A Note to the Spammers

Just a quick note to my “spammer fans.”

  1. Because I have had spammers try to use my site for their purposes (among other things), my site is fully moderated. Put simply, no message or reply will “make it to the general public” without being reviewed by my eyes.

  2. You (the spammers) have helped me to decide on policy for my site. Please know that, if your message doesn’t have true content, it will not ever see the light of day on my site. That means—just to make sure I’m clear—that not only does what makes its way even to the comments must have something in it other than two or three characters, but I have zero interest in being “ego stroked.” So, “This is exactly what I was looking for,” or “Such a very insightful piece,” or similar, will not get your comment posted on my site.

    If you’re not saying something meaningful (arguing against what I have said, providing supporting information, something meaningful), you will not ever have a post or comment “published on” my site.

  3. Even if you say something meaningful, if there is even a trace of advertising or other “piggybacking” visible in your post (this includes email addresses, web sites that are for selling or advancing some agenda, or whatever of that sort), your post or comment will not be allowed on this site.

It’s not at all hard to “moderate you out of existence” and if it ever becomes so it will be time to quit blogging. Frankly, I see zero signs that anybody is listening as a rule to begin with, so it won’t be that great a loss if I have to discontinue this site.

Thanks for listening (or not).

Philosophy Religion Religion, Politics and Philosophy

On the Foolishness of Race Among Humans – Guglflaarb

Guglflaarb. That’s right! You heard me correctly. I said Guglflaarb!

“What on Earth,” you ask, “is Guglflaarb?” Wait, you mean you really don’t know? Well, in that case, permit me to enlighten you. Guglflaarb is best defined as, “The rectitude of the left side of your aura under a full moon.

Among humanity, there are a very few people who can detect the rectitude of your Guglflaarb at all (namely me), and—were it not true that I am the only one able to detect it under the “proper” circumstances—there would be even fewer who could would be able to detect it outside of the proper ones. Since I am the only one who can detect it in the correct circumstances, there are the same number who can detect it outside of them.

None of this may seem important to you, but it’s extremely important to me. Improper Guglflaarb is the greatest problem facing society today, after all. Don’t believe me? Well, that’s quite obviously because you don’t understand.

Likelihood is, you’re a denier. Probability is, you’re reading this and saying to yourself, “What on Earth is this idiot saying?” Well, why should that surprise me? After all, I’m sure nobody has ever set you on the “Path to Enlightenment.”

So now, all I ask, is that you be reasonable. Accept that Guglflaarb exists and realize that those of us who have discovered this are the only ones who can set your feet on the proper path. If you’ll just go through the appropriate training, you too will come to understand, to see the righteousness of my cause and the truth in my words! And perhaps together, we can ensure that your Guglflaarb is as it should be.

Soon, you will be helping others along the path to enlightenment and righteousness, just as I’m now offering to do for you. Soon you too will be a believer, an adherent.

There are many telltale signs of improper alignment… things like your eyes being too close together, or too far apart. And it’s been scientifically proven, that if your Guglflaarb is bad, it cannot be corrected. In short, you are what you are where your Guglflaarb is concerned, and if it’s not good, you cannot be counted on. In fact “bad” Guglflaarb, is a sign that you are at least mildly evil.

Okay, if you’ve gotten this far into my ludicrous little make-believe session, maybe I can help you to understand my intent.

See, what I’m intending to use Guglflaarb to represent here, is race where humans are concerned. Just as Guglflaarb  is a sham, so is race, where humans is concerned, to me.

The inconvenient reality is, if race among humans is fakery, so is racism.

It seems like every time I say this—because too many are driven by emotion—I have to “explain myself.” What I am not saying, is that a bunch of silly, not so bright, and plain human malefactors have not done a bunch of evil stuff in the name of race and racism. What I AM saying is, just because that’s the name they chose to use to justify their heinous actions does not mean the name they have used is reasonable, or correct.

None of this makes their actions any less heinous or incorrect, and I’m by no means trying to say any of it does. Rather, I want to make it clear that—just like with Guglflaarb—allowing racism to stand as some sort of “reason” for these folks’ action is a very bad thing. Guglflaarb is not real, and, neither is race or racism. I get that it gives folks a “handle” by which to “grab” a concept. The problem is, that it gives folks with evil intent, what appears to be a justification for improper action.

If there were no other reason to “ditch” human racism as a concept, it should be enough that we allow ourselves to be divided by “race.” And the thing is, unlike beliefs (read here things like, “Christianity and Islam”), if we allow ourselves to be divided by the entirely imaginary and unfounded idea of race, there is literally nothing to bring us back together on that basis again, short of the recognition that race is not a thing among humans.

Instead, we fumble along, allowing ourselves to be cast in the idiocy of “black” and “white,” as if there were any way to make those have some sort of scientific or logical meaning. The best part? We then “team” these ideas with pseudo-scientific terms like “Hispanic,” and “Asian.” Seriously?

Okay, it’s obvious there are differences in both look and culture as you travel the Globe. Culture can be entirely discarded as a differentiator on the basis that a person can wholly or partially reject the culture that is native to that person.

At this point, we’re pretty much different in terms of how we look. Forgive me for saying so, but big hairy deal. There are members of my blood family you would never guess were related to me based on how we look (my two older children are half Korean, my two younger half “Hispanic”). That doesn’t change who we are to one another. I’m still related to them, and whether they want to admit it or not, they are related to me as well. I love them as I would love any child of mine. My relatives I like or dislike depending not on from where they come, but who they are, and I have every expectation the same applies to how they look at me.

So, if you’re busy using race as an “excuse” for anything where humans are concerned, do everybody a favor and stop. I know, I know, there are people out there who will continue to use “race” as their motivation, and even among those who stop the foolishness, it will not happen overnight. That having been said, please consider what I’m saying carefully, and remember, I am not advocating for the idiots who choose to use race or any similar things for their evil intents. On the other hand, I have no desire to see them continue to hide behind race, or anything like it for their untoward purposes.

One more thought to consider. Though I count the choice to believe differently from others, something that may result in contention, unless someone intends or effects harm via their beliefs, I do not consider it my right to “take up arms” against another for the fact that we disagree. That doesn’t mean I will go quietly into the night where my beliefs are concerned, just that I will not intend harm to others because we disagree in ways that are not physically harmful.

As usual, thanks for reading, and here’s hoping your upcoming time (day etc.) is good.

Philosophy Politics Religion, Politics and Philosophy

What Political Conservatism IS NOT

It doesn’t take a genius to see that people consider different words to have different meanings. In some cases, the differences are a simple matter of misunderstanding, in some, an “intentional skewing” of a give word or expression with the intent to derive some sort of benefit as a result.

There are other reasons differences of perceived definition may occur (for example, that different life experiences may lead to a difference of perception about a given thing), but I find far and away, that the above two are the more likely, or, if nothing else, the most important.

That having been said, I want to take the time to make clear here, a few things about a word with which I most generally identify reasonably strongly. That word is Conservative (in the political and social sense).

Because the word has become somewhat polluted in what other people appear to believe it means, I wanted to take the time to explain some things I do not count Conservatism to support, and in which I believe those in the Conservative “school of thought” choose to NOT be participants or believers.

Having clarified that, let me proceed to enumerate that “list.”

  1. Anarchy

    Where conservatives are prone to be for limited government, that does not imply they are for the most limited of governments, anarchy.

    Conservatives will generally acknowledge (typically while holding their noses), that some amount of government is not just reasonable, but a necessity. As such, the concept of anarchy is not in line with the conservative perspective.

    Who should be in charge of that government is a matter of some debate even among conservatives. That government should exist typically is not.

  2. Communism

    People generally appear to misunderstand Communism. “Real” Communism tends to be toward anarchy rather than toward totalitarianism.

    Reading the works of those who are considered “experts” in the communist ideal, it appears the end is, more or less, the doing away with government and large organizations on the basis that they are unneeded.

    Most such “experts” though, maintain that a period of totalitarianism (or “Big S” Socialism or similar) is necessary to “get the people’s minds right.”

    There are couple of pretty obvious problems with this idea. The first being that if you have to “force” people to get their minds right, you’re probably going to find a good many people “standing up on the inside.” A thing that will only really become obvious when (or more correctly if) you ever work to implement “full on” Communism.

    The other problem is that the people who come to be “in charge” in the beginning phases, decide they like their lot in life and don’t want to give it up. And since they’re the ones wearing the jackboots, it becomes awfully difficult to get them to give up the power they now own. The “better” an authoritarian/dictator they are, the less likely you are to get past their reign without them dying or being overthrown.

    What makes this even better? The fact that, when they die or are overthrown, there will invariably be another waiting in the wings to take their place. Don’t believe me? I suggest you take a good hard look at the history of North Korea.

    The issue with Communism (which I used to say “looks good on paper”) can be summed up far more simply as human nature.

  3. Oligarchy

    The truth is, it’s possible, to some extent, for Conservatism and Oligarchy to coexist. The reality is, though, that oligarchies—much like monarchies—rarely allow for the transfer of power to anything outside of their supposed ideals. As such, if an oligarchy begins to move in directions that are unacceptable to the conservative, the most likely way to “change” the government is revolution, a messy business at best, and not guaranteed to result in the desire outcome.

    This makes it so that most true conservatives do not support oligarchy, since they realize, yet again, that human nature will creep in and take over, and that without the ability to periodically change the government, it is likely to result in either big S Socialism or totalitarianism.

  4. Totalitarianism

    Totalitarianism is virtually antithetical to what most true Conservatives hold dear. The idea of limited government is virtually unheard of under totalitarian regimes. As such, most conservatives are vehemently (and often violently) opposed to totalitarian and dictatorial government. In reality, I could almost stop here, for most forms of government fall pretty directly under Totalitarianism. Nonetheless, I will proceed in order to talk about minor differences.

  5. Monarchy

    Truth being told, anybody having thought about the concept of monarchy, realizes that it is just “oligarchy with a figurehead.” Put another way, monarchs are seldom (if ever) able to rule without a supporting oligarchy. As this is the case, it’s barely worth discussing monarchy as a “separate entity.” In truth, without the support of an underlying oligarchy, as a rule, a monarchy cannot exist.

    There are but two worthy considerations when looking at monarchies. The first is that, if the monarch is truly respected their mental health and well being is what drives the direction of the region over which they are monarch.

    The other is that monarchs are often not respected, most particularly by the oligarchical entity that underlies them. The result is that, where technically the monarch “reigns,” in truth, the oligarchy largely sets policies.

    In either case, it is the oligarchy to which the people at larger are generally beholden, not the monarch.

  6. Dynasty

    Were it not for entities like North Korea and the former Soviet Union, I would have said that dynasties existed only in monarchistic societies.  Regardless that, it is virtually impossible to make dynasties a palatable thing to true Conservatives.

    This is because one of the tendencies of true conservatism is an “out with the old, in with the new” perspective. In fact, I would say most conservatives are so much for the periodic “changing of the guard,” that they mostly all consider term limits an entirely reasonable thing (and that is really just the tip of the iceberg, most conservatives are likely for the abolishment of lifetime appointment offices for bureaucrats, judges and the like).

    Since dynasties tend to cause ceding to successors (often members of the dynasty head’s family), Conservatives tend to be strongly against them.

  7. Fascism

    In order to implement Fascism, it is largely necessary to have a strong, very powerful government. Since most Conservatives are against strong, vast governments at any level—choosing to do work at the lowest possible level, but even to limit the lowest level to the minimum possible size—the idea that true conservatives support Fascism almost could not be more ridiculous.

    Though most conservatives (particularly if they are what is referred to as “social conservatives”) believe in a strong society with expectations of “normative behavior” as a rule, few support the upholding of any but the most basic “norms” via the government, choosing instead to “lead by example.”

    To make this even clearer, pretty much all conservatives are painfully aware that they have their own failings. As such, most have a very hard time supporting the upbraiding of their fellows in society by government. Further, most Conservatives largely wish to be left alone, a thing they count as a reasonable request when made by others in most cases.

    None of this means conservatives disavow the need for strong mores in society. It is just assumed that society itself must be responsible for maintaining them.

    Put another way, attempting to force others to live within your rules (except in situations where certain kinds of harm occur if folks don’t follow the rules) is pretty much a non-starter for conservatives, since it doesn’t allow or account for either human nature, or free will.

  8.  “Big S” Socialism

    It has for some time been my contention, that government is born out of Socialism. That is to say, were it not seen as needed for government to exist, and in some wise, control those under it, it would have no reason to be at all.

    This idea seems like common sense. What maybe is not quite so easy to grasp is, this is also the very basis of Socialism

    What I refer to here as “Big S” Socialism, is the idea the government should be a vast entity, responsible for cradle-to-grave care for the folks under it. This idea is entirely incompatible (in my view at least) with conservatism. Why? Because conservatism is based partially on the idea that the smallest possible government is the best. It is further based on the idea that, where possible, if you just leave folks alone, you are doing the best thing you can for them.

    In almost every instance, governments with even Socialist tendencies, tend to grow until they have engulfed all private entities.

    Since government in general is based on Socialism, this means it must constantly be “kept in check.” If this does not occur, we end up with what we presently have in the United States or worse.

    Part of this process, is educating others, so they are aware of the role government ought to have in the lives of those governed. In this, the vast majority of citizens of the U.S. Have largely, obviously failed.

  9. Nazism

    It’s almost embarrassing to the that I have to include this in this list. Why? Because the “expansion of” the word Nazi is Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. In case you hadn’t figured it out (the German being so very similar to the English), Nazism is Socialism.

    As such, if Conservatives do not (in fact, real Conservatives can not) support Socialism, they cannot support Nazism either.

So there you have it, a list of things Conservatism is not, and does not support. Thanks for reading.