Take Off the Masks

 

Since I was a child, many moons ago, you always knew who the bad guys in the old movies were because they were the ones who put on a mask to hide their identities.  In fact, I seem to remember a couple of those old westerns where you didn't know exactly who the bad guys were until one bunch pulled bandanna masks up over their mouths and noses to make it difficult to identify them later.  Masks were always a prelude to criminals committing crimes.

That changed in 2020 with the pandemic, and the soon following George Floyd riots.  Suddenly, we were instructed to wear masks whenever in public, even though some of us questioned their effectiveness from the very beginning.  Then, once the moral outrage at the unnecessary death of George Floyd became considered the one issue more important than fighting Covid, large gatherings of masked political protesters became more than okay.  Accepting them became mandatory.

The summer of 2020 witnessed seemingly innumerable masked protests, often accompanied by some violence, destruction, and theft.  Sadly, the organizers of these protests could not figure out how to schedule them during the middle of the day, but instead almost always chose the late afternoon or evening, which timing often bled into the (itself a kind of mask) dark of night.

Since that happy summer of love, with its multiple deaths and billions of dollars (with a B) in damages, any group who feels like it, especially those of the left, treat masks and dark hoodies as the standard uniform to wear to political demonstrations.  They seem to be asserting that the only way to be free is as part of an anonymous threatening mob.

No, no, a thousand times no.  Masks really are the historical face of crime, and we would be wise to once again make wearing masks at public gatherings against the law.  All it would take would be to legislate wearing a mask at a political gathering be a primary offense, so as to empower the police to detain anyone wearing a mask.  Additionally, mandate that such an offense carries a punishment above any other punishment which the perpetrator might receive for other infractions.  It would only take one or two mass arrests for this method to vastly reduce the numbers of those going masked to public gatherings.

Some might object “freedom,” but think about it.  Making everyone go bald faced won't stop radical speech, nor should it.  But continuing to allow masked bands of toughs in our cities and on our college campuses, which will and is happening, invites the kind of brown shirt political violence that brought the Nazis and Fascists to power in Germany and Italy.  We would be most unwise to continue allowing our underclass criminal culture to be politicized in this manner, especially since we could more clearly hear those same voices if we insist on civilized standards.

That is what I am talking about too; civilized standards, the standards upon which civilized society rests.  Free and open debate, and the ability to petition the government are two of those standards, but both of them work well only if all the participants are known and afforded equal stature.  Anonymity, especially if it is afforded or assumed by only certain groups, is not equal, and can easily lead to intimidation via implied violence, or  the modern equivalent, doxxing, 

The point is that there is no good reason to wear a mask to a public gathering, and maybe there never was.  If a person is concerned about contracting a germ by being in public, then they ought to stay home and write letters.  Likewise, if a person fears that they might have a disease, and they don't want anyone else to get it, they should keep the mask off and stay home.  Writing letters and being active online can be very effective. Our physical presence is no longer required for us to have a political impact.  So let's make it illegal (again, as we did with the Klan in the 60's) to wear a mask at a political protest.

And while we're at it, let's stop holding those rallies into the night, every night.  Especially, when there was a riot the night before.  Certainly, the state, usually in the form of the local city government, has a legitimate power to issue permits for rallies, and conversely to not allow rallies which don't have permits.  So they could, and should, not issue permits for night time rallies when a riot seems likely. 

The power to regulate the place and time of rallies becomes necessary because there are only a few public spaces large enough to accommodate large public gatherings.  Since not every group can have a rally in that limited space everyday, they have to take turns.  Keeping that process orderly is why the people give  the state the power to control the permitting of rallies. Of course, the people must be vigilant in preventing any government from abusing that power.

What's more, there really are only some few spaces where it is appropriate (civilized) to convene large public gatherings.  Public parks located close to government buildings are usually the best venues, and in a lot of cities smaller parks, in other parts of the city, with advance permitting and notice, can be civilized places to organize politically.

In front of the headquarters of some evil corporation, blocking the sidewalk, or worse, is another matter, and deserves a slight aside.  Things can get really stupid with adversarial unlawful gatherings being seen as legitimate forms of protest.  Honestly, shutting down a freeway during rush hour is an incredibly obnoxious and hurtful thing to do, even if  it does get big press and your group does have enough numbers to make it work. 

When any non lawful public gathering occurs, any offended party, such as the supposedly evil corporation, or the city, or some citizens who wish to use their local park in a normal manner, or some really angry commuters, can complain, and if it is found to be an unlawful gathering, the police can be tasked to peacefully disperse said gathering.

Now, here is the way it is supposed to go in a civilized society, since we seem to have forgotten. When the cops show up, with hopefully not too much show of force, they inform the crowd, via loud speaker, that this has been declared an unlawful gathering, and therefore will the people please peacefully disperse. 

If I just happened by the rally out of curiosity, when I hear that announcement, I start immediately leaving.  If I came down to the rally to support the cause, but did not know they didn't have a permit, I start immediately leaving.  If I came down to the rally knowing it was not permitted, and I don't plan on getting arrested, I immediately start leaving.

If I went to the rally expecting to be arrested because that was how I chose to be heard, then when the others have left,and the police officer comes up to me and once again tells me to leave, and I refuse or just ignore the officer, then they are mandated to arrest me.

Here comes the most important point about once again civilizing ourselves.  Me, and you, and all of us have a civic duty to submit to arrest.  We have, to the detriment of our civilization, forgotten this standard.  The basis for this is that in our society the laws are decided by us, we the people, and so there is a proper time and way to challenge a law. That time and place is never out in public when a duly authorized officer of the law has informed you that you are under arrest.  Every resistance to arrest is, at its heart, a form of insurrection; a challenge to the very legitimacy of the law.  No resistance to arrest should be tolerated.

This must apply to all forms of resisting arrest.  All forms of resistance, even passive forms like letting your body go limp, should carry mandatory jail time, even if it's just a couple of hours.  Actively resisting arrest, such as running away into the crowd or refusing to get into the squad car or refusing to be handcuffed, should be at least a couple of weeks.  Any assault on a police officer should be a minimum of  two years.  It has to be something people think twice about doing if we are to maintain any kind of rule of law. Maintaining that rule of law is necessary for any civilized society.

So there it is.  If we are to survive as a civilization we must regain the civic habits necessary to any free society.  Instead of falling for the anti-American Marxist lie that we have to keep living in the past, fixing all the old problems before we can move forward, we should boldly look directly to the future.  Instead of trying to fix some former version of America, we must work on cobbling together a new American nation, recognizing that the one past mistake we must remedy is to be honestly sincere about the “all” part of liberty and justice for all. 

Then we can forge together a new nation, conceived anew in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.  Then we can make a melding stew of all the groups, new and old: with, this time, real input from India, China, all of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, the Pacific, and all the world.  Simply put, those are the demographics of the America of the future. Even those who came here through the side window instead of the front door should eagerly join in this effort, because we all came here for the same reason, which is that this nation stumbled on a form of liberty which offers a better life for all.  We have a chance to make this American project work again, and truly for all this time. 

One of the first things we must do to become that once and future America is to once again insist on that noble American tradition of peacefully working out our political differences.  Taking off masks at political gatherings will be a necessary and constructive step in that direction.

 

2nd Amendment Truth

 

U.S. Representatives Nadler and Massie went at it this last week (5/6-10/2024) about the Second Amendment, with Rep. Nadler neglecting to include all the words of the amendment when he presented his analysis of its' meaning. Generally, this debate comes down to a disagreement about whether the founders were trying to make sure the militias had sufficient numbers of muskets, or if the 2^nd somehow applies to individuals. Most of the time, even the conservatives miss the real point because the 2^nd Amendment has, like much of our Constitution, been twisted almost completely out of shape and meaning. It is time we go back to the beginning and get to the truth of the matter.

At the time the 2^nd Amendment was written, late in 1789, militias were an official part of our governing structure. Local militias were under the authority of the local sheriff, and could be called on to suppress crime and insurrection, and to repel invasion. Their most important function, however, was to be the ultimate check on tyrannical government. While some local sheriff and his militia could not mount much of a defense against federal tyranny on their own, it was reasoned that if the government in Washington DC did become despotic, the various counties, their sheriffs, and their militias, when united in action, could muster sufficient force to deter a tyrant. This structure, resembling a Swiss style army of the people, also ensured, because power was delegated to a multitude of counties, that some rogue sheriff or two would not get extremely out of hand.

Nonetheless, since this arrangement allowed for locally controlled military force, the question comes up of how is such military force to be regulated so that it does not become a tool of local tyranny, with the local authorities running roughshod as bullies over the local populace?

 This problem is not easily solved, since simply allowing central government authorities to regulate the militias defeats the most important purpose of the militias. It is highly doubtful that a local military force which is regulated out of DC, like our modern National Guard, will ever get orders to oppose a tyranny arising out of DC.

So the question is; How do you regulate the militias (which is necessary if we are going to continue to have a free nation) if we can't allow the central government to do the regulating? The answer was to ensure that all individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. This guarantees that the local militia, and the sheriff that leads it, do not have a monopoly on firearms, which will keep them from getting too pushy toward local residents.

Historic evidence that this plan worked comes to us from the early days after the Civil War, and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan got away with their campaign of terror mostly in states where the Black former slaves were unconstitutionally prohibited from owning guns. Then unregulated local military force could and did run roughshod over the community.

Bill Russell, he of basketball fame, related a story from his family history. The Klan came calling one night at the home of his Grandfather. When he met them at the door with a rifle, and the obvious ability to use it, the Klan left and never came calling again. Proving that the best way to regulate militias is to ensure that every citizen can be armed. This also means that the 2nd Amendment was always intended to apply to the state and local governments, as much as to the federal government, because that local level is where regulation of local militias is most probably going to be needed. 

What's more, the abiding truth remains that the best way to prevent national tyranny, to secure freedom, is to have local militias.

Now, in light of this foundational thinking, let's look again at the actual words of the 2^nd amendment. Keep in mind that this interpretation uses all the words written there, it doesn't add any other words, and it does not have to change the meaning of the word “regulated” to pretend it means “supplied,” as some misinterpretations do.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Death Spiral and Social Security

 

Lots of folks seem concerned about declining birth rates in the civilized world, and well they should be. If we don't resume forming ourselves into families, our cultures will disappear. Simple as that. Many bold but ineffective solutions are being hoisted into view this week, but none of them are likely to reverse the downward trend because none of them even mentions the obvious cause of the declining birth rate in the welfare state nations.

The root cause of our declining birth rate (and incidentally, also the cause of our national moral decline) is Social Security. Not how that federal program is run, or its solvency, but rather the very existence of Social Security itself is what is causing birth rates to decline.

The logic behind this claim is simple. Before the age of Social Security (big government funded old age pensions being the product of Kaiser Wilhelm's socialist mind in the 1880's, or was it Bismark?) the normal person saw the family, and especially the children, as our old age insurance. That is why we wanted to have a lot of children, and why we put so much effort into strengthening their moral character. Our future well being was dependent on both their healthy strength and their good morals.

With the advent of Social Security, all of that changed. By making big government, and not the next generation, the central pillar of old age planning, Social Security diminished the vested interest people had in the well being, morality, and even existence of their children. While the deeper cultural effects took a few decades to get strong purchase (the Generation Gap of the 60's), the existence of Social Security in their personal future changed, or allowed the change to happen in, the way that original generation with Social Security in their future envisioned the long arc of their lives. They would have immediately sensed that the only relationship that they had to maintain for their entire lives to ensure a decent life is the relationship with that same federal government. The family, and the communities families formed, became no longer the only, or maybe even the primary, provider of last resort: The provider of last resort being the institution which must and will respond to our vital needs. Since the establishment of Social Security in 1935, being the provider of last resort has increasingly become the role of the federal government and less and less the role of natural families. Or the communities families compose..

Since its beginning, Social Security has behaved like a kind of corrosive poison, acting on the family at the molecular level, tending to separate each individual from every other individual. It doesn't force the separation, but it allows it. It is like a string. You can't push something with a string, but if the string that is holding things together is cut, then it allows that separation. By cutting the materialistic, self interested bonds of family, (as cynical as that sounds) the bonds that really hold families together, Social Security has allowed the natural forces of selfishness to drive the component familial members apart. Especially in the lower and middle classes where materialistic needs seem better served by government.

What's more, Social Security is also, obviously, the untouchable third rail of American politics so much so it is going to be well nigh impossible to terminate. The great resistance this will raise is, in itself, evidence of why we simply must terminate it. The great hysterical passion aroused by the idea of ending Social Security is due to so many people feeling that they are dependent on it to live. In fact, we as a society should start by admitting that we are totally addicted to it and we will behave like addicts if our dope supply is imperiled. Then we must realize that it is our addiction to the federal tit that is eroding our will to procreate. It is killing us as a people. Then we must, for that vital reason, snap ourselves out of this spell and terminate Social Security.

As a Boomer, now in my early 70's, I am still adamant, as I always have been, that when we move away from Social Security, we do it in phases, taking care for those who are already on it. But those changes can be accomplished compassionately without keeping the federal government in charge of our lives.

To sum all this up, we must end Social Security because it is an addictive, corrosive social poison which is surreptitiously draining us of our will to live.

It is not clear if we came to this happy pass by shear happenstance or if someone had this scenario in mind from the beginning, but that does not matter. Yes, we have been rendered, via socialism in general and Social Security in particular, into a people ripe to fall to totalitarian tyranny. Maybe it is a plot, maybe not, but honestly, that does not matter and it is not the point.

The only thing that matters, the only point to be made about Social Security is that we must acknowledge it is the single reason for declining global birth rates. With that acknowledgment we must also realize that the only way to reverse this civilizational death spiral is to end Social Security.

Should be easy. It's just a matter of life and death.

Abortion 2 States 2 End It

 

My mother convinced me of the pro life position in 1971, even though as a Colorado liberal at the time I had originally agreed with “liberalizing” abortion laws.  I have been staunchly pro-life ever since.

As such I have long reasoned that returning the power to regulate abortion to the states is a much better long term strategy against legal abortion than trying to regulate it in the federal congress.  I firmly believe that this state by state approach is not only the most  expeditious path, and by far the most clearly constitutional path, but in political reality it is probably the only path likely to win the ratification of a national Pro-Life Amendment.  Additionally, it can be shown that returning this power to the states (as compared to going the route of federal statutes)  while keeping on the front burner the goal of a national Pro-Life Amendment will result in fewer deaths of innocent pre-born humans; definitely in the long run, in the middle run, and even in the short run.

With the Dobbs decision I felt a deep rejoicing, as if a cloud of fear had been lifted from the nation.  However, since I live in Kansas, the rejoicing was short lived. A mere month and a half later I was shocked to the core when the “Value them Both” amendment went down to stinging defeat.  It became obvious that we have not won the hearts and minds of the majority to the pro life cause.

The logic behind returning these powers exclusively to the states is that by once again allowing some states to legally promote a culture with reverence for human life we will provide ourselves a way to win those hearts and minds. Once some smaller, most probably rural, states prohibit abortion, I firmly believe those states will experience a general improvement in social relations.  Returning to a culture that reverences human life will have profound long term effects on that culture, effects which will become obvious after a full generation is raised with those values enshrined in law. Having a living object lesson of the good that follows pro life legislation will be far more persuasive than all the arguments and advertising campaigns ever can be.

I also believe that in responding to that object lesson, over time (10-20 years), the people in some other states will follow the example after they see the social improvements that followed in the wake of officially being in favor of life.  As other states follow with pro life laws, the idea of a Pro-Life Amendment will start to sound very do-able.  Then, as the truth sinks in to the whole nation that a culture which has reverence for human life is a culture which will do well in establishing justice, family stability, lawfulness, prosperity, and peace in general, we will be able to get such an amendment ratified.  Thus the issue of legal abortion could finally, at long last, truly be settled. Admittedly, this is a somewhat rosy scenario (of such are all visions), but the big point is that by returning this important power of moral self government to state and local control, we will once again be using our form of government to symbiotically educate and elevate the thinking of the masses.

Contrast this rosy scenario with what is likely to happen is we go the route of using federal statutes to end abortion.  The most likely outcome is that we, as a nation, will remain divided and paralyzed on this issue, much as we have been for  the last fifty years.  I understand the arguments in favor of federal statutes, based on the 5^th  and 14^th amendments, the life, liberty and property clauses.  I don't much like it, but I don't think it's nothing.  I do see that it is legitimate to discern a right to life in that language.

A big problem, however, immediately appears. 

If a right to life can be constructed out of those clauses with enough weight to ban abortions nationwide, then I am afraid the right to liberty, which resides right there next to the right to life, could be twisted by those willing to do so to mean a right to abortion, and thus be imposed on the entire nation by congressional statute with equivalent constitutional legitimacy. 

Therefore, using the “life, liberty” language as a basis for constitutional authority, while not completely illegitimate, is both divisive and would prove to be indecisive. Both sides could use it.  The inevitable division such use will cause points out the truth that abortion is almost impossible for the American political mind to resolve, because it is the point where our two most fundamental rights, the right to life and the right to liberty, can be construed as coming into conflict with each other.  That is not a construction I favor, but many millions of my countrymen do favor it. 

That is why I don't believe the issue of abortion will ever be settled in America until we ratify a Pro-Life Amendment.

Thus, if we go the route of regulating abortion via federal statute the issue of legal abortion is likely to become (or remain?) a perennial political football, which will likely result in many deaths.  Every election, from representative to senator to president, will be federalized by this issue. One side grabs the reins, and prohibits abortion nationwide, and then the other side wins the next election, and mandates legal abortion nationwide. That thirteen week standard could easily become a double edged sword.  Our thinking on abortion will remain at this same paralyzed, hysterical moment for as long as we can imagine.  No shining examples of states revering life would be allowed when the Democrats are in power, so that object lesson won't even come into existence, at least not for long enough to get some purchase. Hearts and minds are much less likely to change.

 The issue of abortion can be counted on to perennially energize the concupiscent left, and continue the national mental paralysis, the deep division, this issue has long caused. Many innocent lives will be lost.

Here is the heart of it.  To win the cultural wars,we have to win the hearts and minds.

Those people on the other side, the concupiscent?  They are truly in darkness but they vote.  For many, the only thing they think they have left is their sexual lives, their intimate lives.  Every thing else, as they see it, is slave wage jobs, taxed and monitored.  So that is the hill they are willing to die on.

Today.

We won't win those hearts and minds by simply getting big and strong. That can easily drive the weak, demented and fearful deeper into the dark. (and rev up the black market abortion industry)  Let some time pass, with the abortion issue simmering down, some states legal, some prohibit, some partial.

As a lot of those folks get older, they will lose some of those early values, especially if no one is out there making them defend those old decisions every day.

Then, years later, as the perennial questions of  self government come up again, those would be some of the folks calling for a return to stronger morals.  Give the nation a chance to reflect and repent regarding abortion.  In that context, the thing that will most convince the masses will not be arguments, documentaries, or even education programs, no matter how well crafted or powerful.  Rather, shining examples of what an American culture which intentionally reveres life looks like will do the convincing.

Hold the federal approach in abeyance, not using it now, but keeping it in reserve. Instead, for now, let all us pro-lifers join together in insisting that it be worked out in the states.  If we join arms on this, the Democrats could not force the federal approach on us.  Then let's commit to making it work at the states, going beyond just prohibiting abortion and seeking a pro-life amendment.  Let us sincerely seek a culture of life.

If we are to encourage a culture with reverence for life, it must be one that enables young people to start families with confidence that hard work and frugal habits will be enough to raise that family successfully.  To require, especially young women, to sublimate those powerful desires for family until prosperity is reached on the terms dictated by modern corporate culture is to legitimize adultery. These desires will find expression, and that then becomes the backbone of the pro abortion movement.

All the needed changes can be made at the state, local and even just voluntary community levels. Prioritizing families in this way, with improved and ongoing education available to young fathers and mothers.  Tax policies which encourage young families, and which encourage companies to open entry level positions for young parents. Some of these moves might diminish the profits of some, but we could make these changes in traditional American ways, not involving federal socialism, and yet greatly aiding young families.  This is the way a society which reveres life must operate,and if sincerely done well, will bring about that shining example which will win hearts and minds.

In the short run, abortion will be greatly reduced in some states, and not noticeably change status in most states. Many babies will not be killed.

In the medium term, as more states limit abortion the general zeitgeist will start to feel like legal abortion is falling out of favor.  Many more babies will not be killed.  We will be winning the battle for hearts and minds.

In twenty to thirty years, going the route of the states, we could be looking at ratifying a Pro-Life Amendment.  Twenty to thirty years of going the federal statute route, and I fear we would likely still be in the divided, paralyzed, and hysterical status we are in today.  Additionally, tragically, many more innocent pre-born children will be lost going down that path.

As an ardent, nearly life long advocate for life, and as a born again Child of God, I pray and beg my fellow Pro-Lifers to consider the wisdom of this approach.  May God bless us.

What's the Matter With TwitterX: Socrates,Jesus and the End of Western Civilization

 

Today, while exploring the nether regions of X, or Twitter, or what ever name Musk will next use to wrong foot most of the human race, I learned that some people are paying ten thousand dollars a year to boost their reach on X.  They pay this sum in expectation of earning more than that as creators.  That fact inspired some unexpected insights regarding social media.

I had not known (maybe I am too naive?) previously that some of the big “influencers” had invested that kind of money.  That fact explained, to me, why Twitter is so disappointing.  With that kind of money on the line, the vicious and underhanded popularity contest that X has devolved into makes sense.

I started on Twitter, and continue, with the now obviously vain hope that it is some kind of free market place of ideas.  So I have been constantly surprised to find that putting out new and valid ideas, especially in the realms of theology and American political philosophy (my specialties) has not resulted in gaining a lot of followers. 

Turns out that in this vicious, for profit, middle school style popularity contest, the last thing some influencers want to do is respond to a good idea.  That just allows the newcomer to gain followers and might detract from the influencers influence (and profit).  So, I have ignorantly, generously and for no pay simply shared my hard won insights with the world at large.  While I was disappointed when my favorite thinkers did not re-post, comment, or otherwise use this forum to further human understanding, I was downright alarmed when I would see some of those same ideas, slightly paraphrased, a day or two later in some creator's post.

Now I know why.  Twitter, and Facebook, and all the other social media (and virtually all corporate media generally) is not about informing, educating, and other wise spreading Truth.  No, it is all about monetizing the deep hunger that all humanity has, especially in these dire times, to learn the truth and to share the truths they have developed.  Our current fear driven frenzy to somehow solve the looming national if not global conflagration is creating an insatiable demand for knowledge and truth.  The social media, and old media along with it, are happy to sell us some small portion of that truth.

This is where the lives and examples of both Socrates and Jesus come in to play.  These two men are undoubtedly the founding figures of Western thought, and the one precept they had in common is that they highlighted how evil it is to have knowledge commodified and sold to the people.  That is because when the “leaders” of a society make merchandise of knowledge and wisdom, they have a vested interest in the people remaining ignorant.  What's more, even if some knowledge is sold, the best and most useful knowledge will remain closely held, lest the masses no longer need the elite teachers.

In the case of Socrates, his career consisted of teaching the youth of Athens that the things the educators taught were wrong were, in fact, true, and the things the educators asserted as truth turned out to be false.  After a few decades of this, the learned men and teachers of the law in Athens were fed up and had him tried and sentenced to either banishment or death by drinking hemlock. He drank the hemlock.

With Jesus, it was a little different.  He was simply teaching the Truth of the Gospel to everyone.  When the disciples of John the Baptist came asking (for John) if he was the Messiah, one of the things Jesus said to tell John was that the Gospel was being taught to the poor.  (As a slight aside, that statement implies that some of the vital truths of God were being taught, for money, to the rich before Jesus came along.  Hmmm?)  At any rate, that same demographic, the learned men and teachers of the law, this time in Jerusalem, had Jesus crucified for some of the same reasons that Socrates was killed.

So here we are, seemingly at the twilight of Western civilization, struggling to learn anew the most basic lessons from our beginnings.   The electronic media, which could and should be used to enlighten and liberate humanity from the ignorance of the past, is instead being used to confuse our minds and increase the power of ignorance to divide and incite us. 

This dynamic also explains why there are so few innovative solutions gaining wide exposure on social media.  New ideas have always been a great threat to any political and cultural establishment, because a truly new, innovative concept might disrupt that entire establishment.  Sadly, almost all the influencers, most of whom probably started out on X to resist the establishment, have, due to the jealous and greedy dynamic inherent on X, been captured by that same establishment.

All of this is has been and is being driven by deviously clever “leaders” posing, in the way such people usually do, as saviors while they greedily exploit and frustrate our common desire for truth, wisdom, unity and peace.  Good work if you can get it.

Healing America's Oldest Wound

 

The term “systemic racism” has come to prominence these last few years, as the crowning expression of “woke” ideology.  The term, and the concepts it represents are doomed to fail in the quest to right the wrongs of America's past, because they are a complete misdiagnosis of the basic problem.  In addition to being racist in its own right, it has the flaw that since it tries to cover so many things it becomes a meaningless mush; a sweeping indictment of everything everywhere.  As such, it ends up covering nothing. One begins to suspect it is desperate, if not cynical, attempt to make sense of a long and painful unsolved mystery.  Hence, it has devolved into little more than another of humanity's consensual paranoid delusions, totally incapable of healing the pain and frustration it pretends to offer as a cure. 

The pain and frustration seem to come from not just the years of  widespread and legal African American oppression, but more especially from the time since the civil rights movement.  Since that time no official racism has been allowed, and yet the African American community has not only not made great progress, but has in many ways regressed. Certainly, family breakdown, drug use, crime and violence have increased in the black community since the 1960’s.  What’s more, with the immigration of various African ethnic communities, and their subsequent rise in American culture, the comparison with the seemingly perpetual social malaise in the wider African American community has caused increasing frustration. 

It seems to many people as if something has been done, and continues to be done, to African Americans that is keeping them down.  No one can exactly define what is being done, but there is widespread sentiment that something bad was and is being done, and somehow White people are responsible for it.  Thus, the delusional concept of systemic racism to gain acceptance.  The strategy that has emerged from this concept is to try to chase down and exterminate said invisible bogeyman of systemic racism.  The tactic then becomes to confront and abuse random White people until they admit their hitherto unknown racism, and reinforce the credibility of the questionable concept. So the idea, and the tactics continue, with still no progress being made.

That strategy is doomed to failure because it is based on an inaccurate diagnosis of the problem.  Yes, many of the ongoing, multi generational problems in the African American community are the result of what White people did to Black people, but the abuse has almost all ended while the problems persist.  To end the problems and repair the damage (the real meaning of reparations) we must first accurately diagnose the problem.  Once we do that, we will see that naming the remedy is relatively easy.

Stating the diagnosis is the simple, albeit probably painful part much like ripping the dressing off an old wound.  Simply put, the great wound inflicted on African Americans is two-fold.  First, the mode of their importation and enslavement rendered them into what is essentially a new ethnic group.  Second, this new ethnic group, which was inadvertently formed as a side effect of the efficient yet inhumane machinery of mass enslavement, has, since its genesis, been deprived of the blessings and burdens of community self-determination.  These two aspects, which will be detailed shortly, have combined to induce a debilitating and continuing impairment in African American culture.

Let’s unpack the first aspect which is that African Americans were rendered into a new ethnic group at their birth. Consider the unprecedented depth of the cultural dismantling that took place during the great African enslavement in the United States.  Each individual African was stripped of almost all cultural accouterments and the psychological identity that came with them.  First, their clothes were taken and when they landed in the new world they were forced to accept European clothes.  Their language was brutally suppressed, along with any cultural forms or tribal associations. Any communication with family or friends back in Africa was totally impossible.  Since the number of slaves was relatively large compared to the number of Whites, fear of a slave uprising motivated the White slave owners to be intensely diligent in obliterating any expression of Black identity, unity, or self determination.

When, after enduring all this psychological trauma, the individual African American returned to social cohesion, it was in stilted English and as a member of the most abused and demeaned group in the new nation, permanently on the bottom of the social ladder. A new people, conceived in enslaved suffering and formed by the powers of greed and fear, were born anew on God’s earth. They carried forward virtually no shared memories of a previous existence, and there were no ethnic distinctions between the various enslaved African peoples that were recognized or meaningful.

            This experience is unique, certainly in America, and probably, given the size of the enslavement and the depth of the cultural dismantling, in the world.  Even the far greater number of African slaves brought to Latin America didn’t suffer anything like that total cultural dismantling.  They were arguably treated more brutally, often being worked to death, but they were left to speak and associate as they wished. The other ethnic groups that came to America, or that were already here, didn’t suffer any where near this degree of cultural obliteration. 

The Native Americans, although decimated on a large scale, were cheated and lied to but still retained their tribal councils and a degree of national self determination.  Happily, almost all of their cultural institutions are witnessing revival today. By way of comparison with enslaved African Americans, the Irish, the Chinese, and the Mexicans, who were probably the most ill treated of the various immigrant ethnic groups, still kept their clothes, their foods, their languages, and were still able to keep in touch with their families in the old country.  Even in the face of some opposition, they were allowed to associate with each other as they chose.  They congregated in their own neighborhoods and in their own towns.  After two or three generations they would start to move out into the larger culture, confidently moving forward from a position of strength because they had a political and economic power base since they been allowed to exercise a great degree of community self-determination.

This brings up the second aspect of the wound that has been inflicted on African Americans, which is that this new ethnic group, unlike any other group in human history, has never exercised meaningful community self-determination.  There is a consciousness that grows naturally in any group that has any degree of self-determination, and has developed since ancient times in every group in the world.  Even in a country as repressed as ancient China, the local warlord demanded tribute, but he left most problems, such as water, food, medical care, moral restraint, the consequences of immorality, and almost all the other cultural issues, to be worked out by the local villagers.  The same was true in Ireland, where the English rulers took the wheat as rent, and left the Irish to fend for themselves on rotting potatoes.  The same dynamic held true for immigrants from Latin America and the other areas of Europe and Asia. 

            When these villagers from the various areas in the world arrived in America, they had a history and a memory of how to run their own communities.  Even if they weren’t from the exact same villages, members of these ethnic groups shared the same or similar language, systems of taboos, personal responsibilities and expectations.  What’s more, they knew without even thinking about it how to pass these on to their children.

            In fact, the same thing was and is true throughout Africa.  The Africans who were forced on to the slave boats would, if they had been left to their own devices, have been more than capable of forming together in healthy, self governing communities, and would have achieved a strong power base just like every other group has.  A quick look at the modern experience of the Ethiopian, Somali, Nigerian, and other African immigrant communities confirms this truth.

            But African Americans back then weren’t left to their own devices.  They were enslaved and their culture destroyed.  Since they were someone else's property, their well being, in terms of drinkable water, medical care, food, and shelter, was under the responsibility and authority of their White owners.  We can thank God that since racism was so extreme, Blacks were left to study the Bible and live the Gospel of Jesus Christ on their own.  However, even in the area of sexual morality, Blacks were encouraged to be promiscuous, as it enabled slave owners to more easily sell family members for monetary gain, and to engage in selective breeding.

The point is that African Americans weren’t allowed to exercise the powers of self government, of self-determination, and therefore weren’t forced to respond to the challenges of self-government. They were to know their place, do their jobs, and any community problems that arose were to be dealt with by the master in the big house.  Usually, the leader of the local Black community was selected by the owner and was the one who might successfully persuade the master to meet some of the community’s needs.

            Things really didn’t change much after slavery.  There were many in the African American community who recognized the opportunities and responsibilities inherent in freedom, and worked with courage and enthusiasm to meet them.  However, even during Reconstruction, and certainly afterward in the era of Jim Crow, their efforts were thwarted with brutal oppression and terrorism. 

            Well into the 20^th Century, African Americans were kept in near slavery, with no seat at the table where decisions are made.  The worst aspect of this, far worse than the simple lack of self-determination, was the fact that the conditions that develop a healthy consciousness of self-government were still absent.  It must be acknowledged that there were some exceptions to this, like Mound Bayou, Mississippi and some few towns run by African Americans in Oklahoma and elsewhere, but they were too few to change the larger African American culture. 

Even without most of the powers of self government African America continued to rise.  A business class arose, when it wasn’t being bombed out as in Greenburg, Oklahoma.  The Black families were becoming stronger and more stable all the way through the 1950’s.  With the success of the Civil Rights Movement, African Americans demonstrated that they had achieved enough strength and influence to gain political equality with Whites.  Then the third crime perpetrated against African America. after slavery and Jim Crow, was the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson.

            Close on the heels of the equalizing Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts (1964-65), Lyndon Johnson enacted a series of socialist programs, called the Great Society.  While seeming to have good intentions these programs continued the crime against the African American community because they once again denied to Blacks the powers and burdens of self determination.  There are some who might say that there is poetic justice in this because self-determination was also largely taken from the White community at the same time, but that should be small solace because the tragic wounding of the Black community continued unabated.

            Consider how many cultural decisions used to be made (by Whites) at the local level, and are now made at the federal level.  Health care, public relief, moral education of the young, control of pornography, and many other issues, ranging from how to provide clean water and sanitation to how to generate local jobs used to be made by local communities.  From 1933 to 1963, a nascent socialism (a topic for another day) took root and fully bloomed in the late 1960’s, removing almost all the powers and burdens of moral self government from all the people, even the white people, just shortly after African Americans gained a real measure of political equality.  Truly, the pie turned rotten just as they finally got a piece of it.

 

Truly, the pie turned rotten just as they finally got a piece of it.

 

            Look at the similar cultural effects of these three conditions.  In slavery, there was an alienation from the legal structure.  The master made the rules, and if one could get away with breaking them, very few of the fellow slaves would hold them to account.  As long as what was being done didn’t threaten to bring down the master’s wrath, it was of no concern to the community because the community hadn’t made the rules.  That same thinking held true during Jim Crow.  The “man” made the rules, so if you could get away with skirting them, more power to you.  That thinking was slowly losing ground until the 1960’s, but it has come back with a vengeance since then.

            “The Man” is back, and these days Whites, and everybody else, are in the same boat.  Look at how we all think today.  “We” don’t talk about what “we” are going to do to solve a problem.  “They” have to solve the problem, and “they” are expected to provide us with all our wants. 

            We are to do our jobs and get away with what we can.  Whether it’s cheating the welfare system, cheating on our taxes, or cheating in traffic, it’s only wrong if you get caught because we have no social obligation to each other.  If there is any problem, “they” have to solve it.  Our leaders are those who can get the master…er the man… er, I mean the federal government, to come up with the money to solve our problems for us.  This really is the mindset of almost the entire country and some of our leading thinkers are correct in calling this a plantation mentality.

So, what is the solution? How do we go about healing this almost 400-year-old wound in the African American community?  The great wounding of African America will end and the healing begin when African Americans are free and equal citizens of self-governing communities.  That can only happen when most of the powers of self government are devolved from the federal government and revert back into the hands of state and local governments.

 

The great wounding of African America will end and the healing begin when African Americans are free and equal citizens of self-governing communities.

 

“Hold on there,” one can hear the roar of protest. “Isn’t this just advocating a return to states rights?”  Yes and no, mostly no.  First of all, only people have rights, and according to Jefferson, we delegate certain powers to government to secure those rights.  This is merely saying we should delegate far fewer powers to the federal government and return them to the states and localities. 

“States rights” as advocated by those who called for them, were always about the states being able to deny rights that had already been established, and it was therefore a total lie.  Both the states and the federal government dropped the ball and didn’t honestly enforce the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments for nearly 100 years.  This situation has been used in the last 60 years since the Civil Right Acts to completely discredit local self-government, but that is a misreading of history because the federal government was complicit and contributed to Jim Crow just as much as the states.  Here, at this point of seeing the equivocation of the federal courts and how they cynically did not use an originalist, strict construction of the Constitution, especially when ruling on the post Civil War amendments, is where one might find the invisible bogeyman ghost of systemic racism.  However, it won’t be found by attacking the innocent or even well meaning words of some random White folks in the 2020’s.

            So if the cure is to establish true self-determination for the African American community, the struggle promises to be difficult because some powerful forces want to deny self-determination to all Americans, and to all humans for that matter.  There might be some ready allies in the (conservative) White community who are concerned about the same issues if the two groups can find their way to each other.  Perhaps a revival of the efforts at reconciliation can be ignited within the (mostly conservative) Christian community. Such an effort promises to bear beautiful fruit.  Further, by all means, the voices in the African American community calling for moral revival, self initiative, economic self sufficiency, and all the other civic and personal virtues should be welcomed and amplified because of such ideals are all healthy communities built.   

Nonetheless, the burden of self determination must be sought and borne if the great wound is to be healed.  Some might complain that absorbing all the changes this path entails is not fair.  Why must the victims endure even more pain?  Such objections are valid, because this is not fair, just as it’s not fair that the victim of a brutal assault must generate the self discipline and endure the pain of rehabilitation in order to recover from the assault.  Sure, the assault victim and the victims of racism and slavery could just blame the perpetrators (White people in this case) for their problems, and remain wounded.  Or they could demand, and maybe even receive some financial reparations, a court settlement from the criminals, feel good for a while, but if they continue to dodge the pain of rehabilitation they will remain wounded. 

Or they could, like a victim choosing painful rehabilitation, find their own healing. (Here the analogy slightly breaks down, because the African American community would be gaining something they were deprived of since their genesis, not regaining something they previously had.)  In the courageous spirit of their forebears, they can seek the finish line of community self-determination, meet the difficult challenges of moral self-government when it is gained, and thereby begin to heal the centuries old wound.  Such a strategy, while it will be challenging, is the only way to heal and is guaranteed to bear much sweeter and much more abundant fruit than the angry quest to root out the mythical bogeyman of “systemic racism” ever can.

Slavery and Racism, America's Glory and Shame

 

The biggest single issue hamstringing the growth of American political thought is the confusion surrounding the twin issues of slavery and racism.  While it is undeniable that racism is an indelible stain on the American past, and will be addressed in a bit, the new assertion here is that it is time we moved from thinking slavery is a stain on our past to instead realizing that the issue of slavery redounds to the eternal glory of the United States of America. There are two reasons for this.

First, it is beyond dispute that our founding document, the Declaration of  Independence, was THE spark which ignited a worldwide movement to abolish slavery.  1776 was followed by Vermont, in 1777, becoming the first governmental body in modern times to abolish slavery.  They were followed by Pennsylvania in 1780, Massachusetts in 1783, and then many other states and countries.  Spain, France, Great Britain, Mexico and many others. Yes, America was a little late to the party, as a nation, but that only brings up the second reason slavery redounds to America's glory.

 

When founded, the most idealistic hope the best of our founders intended was to be like the small, local city states of ancient Greece and Rome.  This was because those forms of government  were noted for tending to produce the best citizens, the populace with those powerful republican virtues that make any government work well.  At its' best it was hoped this architecture of government might induce an elevated moral awareness in the hearts and minds of the citizenry, an elevated moral consciousness.  Yet because those local communities are bound in a federal system of checks and balances, they could live peacefully with each other.  Hence, that positive social dynamic symbiotically generated in local small republics could remain peaceful and growing on a continental scale and over the long term.  That, in a nutshell, was the idealistic intent of the American experiment in self government.

In 1776, the day before the Declaration was published, slavery was accepted in this country with little opposition or criticism.  By 1861, eighty-five years later, just a long lifetime, America had become a nation which produced millions of us who were willing to fight, die, and indeed even kill to end the institution of legal slavery.

The question must be asked.  What other nation, in the entirety of human history, has brought themselves through such a huge cultural elevation, affecting so many lives, and done it in such a short period of time?

The answer is obviously none, since no other people has ever experienced a comparable change.  Ought we not therefore give ourselves a little more credit, and declare the American experiment in self government a raging success?  I say we should.  We should give ourselves a hearty pat on the back. The fact that our raised social consciousness grows organically from our system of government, our architecture of government if you will, when we use our system the way it was designed to be used, is a strong reason to return to an originalist, strict interpretation of the Constitution, as written.  Only then will that most important blessing of liberty, the fact that being free and self governing causes the normal human to want to be a more moral person, begin to get strong purchase.  Honestly taking on even just some of the duties of self government induces in the individual a recognition of the importance of moral behavior in the people.  This in turn causes many individuals to seek to lead more moral lives, to be consistent in public and private life.

When a people seeks to regain moral continence, then the Gospel can be heard most clearly.  It's like you know you're in love when love songs start making sense.  It is only when a person is seriously wrestling with the power sin has over us all that said person is primed to hear the hope of forgiveness in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  The normal person is most likely to start wrestling with those issues of personal morality when they are given some real part in the powers of their own self governance, when they start thinking like a governor.

  That, I think is the long term connection between America and Christ.  Liberty on the American plan is both enabled by the Christian mind, and it greatly encourages that same Christian mind to grow in her citizens.

 

Now let us, while in the glow of feeling a little good about America again, face the shame of racism, and the damage it has done to all of us.  What's more, we should realize the reason American racism has been so toxic is tied directly into that same Declaration of Independence.

Those representatives traveling from the 1776 congress for their homes must have had some very interesting conversations.  On the one hand, any of them honest and free in their analysis would have instantly seen that a government dedicated to all men having equal liberty could not be reconciled with the existence of legal slavery, especially hereditary slavery.  No person can honestly say they would like to have been born into slavery.  So it is probably accurate that the seeds of many anti slavery initiatives were planted in some of those conversations.

For the congressmen returning to states which conceived themselves as being dependent on slavery, it can be, again probably accurately, imagined that the conversations went in a different direction.  For them, the easy and evil solution which presented itself was simply to consider that the African slaves were not really men.  They had merely to officially dehumanize their African family.

Then they could proudly join in the effort to establish liberty and justice for all men, and yet still maintain their wicked slavery.    All they had to do was pretend that people they interacted with daily on deep, intimate levels, with whom they shared both traumatic and joyful experiences, people with whom they often fell in love, are not really people at all, but instead some kind of intelligent animal.

All it took for us to believe, and to continue to believe, these obviously wicked lies was calling down on ourselves, on all of us actually because us Northerners were happy to join in, an immense cloud of delusional demonic forces. It is such a huge cloud that it amounts to a spiritual principality. That is why the only way we can get rid of it is to have some kind of national exorcism.  More on that in a bit.

Before looking for possible remedies, let us linger for a moment on just exactly how bad American racism has been.  For a variety of reasons white American racism towards African America has been the most virulent and destructive strain of racism this world has ever seen, which is saying a lot because this sorry planet has seen some terribly vicious and destructive outbreaks of the viral spiritual disease known as racism.  The way we treated Africans in this country is arguably worse than how the Nazis treated the Jews.  It has lasted longer and has caused much more damage.  There is so much more that I can, should and will say on this, but time constrains this discussion to focus on remedies for the spiritual virus of racism.

I term racism a spiritual virus because like the common cold, it is always around in some mild form or the other.  Everyone is susceptible to it's logic that the more like me a person is, the more truly human they are.  There are, what's more, a lot of different degrees of virility in the various strains of racism around the world.  Nonetheless, the American strain does seem to be the absolute worst, probably because we so consciously called these delusional spirits down on our own heads to gain that wicked power.

However, the fact of our having consciously chosen this path in our forgotten past leads one to hope that this principality we invited to deceive us will be highly susceptible to our consciously casting it off us in the name of Jesus.  So let's get to it.

Oops, sorry, forgot to mention.  Everybody has to be with us all together, casting this demonic power off as the united American people.  That is because this spiritual disease, like all spiritual diseases, has always been highly contagious. This repentance has to be universal because everybody in this nation has some share in carrying this disease, and some role in casting it off us.  All of us have some of the virus of racism in us, even if dormant.

Dealing with racism as a disease has a lot of advantages.  Instead of focusing on the past, trying to assign relative blame for ancient crimes, we can unite in calling us all to come together to heal ourselves of a disease, thereby ending the disease and eliminating the breeding ground of division with one wise change of focus.

Now before I go any further, let me add this.  I have lived in the heart of the Black community (17^th and San Pablo in downtown Oakland, 85-89, McMillen in Nashville 2010-) more than seven years of my seventy year long life, and I must testify that I was received in the hood with more tolerance and welcome than I have usually seen black guys receive in white neighborhoods.  So even though the disease is rampant in all of America, it seems to be far more deeply rooted and virulent in whites, especially in some select white areas, than in black, or other minority neighborhoods. 

Exorcising this demonic principality will take all of us working and praying together, but it can be done.  I am certainly not the guy to conduct such a national event, but I do think that the right leaders, as God will select them, could come together, and bring us all together, as a nationally connected mind, and thereby nationally connected heart.  Together we must pray mercy of our Creator, that He would pull this hideous spiritual virus off us, because we can't seem to get it off  by ourselves. Nonetheless, I believe the vast majority of us are ready for this change because we totally and for all time renounce racism.  So help us God.  Pray for such an event.

I think we will be nicely surprised how much this national exorcism, as we are sincere, if we seek God for it and follow His guidance to achieve it, could greatly unburden our lives.

At any rate, I hope that at the least, this essay helps to clear up some of our thinking about slavery, racism and America.