The views and opinions expressed in the following blog entries are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of all individual team members of Natural Rights Operations or the organization as a whole
Human Struggle
The great struggle of humanity is not really about any one group of people vs another.
It is not about the political Right vs Left, Communist vs Fascist, Bourgeoisie vs Proletariat, Racist vs Antiracist, BIPOC vs White, LGBTQIAP2S+ vs Cisgender Heteronormative, Conservative vs Progressive, or Democrat vs Republican, etc.
The real struggle today, as well as throughout history, is individual human beings vs all forms of authoritarian power.
Sources of modern authoritarian power come in many different forms: everything from governments, militaries, and international alliances, to monetary systems and economic policies, to political parties, political action committees, and bureaucratic agencies, to law enforcement and judicial systems, to corporations, industrial complexes, investment funds, financial services companies, and financial conglomerates, to religious and academic institutions, media outlets, non-governmental and lobbying organizations, policy institutes, and non-profit organizations (even ones claiming to defend human rights!), and to unions, cartels, and organized crime syndicates, as well as wealthy, elite, or otherwise influential individuals and groups.
The problem lies in the fact that concentrations of power of any type, even for those entities with seemingly good intentions, are a breeding ground for corruption, and corruption ultimately leads to the unfair benefit of some individuals at the harmful expense of others, sometimes in utterly atrocious ways.
When sources of authoritarian power are unchecked - and especially when multiple entities collude and combine forces - all other individual human beings are the ones who suffer, most of whom just want to be left alone to live their lives in peace, and wish for others to be able to do the same.
The unfortunate truth is that there is no shortage of people who are supportive of unchecked authoritarian power, as long as they or their favored group are the ones who have that power.
Systemic Corruption
One could say that the actual great and underlying "systemic" threat to all people is simply all forms of corruption.
In this sense, corruption may be defined as the unfair benefit of some at the harmful and involuntary expense of others.
Key terms to highlight and understand in this definition are "unfair benefit" and "harmful and involuntary expense".
"Unfair benefit" involves willfully and actively attaining some personal advantage in a way that is dishonest, illegal, or contrary to generally accepted boundaries of ethical action and open competition.
"Harmful and involuntary expense" describes any cost - monetary or otherwise - that is both damaging and not freely chosen.
As our fundamental human nature dictates, all human beings are imperfect and have a propensity for being corrupted...especially in positions of power.
This is why allowing one individual or group to have too much control - whether that is in the context of a government, corporation, or any other institution - is ultimately bad for humanity.
Exercising any type of control implicitly requires some type of power to enforce that control.
Simply stated: Control requires power, power lends itself to corruption, and corruption leads to the unfair benefit of some at the harmful and involuntary expense of others.
As such, human corruption can be seen as the true root of all oppression.
The natural propensity for human beings to be corrupted with power is really the great and underlying "systemic" problem in any society, as well as with humanity overall.
This is why it is essential for the well-being and prosperity of humanity to form societal systems that prioritize the empowerment of all individuals to act freely and voluntarily, rather than giving disproportionate control to any groups or institutions.
Reasons Behind Governmental Failures
Whenever we see obvious failures associated with various policies and actions of the United States government that facially seem to defy common sense, the most important question that we need to ask ourselves is "why?".
Before we can begin to rectify any of these scenarios, we need to first identify and understand the root causes and true motivations behind each of the seemingly irrational decisions.
Things that we may, at first glance, tend to simply attribute to incompetence or misguided ideology, may in fact be intentional due to corrupt and self-serving influences.
The following is a list of underlying factors that may cause individuals and groups within the government to implement policies or take actions that appear to go against historical wisdom and empirical data, seem to be inconsistent with human nature and the reality of the world, and ultimately lead to outcomes that have detrimental effects on many people.
1) Misguided good intentions, often manifested in elitist and authoritarian-minded groupthink.
Common examples of this are often perpetuated by those who believe that fundamental aspects of human nature can be changed or controlled through legislation and/or indoctrination, as well as by those who ignore the misaligned incentives and resulting negative outcomes of policies that sound good in theory, but do not produce the intended results and actually do more harm than good in practice.
2) Ideological, religious, philosophical, or other personal beliefs that may not be in the best interests of all citizens and may actually be destructive to society and the overall well-being of humanity, either unintentionally or by design.
For example, there are very smart and educated people in positions of political, corporate, and institutional power who believe - for various reasons, albeit contrary to abundant historical and empirical evidence indicating otherwise - that the earth is incapable of sustaining our current human population trajectory and that one of the major problems of modern society is that there are literally too many people currently inhabiting the world, thus leading those with these beliefs to advocate for policies that are actually antithetical to the future expansion and flourishing of the human species.
Personal belief systems that entail this type of world view are more common than one might think and are misanthropic, nihilistic, and fundamentally anti-human at their core.
Likewise, there are people who believe that the present social and economic structures in the United States are standing in the way of other forms of governance that can - in theory, albeit contrary to human nature and historical evidence - lead to a more utopian society, thus prompting them to advocate for policies that are actively destructive to our present society, as to make way for a new and better social order.
3) Opportunistically taking advantage of crisis situations (as well as purposely creating crises and/or overhyping levels of emergency) to implement policies that increase overall levels of government control, regardless of whether those policies will actually help improve the given situations, based on the general belief that more government control is a good thing and that the end result will justify the means of gaining that control.
4) General incompetence and/or ignorance of people who are not as smart as they think they are.
5) Overconfidence of even really smart people who fail to realize or accept that NO individual or relatively small group of people - even the most intelligent and credentialed - is capable of considering all factors, interactions, and outcomes of really complex and interconnected systems (which some might call the "law of unintended consequences"), such as the economy, the environment, public health, national security, and international relations.
6) Individuals simply acting on the basis of self-serving personal interest, either corruptly or otherwise amorally.
7) Corruption via incentives or coercions from outside sources that influence individuals and groups within the government to advocate for policies and actions that benefit the special interests of those sources to the detriment of others, as well as corruption in the attempt to cover up previous mistakes, failures, and/or illegal, unethical, or immoral activity.
8) Entrenched governmental bureaucracy that is naturally incentivized to maintain and grow that monopolistic structure for the benefit of those involved within the system. This large and mostly unelected bureaucratic power structure is what many people may colloquially reference as the "Deep State" or the "Swamp". Furthermore, all of the influencing factors listed above may come into play entirely within this bureaucratic system as well, leading to various individuals, groups, and agencies fighting amongst themselves to maintain and advance their own positions within that structure.
The answer to the original question of "why?" is most likely some combination of all of the factors listed above, plus any number of other complex and nuanced reasons.
Nonetheless, identifying the most influential factors behind various detrimental policies or actions would be an important first step in attempting to keep an effective level of checks-and-balances on the general processes of the government, and then to redirect any misguided efforts onto truly just and prosperous paths that can maximize the well-being of all citizens.
However, because there are an endless number of complex and interconnected scenarios to be analyzed and addressed, we could spend an eternity investigating and determining which factors influence which scenarios the most, and then spend another eternity devising ways to counter them.
Of course, there is one comprehensive way that we can counter all of these factors, which invariably influence any and all policies and actions of the government, at the same time.
The most straightforward and effective way to counter of all of these negative factors and, most importantly, counter the resulting harmful effects that their influence can ultimately have on our individual lives and personal well-being...along with the well-being and prosperity of society as a whole...is by simply giving the government less power in the first place.
The Progressive Left – Misguided Good Intentions or Ruling-Class Oligarchy?
The greatest tyrannies are always perpetuated in the name of the noblest causes.
– Thomas Paine
The progressive left in the United States has hijacked some good and noble causes - such as racism and climate change - that are, without argument, important issues that need to be properly understood and addressed with rational and effective measures to support the overall well-being of humanity.
Under the premise of addressing these issues, however, they are aggressively advocating for governmental policies, as well as potentially a whole new form of government, that will not only do little or nothing to actually resolve these problems, but are ultimately REALLY BAD for humanity.
Specifically, the progressive left is pushing for a concentration of central governmental power that history has shown - 100% of the time - will lead to an oligarchical authoritarian form of government.
As such, this concentration of power will actually lead to much greater and widespread corruption than our current system, which in turn will lead to even greater inequities and larger-scale oppression, which can and will lead to profound human rights abuses and atrocities that are existentially worse than anything that anyone in the United States is experiencing today.
Common sense serves to show that if you give the government enough power to mitigate these issues by controlling society and the economy, you have also given it enough power to create oppression. And history has shown - once again, 100% of the time - that when any government has been given this amount of power, it has created more oppression.
To quote Thomas Sowell:
The political left has never understood that if you give the government enough power to create "social justice", you have given it enough power to create despotism. Millions of people around the world have paid with their lives for overlooking that simple fact.
However, one must consider that the goals of the progressive left may not just be the result of the simple overlooking of facts or the well-intentioned, albeit misguided, thinking of its proponents.
For the so-called "elites" (or the "anointed", as so descriptively dubbed by Sowell) who are actually orchestrating and financing the progressive movement, oligarchical authoritarian rule is, in fact, the ultimate goal.
In the words of Friedrich Nietzsche:
You preachers of equality...your most secret ambitions to be tyrants thus shroud themselves in words of virtue.
In light of this, some of the major initiatives currently at the forefront of driving and guiding contemporary progressive policies, such as climate change alarmism, organizational Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) requirements, and corporate Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) goals - all things that sound just, ethical, and morally virtuous - are actually being utilized by various entities as plutocratic instruments of power, influence, and control over people and the economy.
For example, the real-world result of implementing the business practices of ESG is large-scale monopolistic cartel behavior and racketeering at best, corporate fascism at worst.
Thus, the progressive movement presents just another set of means and tactics through which already wealthy and powerful individuals and institutions can maintain, enhance, and "progress" their own security and self-interests.
The sinister aspect of this effort, though - as well as what makes it so uniquely effective and particularly dangerous - is that their own self-serving objectives are being instituted under the pretense of these noble and righteous causes, through which truly good and thoughtful people can be influenced to enthusiastically support.
So, for everyone who is promoting the progressive agenda, one must ask...
Do they truly believe in what they are supporting? Are they sincere in their compassion and desire to help protect human rights, reduce suffering, and make the world a better place? Are they simply well-intentioned, but misguided in their thinking?
Or are they actually being disingenuous, in that they are actively and intentionally (or perhaps subconsciously) seeking personal power and aspiring to be part of a future ruling-class oligarchy, reprehensibly so, under the guise of security and justice?
In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society...
– Chancellor Palpatine / Darth Sidious, from the film "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith"
So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause.
– Senator Padmé Amidala, from the film "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith"
Postmodernism & The Vision of The Political Left
Why do so many people seem to be so easily persuaded by the vision and messages of the political left?
One explanation is that the principle argument supporting many of the positions of the political left is quite often an immediately satisfying emotional one, as well as one that embodies a sense of moral virtue, regardless of whether it reflects reality or not.
For example, typical messaging from the political left might go something like this:
"We need more government programs to help the poor and underprivileged people that are marginalized by our selfish, greed-based, and bigoted capitalist system! To pay for these programs, it is only fair that we should increase taxes for the greedy corporations and wealthy individuals that benefit from this system, in order to help achieve equity for the marginalized people that are exploited and oppressed by the system! If you disagree, then you must be a selfish, greedy, and/or bigoted person who hates poor people!"
Whereas, in contrast, the argument behind many of the positions of the political right is often a more involved intellectual one.
For example, a typical response from the political right to the above argument from the left might go something like this:
"Well, actually...historical evidence has shown that existing government programs that were aimed at helping poor and underprivileged people have unintentionally resulted in exacerbating the overall level of poverty in those marginalized populations. Furthermore, empirical analysis has shown that lowering the financial tax burdens for corporations and wealthy individuals in a free-market capitalistic system helps to elevate the economic status of all people in a society. Here is the data that supports those conclusions..."
Thus, based on these hypothetical yet typical arguments, as presented in the examples above, one might observe that the general messaging from the political right - which is characteristically logical, evidence-based, and analytical - simply does not translate well into an inspiring call to action at a political rally, or into a direct and compelling pitch to everyday citizens.
This seems to be the case, unfortunately, even if the reasoning behind the argument from the political right is factually correct, reflects the genuine reality of the world, and arguably embodies greater moral validity.
As Thomas Sowell has remarked:
The vision of the left - and I think many conservatives underestimate this - is really a more attractive vision in itself. The only reason for not believing in it is that it doesn't work. But you don't see that at the outset if all you're looking at is just a theory.
If the world were the way the left conceives it to be, it would be a better world than the way the right conceives it be. It just happens that the world is not that way.
In other words, the fundamental vision of the political left is based on an idealistic and arguably more appealing theoretical view of how people and the world "could be" or "should be", rather than dealing with the reality of things as they actually are.
Hence, the ultimate goal of the left is to fully transform human beings into that idealistic state - essentially trying to "fix", "reinvent", "reconstruct", or "re-imagine" human nature and reality - in an attempt to create a more utopian version of the world.
In contrast, the political right is inclined to employ the arguably more practical approach of accepting the imperfect, fallible, and sometimes counterproductive aspects of our nature as human beings, as supported by factual evidence and objective reality, in order to develop systems that actually work with people and society the way they truly are.
Of course, the response from the political left to this line of insight from the right is to just simply reject all of the various types of arguments which, based on factual evidence, show that "the world is not that way".
The means by which they are able to so easily dismiss these seemingly rational points of view, which are rooted in fundamental concepts such as absolute truth and objective reality, is by readily applying some form of postmodern thinking.
So what exactly is "postmodern" thinking?
Postmodernism is a philosophy that essentially challenges all aspects and assumptions of modern rationality and objective reality.
With postmodernism, there is no absolute or objective reality, morality, or truth - everything is relative or subjective.
Postmodern philosophy simply claims that reality is merely a mental construct and, therefore, can be redefined, shaped, and evolved as human beings and society evolve.
As such, postmodernism critically challenges universally accepted ideas about objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, knowledge, reason, science, language, culture, meaning, identity, relationships, aesthetics, merit, justice, and social progress.
Within postmodern philosophy, society can be thought to be responsible for driving and shaping human nature, rather than human nature driving and shaping society.
Thus, for Postmodernists, concepts such as basic human nature and morality are not absolute, but are rather, at least to some extent, socially or culturally constructed.
So, whether most people are aware or not, the positions of the political left often inherently apply some bit of postmodern thinking in their argument, given that the supporting rationale for their perspective commonly goes against fact-based observations and realistic conditions of human nature.
As George Orwell famously wrote in his novel "1984" regarding this line of thought, "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
This type of thinking is a key basis for Marxist theory and the promised societal utopia of Communism.
Essentially, belief in the theories of Marxism requires the rejection of belief in fundamental aspects of human nature.
The foundational premise of Marxism is that modern human society has been shaped throughout history by the ongoing struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed. This circumstantial conflict between various groups of people in modern society may be viewed by Postmodernists as a continuation of the primitive hierarchical systems and power structures that arose as a result of early evolutionary conditions of the human species that tended to promote and propagate certain sociological norms based on the instinct of self-preservation, such as the survival of the fittest and domination by strength.
Building from that foundation, Postmodernists and/or Marxists will assert that human beings have now evolved beyond the basic survival necessities of the primitive world, however - much to our demise - society and human nature are still being shaped and influenced by the systems, structures, and institutions that arose from that basis.
Furthermore, the contemporary belief is that all of the systems, structures, and institutions of modern society have, in fact, been intentionally constructed for the purpose of maintaining the status quo of the current social and economic hierarchy, which is claimed to favor "Western" or "white" culture, and thus provides an unfair advantage to heterosexual, cisgender, Christian, males with light-colored skin and European ethnic origins.
Therefore, as the theory goes, if we just remove all of the existing systems, structures, and institutions of modern society that are holding back the continuing evolution of the human species - such as religion, the nuclear family, and capitalism - then there will be no more social or economic hierarchy, no more unfair advantage, no more oppressive conflict and struggle, and a new postmodern human societal utopia can arise and flourish.
Hence, through postmodernist thinking, the political left is able to arguably present a much more attractive vision for the future of the world than the political right.
The important question is which side is correct?
The over one hundred million human lives that are estimated to have been lost as a result of the implementation of the Marxist vision of the Communist utopia in numerous countries and across diverse cultures throughout the world over the past 100 years certainly provides substantial evidence against the argument of the political left.
Are they really willing to risk more?
And for those who will invariably say, "Yes, but real Communism has never actually been tried before...", I will leave you with the link to the following video:
For clarity, this question is in reference to the modern sociological use of the expression.
Woke, in its simplest terms, means having Critical Consciousness.
Critical Consciousness is a social concept developed by Brazilian philosopher, activist, and educational theorist Paulo Freire, which was popularized in his eminent book "Pedagogy of the Oppressed", first published in 1968.
The concept is rooted in the neo-Marxist philosophical framework of Critical Theory and focuses on achieving a special deep awareness, knowledge, and understanding of the world that enables the perception and exposure of systemic oppressive forces that unjustly shape society, but remain mostly hidden from mainstream consciousness.
These forces result in the formation of hierarchical power structures that serve to reinforce and maintain a system of oppression for the benefit of certain groups who unjustly possess privileged levels of power over marginalized groups.
Freire theorized that this structured system of oppression in society consequently shapes our human nature and behavior, which in turn continues to suppress awareness of these underlying power dynamics, thus perpetuating the systemic injustice.
Therefore, Critical Consciousness also involves taking action against those unjust and oppressive forces by ultimately transforming human beings, human nature, and society through activism and education, so as to create a better world.
In other words, Critical Consciousness means becoming "awakened", "awoken", or "woke" to the knowledge and understanding that society is shaped by unjust hierarchical power structures that are set up by privileged groups to maintain an oppressive advantage over marginalized groups, along with the need to take action to change that unjust system of oppression.
Moreover, the way that one becomes aware of or "woke" to this systemic oppression is by applying the tenets of neo-Marxist Critical Theory and viewing everything in the world through that lens, then engaging in education and activism to teach this now revealed "truth" to others, address the perceived inequities, and achieve "social justice".
To expound with a few more details, Woke (aka Wokeness or Wokism) is the belief that:
1) modern human society has been shaped throughout history by the power dynamic between various identity groups in the ongoing hierarchical struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed;
2) this social dynamic has in turn shaped human nature, which then only serves to reinforce and maintain this unjust hierarchical system of power and oppression;
3) as a result, all of society is inherently and systemically structured to oppress marginalized identity groups who possess relatively lower levels of hierarchical power, for the benefit of those groups who unjustly possess privileged levels of power;
4) all gaps in performance between various groups prove this systemic oppression; and
5) the solution is "equity" - enforced proportional representation and distribution of resources for all identity groups without regard to performance, leading to the achievement of "social justice".
Note that the concept of enforced "equity" for all identity groups ultimately leading to "social justice" is analogous to the Marxist concept of administered Socialism leading to a utopian Communist society.
In reality, though, the concept of "equity" is actually an expansion of the traditional Marxist concept of implementing a Socialist economic system that will ultimately lead to the Communist utopia, in that the modern concept of "equity" involves not just the administered (i.e. forced) redistribution of economic and material capital to create an equality of outcomes, but also the forced equalized distribution of social and cultural capital as well.
Nonetheless, the analogy remains the same - forcing the implementation of Socialism until Communism is achieved is principally equivalent to forcing the implementation of "equity" until "social justice" is achieved.
So to summarize... Woke = Critical Consciousness = identity-based Marxism
Furthermore, the belief system of Wokism, similar to that of Marxism and its neo-Marxist derivatives, for all intents and purposes takes the form of a gnostic cult-like religion.
A core gnostic belief is that human beings - and thus human nature, human behavior, and all of human society - can be transformed and perfected (essentially removing the flaws of "original sin") through the acquisition and praxis of special higher metaphysical knowledge ("gnosis"), which in effect describes the esoteric essence of Critical Consciousness and therefore "Wokeness".
Substantiating this observation, Paulo Freire himself makes the recurrent connection between Critical Consciousness and the spiritual concept of "gnosis" in his various works.
So, in conclusion, this idea of Critical Consciousness and being "Woke", putting into practice a special awareness, knowledge, and understanding of the world, and subsequently achieving "equity" and "social justice" for all sounds really great, right?!
Stop. Time for a reality check.
Before embracing these concepts as the pathway to human utopia on earth, one must keep in mind that the fatal flaw with all of these wonderful sounding theoretical systems that aspire to achieve "equity" and "social justice" through "fixing" or "transforming" human beings and society is that they do not happen naturally and, therefore, must be actively forced into practice.
Why is that a fatal flaw?
Simply put - forcing a system into practice in society requires a concentration of power to implement, concentrations of power inevitably lead to corruption, and corruption leads to bad things for humanity.
Hence, I would offer the following alternate and more cynical, but arguably more realistic, definition of Woke:
Woke is calling everything in society that you want to control oppression, until you control it for your own gain of power.
Remember, with Wokism, as with Marxism - EVERYTHING IS ABOUT THE DYNAMICS OF POWER.
Not about love. Not about faith. Not about kindness. Not about joy. Not about (objective) truth. Not about responsibility. Not about inspiration. Not about voluntary cooperation. Not about uplifting all individuals. Not about purpose and meaning.
The only thing that matters is power.
What a sad way to view the world. ☹
And also one that has deadly consequences for humanity.
When you make everything about power, those who desire power the most will inevitably rise to the top positions of power.
And those who desire power the most - by the intrinsic nature of that desire - are not concerned with equality or equity.
They are concerned about their own power, over and above everything else.
Thus, Wokism is not a pathway to equality or equity or human well-being.
In fact, it is the exact opposite.
Critical Race Theory Translator
Critical Race Theory originated as a body of legal scholarship and an academic movement in the United States in the mid-1970s through the writings of several American legal scholars, including Derrick Bell, Richard Delgado, and Kimberlé Crenshaw.
The concept emerged from the tenets of Critical Legal Studies, an academic school of thought which posits that laws are inherently devised to maintain the status quo of societal power structures, thereby codifying biases against marginalized groups.
Critical Legal Studies itself is based in Critical Theory, which is an approach to social and political philosophy that focuses on the critical assessment of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge intrinsic issues with power structures.
Critical Theory, in turn, has roots in Marxist philosophy.
As an academic concept, Critical Race Theory originally sought to critically examine the intersection of race and law in the United States and to challenge mainstream approaches to racial justice.
However, this original concept has since been somewhat diverted, manipulated, morphed, and expanded in recent times to embody something a bit different by various modern mainstream proponents of the theory, such as Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo.
Note: Referring to this modern collection of critical studies under the comprehensive title of "Critical Race Theory" (or "CRT") could be considered both inaccurate and unfair, and this debate over semantics leads to part of the challenge when trying to engage in useful discussions about the topic. For example, many will claim that "Critical Race Theory" is simply not being taught in places such as elementary schools...and they would be correct, at least in technical terms. Yes - the pure original form of academic legal scholarship is typically not being taught to young children in schools, however, it is the teaching of the modern mainstream embodiment of the concept to children that most people find objectionable. Lacking a better overall label for the concept, the term "Critical Race Theory" has simply become a catch-all phrase used by opponents to describe the overall collection of concepts that encompass the works of individuals such as Kendi and DiAngelo. Recently, the term "Critical Social Justice" has been used to some extent as a comprehensive title for this modern mainstream collection of critical studies and related praxes. However, as outlined below, perhaps this body of concepts and their associated application would be more accurately referenced simply as race-based (or other identity-based) Marxism.
Nonetheless, all semantics aside, the purpose of this writing is not meant to be an argument regarding the validity of the thinking behind this modern embodiment of Critical Race Theory or the use of the term itself.
However, if one intends to engage in a discussion on the topic, it would at least be helpful for everyone to understand what people like Kendi and DiAngelo are really putting forth.
Their thinking becomes clear in the contents of their books and other publications.
Capitalism is essentially racist; racism is essentially capitalist. They were birthed together from the same unnatural causes, and they shall one day die together from unnatural causes. Or racial capitalism will live into another epoch of theft and rapacious inequity, especially if activists naïvely fight the conjoined twins independently, as if they are not the same.
– Ibram X. Kendi, from "How to Be an Antiracist"
Antiracist policies cannot eliminate class racism without anticapitalist policies. Anticapitalism cannot eliminate class racism without antiracism.
– Ibram X. Kendi, from "How to Be an Antiracist"
Capitalism is so bound up with racism. I avoid critiquing capitalism - I don’t need to give people reasons to dismiss me. But capitalism is dependent on inequality, on an underclass.
– Robin DiAngelo, from The New York Times Magazine article " 'White Fragility’ Is Everywhere. But Does Antiracism Training Work?"
Thus, the proposition of modern mainstream proponents of Critical Race Theory such as Kendi and DiAngelo is actually, at its elemental core, about replacing Capitalism with a new race-based form of Socialism.
In this new embodiment of Socialism, the traditional Marxist struggle between economic classes, with the Bourgeoisie as the oppressor and the Proletariat as the oppressed, is now replaced by a hypothetical race-based class struggle, with "Racism" and "White Supremacy" (aka "Capitalism" aka "Western philosophy" aka "Enlightenment principles" aka "Classical Liberalism") as the oppressor and People of Color (POC), as well as other supposedly marginalized identity groups, as the oppressed.
Once you understand this, it will now make sense how, in this day and age, POC can actually be labeled as "White Supremacists" or be accused of upholding "White Supremacy" if they happen to support the basic principles of the Enlightenment, such as individual Natural Rights and free-market Capitalism.
It has nothing to do with their race or the color of their skin, but rather with their ideological or philosophical views.
For reference, Western philosophy and the principles of the Enlightenment include, among other things, the concept that all human beings are created equal, that we are all inherently endowed as individuals with certain unalienable Natural Rights, and that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which are the foundational principles of the United States of America.
One may also note that this modern mainstream embodiment of Critical Race Theory is often used somewhat interchangeably with, is considered to be a part of, or at least shares much of the same tenets and terminology with the seemingly ever evolving modern social concept known as "Wokeness", being "Woke", or espousing "Woke" ideology.
So, anytime you see or hear the following terms used in relation to the modern mainstream application of Critical Race Theory, or any of its ideological counterparts, replace them with the equivalent translated terms as below.
This way, you will at least understand what they are actually saying, if and when they accuse you of being a racist.
Racism = Capitalism
Antiracism = Socialism
Racist = someone who believes in the benefits of Capitalism and other principles of the Enlightenment
White Supremacy = Capitalism, Western philosophy, Enlightenment principles, Classical Liberalism
Whiteness = positive view of Capitalism and other principles of the Enlightenment
White Thinking = espousing a positive view of Capitalism and other principles of the Enlightenment
White Privilege = expressions of individual Natural Rights in a free society (...which should actually be known and universally experienced by everyone as "Human Privilege", as we are all created equal in dignity and in rights)
White Fragility = arguments in support of the benefits of Capitalism and other principles of the Enlightenment in relation to the well-being and prosperity of all human beings, regardless of race, color of skin, or other immutable characteristics
So there you go. Modern mainstream Critical Race Theory is just Socialism being instituted under the guise of racial justice.
Ah yes, welcome to wonderful world of identity politics!
Is America Fundamentally Racist?
American society is founded on the principles of individual Natural Rights, Liberal Democracy, and Free-Market Capitalism.
These are not the foundational principles of a society that is fundamentally or systemically racist.
In fact, they are the exact opposite.
They are actually, both in theory and in practice, fundamentally anti-racist.
The principles of individual Natural Rights, Liberal Democracy, and Free-Market Capitalism are fundamentally designed to prevent any one individual or group from having the power to oppress any other individual or group.
Thus, these principles are fundamentally designed to prevent things like racism or white supremacy from systemically or institutionally having any power in society.
Nonetheless, the United States has absolutely had systemically racist policies in the past, as well as ones that continue today.
Slavery and Jim Crow laws are blatant examples of institutional racism in American history where we went terribly against the founding principles of our nation.
We were ultimately able to self-correct, though, and remove these overtly racist policies from our system by actually coming back to our fundamental thesis of individual Natural Rights and continuing to better align with our founding principles.
So, how about the systemically racist policies that continue today?
Systemic racism still exists in America today, but the perpetrating sources may not be as clearly obvious as in the past. Contrary to the thesis of Critical Race Theory, though, the racial inequities that persist in modern America are not simply nor primarily the result of a society and system of government that is fundamentally racist.
The racial inequities that we see in American society today actually have less to do with the residual effects of the overtly racist policies of the past, such as slavery and Jim Crow laws, and more to do with other governmental interventions in our society and economy that were instituted in later years, which ended up having unintended systemically negative effects.
Namely, these government interventions started primarily with the New Deal policies of the Roosevelt administration in the 1930s, followed by the War on Poverty and welfare programs of the Johnson administration in the 1960s, and then continued with the War on Drugs initiated by the Nixon administration in the 1970s.
These policies, which may have been noble and helpful in principle, actually had systemically harmful effects.
Specifically, these policies have systemically led to the breakdown of the traditional family unit, particularly with regard to the absence of fathers in single-parent households, and the continuation of long-standing economic inequities, both of which are disproportionately experienced in predominantly Black communities today. These resulting circumstances have then, in turn, systemically led to disparities with regard to other issues, such as crime, incarceration, and police interaction, which are also experienced in these same communities.
To be clear, though, the policies of the New Deal, the War on Poverty and welfare programs, and the War on Drugs have had these same negative effects on all underprivileged members of our society, regardless of race.
However, predominantly Black communities have been disproportionately affected by these more recent policies as a result of residual economic inequities that have carried over from the overtly racist policies of the past, such as slavery and Jim Crow.
Furthermore, certain policies of the New Deal actually gave rise to new overtly racist policies, such as redlining. Specifically, the National Housing Act of 1934 enabled and empowered the corruptly racist practice of redlining. Redlining is a prime example of how governmental control and regulation can breed corruption. Although the practice has since been discontinued, redlining had devastating effects on predominantly Black urban communities, which are still experienced today.
Thus, in the absence of any blatantly racist policies that had caused inequities in the past, other more recent government social and economic policies have served to continue and maintain those inequities in the present day.
As such, these inequities are not the result of a system that is fundamentally or inherently racist, but rather the result of government actions that actually go against the founding principles of the American system.
The governmental policies of the New Deal, the War on Poverty and welfare programs, and the War on Drugs are examples of collectivist social and economic policies that go starkly against the fundamental principles of Individualism, Classical Liberalism, and Free-Market Capitalism.
Hence, any systemic racism existing in American society today or in the past is actually the result of going against the fundamental principles of America, rather than because of them.
Climate Change – Reality Check
Note: As a preface to the following blog entry, I think that it is important to mention that I am a strong proponent - an outspoken advocate, even - for transitioning society to energy sources and technologies that are as clean, efficient, renewable, and sustainable as possible. I believe that renewable, sustainable, clean energy solutions are key to the continued flourishing of our species, and can simultaneously support the environment, enable energy independence, and provide economic benefits. In fact, a good part of my professional career has centered on transportation electrification, an effort for which I have a personal passion. My personal opinion is that as we progress into the future, a majority of our global energy should come from a combination of distributed solar with battery storage, plus some nuclear. That being said...
I am not a climate change denier. I am not a climate change alarmist.
I am a climate change realist.
I posit that climate change exists, but it is not an existential crisis.
In reasonable terms, one can argue that it is not a crisis at all, and certainly not an issue that needs to be addressed through exorbitant government spending or outright global socialism / fascism.
Most importantly, though, proper understanding of and approach to climate change is critical to furthering the overall well-being of human society, as many policies that are currently being proposed to mitigate climate change may actually end up causing a net increase in human suffering throughout the world.
With so much propaganda, hyperbole, and misinformation surrounding climate change in the world today, it has become one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented issues of our time. The information provided below is my attempt to summarize the modern scientific knowledge regarding climate change in order to help distinguish fact from fiction, as well as to help put things into perspective with the overarching goal of continuing to improve the overall well-being of humanity.
The following is a list of things about modern climate change for which there exists a reported global scientific consensus, as put forth by various institutions and publications, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, per the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), Working Group 1 report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, published August 9, 2021:
Average global temperature (i.e. Global Mean Surface Temperature or GMST) has risen approximately 1.1°C since before the rapid industrialization era of the early 1900s.
GMST is calculated by averaging a combination of measured temperatures at the surface of the sea and measured temperatures of the air over land. These temperature measurements have been collected over time through various methods at various locations throughout the world.
From about 1900 up to 1940, GMST increased at an average rate of approximately 0.1°C per decade.
GMST was then slightly decreasing between about 1940 and 1970.
Since about 1970 up to the present time, GMST has been increasing at an average rate of approximately 0.18°C per decade, although with another stable pause or slight decrease observed between about 1998 and 2013.
This increase in temperatures over the past 100 years is unprecedented in at least the previous 2,000 years, and probably over the last 5,000 years.
Simulations of ocean-atmospheric physics can only reproduce the observed warming over past 100 years by including in the simulation models at least some level of consideration for changes in the concentration of gases in the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources (i.e. human activity), such as carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
Per AR6, simulation model predictions of further changes in average global temperatures by the year 2100 range from a likely scenario of +2.1°C to +3.5°C GMST, to a highly unlikely scenario of +3.3°C to +5.7°C GMST, above the baseline GMST of the pre-industrialization period of the early 1900s.
Global sea level has been rising at a fairly consistent rate of approximately 0.3 centimeters (0.12 inches) per year over the past 150+ years. This equates to a rise of approximately 0.3 meters (1 foot) in 100 years.
This measured rise in sea level appears to be largely driven by natural factors, as the rise has been occurring at a fairly consistent annual rate from well before the rapid industrialization period of the early 1900s, and has continued at this same consistent rate throughout the 20th century up to the present time.
An increase in this rate of sea level rise remains possible throughout the 21st century and beyond due to an increase in the rate of natural expansion of water from additional warming caused by escalating changes in climate, as well as acceleration in the melting of glaciers, sea ice, and polar ice sheets, also due to ongoing climate change.
Per AR6, the likely prediction is a rise in sea level of between approximately 0.5 to 1.0 meters (1.6 to 3.3 feet) by 2100, which would represent an additional increase of approximately 0.25 to 0.75 meters (0.8 to 2.5 feet) above the rise in sea level that would otherwise be predicted to occur due to apparently natural factors, based on historical measurements over the past 150 years.
However, also per AR6, a rise in sea level of between 2 to 5 meters (6.6 to 16.4 feet) by 2100, although unlikely, cannot be not ruled out, as ice sheet instability processes are still poorly understood.
Projected changes in global rainfall distribution, due to both anthropogenic causes of climate change, as well as natural changes in climate and weather patterns, may necessitate some adjustments regarding agriculture, water supply, land use, and land management in various regions over time.
The following is a list of things about modern climate change that remain as open questions, the answers for which we DO NOT have a global scientific consensus:
How much of the reported 1.1°C increase in GMST is due to anthropogenic causes (i.e. human activity), such as carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, rather than just natural warming as a result of the current geological interglacial period, along with other natural factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability?
How much and at what rate will temperatures continue to increase over time?
To what extent can further increase in GMST be mitigated by any human action, and in what timeframe?
What are the relevant effects of climate change, whether from anthropogenic or natural causes, with regard to the overall well-being of human society?
Finally and most importantly, what are the best ways to address any negative effects of climate change, such that we are able to continue to reduce overall human suffering in the world?
The following is a short list of other interesting facts and dispelled myths regarding climate change:
Studies indicate that, on average, approximately 5 to 10 times as many deaths worldwide are related to cold temperatures, as compared to hot temperatures, especially in regions of the world with many less developed nations, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, where that ratio may increase to even greater than 50 times. Thus, any increase in average global temperature could actually have a net positive affect on the overall global death rate.
The number of hurricanes making landfall annually in North America has actually declined by approximately 5% over the past 100 years. Subsequently, the average intensity of those hurricanes that make landfall annually in this same region and over this same timeframe has increased by approximately the same amount of 5%.
Many localized weather patterns, such as those that affect annual levels of precipitation and drought - which sometimes seemly last for sustained periods of time, such as for many years or decades - are observed to be cyclical from a macrolevel view, with typical natural cycles ranging anywhere from a few years, to decades, to hundreds of years. Because these natural weather cycles overlap with both anthropogenic and natural changes in climate, discerning the incremental effects of anthropogenic climate change on localized weather is extremely difficult and, at best, any hypotheses about such relationships comprise a relatively high level of scientific uncertainty.
All scientific consensus, questions, and interesting facts aside, though, the reality is this...
Of all the things that cause human suffering in the modern world, an increase in global average temperature will have virtually no discernable effect, or will essentially be "in the noise", as they say, with regard to all other factors that affect human well-being.
This is true for even the worst-case, albeit implausible, scenario of 3.3-5.7°C additional warming by 2100.
This is also true regardless of what portion of this warming is caused by human activity versus unrelated natural factors.
The most significant things that affect global human suffering include everything from lack of basic human needs such as potable water, food, and shelter, to human heath issues such as disease, malnutrition, and infant mortality, to more advanced infrastructure issues such as sanitation and waste management, medical care, and access to affordable and safe energy, to issues of human conflict such as war and crime, to the multitude of effects of corrupt and/or inept governmental regimes, which include everything as listed above, chiefly due to the mismanagement of all categories of resources, as well as human rights abuses and oppression, up to and including slavery and genocide.
Of all of these significant things that affect human well-being and should be addressed as a matter of priority, climate change is not even on the list.
Moreover, any negative effect of climate change that might tend to exacerbate any of these factors would be insignificant as compared the true major drivers of these issues.
In reality, most climate change mitigation schemes would actually be counterproductive to addressing these issues, and actually result in a net increase in human suffering throughout the world.
The good news, though, is that the per capita amount of human suffering throughout the world as a result of all of these negative factors - including human deaths related to temperature, weather, and other factors affected by climate, as well as deaths related to other types of natural disasters that are not affected by climate - has been steadily declining over the past 100 years and is predicted to continue declining, regardless of any further change in climate.
Also, it is critically important to note that access to safe and affordable sources of energy has a major impact on and a direct correlation to reducing human suffering and increasing human well-being in societies around the world.
Relatively speaking, burning fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas to produce electricity in large-scale power plants, as well as using natural gas directly for heating and cooking in homes, is orders of magnitude safer and more efficient than directly burning materials such wood, dung, and other types of biomass in homes, a practice which is still very common in underdeveloped areas of the world. Per the World Health Organization (WHO), in recent years throughout the world, directly burning these types of materials in homes for heating and cooking is estimated to contribute to around 4 million premature deaths annually, due to lung cancer, pneumonia, and other respiratory diseases attributable to household air pollution. In fact, the WHO lists household air pollution caused by the direct burning of these fuels as the leading environmental cause of death in the world, even higher than malaria. Furthermore, the inefficiency of directly burning biomass materials in homes for energy also contributes a relatively higher per capita amount of greenhouse gas emissions and pollution to the environment.
The positive news, though, is that the per capita rate of these types of deaths has been steadily declining throughout the world over the past 50-100 years, as more and more underdeveloped areas gain common, equitable, and widespread access to modern forms of energy from fossil fuels.
Additionally, all things considered, energy produced from fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas is still currently orders of magnitude more affordable than energy produced from modern renewable technologies, such as wind and solar. Thus, access to energy from fossil fuels enables developing areas of the world to increase their use of these safer forms of energy more rapidly, therefore accelerating the rate at which deaths caused by less safe forms of energy are declining.
As such, any near-term attempt to reduce the use of affordable fossil fuels in developing areas of the world would likely actually result in a relative increase in death and human suffering in those areas.
Generally speaking, the decrease in overall human suffering throughout the world over the past 50-100 years can largely be attributed to modern advances in infrastructure and technology that increase our ability, as individuals and whole societies, to withstand the negative effects of our environments, regardless of type, cause, or severity. This positive trend is predicted to continue as new advances in infrastructure and technology are developed, as well as with all advancements being further proliferated throughout the world.
So in reality, our ability as human beings to adapt to our environment through advances in infrastructure and technology is our greatest defense against any potential negative effects of climate change, anthropogenic or otherwise.
For example, of all of the potential negative effects of climate change, sea level rise is possibly the most concerning with regard to its direct impact on human society. However, even with the possible accelerated melting of glaciers, sea ice, and polar ice sheets, this change will happen gradually at a relatively slow pace over the timeframe of 50-100 years, which is a rate that makes it not only feasible, but actually quite practical, to address with infrastructure and technological adaptation.
Note that about one third of the country of the Netherlands lies below sea level, with the lowest point currently being approximately 7 meters (23 feet) below sea level. Nonetheless, the Netherlands has been able to manage this situation quite well throughout a long history, over hundreds of years, with a system of sea walls, levies, and pumps.
As the ongoing and future effects of climate change continue to be observed and become more precisely quantifiable, a realistic and measured approach of adaptation would allow practical solutions to be implemented incrementally on an as-needed basis, without negatively impacting human society in the meantime.
So, in summary:
The world is actually becoming a better place - that is, we are actively reducing human suffering per capita throughout the world - through the development and proliferation of modern advances in infrastructure and technology.
This trend in reducing human suffering throughout the world by way of ongoing advancements is predicted to continue regardless of any mandated measures to change human activity with regard to climate change, such as reducing or eliminating the use of fossil fuels.
In fact, any drastic near-term reduction in the use of fossil fuels for energy would most likely result in a relative increase in human suffering, especially in developing areas of the world.
As a human society, our best defense against any potentially negative effects of climate change is to continue adapting as a species to withstand all negative effects of our environment through ongoing advances in infrastructure and technology.
As a final thought on this topic, my perspective on climate change may be summed up by a quote from the great Thomas Sowell, which not only applies to economic and social systems, but really to life in general, and certainly to actions taken in an attempt to manage climate change with the goal of reducing overall human suffering the world...
There are no solutions, only tradeoffs.
Government Programs
If one truly evaluates the evidence and honestly assesses the outcome of most social and economic programs instituted by the government of the United States, one will inevitably find that they have done more harm than good, and actually serve to perpetuate or even worsen the problems, inequities, or injustices that they proclaim they are trying to amend.
For example, government programs that were intended to help underprivileged families seem to have had the unintended effect of incentivizing the break down of the nuclear family unit, which has actually led to the worsening of economic and social conditions for underprivileged communities.
One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.
– Milton Freedman
Much confusion comes from judging economic policies by the goals they proclaim rather than the incentives they create.
– Thomas Sowell
Formula for the Well-Being and Prosperity of Humanity
As a citizen of a representative democracy such as the Untied States of America, one has the opportunity to vote for various political candidates and policies at a range of local, state, and national levels that will ultimately affect the overall well-being and prosperity of the population as a whole.
Furthermore, considering the vast influence of countries such as the United States on a global scale, the decisions that one makes may also ultimately affect the population of the world at large.
In considering and evaluating various candidate and policy options, one might want to ponder the following overarching questions in the decision making process:
Do I want to reduce human suffering?
Do I want to make the world a better place?
The answer to these questions is probably a resounding "yes" for most people. The challenge, of course, comes in developing a consistent rationale that might allow one to assess various options in light of these goals.
In order to develop an intellectually and morally consistent rationale, I would suggest focusing on a few fundamental and universally accepted truths about human nature and the world in general.
The following presents a general rationale, based on a set of those fundamental truths, leading to an overarching formula for the well-being and prosperity of humanity:
Less individual freedom in a society, either social or economic, directly correlates to higher levels of corruption.
In turn, higher levels of corruption in a society directly correlate to higher levels of human suffering, such as poverty, oppression, and injustice in that society.
Obviously, higher levels of human suffering directly correlate to lower levels of human well-being and prosperity.
Therefore, less individual freedom in a society directly correlates to lower levels of human well-being and prosperity.
Thus, in converse, one can conclude the following overarching formula:
More individual freedom in a society directly correlates to higher levels of human well-being and prosperity.
If one truly wants to reduce human suffering and make the world a better place, I suggest keeping this formula in mind when evaluating political candidates and policies.
Bottom Line Up Front...
The reasons that I promote Capitalism and Individualism are not because I am greedy and self-centered.
I am an advocate for these principles because I truly believe that - compared with all other economic and social systems - they are the systems that are most capable of minimizing human suffering and maximizing human well-being.
Yes, that is correct... I believe that Capitalism and Individualism, which are fundamentally based on greed and selfishness, are actually the best systems for supporting the health and welfare of all individual human beings and society as a whole.
However, I certainly recognize that, on the surface, this notion might appear paradoxical.
The Paradox of Capitalism
Regarding economic systems, I think that one of the reasons that Socialism can sound so much more appealing than Capitalism is that Socialism is a system that involves people acting selflessly for the common good, whereas Capitalism fundamentally involves people acting selfishly for their own good.
The one major problem with Socialism, though, is that human beings are just naturally selfish.
This is simply an unfortunate and immutable fact of human nature. Survival instinct naturally drives human beings to act in their own best interests for their own safety, security, and self-preservation.
And no amount of conditioning, marketing, social pressure, propaganda, education, or indoctrination will ever change that.
The only way that a system based on people acting selflessly can be maintained is by coercion and force.
Conversely, if we recognize and accept that human beings are naturally selfish and that Capitalism is an economic system that is based on this premise, then Capitalism is a system that only requires people to act naturally and voluntarily in their own interest, rather than being forced or coerced into any other way of being.
In other words, Capitalism is really just the economic system that happens naturally when human beings are free to act on their own voluntary motives and objectives.
Adam Smith, the 18th century economist and moral philosopher known as "The Father of Capitalism", essentially makes this point in his magnum opus "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations".
Nonetheless, there is one scenario in which human beings ARE capable of acting selflessly by their own volition...
Human beings are capable of acting selflessly on a voluntary basis when they have an abundance of their own basic survival needs met.
With this in mind, the centralized planning and proposed equitable distribution of capital and resources of the Socialist economic system is intended to produce such a level of abundance... in THEORY.
Marxist theory postulates that human beings are not naturally selfish as part of our immutable human nature, but rather human selfishness is a socially constructed result of scarcity and the competition for resources in Capitalistic systems.
Thus, through enforced Socialism, society will be able to produce and sustain an abundance of resources that will be equitably distributed, effectively eliminating the need for competition, which in turn will transform human beings and bring us into the full expression of our true unselfish nature, leading to a more utopian Communist society.
However, even if this theoretical postulation of human transformation were true, the effort to achieve the necessary level of abundance through Socialism always falls short of that essential goal.
Ironically, this failure is due in large part to human selfishness and our propensity for corruption, particularly within the ranks of the concentrated power structures that must be established in order to implement and enforce the Socialist policies.
As history has shown through numerous examples across diverse cultures over the past 100 years, the theory of the centrally planned economy and resulting resource abundance of Socialism is just not supported through practice in the real world.
In reality, without the injection of some Capitalistic characteristics into a Socialistic economic system, the implementation of purely Socialist systems has led to the exact opposite - even more scarcity and less equitable distribution of resources in society.
Even Herbert Marcuse, the influential 20th-century neo-Marxist philosopher, political theorist, and outspoken critic of Capitalism, acknowledged this reality: Socialist economic systems fail miserably regarding the ability to produce.
Therefore, the simple truth is this... Socialism cannot even produce basic sufficiency, let alone the proposed abundance needed to achieve the equitable distribution that will lead to the resulting Communist utopia.
In contrast, Capitalism is proven to be capable of producing mass abundance.
Indeed, this aspect of Capitalism is actually one of Marcuse's critiques of that system, which is that Capitalism works TOO well and produces TOO MUCH abundance, which, from his perspective, leads to excess and waste and is therefore unsustainable.
But, once again, history has shown that this concern regarding the unsustainability of Capitalism is not supported by reality.
In fact, the exact opposite occurs.
As Capitalistic societies become more successful and more prosperous, data shows that they actually trend toward using resources MORE efficiently and creating LESS waste.
This happens simply because, when individuals in a society have an abundance of their own basic needs met, they are able to naturally exert energy and effort toward innovation, as well as toward purely charitable actions.
Furthermore, perhaps ironically so, the fundamentally selfish nature of Capitalism is what actually motivates and drives this innovation to increase efficiency and reduce waste.
That is, increasing efficiency and reducing waste - whether in the production, distribution, or consumption of energy, food, goods and services, or whatever - leads to economic gains for the innovator.
Consequently, in the self-centered pursuit of individual success and well-being, the overall efficiency in the use of capital and resources increases, which in turn benefits all of society and supports the “common good”.
Thus, we have the paradox of Capitalism:
People acting naturally and selfishly for their own good produces abundance in society, which then in turn enables people to act naturally - in both selfish and unselfish ways - for the common good.
This is why it is so vitally important regarding the well-being and prosperity of all of society for individuals to have the personal freedom to pursue their own self-interests.
Hence, to support the common good, I believe that we must strive to preserve, protect, and promote the fundamental Natural Rights of every individual human being, including the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, Safety, and Security.
Right vs Left Ideology
The divergence in ideologies between the groups traditionally categorized as the political Right and the political Left is the result of a fundamental difference in basic philosophy regarding human nature.
This contrast in underlying philosophical premise may be summarized as follows:
The political Right believes that human beings are naturally hierarchical, and the political Left believes that human beings are (or, at least, should be) naturally egalitarian.
Further to that, the political Right believes that human beings naturally act in their own self-interest in the competition to meet their own basic needs, which results in the natural formation of hierarchical social and economic structures based on various types and levels of individual capability and competence.
Moreover, they believe that this sort of free and open competition between individuals, along with the naturally resulting hierarchies, is actually beneficial to the well-being and prosperity of all of society.
In contrast, the political Left believes that these types of unconstrained hierarchical structures, by definition, result in disparities between the well-being and prosperity of various individuals across the broad spectrum of society, and that we should strive for a more socially and economically egalitarian system with a more equitable distribution of resources.
Furthermore, they believe that with the proper set of conditions, human beings and, by extension, human society as a whole can be transformed to become more naturally egalitarian, where we as human beings act primarily not with regard to our own self-interest, but rather in the best interests of the "common good".
Thus, the basic philosophy and resulting ideology of the political Right seems to focus on dealing with the historical and current reality of the way human beings and society actually are, whereas the basic philosophy and resulting ideology of the political Left seems to focus on the way things "could be" or "should be".
With this in mind, it makes sense that the ultimate vision and goal of the political Left is to achieve a socially and economically egalitarian society, otherwise known as Communism in Marxist terms.
According to the Marxist vision, a Communist society is one in which everyone has free and equal access to capital and resources, everyone freely contributes to the production of goods and services for the "common good", and everyone has their basic needs satisfied through the equitable distribution of those goods and services. (...as Karl Marx famously wrote: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!")
Sounds great, right?!
However, in order to believe that this type of egalitarian Communist society is possible, one must believe that human beings can somehow be transformed into a state of existence where we are no longer naturally motivated by, nor have a natural propensity to be corrupted in, the pursuit of our own self-interests.
Personally, I remain grounded in absolute truth and the reality of the world in which we exist… one where the egalitarian promise of the Communist utopia is simply not possible.
China is Actually More Fascist than Communist
Key point: Socialism is really just Fascism where the government not only controls everything, but owns everything as well.
Despite their name, the Chinese Communist Party is actually more Fascist than Communist at this point.
The word fascism comes from the Latin word "fascis", which means "bundle", and the use of the term to denote a system of government is symbolic of a bundle of people.
A Fascist system of government is characterized by four principal features:
• Authoritarian and autocratic/oligarchic rule with dictatorial power
• Highly regulated society and economy
• Subordination of individual rights for the perceived benefit of the collective population
• Forcible suppression of opposition
These four features are also principal characteristics of Communism and/or Socialism, with the basic structure of ownership of businesses and property being one major difference between Communism/Socialism and Fascism.
Note: In referencing the Communist and/or Socialist form of government in this writing, we will use the single term "Socialist" from this point forward for reasons of simplicity. We choose this particular term because, according to the theory outlined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in "The Communist Manifesto", socialism is the dictatorial ruling structure that must be implemented first in a society to make way for the promised, but not yet achieved, unstructured and utopian "communist" society. Hence, in keeping with this original theory, true communism has never actually been achieved in any society in history, and therefore, any nation claiming to be a "Communist" one is, at best, actually still just a Socialist one.
A core tenet of Socialism, as the theory goes, is that a central governing body must own and control all businesses (i.e. "the means of production") and property.
Government ownership of businesses in a socialist system should be, at least theoretically, entirely dedicated to the benefit of the collective population, whereas, in a capitalist system, privately owned businesses have the much differently aligned fundamental goal of benefiting individuals through shareholder gain.
Based on this precept, one might reason that once a socialist government introduces any private ownership of businesses into the economy, and then enables free trade and open commerce between those businesses, the system is no longer really a socialist one, but rather, at least in part, an individualistic capitalist one.
With the rise of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and subsequent founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949 under the leadership Mao Zedong, a socialist form of government was established in the country of China, and the now infamous economic and social plan known as the "Great Leap Forward" was put into action starting in 1958.
The Great Leap Forward resulted in disastrous consequences, as the failures of the centrally planned economy led to vast levels of corruption, poverty, and starvation throughout the country, and ultimately the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese people.
Although the failures of Mao's socialist system were apparent, his regime continued to promote this ideology and institute related policies until his death in 1976.
Following the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, Deng Xiaoping maneuvered into power in the PRC in 1978 and began implementing reforms to counter the failed policies of Mao.
The reforms carried out by Deng and his allies gradually led China away from a centrally planned socialist economy, as well as away from other unsuccessful Maoist ideologies, and opened the country up to foreign investment, private business ownership, and free enterprise, henceforth turning China into one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.
Deng was eventually characterized as the architect of a new brand of politcal thinking that combines socialist ideology with private business ownership and free enterprise, dubbed "socialism with Chinese characteristics".
Private business ownership and free enterprise is, by definition, capitalism.
Hence, the rise in prosperity of modern China over the past 30 years is not because of socialism, but rather because of capitalism introduced by Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s.
Thus, "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is essentially authoritarian rule with a capitalist economy.
And what might one call a system of government that supports and enables capitalism, albeit with authoritarian rule, a highly regulated society and economy, subordination of individual rights, and forcible suppression of opposition?
Fascism.
Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion.
– Friedrich Hayek, from "The Road to Serfdom"
Socialism and Fascism are Actually Very Similar
Contrary to what many people might think, Socialism and Fascism are not polar opposites on the political spectrum.
They are, in fact, actually very similar.
Socialism and Fascism are both collectivist ideologies.
Collectivist ideologies give the collective group power and priority over the rights of individuals. Therefore, in a collectivist governed society, the group that is in power can choose to violate the rights of individuals or other groups if they believe that violating those rights will benefit the collective group as a whole.
Most of the worst things that may happen in a society - everything from suppression of speech, to systemic discrimination, oppression, and other injustices, to the horrible atrocities of slavery and genocide - all arise from a collectivist mentality.
Thus, with this in mind, if one wishes to be active in the fight for justice, human rights, and overall social well-being, the true enemy is neither Socialism nor Fascism, but rather collectivism as a whole.
Individualism is the actual polar opposite of both Socialism and Fascism.
Socialism is Bad for Humanity
Socialism is bad for humanity and here is the simplest and most basic reason why:
Socialism requires a concentration of power to implement, and human beings have a problem with power.
With human beings, power breeds corruption, which in turn leads to bad things for humanity.
This is just a basic, albeit unfortunate, fact of human nature that will never change. Human beings have always been this way throughout history, and will continue to be this way forever into the future.
We, as the human species, have such a propensity to be corrupted with power that the collectivist utopia envisioned by Socialists is simply not possible in reality.
Invariably, the principle that power tends to corrupt applies to everyone.
This holds true regardless of relative moral position or intention (benevolent or otherwise), regardless of whether one is part of the Bourgeoisie or the Proletariat, regardless of whether one is a white supremacist or an anti-racist. Corruption will always find its way into any given power structure.
This reality of human nature is perhaps the most critical flaw in the reasoning of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The Communist Manifesto...specifically, that once the Proletariat becomes the ruling class, they will somehow be more virtuous, more just, more fair, and more altruistic than the Bourgeoisie, and somehow avoid being corrupted in their power.
Hence, the problem is not with "who" has power, but rather, the problem is with power itself.
That is, an individual or group does not have some higher level of natural moral superiority, inherent righteousness, or resistance to corruption just simply because they are, or were at some time, at a lower level in a particular power structure. They have the same propensity for corruption if elevated to positions of power in any structure or institution as those who may already hold power.
Additionally, even if an individual or group that first forms a monopolistic power structure does have good intentions, and somehow manages to maintain a high level of virtue and benevolence during their authoritarian leadership, the concentration of power and control that was created by them only just paves the way for the next individual or group to come into power, by whatever means, who will most likely not be as altruistic in their intentions.
Furthermore, in the absence of any traditional institutions or other historical governmental or societal structures, as envisioned by both Communists and Anarchists, new and uncontrolled structures will inevitably develop - everything from gangs, clans, and tribes, to feudal systems, kingdoms, and empires - essentially taking us back to where we started with the original rise of civilization. The natural tendency for human beings to form societal structures will not magically fade away once all past and present institutions are removed from society, as Marx and Engels also postulated in the Communist Manifesto.
Thus, as a modern human society that strives to live together in relative peace and harmony, we need to accept this unfortunate fact about ourselves, and deal with it by preemptively forming controlled structures that both limit the concentrations of power that tend to fuel corruption and, at the same time, are also inclined to bring out and align with the better sides of our nature.
Ultimately, the best thing that we can do is form societal structures that empower individuals, yet limit any one individual or group from gaining too much power.
Protecting the Natural Rights of every individual person and providing for open and fair competition across the broad spectrum of society is a good way of keeping everyone honest and everything in check. This is the fundamental thesis of individualism, capitalism, and classical liberalism.
Bottom line - humanity has a problem with power. No matter how we organize or govern ourselves, corrupt power structures are inevitable. We may wish things were different, but human beings will always be this way. This is just a simple fact of life. No matter how much we might wish otherwise, we unfortunately cannot change basic human nature.
Therefore, the best case scenario that we can expect to achieve for the overall well-being of our human society is to implement and maintain systems that are designed to, at best, minimize the amount of power that any one person or group can have - no matter who they are - over any other individual person or group.
Any arguments to the contrary are either misguided or ill-intentioned.
Humanity Has a Problem with Power
Humanity has always had a problem with power.
As history has shown, when one person or group holds too much power, bad things happen.
In the case of governments, these things can range from simple corruption and the suppression of individual rights, to widespread oppression, human rights abuses, and atrocities, like slavery and genocide.
Bottom line - unchecked concentrations of power anywhere, for anything, are bad for humanity.
Intersectional Identity
The concepts of intersectionality and intersectional identity were first introduced in 1989 by Kimberlé Crenshaw, an American attorney, civil rights advocate, philosopher, and scholar.
Intersectionality is the theory of how overlapping or intersecting physical, psychological, and social characteristics of people, such as class, race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, spiritual beliefs, ideology, age, health, ability, physical appearance, and life experiences, relate to their level of privilege, discrimination, domination, or oppression within various social systems and power structures.
Intersectional identity is the term used to describe the particular combination of characteristics of a person or group that affects how that person or group experiences the world.
As there are an infinite number of physical, psychological, and social characteristics that any person may possess, with an infinite number of overlapping combinations, there are truly an infinite number of unique intersectional identities, with a correspondingly infinite number of levels of privilege and oppression.
In this light, the ultimate intersectional identity really boils down to the individual person.
We all experience the world in our own unique way, each with our own set of unique advantages and disadvantages.
As such, we should advocate for the freedom from oppression and discrimination, the protection of rights, and the dignity and empowerment of all individuals, regardless of whatever particular intersectional identity group into which they may fit.
No one person or particular group of people is more or less virtuous or worthy of dignity and respect based solely on their physical, psychological, and social characteristics or the intersectional combination thereof.
The rights of any and all individuals should take precedence over the interests of any particular group or collection of groups.
This is the fundamental principle of individualism.
The opposite of this is collectivism, where the interests of a particular group or collection of groups can take precedence over the rights of individuals.
Marxism, socialism, communism, nationalism, and fascism are all examples of collectivism.
Historical experience has shown, over and over, that all of these forms of collectivist social systems are bad for humanity.
The ultimate intersectional identity is the individual person.
Protect and promote the Natural Rights of every individual person over everything else!
We Are Not God
As a political ideology, Liberalism - in the classical sense - does not require a belief in God (...or any other type of spiritual power or divine supernatural being, for that matter).
For Liberalism to work, from both a philosophical and practical perspective, it only requires us to believe that we are NOT God.
In other words, the moral code that underpins the principles of individual liberty and Natural Rights is not established by following the will of any God or religious dogma, but rather by all individuals simply NOT imposing their will on others.
We, as human beings, are not omniscient.
I think that we can all agree on that.
Furthermore, as individuals, we must realize that we do not possess, nor are we capable of acquiring, any type of special higher metaphysical knowledge, understanding, or awareness ("gnosis" or "nous" in the Gnostic or Platonic sense) over and above any other individuals, which might qualify us to become like a God ourselves, such that we have the right - or even the moral duty - to make decisions about the lives of all other individuals.
So, if one does not believe in any type of spiritual power at all, let alone believe in an eternal, incorporeal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent transcendent divine being...that is fine.
However, regardless of our beliefs, the important point for us as human beings is to not try to assume that type of self-righteously superior role, nor attempt to take on that type of power, ourselves.
Further to that, in effect, most of the major problems and conflicts of the modern world, as well as throughout history, can really trace their roots back to one simple primary cause, which also happens to be the "original sin" of human beings as portrayed in the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible: human beings trying to become God.
In the story of the "fall of Man", as allegorically depicted in the Biblical scripture, the first human beings, Adam and Eve, were tempted to eat the "forbidden fruit" from the "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", believing that they could attain the knowledge and power of God – thus becoming equivalent to God, themselves.
Bottom line – human beings are just not very good at being like God...and generally bad things happen when we try!
Some of the biggest cases of mistaken identity are among intellectuals who have trouble remembering that they are not God.
– Thomas Sowell
Classical Liberalism
In terms of the major political parties of the United States, my personal ideology is not solely defined by the platform of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, or even the Libertarian Party.
My personal political ideology is based on the fundamental and overarching principles of individualism and Natural Rights.
I am a Classical Liberal.
In short, I am in favor of self-government that maximizes individual Natural Rights.
The following is a brief, but more comprehensive definition of this political ideology:
Classical Liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism that advocates for individual Natural Rights, free markets and free enterprise with open and fair competition, private property, constitutional democracy, and civil liberties with equal protection under the rule of law, with an overall emphasis on minimal government, economic freedom, and cultural liberalism.
Liberalism itself has roots tracing back to ancient Greece and philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. They pioneered concepts of rationality, logic, reasoning, and critical thought, learning and knowledge, ethics and morality, human well-being and happiness, mathematics and science, societies and division of labor, as well as government, politics, laws, and democracy.
The thinking and works of the ancient Greeks form the basis of what is known today as "Western" philosophy, which may also be referenced as "Western" thought, civilization, culture, tradition, society, etc.
Building on these ideas, the Age of Enlightenment was an intellectual movement that spread across Europe during the 1600s and 1700s, influenced by the thinking and works of major figures such as John Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Adam Smith.
The underlying philosophy of the Enlightenment emphasizes reason, knowledge, and individualism in society, rather than tradition or existing institutions, and includes a range of ideas centered on advanced principles such as individual liberty and Natural Rights, the pursuit of happiness, fellowship and tolerance, scientific and social progress, capitalism and free enterprise, constitutional government, and separation of church and state.
In modern times, the term "Classical Liberalism" has since been applied to the political ideology that is based on these original principles of Liberalism and the Enlightenment, in order to distinguish it from the ideology of the modern political left, who are also commonly called "liberals", but who espouse many views that are not liberal at all in the classical sense, and are, in fact, completely contrary to the fundamental principles of liberalism.
For further historical context, the founders of the United States, such as Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were all Classical Liberals in the modern sense of the term, as were the abolitionists and suffragists, such as Sojourner Truth, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, and Susan B. Anthony, who would come along later and continue working to further hold the nation to our stated ideals.
In this day and age, the ideology of Classical Liberalism is gaining popularity as more and more people become alienated by the extremes of each of the political parties in the United States - not to mention all of the hypocrisy and corruption - and are searching for common ground with a political stance that is both morally and intellectually consistent.
War and Truth
Without hesitation, I support the use of deadly force if necessary in the defense of truly righteous principles, in the defense of our own natural rights and human dignity, and in the defense of those that we love.
I also believe in comprehensive preparedness and absolute strength as a deterrent to conflict and in promotion of peace.
I hold these beliefs at a personal level, as well as at a local, national, and international level.
However, I have a problem with supporting deadly conflicts that are conducted under the guise of virtue and defending righteous principles, when in fact the true motives behind the use of force are the amoral and self-serving interests of individuals involved with various large-scale economic power complexes, comprising a conglomeration of governmental and military support for the protection and advancement of corporate and industrial interests.
This basis of false noble pretense pertains to most, if not all, armed conflicts and wars waged in the world today.
No one is on the "right side of history" in this context. There are no easily defined "good guys" and "bad guys" in these cases...they are all bad, albeit to varying degrees.
The facade of moral justification is exploited by influential individuals in every area of the world and on all sides of any conflict in the struggle for power in support of their own personal wealth and security.
Diverse forms of virtuous propaganda are used to gain the support of decent, unsuspecting people on all sides as well.
Through this deceptive but persuasive pretext, those relatively few individuals who are able to personally benefit from this mode of operation do so at the profound personal expense of the broad range of individuals who are adversely affected.
It goes without saying that, no matter what you believe, this scenario of corrupt conflict is deeply, morally wrong.
Important Note: To be clear, the commentary above should in no way be construed as any type of condemnation of the individual war fighters serving in the armed forces of any nation, or the voluntary armed citizens of any nation for that matter, who engage bravely and honorably in any of these such conflicts in defense of their homeland and in support of righteous causes in which they personally believe. The condemnation is solely directed toward those who instigate these conflicts based on corrupt reasons.
War is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious.
It is the only one international in scope.
It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about.
It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many.
Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
– Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, United States Marine Corps, two-time Medal of Honor recipient, from the book "War is a Racket"
The Deep State
So what, in reality, is the "Deep State"?
The "Deep State" is an all-encompassing term used to refer to the large entrenched administrative government bureaucracy in the United States, primarily at the Federal level.
This bureaucracy includes all of the many different departments of the executive branch of the U.S. Government, along with all of the numerous executive and legislative agencies, sub-agencies, and bureaus, the leadership and operation of which are solely conducted by unelected individuals.
The entire list of these various departments, agencies, sub-agencies, bureaus, boards, commissions, and committees is nothing short of staggering: https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government
By nature, the individuals involved with this administrative bureaucracy are predominantly on the left side of the political spectrum, which makes sense, because the political left advocates for expansive government as an integral part of its platform.
Moreover, in addition to individuals on the political left, this group also includes those individuals on the political right who are in favor of higher levels of governmental authority, intervention, and control as well, both nationally and internationally.
Because of this political nature, the Deep State understandably works to prop up any elected officials who also advocate for higher levels of governmental authority, intervention, and control, and actively works to undermine any elected officials who advocate for a less expansive government.
In this way, the Deep State is essentially acting as an undemocratic political monopoly.
This is only reasonable, though, as the support of this political monopoly helps to enable and ensure their ongoing individual positions, livelihoods, political careers, and personal well-being.
Can you blame them?
Political Party Duopoly
The United States was founded on the principles of classical liberalism, which posits that the primary purpose of government is to protect the Natural Rights of the individual citizens of the society who form the government.
In light of this primary role of government, both major political parties of the present day are absolute abominations.
What we have now is essentially a massive power-hungry duopoly, the increase in size of which is only somewhat slowed by both parties fighting each other for power and control.
Which is slightly better than having a totalitarian monopoly.
So we have that going for us...for now...which is nice.
Government Control
Advocating for more government control over the lives of individuals, the economy, or society is elitist at best, nefarious at worst.
At best, this way of thinking is elitist, in that it asserts that a relatively small group of "elite" (or "anointed" - per Thomas Sowell) individuals has a superior ability to determine what is best for all other people, above and beyond what all of those other people may determine for themselves, either as individuals or as a collective group of free-thinking, free-acting people.
At worst, this stance can also be nefarious, in that certain individuals or groups may be seeking higher levels of control for their own personal gain, corrupt or otherwise, even at the expense of other individuals or groups.
Note that the nefarious motivation for more government control exemplifies one of the same negative characteristics commonly associated with arguments against the benefits of capitalism as an economic system.
As a matter of fact, a large government entity is really very similar to a corporate monopoly.
The main difference is that, in a free market economy, the relationship between an individual worker or consumer and a corporation is principally voluntary, whereas the relationship between an individual citizen and the government can be involuntary subjugation, which can only be maintained by force.
Basic Political Philosophy
Differences in opinion about how well a certain political figure, government administration, or political party is handling a certain issue, or just performing their duties overall, often boil down to one key difference in basic political philosophy.
That key difference is between those who think that more government control is a good thing, versus those who think that more government control is a bad thing.
With that, it is important to note that any involvement or intervention of the government in the lives of citizens, the economy, or society as whole, even in seemingly helpful ways, implicitly means more control.
On a more academic level, this differentiation also typically includes a distinction in what a person believes about the most basic role of government in general.
That distinction is between those who believe that the role of government is to grant rights, versus those who believe that the role of government is to protect rights.
Democracy & The Tyranny of The Majority
Individual rights are not subject to a public vote. A majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority. The political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities, and the smallest minority on earth is the individual.
– Ayn Rand
Democracy literally means "rule by the people".
The English language term originated from the Greek expression, dēmokratia, which combines the root words, dēmos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”).
However, there is one very important point to note about this concept of "democracy" or "rule by the people", especially with regard to democratic systems of government...
"Rule by the people" does not necessarily mean "majority rule".
"Why not?", one might ask, "Majority voting sounds like a fair way for a group of people to make ruling decisions."
With a governmental system based solely on majority rule, the majority of citizens could decide that it was in the best interest of most of the population to suspend or violate the human rights of some individuals or minority groups, and laws could be passed that violate those rights by a simple majority vote.
Thus, with regard to human rights, this is one of the inherent drawbacks of democratic systems of government.
Historically, this potentially negative aspect of democracy has been termed the "tyranny of the majority".
The founders of the United States understood this issue, which is a principal reason why the U.S. is not a "pure" democracy.
The United States is, first and foremost, a Constitutional Republic.
The U.S. government was founded on democratic principles - government of the people, by the people, and for the people - however, the primary purpose of the government was to protect the natural rights of every individual citizen.
In a Constitutional Republic, a constitution or charter protects certain fundamental rights of all people that cannot be taken away by the government, even if the government has been elected by a majority of the voters. Whereas, in a "pure" democracy, the majority is not constrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.
To put this concept into plain and stark context, the enslavement of a minority group could be legalized in a "pure" democracy if a majority of voters supported that action.
Hence, constitutional governance, rather than "pure" democracy, is paramount to the protection of minority rights.
This is why the Constitution of the Unite States codifies the protection of the fundamental rights of all citizens over and above the power of anything else, including the will of a majority of the people and/or the government itself.
As structured by the Constitution, the Federal government of the United States comprises three separate branches - the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. This construct is intended to provide for some level of checks and balances between the powers of each of the branches.
Within this structure, there are democratically elected leaders of the executive branch (i.e. the President and Vice President) and democratically elected representatives in the legislative branch (i.e. the Senate and the House of Representatives), with the appointed members of the judicial branch providing a Constitutional check on the other two branches.
The whole system was quite purposefully constructed to be somewhat cumbersome in its requirements and methods of operation, such that governmental processes would move slowly and legislative proposals would be challenged from multiple angles, in order to avoid the potential downfalls of pure democratic rule.
So, thankfully, this means that the whole system was actually set up to protect the most important factor in a form of government that is intended to be "rule by the people" – i.e. the people, themselves!
The Constitution was designed to protect the human rights of all individuals, and to protect all citizens, including and especially those in minority positions, from being oppressed or discriminated against (or worse) by the majority.
This is why it is vitally important regarding the protection of human rights to keep the proper checks and balances in place, even with a democratic system of government.
Safety VS Freedom
Much to the dismay of those who believe in the preservation of Natural Rights over everything else, the simple fact is that many people value safety and security - or at least the promise or illusion of those things - more than they value freedom and liberty.
The problem with this situation is that the promises of safety and security as asserted by large institutions, such as governments, are really only just that - promises and illusions.
In reality, the only entity that is truly responsible for protecting your own safety and security is yourself.
Furthermore, you are actually the most well-suited entity for that job as well.
The Great Equalizer
War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all;
but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory.
I love only that which they defend.
- J.R.R. Tolkien, quote by the fictional character "Faramir", from the book "The Two Towers"
In line with the above quote, I cannot rightfully say that I love guns.
However, I CAN say that I do have a great fondness for them!
Why? Because guns are the great equalizer.
Like nothing else, guns can readily enable a 120-lb woman to be physically equal to a 240-lb man who may wish her harm.
Likewise, guns can readily enable a group of ordinary, peaceable people to be physically equal to another group of people who are organized as a force who may wish them harm.
In the context of modern firearms, this equalizing capability is especially true for guns that have been defined and disparagingly labeled as "assault weapons" in certain legislative contexts.
I posit that they are intentionally labeled with this unfavorable and "scary" sounding term to fit with a particular agenda, because these weapons, as they are defined, could just as easily be labeled as "personal defensive weapons".
These types of firearms are defined as such not because of any specific technical aspects related to their ballistic capability, such as their barrel bore diameter (caliber), energy of the ammunition that they may use, or their potential rate of fire, but rather because of certain features that these weapons may possess that mostly relate to their ergonomics and ease of use.
Included in the definition of "assault weapons" are firearms that are commonly known as AR (ArmaLite Rifle) types of weapons, such as the venerable AR-15, which is the most popular type of rifle in the United States, and, to a similar extent, AK (Avtomat Kalashnikova) types of weapons, such as the AK-47, which is equally revered and seemingly omnipresent throughout many parts of the world, as well all other comparable types of small arms with similar features.
The same features that make these particular types of firearms effective for military use, also make them effective tools for use in personal defense and self protection.
In comparison to handguns, shotguns, and other rifled-barrel long guns, AR and AK types of firearms are arguably the easiest for anyone to use effectively, without the need for a particular level of physical strength, training, or ability.
Relatively speaking, they are ergonomic and safe to operate, simple to aim and fire accurately, and easy to control with low recoil.
Most importantly, though, compared to other types of firearms or self-defense tools, and because of their unique features, AR and AK types of firearms are arguably the most readily effective at their main defensive purpose - neutralizing a threat of violence, which is, by traditional legal definition, the use of physical force intended to hurt, damage, kill, or destroy.
The following are some interesting facts and perspectives about gun ownership, in general, to consider...
There are estimated to be approximately 1 billion guns in existence in the world today.
Nearly 400 million of those guns are owned by civilians in the United States.
Yes, that is correct... 40% of the all of the guns in the world are in the possession of US civilians.
This equates to approximately 1.2 guns per every American citizen, or over 1.5 guns for every adult. No other nation in the world even comes close to this per capita rate of civilian gun ownership.
These nearly 400 million firearms are actually concentrated in the hands of close to 1/3 of the American adult population, or about 85 million people. This also corresponds to approximately 45% of all households in the United States - equating to about 55 million of them - having at least one firearm.
Self-defense is clearly the predominant supporting motivation for individual firearm ownership, with over 2/3 of American gun owners listing this as the first reason that they personally own a gun. Hunting, sports shooting, collecting, and job requirements make up the remaining and far less significant factors.
To add a couple of interesting side notes to this, and to the surprise of many people, over 42% of current gun owners in the United States are female, and overall American gun ownership is relatively evenly distributed between racial and ethnic groups.
Continuing with the interesting facts - in comparison to the approximately 85 million adults in the United States that own at least one firearm, the US military has a little over 2.1 million active duty and reserve personnel, with only about 10% of those (or about 200 thousand) actually trained for any type of combat operation.
Therefore, there are over 400 times the number of US civilians that own firearms, as compared to US military personnel that are actually trained for combat.
To further put things into perspective, the combined number of firearms owned by all of the militaries of every nation in the world is around 130 million, with the United States military owning about 4.5 million of those.
Thus, US civilians possess nearly 100 times the number of firearms as the US military alone, and over 3 times the number of firearms as all of the militaries in the world combined.
I do not think that it is hyperbole to suggest that the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, which protects the fundamental right of individuals to keep and bear arms, in conjunction with the overwhelmingly vast level of civilian gun ownership in the USA, are possibly the most important reasons that we do not currently have an even more totalitarian and tyrannical US federal government than we already have, let alone one world government, at this point in history.
Furthermore, these two things together - the 2nd Amendment and correspondingly high level of US civilian gun ownership - present the single greatest barrier that is standing in the way of this type of dictatorial effort moving forward in the future, both in the United States and subsequently throughout the world.
Nowhere else in the world are individual citizens so empowered as the last line of defense against their own oppression: the United States is the only nation in the world with an individual right to keep and bear arms with no constitutional restrictions.
Why else do you think that wealthy and influential individuals and institutions around the world that are in favor of larger centralized governments and more authoritarian rule, are also so actively funding and promoting political campaigns and propaganda efforts to dismantle the 2nd Amendment and disarm the American public?
This is why I believe that the 2nd Amendment is the single most important part of the Constitution of the United States, because it enables the defense and preservation of all other individual human rights, both natural and legal, even down to the most basic and fundamental natural rights of life and liberty, which are the core principles upon which the nation was founded.
With or without the existence of any types of firearms in the world, there will always be individuals or groups who have higher levels of power than others, physical or otherwise, who wish to impose their own will and self-serving desires to the detriment of others through the intentional and unjustified use of physical force, or through intimidation by the threat of such force.
This dynamic applies to individual-level interactions, all the way up to the actions of large governmental institutions.
Unfortunately, this is just a basic fact of life in this world, and one that will never change.
No matter how many laws that we pass, agreements that we make, and societal standards that we set, either locally, nationally, or internationally, human beings have always misused power in evil and harmful ways throughout history, and will continue to do so forever into the future - guns or no guns.
Equitable possession of guns, at least, provides a means of leveling the playing field of physical power by equalizing the potential use of force between all individuals and groups.
That is, ubiquitous gun ownership can help to neutralize the amount of power that any one person or group can have - no matter who or what they are...government, law enforcement, criminal, or all three - over any other individual person or group.
Hence, universal gun ownership serves as an underlying and ongoing check on the balances of power at both individual and group levels, to help keep everyone honest and lawful in an organized society, protect the rights of individuals, and ultimately maintain the safety and well-being of all.
This only works, of course, if guns are readily available to all individuals.
Furthermore, the types of guns that are available to all people should be of relatively equivalent capability.
This equivalent capability factor is especially important - no particular individuals or entities should have a monopoly on the use of the most effective tools of physical force and power.
In conclusion, I believe that life and liberty are universal, fundamental, and unalienable individual natural human rights.
Therefore, it follows that the right to the defense of one's own life and liberty is also a fundamental natural human right.
It would make sense then, that an integral aspect of this natural right of self defense is the right to defend oneself effectively through the right to keep and bear arms, with arms being defined as the most effective modern self-defense tools.
Thus, any infringement on an individual's right to keep and bear arms is an infringement on his or her natural human rights.
Personally, guns are tools that enable me to best protect myself and those that I love from certain types of physical harm.
Furthermore, they afford this same great equalizing capability to many other ordinary, peaceable individuals as well.
At my core, I love things that enable all individuals to defend their natural rights of life and liberty.
So maybe I can say that I love guns after all. 🙂
As a final thought on this topic, I will leave you with an old adage...
What do you call a slave with a rifle?
Free.
Who Is JStark?
The following is a brief tribute to an individual who is best known by his internet username JStark1809, or just simply JStark.
Remaining mostly anonymous as an online figure, JStark was a pioneer, self-taught inventor, and inspirational leader in the realm of 3D printed firearms, as well as a steadfast advocate for individual Natural Rights.
Seen as a controversial figure by some (okay, probably by most - in the mainstream, that is), we consider him to be exceptionally worthy of respect and celebration.
His username was a reference to the historical figure John Stark, who was a native of the state of New Hampshire in the USA, and a Major General in the Continental Army during the American Revolution. John Stark is most famous for his quote in the year 1809, "Live free or die", which became the state motto of New Hampshire. This was a motto of JStark's as well.
JStark was apparently of Kurdish ethnicity and living in Germany at the time of his death in mid-2021 at the age of 28 years old.
He is quoted as proclaiming, "I am extremely peaceful!"
May his spirit rest in peace.
The following is a short documentary film featuring JStark:
Plastic Defence: Secret 3D Printed Guns in Europe (Link: YouTube - warning for foul language)
The follow are a few of our favorite quotes of JStark from the documentary, which demonstrate his ideology and perspectives on human society, which closely align with our own:
I'm of the opinion that to bear firearms is a human right. The government or the entity that has the rule over you has an executive force. The police, the military - they have firearms. To be able to escape that injustice, they [citizens] need to have the same force on an individual level as the executive force of the government entity that is ruling over them. So this is my ideological reasoning.
I'm of the opinion that freedom and liberty are more important than security, and that's why I'm risking that we have a little bit less of security for the aim of freedom.
So if other people see us as extremists...that's OK. But what I can tell you is, we do not want harm to anyone. We want everyone to live peacefully amongst each other. And we want people to have the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. And if that's too politically extreme for you...f*** yourself.
The point is...the only way that I can guarantee my rights is by being able to protect myself against others who want to take my rights away.
With great power, comes great responsibility, and it is unfair to take away the people's power because you think that they are not worthy of having that power.
I have a responsibility to make sure that everybody has the option to be able to get a gun. The way that they use it is up to them. If they want to do harm, it's on them. And once they've done harm, then they've forfeited their belonging in the peaceful community.
There are extremists out there who are saying extremist phrases and they are inciting hate. They should have freedom of speech. If I do not fight for the freedom of speech of somebody else who I do not agree with, then the next day somebody else will take away my freedom of speech. That's the same idea with the right to bear arms.
It's not about killing somebody. It's about you, yourself, protecting you, yourself, and protecting yourself from tyranny. Just look at the Uyghurs in China. Just look what's happening to them. Nobody's helping them. Nobody does sh*t. You know what would help them? If they we armed. That would be a deterrence.
It's about universal rights...to protect all other human rights, you need something to protect these rights.
So, in summary and in reference to Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged", one may ask:
"Who is JStark?" To which I would answer: "We are!"
Human Privilege
In my last blog entry about my father and the poem "Opportunity" by Edward Rowland Sill, some readers may be inclined to make assumptions about my ethnic origins and label this way of thinking as an example of "white privilege".
However, rather than labeling this mindset and attitude as "white" privilege, I argue that every individual human being in this world should have this type of privilege. I argue that we should all be striving to create a world where all human beings, regardless of origin or status, can experience this type of privilege.
Therefore, this way of thinking should not be known solely as "white privilege", but rather should be known and universally experienced by everyone as "human privilege".
This actually goes to the heart of the principles of Western thought, the Enlightenment, individualism, and Natural Rights.
We are all created equal in dignity and equal in our natural rights as individual human beings.
We are all equally privileged in that way. We all have the power to think like royalty and we all should have the freedom to act like royalty, regardless of whether we were born into that level of worldly privilege or not. I believe that thinking in this way and having the freedom to act in this way is imperative for our well-being and prosperity as individuals and, following from that, imperative for the well-being and prosperity of humanity as a whole.
I believe that forming a society based on the principles of individualism and Natural Rights is the best way to achieve this type of equity and justice for all human beings.
Opportunity
I am blessed to have had a strong, principled, hard-working father. He came from simple roots, growing up as the son of immigrants in a rural area of the United States during the Great Depression. He went on to help fight global tyranny in World War II, self-educate himself, run his own company, and raise a family of six children with my mother.
With all of his success, though, he never let us forget our roots. He and my mother instilled in us a mindset of great personal responsibility, self-reliance, honesty, and high aspiration, and, along with that, an attitude of persistence, determination, resourcefulness, and resilience. This equipped us with the working spirit and necessary faculties to pursue our dreams, discover our ultimate purposes in life, carry out our endeavors, and attempt - to the best of our individual abilities - to accomplish our objectives and achieve our goals...regardless of our situation or the challenges in our way.
My father told the story of giving a speech at his primary school graduation in his small coal mining and farming community. As part of that speech, he recited the poem "Opportunity" by Edward Roland Sill. He introduced that poem to me at an early age and I also recited it at my primary school graduation. I return to it frequently. My dad taught us that - no matter your position in life, regardless of whether you are privileged royalty or not - you should always THINK LIKE THE PRINCE in the poem.
The freedom of self-determination is vital for all human beings. As exemplified in the poem, we as individuals must be able to define our own great causes and then have the mindset and freedom to recognize and seize every opportunity that we are afforded in the battle for those causes...even if our opportunities seem to be less than ideal, less than the opportunities afforded to others, or just outright difficult challenges! Opportunity is founded in our attitude.
My father was not perfect (no one is), but I consider the solid foundation that he provided to be one of the greatest blessings in my life. I have empathy for those who are not as blessed.
I wish to share the wisdom and empowerment of this poem with everyone.
Strength, opportunity, and achievement are truly rooted in attitude and mindset, not in status or environment.
So, no matter who you are, whatever your circumstances, whatever your goals, whatever your opportunities, whatever your challenges... THINK LIKE THE PRINCE.
Opportunity
– Edward Rowland Sill (1841-1887)
This I beheld, or dreamed it in a dream:-
There spread a cloud of dust along a plain;
And underneath the cloud, or in it, raged
A furious battle, and men yelled, and swords
Shocked upon swords and shields. A prince's banner
Wavered, then staggered backward, hemmed by foes.
A craven hung along the battle's edge,
And thought, "Had I a sword of keener steel-
That blue blade that the king's son bears, -but this
Blunt thing-!" He snapped and flung it from his hand,
And lowering crept away and left the field.
Then came the king's son, wounded sore bested,
And weaponless, and saw the broken sword
Hilt-buried in the dry and trodden sand,
And ran and snatched it, and with battle-shout
Lifted afresh he hewed his enemy down
And saved a great cause that heroic day.
Human Beings are Social Animals
As demonstrated throughout our history in the world as the Homo sapiens species, human beings can be observed to be naturally social or communal animals.
This seems to be a universally accepted aspect of the inherent and fundamental nature of our species.
Therefore, I believe - and I think that most would agree - that we as human beings are naturally drawn to living in social groups.
Furthermore, I believe that this is yet another facet of our natural spirit as human beings...that is, I believe that this is how we are naturally "wired" or "programmed" as a species.
Of course, there are individual exceptions to this premise, but I think that few would argue that this is not the case overall.
Various types and levels of social groups and societal conglomerations - everything from families, to clans, to tribes, to civilizations, to nations, to empires - are omnipresent in the history of our existence and have consistently been established since the beginning of our species and across all spans of geography and culture.
Thus, it would seem that this communal temperament was naturally developed, as well as that it has been an important part of our evolution and ability to flourish as a species and, by extension, our ability to thrive as individuals.
So then - given this innate communal nature of our species - a key question from an evolutionary standpoint would seem to be figuring out how we can best live together as individual human beings, such that we continue to maximize the propagation and flourishing of our species.
I believe that the answer to that question is innately programmed into us as well.
In congruence with my previous blog post regarding the existence and nature of a higher spiritual power in the universe, I believe that the answer to that question is, once again, quite simply - love.
As human beings, I believe that, in a spiritual sense, we are naturally called to love ourselves and to love one another.
In the same sense, as also outlined in my previous post, I believe that this spirit of love is synonymous with a spirit of truth, and that love and truth foundationally define and govern our inherent nature as human beings - our natural way of life, if you will.
I do not think that anyone would argue with the assertion that embracing a spirit of love and truth toward ourselves and our fellow human beings is an attitude that can naturally allow us to live together as peacefully as possible with one another, avoid harmful conflict, and thus maximize the potential of our species.
Thus, in converse, it stands to reason that going against this natural way of life can lead to conflict within ourselves and with each other, which is obviously not good for the propagation and flourishing of our species.
I believe that this innate spirit (or attitude) of love and truth, which best enables us to live together and thrive - both as individuals and as a social species - is what most people might simply call "God".
This is why human beings throughout history and across diverse cultures have always sought - or have even been compelled, as some might suggest - to contemplate and/or believe in the existence of a "God" or "gods", or more generally speaking, to identify and understand the spiritual aspects of our universe.
Because our intrinsic nature as human beings is to live together in social groups, and because all human relationships involve some sort of spiritual or attitudinal aspect, it makes sense that we might also have an innate calling as a species to try to understand and define the spiritual aspects of our universe and our human nature that would enable us to live together most effectively.
As described in my previous blog post, these spiritual aspects of the universe and human nature can be defined as any variety of forces, powers, or beings, etc. that are not able to be perceived or measured with our five human biological senses or by any other physical means within the realm of what we know and understand to be the physical world.
However, as also mentioned, any of these various spiritual entities could be manifested in the physical realm...that is, the effects of these spiritual forces, powers, or beings, etc. can be displayed in the physical world and observed by our human biological senses, especially as they relate to our interactions as human beings.
Therefore, with regard to the propagation and flourishing of our species, it would be in our best interest to understand and embrace those spiritual aspects of our intrinsic nature as human beings that can enable us to live together most successfully.
In light of all of this, organized religions could essentially be viewed as collective attempts by human beings to define and structure the philosophical knowledge of these various spiritual aspects of ourselves and the universe in approachable and understandable ways, such that individuals are able to straightforwardly apply the knowledge of these spiritual forces, powers, beings, etc. to their everyday lives in the physical world.
Furthermore, monotheistic religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, etc., outline systems of belief that are based on the existence of one fundamental, overarching, omnipotent, supreme spiritual being, power, or force in the universe, and they typically refer to that one spiritual being, power, or force simply as "God".
I do not think that it is a difficult philosophical stretch for anyone to acknowledge that if we, as human beings, conduct our lives in alignment with a spirit of love and truth (regardless of whether one refers to that spirit as "God" or not), we can enable ourselves to live together in greater harmony and, thus, best contribute to the flourishing of our species.
Of course, the extraordinarily more difficult and complex part of that emerges when we try to define what living in "alignment with a spirit of love and truth" actually means in terms of practical application in our daily lives!
As such, this is a fundamental and beneficial role that organized religions play in our society, in that they attempt to define and structure the application and practice of spirituality in the daily lives of individual human beings.
However, because organized religions are human institutions in the physical world - and because human beings and the physical world are not 100% perfect - any and all organized religions are not 100% perfect either.
Nonetheless, the key points are: 1) that human beings are naturally social animals, and 2) that love is the innate spirit within all of us that enables us to live together in such a way that we continue to maximize the propagation and flourishing of our species.
I believe that this innate spirit of love is what many, if not most, people simple reference as "God".
Higher Spiritual Power
Alternate title: God Is An Attitude
I have a science and engineering background. Further to that, this seems reflect how my mind operates naturally. Even before my formal education and technical training, I have always interpreted the world through this type of lens, and so, as might be expected, I naturally tend to approach everything from a rational point of view with logic and reason.
Personally speaking, I am also naturally drawn to trying to understand things in their simplest and most basic terms - thinking and reasoning from first principles, in other words. This is how my mind likes to process things. For example, in understanding complex technological systems, I always try to boil them down to their fundamental elements and understand them in terms of the most basic principles of physics.
I also naturally apply this approach to my understanding of other things as well, such as human nature, politics, and philosophy.
This brings me to quite possibly the ultimate philosophical contemplation of human beings: the existence of God.
As many people do, I struggled with this contemplation throughout my life. Mainly, with my science and engineering background, I struggled to understand the concept of God in physical terms...within the realm of science and the physical world.
I wanted to believe by faith, but just could not reconcile the apparent disconnect between this spiritual belief and what we know and understand to be the physical world. I could fully acknowledge that there have been many other scientific and philosophical minds throughout history and in modern times - great thinkers who are orders of magnitude smarter than me - that have concluded the existence of God, but nothing seemed to settle my own personal debate.
Then finally, I was able to settle my own debate with a personal breakthrough in how I thought about and perceived the challenging concept of a "spiritual being". With this simple shift in my understanding of this concept, connected with some of the most basic principles from Christian scripture, I was able boil down my understanding of the concept of God into a simple framework in a way that worked for me. As such, I have been able to reconcile my own personal belief.
Some may view my personal insights into God and spirituality as relatively unsophisticated or overly simplistic. Regarding this, from my perspective, if one looks at the many complex systems in the physical realm, such as those related to energy, matter, and time, the basic formulas and fundamental principles behind these systems boil down to very simple comprehensive laws and equations (e.g. conservation of energy, F = ma, E = mc2, etc.)
As with many people, my own spiritual understanding and development is a personal, ongoing, and ever-evolving process.
Nonetheless, I would like to share my simple framework of belief at this point with you here. If this helps just one person in their own personal contemplation of spiritual belief, I would consider that a great blessing.
I believe in a higher spiritual power in the universe.
By higher spiritual power, I mean that I believe in a fundamental force in the universe that is beyond what we can perceive or measure with our five human biological senses or by any other physical means within the realm of what we know and understand to be the physical world - a transcendent or supernatural power, if you will.
I believe that this power exists in another dimension apart from what we understand and experience as the physical universe.
I believe that this power exists in a realm that is almost incomprehensible to the human mind...one that is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial - a spiritual realm, that is to say.
However, I believe that this spiritual power can manifest itself in the physical world.
Furthermore, I believe that this spiritual power constitutes the all-encompassing fundamental formula or pattern that underlies and defines the entire universe, including what we know, understand, and experience as the physical realm.
I believe that the nature of this higher spiritual power is good.
I believe that this spiritual power is, literally, love.
I believe that love is the way, love is the truth, and love is the life.
I believe that this constitutes the construct of our natural spirit as human beings.
I believe that human beings are a manifestation of this spirit.
I believe that this spirit defines and governs our inherent and fundamental nature as human beings.
In other words, this is how we are naturally "wired" or "programmed" as human beings.
I believe that understanding and aligning with this intrinsic nature supports our well-being as individuals, along with supporting the well-being of human society as a whole.
I believe that conflict occurs when we go against this natural spirit.
I believe that evil is the absence of this natural spirit.
Therefore, evil is not a power unto itself, but rather the absence of the spirit of love. This is analogous to darkness being the absence of light. Darkness is not a power unto itself, but rather the absence of the power of light.
I believe that human beings are endowed with a free will and, as such, may to choose to either align with or go against this natural spirit of love.
I believe that going against this natural spirit is harmful to our well-being as individuals and harmful to the well-being of human society as a whole.
I believe that only the spirit of love itself is 100% perfect.
Therefore, I believe that the physical world is not 100% perfect.
Thus, as human beings in the physical world, I believe that we are also not perfect.
I believe that only in choosing the spirit of love may we become perfect.
However, with our free will and inherent imperfection as human beings in the physical world, I believe that we are prone to going against our natural spirit, and are thus prone to engaging in and propagating evil, conflict, and corruption in the world.
Nonetheless, I believe that free will is a key component of our natural spirit as human beings, and though on the surface may seem to be contradictory or counterproductive to the goal of a harmonious human society, I believe that the freedom of individual human beings - that is, the ability to live and act of our own free will - is an essential component to human flourishing in the world.
Many people refer to this higher spiritual power as God.
I believe that the following are equivalent and completely interchangeable:
• God
• Love
• The way
• The truth
• The life
I believe that God is a spiritual being.
However, when I think of this concept of a spirit, I do not think of it in terms of being like a "ghost" or anything with a humanlike or other physical form, but rather in terms of being like an attitude.
Thinking of a spiritual being in the conceptual terms of an attitude was a pivotal breakthrough for me in my comprehension of the possible existence of God, as it provided a key insight and perspective to understanding the almost incomprehensible concept of a spiritual realm that is distinct from the physical realm.
Objectively speaking, attitudes can certainly be considered to be "real" - they exist in our minds as human beings and we are aware of them through our consciousness in the physical universe.
And though we connect with attitudes primarily within the consciousnesses of our minds, attitudes also have the power to manifest themselves in our physical being and in our physical interactions with others and world around us.
Hence, attitudes can manifest themselves in the physical world; however, attitudes themselves are purely spiritual in nature, in that they are not bound by the limits of the physical world, but rather are timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.
Further to that point, as conscious human beings, we can freely choose an attitude - overall and in any given situation - regardless of the constraints of the physical world.
Thus, with this conceptual framing in mind, I think that God is, quite literally, an attitude of love and truth.
Therefore, if I make God the governing principle in my life, I should always try to approach everyone and everything that I do with an attitude of love and truth.
In doing this, I am striving to live in alignment with my natural spirit, as well as with the natural spirit of the universe.
Because I believe that this natural spirit is 100% perfect, I am thus striving for my own personal spiritual perfection.
Continuing on this concept, as already mentioned, the terms "God", "truth", and "love" are completely synonymous to me.
Thus, the idea of "living my life for God", "living my life for truth", and "living my life for love" are all ways of saying the same thing.
So for me, the concept of God can be fully summarized in the following sentence:
Love and truth are the way of life.
Or even more simply:
Love = the way = the truth = the life
In the Christian Bible, Jesus teaches two primary commandments for human beings: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself."
Because God and love are equivalent and completely interchangeable in my thinking, I believe that Jesus is simply teaching us that our ultimate goal as human beings is to have love be the governing principle in our lives, and that we should pursue that goal with every aspect of our being.
Thus, in this context, the formula for our well-being as individuals, as well as the formula for all human beings to live together harmoniously in this world, is really very simple - we all must strive to make a spirit of love (truth, life, etc.) our primary underlying approach to everyone, including ourselves, and to everything that we do in life.
So when you boil it down, this is really all we need to know, understand, and align with as human beings to support our own individual well-being, along with the well-being of human society as a whole.
Even more simply put, if we understand the term "God" to be synonymous with the spirit of love, truth, and life:
We must strive to make God central to ourselves as individuals and central to human society as a whole.
Simple, right?! 😃
I believe that the following are also equivalent and completely interchangeable:
• God
• Jesus (aka Christ, Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, Lord, Savior, Son of God)
• The Holy Spirit
I believe that God is a general term used to refer to the spirit of love in the universe.
I believe that God the Father is an identity given to the overarching spirit of love in the universe, which Christians believe is exemplified by the spirit of a loving father. This is why the pronoun He is commonly used in reference to God.
I believe that Jesus is an actual historical figure who was 100% human and also 100% embodied the natural spirit of love (that is, he was also 100% God).
I believe that the Holy Spirit is a term used to refer to the spirit of love within ourselves and the spirit of love that we share between each other as human beings in the world. Thus, the Holy Spirit is also 100% the spirit of love and, thus, 100% God.
This is how we form the concept of "three persons in one God". They are not really "persons" in my thinking, but rather three different manifestations of the one true and perfect natural spirit of love in the universe.
Because God is literally the spirit (or attitude) of love, God can be everywhere at once.
In the book of Matthew in the Christian Bible, Jesus teaches, "...where two or three have gathered together in my name, I am there in their midst." (Matthew 18:20)
Another way to think about this is that if two or more people are gathered together in a spirit of love (or kindness, or truth, or joy, or cooperation, etc.) as fellow human beings, the spirit of love (i.e. God) is present there among them.
