Daily we all continue our journey, and with expectation that the society in which we live will remain constant, go about our daily lives.
Shouldn’t that be our expectation? Is there any among us who should feel that tomorrow, we should not experience our daily lives—as we wish to live our daily lives?
We all make decisions of what we do in our lives. Some will go to work at a job we applied for, they accepted our application, and we put in our labor, our efforts to generate business or service for whoever we work for—if even we just work for ourselves—to continue our commitment as an individual—to live our lives in a society where ‘liberty’ is the foundation, and our expectations remain that government will restrict its intrusion into our lives, preserving our ‘freedom!’
Is this so abnormal? Is there something about this reality, this society that has existed since our knowledge of literacy on mankind? Is this not something that has been the environment of this nation since our very founding—why is it that this is wrong?
Is it not interesting that so many accept this as normal; while never once taking even enough time to evaluate or think about the why this exists?
How many among our society ever bothers to stop for one second and realize that our society is not the society that exists anywhere else in the world? Who bothers for one second to realize that a nation with our foundations—throughout the history and scope of all societies on this earth—has never been or even attempted?
This sad reality was magnified when I read this article from Stanford University this morning. I’ll share for your evaluation.
If you read this absolute insane conclusion of irrational analysis, is not the first question one should ask, excuse me—while in an environment of communist intrusion into our society—there is a wonder why polarization of opposition between those who would destroy this nation; and those who would preserve this nation…are not even considered in the equation?
First of all, as Americans we must face the reality that our foundations are different from all other societies on this planet. You can live in some illusion that all people are alike, the constrict, ‘people are just people’ has no validity; if there ever was a falsehood—a societal lie, this is it.
We as human beings may all be created equal in substance—but we are all different depending on the foundations of the mores and standards of the society in which we matriculate.
Researching this presentation, it was interesting to find that the individuals participating are not of the English, American cultural foundation. Now what makes so many in this nation believe that ‘all people, from al environment’ have the same cultural foundation? Is that not beyond rational comprehension? Do we need a more obvious example that the individual who is our current president to not recognize this reality? Think of our presidents cultural foundations; he was raised in a foreign country, in a foreign religion, in a foreign society—and then was sent to this nation—where he was inundated by an individual who did not adhere and believe in American principles, but was one who believed that theft, and totalitarian sovereignty government…the diametric opposite of this nation design…was an acceptable form of societal governance. Is it any wonder this individual is so confuse, advancing communism, and actively participating in the nihilism of this nation’s foundations? Or should we not reach the opposite conclusion, if one is indoctrinated from childhood—who has the basic conformity of a culture not of our nation—then how is this magic transformation thought possible? Would it not be more obvious that if one does not have the mores of our society, it is obvious they do not view this nation through the same perspective that one immersed in American, Christian, English culture, and English knowledge of the journey taken to achieve where we are currently? Would not it be obvious that if you are not immersed in this wonder of the miracle of this nation; you probably don’t get it?
There is not one among us who is not the product of the social and family environment from which we came. We each and every one of us by our own choice, conformed, to certain aspects of that society—for our own specific wants. We learn the language of our society, so we can communicate. Why, so we can learn those magic words that seem intrinsic in our character—mine, give me, want—the magic refrains that allow us to get what we want. The first acknowledgement of independent decision making we have after our instinctive talents of defecating in our pants, and screaming at the top of our lungs.
This reality, which is as obvious to anyone who ever engages their brain, is the reason that the wonder of this nation was so protected when the first immigration laws were made.
This nation was but an extension of the tribulation experienced on the path to identifying government is the most dangerous entity ever conceived from the minds of men, and that no government is the ultimate desire, but if you must have…as George Washington told us; this necessary evil…then restrict, restrict, and restrict the intrusions that government can interfere.
As such, the reality identified by Edmund Burke...the people of the colonies are descendants of Englishmen.... They are therefore not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas and on English principles. The people are Protestants... a persuasion not only favourable to liberty, but built upon it....
There are many who have never explored the correlation of how Protestant Christianity, the bedrock of the philosophical idealism of this nation, is so important to our constitutional design. Yet it is the genesis. This theology of personal rights and responsibility interwoven into our society is our society. This foundation was annealed in the cauldron of opposing opinions of many ideological, political, philosophical, and even economic considerations which is the history of England, the apex of the Western canon, and the advancement of man’s determination of individual protection of natural rights.
This wasn’t something that someone thought of yesterday, or has some epiphany in their own person relativism that genesis occurred this morning. Everything, everything in our nation’s construct of laws, of our design, or our vision of something unknown was based on the relative analysis of what has happened before, and then rejecting that which failed, and accepting those things that empirical history has shown us has succeeded.
Should we not use historical success as the guide to what this nation does with its law making? Or shall we continue this alternative of ‘emotional’ irrational, illogical, decision making in some hallucination of egalitarianism ideology to advance concepts that when applied have never once had the slightest example of success?
Is this nation of wonder, condemned by some power we cannot identify, this ‘terminal illness’ of our governments own design to destroy, to continue this nihilism of this nation’s wonder?
As a society, when we do not know who we are, we do not know why we have the foundations we do, the bedrock of mores that make the anchor of our society; then is it not obvious we are at exposure to our own destruction, based on our own absolute ignorance?
In the report they made this hypothesis; ‘there is a phenomenon called in social sciences called biased assimilation. In biased assimilation people more easily accept evidence that supports their opinion and, likewise, are prone to discredit evidence that does not fit. More specifically, people look at inconclusive evidence in a way that is most favorable to their existing view.’
What is absolutely remarkable, is that their hypothesis of what is, or should be, the variances of diversion from whose standards? It is their foundations of what they assume, or guess, or hypothesize what is the polarization of attitude that society should gravitate toward. Is this not insanity at its highest order?
There is in our society a lack of principle. We accept the term, compromise, when compromise is the absolute dumbest, most ignorant, and illogical concept of social function ever advanced. Why would anyone accept this hypothesis? Who advanced this insanity? Why do we accept it?
It is advanced by those who refuse that there is right and wrong. Example, one should compromise to circumvent the design of the constitution? What insanity is this? One only changes when you find something of a better design, or a greater success. If this evaluation is not conducted, this decision of intelligence not applied, and the reasoning of the why not identified—then why in the name of Hades would one back down from their principles, based on fact, and examples of success, to compromise—thus reducing the correctness of the beginning?
There is reality in this nation we have forgotten. There is good and bad, there is right and wrong, there are those who are not as the philosophical idealism of this nation’s design. These are facts; these facts are magnified every day in our daily lives.
It is why in 1924 when the decision was made, we must preserve the ‘homogeneous’ society of our nation’s demographics wasn’t some racist, or anti anybody decision. It was a decision that in the empirical history of mankind, there is not now, or never had been a society where peace resided unless the population has—as Montesquieu identified long before this nation’s beginning—a nation must have the mores, the morals and the religion of the people before any government can ever be; if the ideals of liberty, and the protection from government, preserving freedom, are to exist.
Our nation’s foundations are not the charter of the United Nations; our foundations are the only nation ever designed to preserve and protect the dignity, and the liberty of man; and we have forgotten that reality!