Wednesday, January 25, 2012

The Biggest Lie

Last night, Obama gave us the ultimate lie - placing him in the category of Hitler - the biggest lie possible to tell Americans. He justified collectivism - "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - with all his moral ammunition (it's right, it's fair) and called it "All American."*

If you believe this and allow it to happen, you will have no choice but be reduced to beggar and perhaps, cannon fodder. (Oh yes, there will always be pretenders.) Obamacare, if allowed to stand, will make this real for many of us. You may be forced to give your diamond ring for medicine or a procedure for your husband, your child, your parent or yourself. And when you do, there will be no guarantee you will not be giving it to a crook who sees there is money to be made from these bribes. Read "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" for a play-by-play of how society unfolds once it no longer honors the individual and forces everyone to honor the collective. (For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand, hb, p121. - this excerpt is from Atlas Shrugged.)

What is the nature of this evil? The essential evil is that man is blocked from using his mind for producing what he needs to live - by the standard of his own life which is fueled by his values. Evil demands he live for the collective. And because of that single thing, he no longer cares to build anything. He turns into a slacker and doesn't give a shit. Morality means nothing because there is no practical application for it. At that point he gives up and accepts the system, but, he may not work to forward it.

If he accepts the system and works to rise in it, he becomes a cannibal, living off the moral energy of his fellow man. That is, he lives off the people who still believe that collectivism is valid and produce some kind of believable evidence for that possibility. When that runs out, it is every man for himself as the society is reduced to complete cynicism. Man finds himself trapped.

Although he still tries to live for himself because he is designed such, he loses himself because it is the collective's requirements that he internalizes. The connection between his own life's energy which are his individual values and why he does what he does is severed. He's thwarted at every turn. This propels him to an alternative: he is forced to dominate or be dominated, eat or be eaten. To even consider living for himself produces intense anxiety and so he's at risk of the whim of the dictator to be used as he sees fit - ala Guyana or Mao's Wars or Hitler's Wars or Stalin's mass murders, etc.

When will you get that Obama is without doubt an evil con man, a man of the lie.** We have to fight the menace he is perpetrating with every moral argument and every ounce of energy we have . It's now or never for America. I don't think there is any doubt that Obama and company will attempt to reduce America to a totalitarian state. Already he cares nothing for the Constitution and as far as he is concerned, his will, and the narrative which is getting so thin that it is worthless, is all that matters. Some of the paragraphs in his State of the Union Speech are unintelligible, so self-contradictory that if reason has any place in your mind, you might think Obama has devolved to a state of insanity. (I read where he was angry and narcissistic toward Governor Brewer of AZ because she was not cordial to Obama in her book about Arizona's situation. That is a man who is seriously run by personal issues and his will, and marks a "leader" who has lost any sense of purpose that involves the real problems that are to be solved. Whether one is cordial or not is not an argument for or against a particular result unless one is operating in the world of dominate or be dominated.) 2013 could be that year because that is when Obamacare comes into play, doctors will be quitting in droves and lots of things will come apart at the seams.

*Thanks to Robert Villegas for facilitating this condensation.
**See Scott Peck's book, People of the Lie, a study of evil.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Pay Attention Now

Saturday's result in South Carolina tells me everything I need to know to get a person off the couch and to the voting booth.

Here's an article that appeared in American Thinker written by C. Edmund Wright. It is spot on as to what to zero in on that is going on in the country right now. After my republishing it here, I add my comment.

January 22, 2012
Psst: Hear the Roar and Pay Attention
By C. Edmund Wright

After Thursday's debate was over in Charleston, I assumed that Newt had not only survived the Marianne episode, but had benefitted from it. I also figured he would win S.C. and that Santorum would fade as a challenger to him. Everyone I knew who saw the debate reached this same conclusion.

Yet as incredible as it may seem, all day Friday we were treated to multiple reviews from members of the conservative media on how Rick Santorum "won" the Thursday night debate in Charleston and that how this would help him in South Carolina. Dick Morris flatly proclaimed that Santorum did so well he might sweep in and take second from Newt Gingrich. Morris also predicted this would mean a S.C. win and nomination for Mitt Romney.

Terrence Jeffrey also proudly proclaimed a big Santorum win in the debate. On the Rush Limbaugh Show, the host refused to give his analysis, but mentioned multiple times that his personal email caucus was swept by the Pennsylvania Senator. Charles Krauthammer, meanwhile, admitted that Newt won it "in the first three minutes" but that Santorum had a very strong night after that.

And I'm thinking: what debate did these folks watch? Do they not pay attention to the crowd reaction? Do they not know what it indicates? Admittedly, Santorum got off some attacks that might have seemed like good hits, but they fell flat in the hall. Newt dominated crowd reaction, Mitt was a pretty clear second in that regard and of course Ron Paul's crowd was the few, the proud, the loud.

Santorum? All he got were those little polite 'golf claps' when someone out of contention taps in a bogey putt. Pay attention. This means the attacks Rick was selling were not being bought.

And where did the crowd roar? They roared when some premise of liberalism or some particular liberal was taken apart. No Republican on Republican crime was rewarded. Even Mitt, no favorite of the red meat crowd, got his loudest moments when he finally decided to support capitalism with some fervor. Newt of course got the big reaction over the week by attacking liberal members of the media who were either attacking conservative beliefs on the whole (Juan Williams and the race card) or protecting Obama by attacking Republicans' personal lives (John King).

The math is clear. While negative ads can be effective if run in huge numbers -- as in Iowa -- what the voters are craving in the debates and on the stump is someone who can look liberals squarely in the eye and tell them why we are right and they are wrong. The American conservative base has had to put up with being called stupid, racist, greedy and unfair for decades by not only the Democrats but the vast majority of the media. The pent up frustration of these decades is magnified by the fact that George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush and John McCain would not or perhaps could not confront this.

In fact, rare is the Republican candidate at any level who refuses to put up with this and fights back. When they do, they become sensations. Even Chris Christie and Donald Trump -- neither one a real conservative -- earned the love of the Republican base by simply deigning to fight back. Marco Rubio and Allen West are far more popular and well known than they have any right to be simply because they refuse to accept the argument on liberals' terms. They fight. They elicit the roar.

Which brings us back to the crowd roar in South Carolina. In Myrtle Beach and Charleston combined, there were probably 3-4 thousand folks total in attendance. Now while that is not significant in and of itself -- consider that every day we look at polls with far fewer folks and consider them gospel truth on everything from elections to mouthwash. In other words, my assumption was that those few thousand folks are indeed a darned good cross section of Republican voters across South Carolina and in fact the country. It wasn't the few thousand who rose to give Newt his standing ovations per se, it's that there were probably hundreds of thousands cheering at their television sets across the nation as well. That something like 60% of all likely voters in South Carolina did watch those debates was merely confirmation of just how important the crowd reaction should be assumed.

Yet the elites ignored the roar. After all, the roar came from the unwashed. It came from the fans of cockfights. It came from tea party folks and other such rabble. Inside the sterile cable studios and on their laptops, the pundits scored their debate and their election prospects without the roar. They have their little formulas about who has to raise doubts here and who has to score points there.

What they don't understand is what the roar means.

The roar is passion. The roar is intensity. The roar is pent up frustration. The roar, put another way, is the national mood of conservatives. It is a roar that will demand a fighter. It will demand that those who want our votes must not cower in the face of the liberal template. If fact, it is a roar that demands that we do not accept any liberal templates.

That's why Newt has gotten all the roars, and why he has vaulted into serious contention only days after being written off. Anyone else who wants the roar should heed the lesson. The roar comes only at the expense of liberals and liberalism. You won't get the roar attacking others on the stage. Tell your consultants to take a hike if they tell you otherwise.

That roar was an easy predictor of what would happen Saturday night in South Carolina. I knew it and everyone I know knew it late Thursday night. And it was. Seems like no one inside the beltway got it. Until Saturday evening.

My Comment:

The Republicans have a lot to learn and the Democrats have even more to learn. The people of the United States want to be treated as individuals who possess values which they are pursuing and that is what is valid. The fight back aspect of this is that Obama and his socialist nation b.s. is not what we want. That is what the Tea Party was all about; that is what that million or almost-a-million man march on Washington was all about; and that is what the 2010 election was about. We listen for the value that we, each individual American, is recognize as important and given value in the politics of this nation. Although it hasn't come down to a front and center fight over who controls one's life - one's self or the government on behalf of the collective - it's going to get to that. The fact that we possess inalienable individual rights is the heart and soul of two things - it puts the power of each individual where it belongs by nature's demand, and it names the doctrine which allows us to live in this country together and get along.

The reason Newt got me out of my chair cheering is because he's not putting up with the b.s. which does everything to displace the real power in this country. We don't like it and we are not having it. It's as simple as that. You can go to a lot of other places in the world to pull that, but it isn't happening here. Anything that touches into that mother lode of value gets a person out of his seat.

And it will get him to the voting booth.

A politician or pundit who tries to get around this is arrogant. He thinks he knows better. He thinks if he can get the power, he can siphon your energy for his purposes. No, he doesn't and no, he can't. (Atlas Shrugged taught us one thing. Producers hold the trump card and have the final say. A government man holds a gun, but he can't feed himself.) The Mr. Arrogants are not listening to what we are listening for. Instead he's running his mouth, whining or talking about narrower values or combing his hair, thinking we are buying some kind of image - anything but listening.


This is pretty cute - and part of what is going on.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

What's Wrong With Romney?

Every time people are thinking they might have to accept Romney, someone comes along and moves ahead of him. This has happened enough that it is now time to put the finger on what it is that Romney can't do and because of that, can't inspire people to follow him. None of us want to follow him by default.

Romney cannot access his passion. Given that his dad was a politician, my suspicion is he was reared in an environment that fostered compromise. He has it written all over him and his record is a testament to it.

The people are in no mood for compromise. In fact, quite the contrary. This is the year when nothing short of full battle regalia will do. Chuck Norris says, "We need a veteran of political war who has already fought Goliath."

When Romney speaks, we hear, "Yes, Mr. Obama. I understand and like socialized medicine too." They don't hear "Hell no, Obama! That program violates everyone's rights including the so-called beneficiaries, and it destroys the health industry. How many slaves do you need? And all so you can buy votes, you damn creep." Romney is not one to pick a place to stand and tell the world it's going his way, thereby attracting followers. He fishes not by offering the moral bait which the fish will happily strike at, but by calling to the fishes, "Here fishy, fishy, fishy."

The bait which attracts the people with the red blood, not blue blood, in their arteries goes something like this: "I will protect your individual rights, which by the design of nature, are yours by right and without which you cannot be fully human. I will be your champion to go out and make a living anyway you want - all so long as you do not violate your countryman's same rights. I envision a nation where we live together and trade our values for mutual benefit. I know that all you and I need is for government to get out of the way. We must reduce government's heavy-handed, unprincipled, unjust, taking-care-of-favorites intrusion (popularly known as corruption) into every aspect of our lives. If any of government's employees have good ideas to provide for people's needs, great. Let them get out there on their own to see if they can make them work - just like the rest of us. There is no us and them. There is but one people - all equal under nature's law and man's laws."

Do you get that Romney has drawn any kind of line? Do you get that he knows the difference between what works and doesn't work in the domain of a principled and just government? Or do you think he's open to compromise - on anything? Do you think he understands that any socialist principle no matter how seemingly minor is toxic and leads to further degradation of the society? Does he get that an individual man is always the final authority in his own life and that a government who doesn't protect that is anti-man and anti-life, no matter what lies are told to the contrary?

I don't.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

What is The Moral?

This republished from The Order of the Heldhigh Torch website where it was published today.

The moral in human life pertains to the life force – that force within every living thing to continue living. But in humans, it pertains to the life force in a specific way because of the nature of human consciousness.

Man’s consciousness frees him from the automaticity of survival to which all living things with a simpler form of consciousness are destined. The reason is that man’s form of consciousness is conceptual. A conceptual form of consciousness is able to categorize existents by their qualities in such a way that it allows man to recombine things and create things that do not exist in nature. E.g., if a man seeks shelter, he can build a house. Although a bird can build a nest, it does so within the confines of its instincts, a form of automatic, wired-in knowledge. Man, on the other hand, can do that by recombining what he finds in nature into some new form.

To be able to do this, he uses his capacity to choose among alternatives. So, he is, by his nature, thrust into evaluating and choosing, evaluating and choosing, until he creates the value that satisfies his need. He could choose according to what feels good or appropriate in that moment, or he can consider his choice based on what he knows about the effects of his choice on his future. “Will I satisfy my hunger if I eat this plant?” Say the answer is yes. “OK then, will the plant nourish me or poison me?” Now the man is concerned with something beyond the immediate – his future. If he can answer, nourish me, then he can eat the plant, satisfying his physical need and his mind’s need, which only his mind by using reason can answer.

The moral pertains to the needs of consciousness in service of sustaining one’s life. What are the needs of consciousness? The purpose of consciousness, metaphysically, is to perceive existence for the purpose of gaining information so that the living entity may live. The needs of consciousness are anything that supports keeping that faculty able to fulfill its purpose. That can range from making a sound financial decision to listening to a symphony. The moral is concerned with the effects of one’s choices and actions to be able to sustain one’s life over time.

Man chooses. He can commit suicide – i.e., choose to die rather than live. So how a man assesses his himself and his future is crucial to his continued living. The moral is concerned with man having a future for which he wants to live. Every fact, every principle, of morality is for this purpose.

On the other hand, the immoral is to not be concerned with having a future for which he wants to live.

There is only one thing one has to do to avail himself of this area of knowledge: choose to live. Otherwise, it is of no concern. Choosing to live means choosing to think – to ask questions, evaluate and intellectually conclude so that one can make good existential choices for one’s life. Choosing to live means to be responsible for the contents of one’s mind. Choosing to live means to know how you identify a value and question whether or not it is one that forwards your life and has you want your future. Choosing to live means being concerned with a moral code – a set of principles which you live by and which support you to make the choices that do support your continued looking forward to life.

All of these are important additional topics that fall within the domain of life we call the moral.

So, does this clear up what the moral is? What it is concerned with? Why it is important?

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Man's Rights

February 2, a month from now, is Ayn Rand's birthday. For a blog on liberty, her quote is especially appropriate at this crossroad for Americans' liberty:

"You cannot say that 'man has inalienable rights except in an emergency,' or 'man's rights cannot be violated except for a good purpose.' Either man's rights are inalienable, or they are not. You cannot say a thing such as 'semi-inalienable' and consider yourself either honest or sane. When you begin making conditions, reservations and exceptions, you admit that there is something or someone above man's rights, who may violate them at his discretion." —Ayn Rand

My attention to this quote is because of an entry posted on Facebook by The Objective Standard. Thank you, Craig Biddle.