed out that, anyone paying attention is aware, the United States has no “controlling interest” in place in any of its recent conflicts. This is true to the degree that the U.S. is often trashed by countries and other entities it supports with troops, ordinance and training. It’s been true for decades that when we’ve been asked to leave in earnest, we’ve done as was asked (I cited the U.S. abandonment of most military installations in the Philippines as a prime example of this).

What does all this mean? It means that people are successfully “rebranding” others as things that couldn’t be further from what they represent and stand for.

In the same breath, the people in question are poking fun at the fact that one of the very things of which they accuse their opponents of being horrible for supporting, is somehow bad. The thing they brand their adversaries? Nazis (which is just extreme, national Socialism). The thing they more and more embrace? Socialism. The only difference between the two (if any exists at all) is degree.

Both require strict government control (something the average rightist abhors), both aim to have the powers that be, decide what’s good and right and for the remainder of society to “toe the party line.”

If it could ever be truly accomplished, the thing far rightists would more likely embrace (funnily enough) will be “final stage Marxist Communism.” That’s because in its final stage, Marxist Communism looks a lot like anarchy.

Most folks I know who consider themselves Republicans, Conservatives and just plain center rightists (that would be most folks I know who are not leftists), would not support even final stage Marxist Communism.

They recognize the need for limited government. They see a good deal of sense in the idea that activities of leadership and management of a given non-corporate entity, should be implemented on the lowest possible level. The result? They support a very limited, very small national governmental entity, and tiered substructures. The subcomponents then, are responsible for much of the day to day operation of the states, cities and municipalities. And again, the majority of decisions are made at the lowest possible level.

This sort of “decentralized controlhas another advantage. It’s much harder for someone to take control. When large amounts of power are vested in a national government, all one need do, is figure out how to control that body.

When instead, power is distributed, it takes a great deal more work to wrest control from those who have it. If you make it common understanding that one ought ask, “Why do you need control over that?” even at a local level, it becomes even harder.

Here’s the problem though. The majority of folks don’t want to have to “think that hard.” They prefer to invest their power into someone who can manage things for them. The result is what you now see. National political entities with far more control than they were ever intended to have. Local bodies that are more or less a joke, whose policy is decided at higher levels.

So you end up with entities like Medicare. It’s supposedly a state entity, managed by each state. Who funds Medicare though? It’s largely the largesse of the national government. Does it do this unconditionally? Of course not! The conditions are heavy, they’re cumbersome, and best you meet them if you want funding!

Part of the point here, is that people at “upper tiers of” government have figured out how to control those at lower levels. And who pays for that? You and I do so.

Simply put, if you allow yourself to be “pigeon-holed” into a specific pre-defined ideology, rather than thinking for yourself, you’ll get what you’ve got. On the other hand, if people are willing to think for themselves, they can work to get out from under the heavy jack-boot of an oppressive national government that has long been far over-reaching. Your choice, but if you choose the former, rather than the latter, don’t be surprised by the end result.

Thanks for reading and may your time be good.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Prove you're human *