Slave Symbolism, on the rocks, hold the revisionist history.

I know at a first glance much of what I write makes me seem like the most arrogant, right-wing nut job on earth, but that simply isn’t the case.  I allude to being of the opinion that Republicans have their issues just as any Democrat, and I stand by that, but the focus of this site is to point out the hypocrisy, ignorance, and lies behind the race debate.  I also know that leftists would wholeheartedly disagree with me (and I don’t give a shit, that’s why I’m writing in the first place), but the Republicans’ problem with regard to race has absolutely nothing to do with what is portrayed in the media, in books, in academia, or in anything in-between.  In that regard, I have no choice but to focus on the left side of the aisle when I refuse to accept or believe the mantra that they somehow went from slave master to masters of equality after passing some legislation (which they spent over a decade filibustering, by the way).

The problem Republicans have- and have had since around the time of Reagan- is one of giving up on trying to secure the black vote…not because of the political consequences of failing to do so, but because it would have been both morally and ethically just from an historical perspective to do everything in their power to win it back from the left.  Republicans freed the slaves, were the cornerstone of the Civil Rights Act’s passage, and were never in the business of storing human beings in their cellars for the purpose of completing handiwork around their houses.  Only Democrats did that, and it would be wise for Republicans to get back to being more up front about the history of their country; the very history that could be the trump card of the race debate in 2015 like nothing else can.

Unfortunately for Republicans, not only did they give up on the black vote, but they also gave up their spines.

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.

Missouri, burning.

The flames burning in Ferguson’s streets right now might not have been there before the grand jury’s decision late last night, but it’s been on fire decades.

You see, those who have been protesting in the streets for weeks on end, and who will continue to do so in Ferguson and in other cities across the nation, are seeking to not only right something they perceive as a wrong, but they also happen to be the ones that enabled such a wrong to exist in the first place.  And really, when you look at it from a perspective free of bullshit emotions built upon pillars of cooked spaghetti, you see what people are trying to fix isn’t even a problem.

Sometimes they even seem to love those problems.

But perhaps I’m being unfair.  Of course any kind of injustice perpetrated by law enforcement should be dealt with in kind and there is little disagreement that law enforcement has at times been responsible for injustices against the very people they are expected to protect.  But in the case of Ferguson and Mike Brown, sorry– that just doesn’t appear to be the case.

The reaction to the grand jury decision in Ferguson has come with typical buzz-word reactions from the public.  “I’m afraid for my kids”, “My son could be shot dead in the street and no one would even be punished for it”, “Skittles”, “Iced tea”– all jabs at the presumptive guilt of trigger happy cops or people, while ignoring that just sometimes…black “kids” are capable of making some very poor decisions.

Do I have examples of these decisions from personal experience?  No, not really– I leave my apartment every morning and when I get to work, which happens to be in an incredibly diverse place as it was during my tenure in the military, I see people of every different color imaginable working together, greeting each other, and coexisting peacefully.  Everyone says “good morning” to each other, they chat while they grab their morning cup of coffee, and they don’t latch on to the perpetual cycle of division that is often the outcome from unfortunate events like these.  I do not witness “poor decisions” because I surround myself with people who have been raised appropriately- and certainly not all are from environments known for being conducive to such, which is a testament to what true resilience is.

So while people would like to pretend like the race wars of yesteryear continue to rage, it is important to note that they most certainly do not.  They don’t exist in a white-on-black sense, and they exist even less-so in a white-cop-on-innocent-black-person/kid/baby/”good kid” sense.

The biggest threat to a young black male remains other young black males, and this has been a consistent (and inconvenient to some) truth for some time.  For young black males aged 15-34, murder is the #1 cause of their deaths.  Forty percent of all black males who died in that entire age group died by way of murder, compared to just under 4 percent for white males.  This is an entirely relevant fact- one which has often been downplayed by left-leaning media that for some reason cannot fathom that they’ve helped to create these societal pockets; environments where 40% of the young black males dying every year fall by way of murder isn’t really a big deal.  It’s “whatever”, or “doesn’t speak to the deeper narrative”.  Off the top of my head, I recall that the FBI’s 2011 statistics indicated that more than 90% of those black males being murdered were killed by other black men, and thus my contention which I’ll repeat:

If you’re so scared for the life of your young, black child, perhaps you should consider not allowing him to associate with other young, black children.

This is, of course, unrealistic.  Nor is it any way to solve a problem.  I provided such an extreme suggestion merely to highlight how ridiculous, ignorant, and dangerous it is to accept the idea that your child is somehow more threatened in the face of law enforcement than they are virtually anywhere else.  Much of the rage in Ferguson rests on the belief that Officer Wilson did in fact commit a crime.  This is why people demand “justice” and cannot shut up about how good of a kid Mike Brown had to have been (really, how many actually knew him?).  What most are ignoring in Ferguson is that of the evidence that’s been public for weeks has slowly revealed that Wilson was very likely doing exactly what any police officer would do when threatened by someone in their own squad car.  Another inconvenient truth.

But who cares about what “justice” really entails, right?

It will be truly refreshing once people stop pretending like they face a persistent struggle with authority, when what they really face as an every day danger are the people who live to the left and right of them.  Sure, it’s not comforting to look at your neighbors like potential assailants but in rough areas of tough towns, that’s more realistic than operating under the assumption that a cop is about to off you just for kicks.

So that brings me to the final point about Ferguson– how its own people, and those who “support Mike Brown” (which they don’t, really)– let this all happen.

It happened at the voting booth– either in the way Ferguson’s residents voted, or in the ways in which they chose to abstain from doing so all together.  Ferguson is but one more low-income and low-educated city with sky-rocketing poverty levels that has been suffering, for well beyond half a century, from the cancer that is their own elected, progressive puppet masters .  It is shocking to consider that at the time when civil rights leaders like MLK were helping usher the nation into a new tomorrow of hope with regard to the rights of human beings regardless of race, the city of Ferguson was gearing up to begin its unwavering election of progressive, liberal leadership that has been sucking it dry of just about any hope it could have had, ever since.

These discussions about race have to become political, unfortunately.  This is true because despite popular belief, the terror unleashed against men and women of color throughout history was not a black and white issue, but a political one.  It was not all-whites ensuring the demise of blacks, it was all-white Democrats giving it their all to condemn them to tree branches.  They continued to give it their all through the filibustering of two attempts at civil rights acts, until they reluctantly gave in to the third once it became clear that staying the course was no longer a viable political option.  I raise the issue of Democrats being so inter-connected with this situation in Ferguson because not only are they squarely responsible for it by the ways in which they have inhumanely led minorities and other oft-disenfranchised groups historically, but because the survival of their party as they know it relies upon its continuation through Ferguson, and into the Fergusons of tomorrow.

As I’ve stated a number of times by now, Republicans being Republicans does not absolve them of their responsibilities of representing all people equally and in accordance with the ways in which all free people should be treated.  Racism exists in all corners of politics and this surely will not change until the old blood departs it.  But the very reason we still have racial issues which are sure to continue dividing us for at least some time rests squarely on the shoulders of a very smart, and powerful Democratic contingent that pulled off one of the biggest schemes our nation’s political system has ever witnessed.  It’s just unfortunate that so few people actually took a second to pay mind to what they were witnessing.

They convinced the population they enslaved that they weren’t responsible for it, and they have kept them convinced while enslaving them all the same, consistently, and through the present.

How do the residents of Ferguson share responsibility for this despite being victims at the same time?  Perhaps taking a look at the signs in their yards and on their telephone polls come election season can provide some insight into that.