Entitlement

Make America Great Again! …even if we don’t.

Behold!  I have come out of hibernation, and have decided that it is time to get my write on.  It’s been a busy year, and you’d think that it would have been my busiest year ever as far as blogging is concerned, but no– I took a break, that turned into a year-long sabbatical.  There was plenty to write about in the realm of the race debate too, but alas, the motivation just wasn’t there for me.  So, to the few of you who do follow regularly, I appreciate the support you gave me while I was going strong.  Perhaps recent events will reignite that spark I once had.

But on to other things.  Let’s talk about Trump, and why he’s a breath of fresh air (GASP!– yes, a breath of fresh air). (more…)

The unholy faults of loaded questions

I came across something on Facebook today, linked from a friend, but its content was not as important as its overall message.  To further clarify, I need not link this article here for the purpose of this post is to highlight its underlying (and false) message more than to nitpick a single example.  Beyond that, the article- from its title through its content- was far from unique.  In fact a quick Google search of the article’s title returns nearly 8 million hits– many of which share the exact same title, from different authors, on behalf of different organizations, and from various years.  The articles seek to answer a seemingly simple question:  “Was Jesus a socialist?”

One could take such a question and run with it in a number of directions.  The answer could come from the standpoint of Jesus as a divine being, the son of God, a pacifying and unifying resource of all mankind, and a practitioner of many miracles.  Or, an answer to the question could be derived from an entirely secular perspective– Jesus was a man who has a place in history; a man who led others in many admirable ways, but nonetheless he was a man of flesh and blood more than he was a descendant of the heavens.

Regardless, the perspective by which Jesus is examined within the scope of the question begins with a fundamentally flawed, dangerous, and dishonest premise: that Jesus’ actions, in any way whatsoever, resembled that of socialism in practice.  The point of such articles these days is not to examine the nature by which Jesus practiced charity and grace, rather, their point is to link the concept of socialism with that same charity and selflessness.  This, of course, is a bold-faced lie.

Now, modern socialists often seek to separate the tenets of socialism from the grievances so often witnessed by those societies who have chosen to practice it.  The shift from preaching the supposed goodness of socialism as a political and governmental framework was necessary since socialism has not, and nor will it ever produce results that coincide with the words or good deeds of Jesus whether they be holy or human.  Socialism in practice has never required anything more than the energy of human souls, the sapping of said souls, and the closure of that bond with the loss of life for millions.  There is no connection to socialism practiced by modern man for what Jesus practiced was charity; it required nothing in return but the same good intentions, while socialism requires nothing but a follower’s eventual death when they have nothing left to bring to the table (and in the case of socialism, the only thing brought to the table was labor).

The problem with preaching socialism as charity today is that it operates under a few entirely false assumptions.  One, it makes the assumption that even in the event that all of a human being’s basic survival needs are met, that contention cannot arise; that simply being able to breathe, eat, sleep, and wake up to do it all over again is enough for the average man or woman so long as everyone else gets to experience the same comfort.  This is both unnatural and in its own way inhumane.  In a very subtle way, if you consider wealth as the necessary constant behind being able to accomplish all of those things (the tools for such outcomes need to be paid for somehow), the successful practice of socialism requires one to worship nothing more than something with monetary value.  Of course this only makes sense when one allows themselves to consider that things other than coins and printed bills maintain a monetary value, but the idea behind socialism at its core is that individual wealth simply does not matter– the wealth of the sum is more important than the fact that its moving parts have none.  In actuality, submission to socialism’s ideals require its practitioners to assign a dollar amount- whether theoretical or explicit- to the activities that drive one’s inner peace, allowing them to breathe, eat, sleep and wake up with the exact same goals as the family next door.

This is nothing more than abject ignorance of the innate individuality of mankind; its uniqueness as an entity capable of reason, within the animal kingdom.  The question of whether or not Jesus was a socialist is not only illogical, it is dishonest for it links socialism to all that is good- that it is in some way “Christ-like”.

While the ideals of Christ as taught in the Bible throughout multiple denominations of Christianity, or as taught in lessons of the history of mankind, are all admirable ideals and things people of all walks of life would be nothing but rewarded for emulating, such ideals are not present in socialism as we know it.  It is one thing to speak of socialism as a personal choice as a brand of human interaction in a world removed from profits and losses– an other way of saying that one is “charitable”.  Should one describe themselves as a “socialist” while they simply practice charity in the same manner in which Jesus did, there is of course no harm done.  But socialism, in practice among those who have built nations and led man under it, has never been charitable.  It knows nothing but taking, even when it appears as if it is giving.

The question posed by the hundreds, or thousands, of these seemingly innocent authors (and some are) who pop up in Google has evolved from the explicit promotion of socialism as a good replacement for modern capitalism in free societies and democracy– that tactic died with the radical feminist movement of the 60s and 70s.  It has moved on from promoting socialism as a means of perpetuating personal growth and having a stake in the care of your neighbor– that tactic died with the hippies.  What these questions seek to do is take the concept of progressive, modern policy— little more than heavy-handed government edicts which create mirages of growth and stability (often called “progress”)– and link them to being Christ-like.  The medium in which that portrait gets painted is “socialism”.  The question, and ones thesis, paired with tales of Jesus’ charitable works and behavior paints socialism in a rosy, loving shade.  This serves as the fuel which ignites the engine that drives progressive policy and seeks to normalize it as a routine aspect of common and good interactions between human beings.

Unfortunately it is under this guise that the public allows itself to believe that this month’s “record” low unemployment rate is representative of an accurate statistic when it cannot be; it enables the public to ignore the fact that under this nation’s own anointed one, its harbinger of change that was to finally bridge our racial gap, that minorities are poorer and less-employed than they have ever been in recent decades.  None of the realities that so often prevail as the result of socialist policy are apparent for they are over-shadowed by falsehoods in spoken and written words, and by an idea that doesn’t exist: that those who pull the strings of the puppet do so for the good of the puppet- that socialism is the underlying part of democracy which gives it a human touch.  A loving touch, and a grace that compares with Jesus’ washing of his disciples’ feet.

The question about Jesus and socialism is loaded from the get-go, and for a reason.  No one ever really recognizes that reason; perhaps not even those who seek to answer the very question themselves with their articles.  This is, after all, the nature of progressive ideology– it lies beneath the surface under the shroud of empathy, driven by purity.  Like Bill De Blasio told New York City before he became its mayor, a progressive wave is “in their DNA”.  Except progressivism, like socialism, defies what is in a human being’s DNA and the proof is evidenced by the millions who have taken their last breaths prematurely because of it.  Progressivism might be present within human beings at times, but it comes in the form of a unique cancer that is not only malignant, but becomes contagious once it has metastasized.

Progressivism, as with socialism, takes more than it will ever give, and all too often what it gives is little more than a death sentence of both the spirit of the human heart, and that same heart in the flesh.  Jesus, in any form, wouldn’t have anything to do with that.

Oh look, another reason for progressives to tell you what you should be thinking!

Well, it’s June, and since Donald Sterling’s racist comments are sooo last month, progressives scrambled to find the next thing to bitch about and man have they found it.  What important national-level issue did they choose?  Berghdahl?  The IRS?  Unemployment?  Nah, The Washington Redskins, naturally.

I’ll start this by pointing out that I’m precisely 0% Native American.  That makes me ten-times more Native American than Elizabeth Warren though.  I remember when I was a kid, with the purchase of a Value Meal at McDonald’s, that you could score a VHS of Dances with Wolves for $2– I think I watched it once, which also makes me more Native American than Elizabeth Warren.  Why is it important to highlight how “Native American I am” to preface this discussion?  Beats me, but I’ve seen a few articles around the web recently where an author’s “cred” was validated by the percentage of Native American blood they had.

warren_ind2

Yeah, I don’t get it either.

I’ll spare the usual talk about how there are plenty of Native Americans out there (actual ones) who don’t give two damns about the Redskin mascot, and the discussions about where the name for the team actually came from.  It’s been discussed, over and over again, and at great length.  It’s boring already, and progressives have a solid track record with regard to how little they care about any kind of counterargument that might knock them off the waaaaaambulance they’ve been riding in for about four or five decades now.  So instead of talking about a bunch of cultural factors that I don’t really give a shit about, I’ll just use this time to talk about how the bansheeing over the Redskins name is the epitome of progressivism.

I’ll ask this question again, as I’ve done in the past:  if everything was going well in the country, what would a progressive be left with?  What about the progressive ideology, and the “progress” it claims to make, ever leaves room for things to simply be good, or even good enough?  Without thinking everything is miserable, does a progressive opinion even exist?  If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?  We needed healthcare reform NOW, because healthcare sucks and only served to make “corporations” wealthier; we need immigration reform NOW, because even though there’s barely a job to be found in today’s market, illegals will do the jobs (that suck) that Americans won’t; we need some kind of undefined reform NOW because of income inequality, and because no CEO ever earned, or worked towards the millions of dollars they make or anything silly like that (and because they suck); we need to change the name of a sports team NOW because it’s racist, and racism sucks, and because–

No.

People might be jumping on the bandwagon in calling for the Redskin name to be changed because of “racism” (quotes necessary), but the progressive politicians leading the movement don’t really care about that.  If they did, they’d stop targeting minorities for votes as they condemn them to poverty– something they’ll never cease doing so long as it returns nearly 100% support in every election, without fail.  If they really cared about race more than they do about creating race wars, they would have made a new hashtag on Twitter for every one of the thousands of young, black, American men and women who died as a result of gang or gun-related violence between Trayvon Martin’s death and the Zimmerman not-guilty verdict.

The reason why the Redskins name has become such a hot topic is because a progressive will never, ever, allow the chance to dictate how people should think, live, act, or feel to slip through their greasy, thieving hands.  They already spend most of their time putting those hands in your pockets, and now they’re putting them in your brain.

Has anyone ever noticed how it’s always old, white, and liberal politicians who spend their time telling us what we’re thinking, and how much those thoughts bug groups of people they have absolutely nothing in common with?  Yeah, we get it, politicians are supposed to stand up for and speak for the people– all people– and be their voice.  They’re supposed to be on the “level” of the people, and for whatever reason people are pretty convinced these days that the nation’s Democrats have somehow done that better than Republicans while they both spend their weekends launching yachts from their backyards and eating oysters.  I’ll believe that politicians are on the same “level” as the people when they start sending their children to the same schools we send ours to.

How many national, prime-time commercials denouncing the Redskins name did you see on television last year?  The year before?  In the early 2000s?  Earlier?  None.  And that’s probably because at the time, tribal nations either didn’t care, or they didn’t have progressives funneling money to them to spend on multi-million dollar, 30-second commercial spots during the NBA Finals.

No one asks these questions, but the celebrations for pitiful, cowardly, and do-nothing examples of “progress” (like the Redskins trademark getting canceled earlier this week) go on for weeks.  Even if we assume that the Redskin logo is in fact racist, or that the team’s owner is a racist, do you think progressives care about changing the people behind that supposed racism more than they do covering it up and pretending it’s “mission accomplished”?  Of course not.  As with any and all things progressive, all that matters is how much people see you being a progressive.  The results don’t matter nearly as much as the “look at me” factor, and the pats on the back you earn from the like-minded, progressive friends sitting next to you in the drum circle.

Progressivism

I’m a Giants fan, so really I couldn’t care any less about the well-being of the Redskins than I already do– I hope the team experiences a future of NFL misery and many more long, and painful years of pitiful performance– but I will defend their owner’s resilience when it comes to the egregious and mind-controlling nature of America’s lacktivists and the puppeteers in DC who control their subsidized, Silver-Plan strings.