Here are some of my essays and other works that cannot quite be classified as literature.
Here is an excerpt from my manuscript that is perhaps, the most verbose portion, (thankfully or I would never get it sold) but also, is possibly the most interesting portion. I do hope you enjoy and dont have to reach for your dictionary... too often?...
Once Upon A Wakening
(An essay taken from the introduction to the manuscript “Epoch of Three Dragons- Alpha”)
By. D.E. Wilson
A mind exists to question, to inundate all with the immortal query “Why” (assuming you do not find “If“ more pertinent). All “if’s” aside, to lambaste every iota of assumed existent material in the sentient’s general range with a ceaseless slew of existentialist examination to the end of creating the singular sentient’s subconscious supposition of surrounding solidity is the substantive sentient‘s sojourn. In other words, as a matter of practicality the primary and initial objective of the sentient is constitutive comprehension of all contained in “creation” , for the sake of a continual “compos mentis” consciousness. (I.E a baby discovering where the crib ends and the floor begins.) To make evident the purpose of this, perpend that not even a semi-sentient is capable of optimal operation while there is no pre-existent pledge that the illusion of personal reality will remain in tact and not be undone or fade away without provocation or warning, as illusions are prone to do. (This is babe suddenly without crib or floor.) Thus for the sake of the sentient’ s sanity the desire of stability leads to a general sensation of familiarity (and eventual contempt) with ones relative environs and through this “reality” is born.
To kill the word smith, (preferably not literally) the first and most consequential task’s placed upon you at your reaching existence was to observe all that is (from your perspective), establish yourself inside of a repeatable pattern within your verse, and assimilate to said pattern in the name of relative tranquility . Your author would surmise that these are not only the actions of sightless babes but of any individual who has an enlightenment and re-birth through enlightenment. For instance, consider a youth who has never seen a single canvass of the visual arts nor heard a single note of the auditory arts. He then comes upon a Dali, or a Rembrandt and he realizes that his perspective to date was entirely lacking. All he has ever seen must now be reevaluated with a different perspective and a different appreciation. The same occurs when he happens upon his first few lines of Wagner or J.S. Bach. This re-evaluation occurs consistently when new information brings the previous into question. Some would call this “evolution of thought” though your author declares this a misnomer as the term evolution would denote a superiority of the novel (and your author will choose a cloudy amber sunset or the language of the birds to oil and audible expressions of human toil any day).
Qualitative judgments aside, this is the true impasse of the sentient where you decide if not only your perceptions were incorrect limitedly, but if all that you hold as truth is false. A lonely impulse of redirection bringing about a complete paradigm shift to the extent where one must question the validity of their perceptions. In one with a philosophers soul or an objective mind “The Big If” will follow and then one must decide weather or not their perceptions (including themselves) exist at all. Quite the quandary quoteth the querulous quantitator quietly into his quagmire.
This question cannot be answered by any but the entity staring at you when into a mirror you peer. However you author will offer a possible antiphon to the search for actuality that is elementary, IF you are capable of grasping an inexorably uncomplicated concept. Not a single quark of what you perceive as veridical subsists outside of your eyelids (which obviously are not present either). These pages do not hold visceral form and are merely information downloaded to you, the small brain in the box, from the big brain down the hall. Forgetting a moment yourself, these questions that induce a ponderous position or perhaps that cause your lashes a reaction of closure, are palpably (if not most ingeniously) due to chemical stimuli deep inside the corporeal core of your mental faculties. Cogent thought would dictate such is not at all provided by yourself but by your ever present overseer, “Big Brain“. This assumes much however and in the land of possibility the likelihood of you at the very least being a “box brain” is not that large.
Once again purging the provayer of pronouncement, ponder all the possible entities that could exist (weather through biology or fancy) and to your knowledge, do not. This is an immensely larger number than those you perceive as existent, therefore by mathematical probability alone you are more likely to be among the floating ethereal's of imagination than the breathing earthlings in machination. Smart money would go to your existing as naught but a dream who is awaiting either this realization or your own personal Don Quixote to wake and banish you to whatever oblivion vicarious visions report to. Weather dreams can be considered existent is an entirely different debate that your author shall not attend to but one that you should perhaps explore anyway, just in case.
For the sake of our purposes let us assume momentarily that you do exist (as if you did not reading further would be quite pointless) and direct our energies to the previous queries of “If” and “Why“. “If” you do in fact decide that your own peepers are peering at these lines then the position of their being poured directly in to stimulate your synapses is most probably invalidated and “Why” still remains. Those of you not devolved into paranoid schizophrenia (yet) are perhaps inquiring “Why” in the name of Olympus am I still reading this nonsense? Others of you may be pondering “Why” is the big brain allowing me such seditious material that would lead to self awareness. Not to mention awareness of B.B. himself (or herself, your author has not had time to check under the cortex's). Lastly many of you, with your brows furrowed, will probe your perceptions to find a purpose for this prodigious, pertinacious, and (hopefully) perspicacious prattling. The purpose of the prattle (as your author would not be so bold as to attempt the other two) is that understanding of the context and content forthcoming, in the form of historical accounts and concepts related to said accounts, has a soul pre-requisite. That is a comprehension on some fundamental level that all you perceive as “real” is only as bona fide as your verse, which I am in the process of establishing is just about as corporeal as an excellent mirage. Though certainly your author must admit if life is a mirage then the universe most certainly has a high definition screen.
To logically further this line of thought let us ruminate on the axiom that the average human being can perceive two percent of all known electromagnetic wavelengths without technological aid and only ten percent with. How might a ponderous human entity even dare to apply the term “real” to such a small portion of overall perceptibility? Perhaps more profoundly, can an entity that has such a small effective probing potential even be considered aware enough to attain the title of “living”? Would higher vibrating species give to us the designation we bestow upon viruses? Instinctual and non static, but neither conscious nor active enough to actually classify as life. On the head’s side of this coin there is the possibility that as energy cannot be destroyed there are entire dimensions (even our own theoretically) created solely of cohesion between the collective castoffs of the hopes, desires, emotions, thoughts and un-chosen paths of an individual human entity or the species as a whole. Quite the duality of the human condition that we could be (through our thoughts alone ) latent gods or creatures less conscious than dust.
Exocogitate further that your senses (assuming for a moment you are as you seem) are made up entirely of electrically based pathways throughout your mass and electrical impulses which travel through these paths. Then contemplate that modern technology has accorded us the knowledge that electricity is one of the simplest forces to manipulate. All one requires is the correct conductor, insulator, and storage device to redirect electricity in any direction and form the user sees fit. To de-emphasize the complexity, I submit to you that while you may see yourself as a human of average height and build you could in all actuality be a ten foot tall Cyclops with a hair lip. You may say this is absurdity but then consider how you perceive your face to be your face and your height to be your height. Through sight and touch which are both electrically based sensations. I would hope however that you do not convince yourself or discover that you are a large Cyclops with a lip malady as they are most unpleasant persons to converse with.
With these limitations of perceptibility in mind could one not propose the conceivability of entire worlds subsisting before our eyes far grander than our own but remaining unseen due to a higher or lower frequency of vibration or merely just existing in the “im-perceivable ninety-eight“. In your home, office, W.C., entire wars could be waged even of a nuclear variety yet you would be unaware and unharmed because of vibrational and inter-dimensional disconnectedness. In a universe where so little can be realized truly the possibilities are endless.
If the above does not meet the requisites for the induction of existentialism within you, then I offer these final thoughts for your envisaging pleasure. Are you aware of under what criteria you base your primary instinctual perception and through such, the individual entity that you have become? Every experience in your peresity has endowed you, the individual sentient, with a plethora of possible reactions and from this massive body of experiences and reactions a personality, practical disposition, and perhaps even are soul are manufactured. Assuming this is factual then no two individuals are the same in their personalities (or souls) as no experience is ever a perfect reproduction of another. Ergo all our personalities are shaded differently and no two individuals can possibly be perfectly in sync (at least in flesh) for as the old sophists stated “There are as many truths as there are men.” Furthermore, would one not be correct if they opined that under the previously stated premise an entirely different outlook is a form of relative reality, a form of truth? If you accept that there are as many truths as there are entities to create them then this stands to reason there are as many verses as there are truths, for “truth” is nothing more than an all encompassing concept of an individual‘s verse. (Stick that in your pipe and smoke Brian Greene.)
Finally we return to the raison d’être for this entire introduction, what you believe and how your author can violate this. You the individual accepts in your everyday life that the “universal rug” will not be pulled out from under you at any moment. If otherwise, the vast majority could not be functional and would have no ambition. For without the promise of stability of what use is forward progression? The means by which you chose to do this is the most interesting invention of humanity to date, faith. Some with faith in a creator that protects you, with no objective evidence of his existence. Some with faith in a set of physical “laws” observed time and time again, yet defied and ignored in defiance every waking hour (your author would also like to note that those who place faith in said laws have no idea why they function on a macrocosmic level yet still have faith in them, however this is only worth mention in a parenthesis). Some with faith that what always has been always will be for no other reason than current persistence. All are asserted axiomatic dogma’s otherwise known to their devotee’s as “truth”.
While faith is flawed with inherit chosen avoidance of the uncomfortable or otherwise unexplainable, the alternative is far less agreeable. Existential anarchy with all pondering if the next moment is the last for time and space. To clarify, your author seeks only to remind a forgetful species of the specie’s legacy lost, not to remove their faith. That legacy is in awareness and thought but most importantly in the forefront of their consciousness retaining the intellection that knowledge unquestioned is knowledge non-existent.
Since your author has now effectively offended every entity that believes anything, he have only these word for you (assuming your bonfire does not now have existential text for kindling). If you read further most likely you will be liberated by being drawn into a world that is far and far different from your own. Or if you are a box brain/dream, cease existing (assuming liberation and termination are not mutually exclusive). So hold on to that rug tight Aladdin, as your author now gives to you the alliterated memories of a world long since passed. Welcome to Terraga.
(For those of you not fond of long alliterative explanations the above can be surmised into a single line. “What you see, ain’t ever what you get.”)
Copyright ©2008 D.E. Wilson
The following are two of my favorite political articles written way back in 2005 when I understood a great deal less than I do now. The first is more historical while the second is scarily prophetic in some instances (considering the election). Love 'em or hate 'em, I hope you enjoy 'em.
Common Sense Revisited
PC= Practical Communism
By D.E. Wilson
World domination is a beautiful thing. Especially if one can achieve it without the in-convenience of arterial fluid on ones hands, or head. To attain supremacy without guilt and any that might possibly arise can be allayed by asserting the misguided thought processes of your enemy and therefore accounting their many years of oppression this is their just desert. All one must do is forcibly mold the culture until the “sheeple” (or unwashed masses, whichever you prefer) see our superior logic. Once this is achieved we shall replace all paradigms with ours and crush the dissenters. This is true progress.
Now the above could be taken from the mission statement of any religious extremist organization and abstractly it is. You will not find it however on the websites of Islamic Jihad nor on the wall of mountain dwelling Christian militia preparing for the anti-savior. This is the artificial brainchild not of the “religion of peace” nor the “religion of charity” this is the tool of the red religion. The religion of ideological intolerance for all but their brood or in the words of their namesake “Religion is the Opiate of the Masses”. That’s right good ole communism. Fantastic as it may seem that the church of latter day Bolsheviks would have a subversive conformist policy to undermine populations through elitist control and propaganda, knowledge of the past and sound reasoning show it to be fact. The history however is by far the more interesting facet. The history of Political Correctness, the history of Practical Communism for the masses sold as nirvana and utopia in a box. Only the box is dripping red, and that isn’t paint.
I .Frankfurters of Frankfurt-
The time is 1923; the place is the University Of Frankfurt, Germany, the mission, infiltration of “Marx Pox” into every government on earth along with removing every facet of western civilization that ever existed. Surely you must be inquiring why such a “superior” school of thought as “Trotsky’s Tool” would even require a clandestine smoke filled room to discuss stratagem. If this is the case then it may come as a blow to you to discover that the proprietors of propaganda were not pleased at all. In fact they were practically befuddled as to why the “fellow travelers” were not emancipating themselves from the hated west. The “misguided ones” did not unite following the fray. Quite the contrary a new wave of nationalism and prosperity was born. In fact the only coup they had managed to generate was in Russia, a country ripe for communism if ever there was one.
There could only be two conclusions. The first being that western civilization had so indoctrinated and infiltrated the mass psyche that the only course of action was to purge even the concept of the west from the inside out. With the final obstacle removed the “Engel’s Shingles” could finally achieve its predestined state. This concept was penned by Antonio Gramsci (who later went on to write such “works” as “Prison Notebooks”) in his summation of the problem, “ The workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion – that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests”, or as his compatriot Georg Lukacs (whose “literary exploits” include “What is Orthodox Marxism”) uttered in a classical red retort "Who will save us from Western Civilization?". The secondary impossible option was that communism just does not function. This simply couldn’t be valid as the concept made so much sense. The theory, the feel of it, finally putting the production owners in their place, wasn’t this what humanity had strived for since its inception, power and “equality”. Apparently not, but that didn’t stop the “fascist farcical philosophers” from continuing on their path to the epiphany of forced indoctrination.
As Marxism usually operates the entire conclave was a meeting of purely philosophical minds speaking in the usual banter about the horrid nature of the bourgeois, while (talk about your double standards) the whole shebang was funded by the offspring of a wealthy German trader named Felix Weil who of course acquired “white guilt” syndrome due to his father’s success. The brain trust of the “crimson crusaders” being brought together and funded by capitalist currency, now that is irony or hypocrisy, or both. This discrepancy was not the initial and would in only the most ludicrous fantasy be the last, after all when you devise the standards why can you not “move the goalposts” whenever it suits you. I.E. capitalism is evil unless of course it vicariously assists you in which case it is justified for the greater good. Then again an elitist aristocrat funding the philosophies of elitist thinkers wasn’t exactly a new phenomenon. Never the less the first “Marxist Work Week” is born of Weil’s desire to see a unification of communism and the furthering of it causes. The inconsistencies continue as the name itself hails from a smoke and mirror-esque deception with the original being the “Institute for Marxism”. Of course one could not expect honest representation when ones goal is subjugation and thus the new altered, less offensive, sanitized term, “The Institute for Social Research”.
The conjecture is quite simplistic. It basically entails taking Marxism from an economic formula for fascism to a social one. Beginning with academia and selective teaching of history, then once the red white and blue minds of future Americans have dropped the white and blue the next stage is implemented. Using the media to desensitize, deamericanize, and demoralize the populous. Then of course the socialist politicians are used to assert authoritarian dominance and social dependence on government. The final stage is to break down or reinterpret the countries law so as to make the revolution a sure thing. These actions however were predated by the realizations of the above quoted theorists who began the “leg work” to usher in the new aggressive form of “big red”. Gramsci approached with the typical philosophical approach and made progress in unification and subjugation however it was Lukacs that was the “intruding innovator” for the suppression of today. Following the “red revolution” in Hungary he attains the position of deputy commissioner of culture. A post in which his first undertaking is to commence sex education in all schools. Now to place this into perspective Hungary, as most of Europe at the time, was quite catholic and needless to say quite conservative. To introduce as required curricula a somewhat taboo subject outside of hushed whispers simply as a weapon of mass distraction, was and is a brilliant strategic move (one would expect nothing less from a man characterized as the most brilliant communist thinker since Marx). After all hedonists do not really care about the state of government as long as their desires are met, and isn’t diversion what life is all about. These actions along with numerous comparable, would set the stage for the academic totalitarianism of today as well as the approach of an “open society” where one can aspire to find pleasure without boundaries. Do as you desire, smoke what you desire, do anyone you desire (children included). What-so-ever your little heart desires with no judgment or morality from religion or social margins. Need I repeat that a hedonistic society does not care for government actions?
From the bowels or brain (whichever you prefer) of this beast I refer to as the “communist conclave” came the most effective tool in the arsenal of idealism. Intellectual elitism at its apex, social Darwinism incarnate, the key to a red west. What a grand portion of providence that the door is steel and with multiple locks, or is it?
II.The Revelation of the Revolution or Politically Correct Pinkos’ On Parade
Perhaps you have heard the old adage “the winners write the history books”. Well somewhere between 1923 and 1980 the “band of liberty loathers” must have achieved a rather large victory as one would be hard pressed as of late to find a history book used in pre-high school education that does not have the slightest amount of anti-American propaganda, exaggeration, the taking of one perspective of the issue and not present the context etc… The reason being that as the communists in Russia perceived rather swiftly the most effective instrument of control was through hegemony through perception. As such the heads of academia and media composed or subtly altered both present and past to cast a favorable light on the regime (tyrannical governments do that sort of thing, or so I hear), and if you were an ambitious despot, wouldn’t you? Of course the trick is to make it somewhat factually based unlike during the waning days of Russian communism where on T.V. and in print all you would observe is how bountiful and prosperous the Russian people were. Funny thing was no one seemed to have any food, so it must just be in other provinces, right? The Czars were tyrants in the Russian history books yet according to some historians Russia was three steps away from having the most advanced society in Europe.
In America, academics have a more fascinating methodology. Apparently America is the “great white imperialist oppressor” and she along with all historically successful countries are for the most part evil (anyone smell a Ginsburg). History is distorted, sanitized and needlessly exaggerated along with removing all contextual basis to isolate the effect without the cause. Such as displaying the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki without the concepts that to conquer mainland Japan would have cost a million American lives along with many millions of Japanese lives, also sans Pearl Harbor. This distortion of historical fact is applied so as to simply remove nationalism and patriotism as if they were tumors. With their departure there is no hurtle to a politically correct communist movement. To put it austerely as ole Karl once did “A people without a heritage are easily persuaded”. To date it has been quite effective.
The Union Jack, symbol of British greatness and superiority is only flown during World Cup matches. In fact according to my English compatriots those who conspicuously place them are looked down upon. Even made to feel ashamed if possible because it might “offend” other cultures. Back in the states it is widely displayed that the only persons who wear clothing with the American flag are those too impoverished to wear anything else, sans politicians who wear pins baring the insignia on their jackets. This is all perpetrated for one purpose. To instill the thought that all persons of European descent that do not acknowledge the “oppressive nature” of their heritage are un-enlightened or racist and absurd as it may be it has been enormously effective, so effective in fact that multiculturalism has replaced baseball as Americas pastime. Needless to say, I’m not playing.
III. Mommy when I grow up I want to be a Marxist Media Mogul too…
As the manipulative despots bible (a.k.a. The Communist Manifesto) states, the means of production is the true power on earth and if that is the case then the power to mold minds is paramount. To put it as the head Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels did. “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”, and play they do. The only difficulty with the American media is that it would appear more that the French government is in concert far more than George “Open Border” Bushy and his boys. The “news” in any western country is no longer objective journalism, but downplay or up-play ,and in many cases if the story does not suit the agenda, complete disregard of or at least placement on page z-99. Why do you ask, is this the case. It is because conclusively eighty percent of the American media is actively pressing political correctness. Therefore to meet the standards of the theory they must A) If possible ignore or minimize any story of “minority” crime as they are the “oppressed” B) give as much face time as possible to stories of Caucasian crime as they are the “oppressor” C) As a strong military is paramount to nationalism destroy the positive perception of the armed forces so in the final outcome the military can be done away with all together D) At every opportunity display features that deface the majority religion (80-85% of Americans classify themselves as Christian) so that no one will be “offended” by the moral and social “judgments” that Christianity makes. While at the same time refusing to call Islamic suicide bombers, Islamic. E) Present the country in an effectively overall adverse light while projecting Europe as the grand mount of civilization ( yep 20% unemployment, riots in the streets, and citizens doped to their eyeballs sounds like progress to me) so as to induce social and cultural change. It should be noted that the majority of media is not made up of communists but socialists. I am sure they legitimately believe that they are doing the right thing by ceasing the “uncomfortable” regime of Christianity in a country founded by Christianity and is still primarily Christian.
Personally I am just waiting for the burning of the Reichstag, I mean House of Congress. A Nazi shot is a bit much perhaps, but I would remind you that Hitler was a socialist by namesake and if you read the words of billionaire, and globalist/socialist Ted Turner (owner and founder of CNN) “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." – (quoted in the The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June '96) can you be so sure Adolph is gone? Read any communist pamphlet and compare it to the propaganda of Goebbels and tell me communism is different than Nazism. Me, I love the smell of eugenics in the morning. Smells like, socialism.
IV Q. What’s the difference between a prostitute and a politician? A. Elections
Fewer words have so epitomized the current plight of the American body politick as former Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s- “We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism”. An honest communist, don’t see that every day. His words have rung true for many a year from the WPA, to the “Great Society”. More and more entitlements until eventually the public realizes they can vote directly from the public trough (gotta love a two party system). Then of course there is the globalization of the economy as I have spoken of previously, extremists on the most non-democratic facet of American government, The Supreme court. As is understood by reading the words of justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, "The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification” I would expect nothing less from a former counsel to the American Communist Liberation Unit, oh sorry I mean American Civil Liberties Union. The fact that she’s is on the highest court in the land and is not in favor of America’s sovereignty or constitution didn’t seem to keep congress from giving her the nod. Hmm wonder why? Could it be that the two parties are in cahoots to form a sort of oligarchy with the American people footing the bill... nah.
V.I thought this was a political article not a Tolstoy emulation
In the final accounting of all there are two concepts that must be realized. The first is that neither communism nor socialism function properly. History and logic show us that the only height possible is that of idealistic constructs that can only operate under near fascist regimes . Socialism or its derivative “National Socialism” has given us Hitler as the most notable, communism , Mao, Pol Pot, and of course Stalin. The rub lies in the thought process of communists and socialists in which they assert themselves as “progressives” when in actuality they are no more progressive than St. Thomas Aquinas. Communism is naught but a regression to a feudal-esque society where the wealth and resources are consolidated within an elite leadership and the population are little better than over glorified serfs. The only difference being that in feudal society power was brawn backed by brain. Just as in Nazi Germany the Marx concept will be brains backed by brawn. When you look at the issue objectively it becomes apparent that the aspiration of Marx and Engles was not to initiate some communal fantasy-land of freedom but to fashion an Intell-ocracy. To achieve precisely what the nobles of feudal Europe had except with a new spin. Then had the gall to sell their philosophies as a boon to the “oppressed poor”. I say that usually the only persons who benefit from a revolution are the head revolutionaries and after all isn’t this natural. Look at how many pawns must be sacrificed for checkmate. Communism and Socialism are retro-feudalism in concept and application. Hitler and Stalin little more than Genghis Khan in swastikas and with sickles. Marx and Engles, little more than proverbial scientists who create the killer disease and are then done away with to cover tracks. Despite it being a power hungry beast, a de-evolution of the human species and the “Ebola of government” (110 million people died of communist oppression between 1920 and 1987 according to Rudolph J. Rummel’s “Death by Government) it still has many followers who would for weeks proceed to inform you of red merits yet ignore history. To you more than to them I would say do not fear those who would palpably purloin your liberty. They will be met with fists. Fear those who aspire to relieve you of your freedom for the benefit of humanity. They will be met with open arms.
The second is that the entire purpose of political correctness is the destruction of common sense. The conception that all persons think relatively alike. As communism will never have a majority vote they cannot have such notions floating about. Common sense is this, child molesters are bad, clergymen are good, people in prison are bad, police officers are good, people who commit crimes should be in prison, people that just want to live a free life shouldn’t be, America is the greatest country on earth because it is the freest country on earth, communism is not free so communism is bad. Simple logic and as such it must be destroyed lest the uninformed masses learn that, yes most things in life are very simple and clear cut. Maybe Cotton Mather was right. “Religion begot prosperity, and the daughter devoured the mother”.
Now
you may say that I just don’t see the “beauty” of communism, to
which I would respond, I read the Communist Manifesto while listening
to “John Lennon’s Imagine” and I still saw more romantic
idealism than reality, but who am I to criticize a fairy tale. That
is until the fairies start running over students in tanks and in
paranoia killing millions to sustain their power. Seems to me like
they need to Re-visit a little Common Sense.
Common Sense Revisited
(PC=Practical Communism Part II)
By. D.E. Wilson
Redundancy is to writing, what public awareness is to modern day politics, murder. That being said a sequel isn’t exactly what I had in mind when I donned the blade of history and shield of factual logic to combat political correctness. After all, look at the landscape of past additions, The Eighteenth Amendment, World War II, and worst of all, Rocky V. Despite the torrid chronicles of corollaries there was far more to be said and clarified than I could manage in one (quite large) article. With that, sit back, take your blood pressure medication along with a few deep breathes and prepare to be outraged yet again. If you are a politically correct, Castro loving, Che Guevara boot licking, social Darwinist pinko, because someone is blowing your subversive cover and if you are a freedom loving, military admiring, rational ponderous individual, because “Marx Pox” has a new highly virulent strain that’s about as new as it is beneficial to humanity.
One note, as I theorize that communism is naught but medieval feudalism part dos; I shall henceforth refer to it (except in the satirical form of course) as Neo-Feudalism.
I. Where’s a Jefferson When You Need One
As alluded to previously “political correctness” is a Lenin-esque social control mechanism whose aim is to remove all societal and cultural obstacles to the proliferation of the land based “red tide”. The name itself (as you will find with the titles of many “progressive” groups) is a declaration of theirs being the only correct path and all others are according to comparison, faulty. Yet oddly enough those who would sell you “political correctness” would do so under the auspices of respecting diversity. I fully believe that if paradoxes and double standards were capital then the Neo-feudalists could just buy America lock stock and barrel, and not worry about this whole manipulation thing. But then again the most amusing part of a communist revolution is watching the bourgeoisie squirm.
Let me lay it out for you nice and easy like. The rules are no different than those you would find on any middle school playground. I (being the aforementioned children of the sickle) can do and say whatever I want and there is nothing you can do about it. Then there is a raspberry or some protruding tongues I’m sure. The second portion of boundaries are, you can only do and say what I allow, lest I speak badly of you and call you racist or Nazi. Perhaps a bit overly simplistic but if variety is the spice of life, simplicity is its essence. To break it down outside of third grade terms the target is to use every means available to convert what common sense would denote as “normal” to be an abnormality and symmetrically with the conversion of abnormality to normality, what is considered sanitized to be soiled and the soiled sanitized, tradition and record sullied so that the only option would seem to be a drastic new path as obviously the present one is inefficient. To alter that which is subjectively right and subjectively wrong to the majority and commute them with the “alternative”. The farmer leading the cart while the horse rides so to speak. To those of this philosophy the terminus maximus is that disparaging right and wrong and replacing them with what is “legal” society will abstain from such “non-inclusive” judgmental” language. As what is legal is defined by legal precedent and therefore depends on what kind of a judge you can consign the case too. This is communism at its most basic. The redefining of social fibers to meet an idealistic agenda.
The rub lies within the eye of historical context. As Rome, Russia, and many of their counterparts have discovered a society without social and moral boundaries is a culture that cannot sustain itself. Social and moral boundaries not so much in terms of law but in that when one commits an act that is abhorrent the people look upon him in disgust and with shame, not with admiration. Which is exactly what the social “progressives” wish to reverse. To take all human judgment of adverse action out of the public square and replace it with “tolerance” and “understanding”. Again this is solely for the decomposition of the civilization into an easily molded piece of human clay and when it is as such, place even stricter boundaries and with higher standards as the Neo-feudalists are quite aware that social boundaries keep power and the people in place. So if this is the case then Stalin really didn’t kill forty million people. He just fired up the kiln.
This is as difficult to perceive as the proverbial pink elephant in the pantry. You have the Anti-Capitalist Leninists United (a.k.a. A.C.L.U.) who are more than happy to at every turn contribute lawyers and resources to the brawl against the status quo. Christmas-gone form the public forum, Abortion-nearing un-fettered state thanks to specious demagoguery, the revolting, disgusting, nauseating (an I’m being light on them) North American Man Boy Love Assoc. Two hundred years of history and tradition- taken out like the trash they assert it is, and naturally labeled as societal “progression” to a higher state of being. I reiterate the intent is to strip the concepts of morally correct and morally incorrect to from the minds of the victims and replace them with the concept of what is legal and what can I get away with. However let it not be said that the propagandists just because they seek to rewrite history are not aware of it. They are quite conscious of it which is why it must be sanitized or done away with all together lest people remember Abe Lincoln said "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves” and also they know the words of Antoine de Saint-Exupery, "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people together to collect wood and assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.". Really when you think critically these elements have just taken up the reigns that their childhood friends left unattended. Col. Stanislav Lunev made allusions to the original holders in his book “Through the Eyes of the Enemy”. “The GRU and KGB helped fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad... What will be a great surprise to the American people is that GRU and KGB had a larger budget for antiwar propaganda in the United States than it did for economic and military support to the Vietnamese." Which of course lead to such words as those of Vain Pawn-da, err… that is Jane Fonda, "I would think that if you understood what communism was you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communists." Now if there was ever an apt declaration of (as Lenin referred to it) “useful idiocy” (which was later sanitized to “fellow travelers”) it would be Hanoi Jane’s.
My question is this, why would such a percentage of the population wish to be fellow travelers and hoi polloi to their comrades when history has shown the people only suffer? The majority who do are just pawns but the “true believers” have other rationales. All human beings seek validation for their existence. To feel as though they have accomplished something, left their mark on world as we know it. This is the only form of immortality humanity can aspire to achieve on earth as we know it. Does this mean they foresee what their actions will breed? No and they do not wish to, as living in a world of pure theory is a far better and safer existence. I would assert they truly buy that this is the path humanity should traverse and fully ignore both history and logic due to a lack of tolerance for dissenting opinions. The difficulty arises when the fellow travelers attempt to apply their beliefs to the populous for the sake of easing their guilt or leaving their legacy. People will die. Many people will die to prevent communism in America and other free countries once they realize it is on the threshold. Many more will die for disagreeing with it.
II. Elections, We Don’t Need No Stink’n Elections
Let’s get down to the crux of the matter. Communists are a minority and always will be a minority. Therefore there are two ways a communist government can be birthed. A) By a coup while the government is weak and the people could really care less who succeeds as long as it is a change, B) by an apathetic decadent population who would let ideologues decide what is best for them and their children as they haven’t the time. I’ll give you three guesses as to which America is, and the first two don’t count. Again we return to Lukacs to inquire how do you induce apathy in a population. The answer is to take advantage of decadence, destruction of moral and social boundaries or as George Orwell opined “Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Then there is the burning or altering of history or any mediums counter to your agenda. Such as speaking about the Christian crusades against Islam without revealing the context of Islam invading halfway across France before the first crusade was called for or if you prefer the attempted slandering of Americas forefathers as secular atheists so as to allow the reinterpretation of the constitution into the quintessential “ do what you like as long as it feels good” document. All of this while many history books either ignore or excuse Mao’s Millions, Stalin’s slaughter, and the Khmer Rouge’s ravages. Could it be that Neo-feudalism doesn’t want you to know the truth? Then again what do you need history for once you have asserted yourself into authority. If you are a socialist there are “re-education camps” (or schools) to convert the non-believers and if you’re a communist, gulags. But until that blessed day you will have to settle for subversion and propaganda. Continue expressing the idea that the country is a horrid place to be and the only way to salvage our liberty is by socializing medicine, removing every facet of American tradition from the consciousness, and taxing the rich until the bell curve looks more like a slight hump. Again as I have expressed in part one I believe this is not a progression to a more enlightened state. This is plainly and simply the destruction of the most dangerous group in existence to any power monger, the middle class. Perpetrated solely to induce a return to a feudal society where there is only a peasant class and an elite class which controls the resources in what I refer to as an Intell-ocracy. The intellectuals control all the means of production and return to the age old equation of how much we can get away with, without causing a revolution.
How is the question? How can one subvert America to the dredges of Marxism? The analogy goes as such. Imagine you have a giant child who is as most children are in one manner or another, quite ignorant of the agendas of others. The strategy is to berate this giant child as to engage him in battle would be disastrous. Plant in his mind a seed that he is somehow bad and should feel guilty for what he has done in the past. Applied enough the child will become self conscious and seek to please the handler who speaks to him in such a manner. He is now subverted, controlled, and no longer a threat. The child is of course the United States; the handler is the major media throughout the world along with the U.N., E.U. and all who crave to have the potency of lady liberty but as they cannot they must bring her to her knees by spitting in her face and calling her whore until she submits.
This is a complete psychological paradigm shift from the old logic of realization that not everyone or everything is, or should be equal. You have what you have and you must make the best of what is held or you cannot aspire to more. To the philosophy of the day where the concept is more along the lines of that person or country has certain superior qualities to mine so I shall brood and eventually hatch a scheme to devastate them (insert devious smile here). Socialism at its finest, to assert that the best should not be the best but should be equalized with the rest, especially the west.
I compose these seemingly endless analogies to hit home the point that the communist party could never win a legitimate initial election because theirs is a philosophy of illogic. Really, if their ideology was so superior why would all other parties have to be eliminated? Wouldn’t the people always vote red? This all ties into one idea and that is the fundamental flaw of the American system.
Popular or not I say that Americas checks and balances aren’t so checked and balanced anymore. The executive and legislative branches do a fairly good job of oversight however the only checks and balances in the case of the courts are elections or appointments, sans of course impeachment for crimes. Therefore appointed judges have complete latitude to make any decisions they so choose with no responsibility for them as they cannot be held accountable for their judgments. As we have seen in the past this role is one of, if not the most politically exploited branch of government (even though especially in the case of the Supreme Court the position should be a-political). Weather it is the Burger court who has given us the (eugenics precedent setting) Roe V. Wade decision or the Rehnquist court which decided private companies and the government could take possession of private property whenever they so choose, or even the 9th circuit court of appeals who apparently decided that an anti-communist measure put in place by the government and the people (who are theoretically one and the same) of “under god” should be removed as it might offend .09% of the population. Don’t like your odds with one court? Shop around the country and find a judge whose politics suits yours. That is not to say that at one time our judiciary was not beneficial, however as I see it all true questions of constitutionality have been established long before and now all that is left for the supreme court to propagate its existence on are social issues which should be decided by voters, not the judiciary. The worm has turned and the national and regional judiciary becomes our Achilles heel and our authoritarian hell. Back to the initial position quoting Ronald Reagan “How do you tell a communist Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.” Therefore neo-feudalists cannot win a legitimate, publicly informed, election and as such must try and subvert by any means necessary, being advantageous of any weakness.
I will say this however, I am no more in favor of religious zealot neo-feudalists having power through the judiciary, than I am for neo-feudalist red’s. Both have a right to exist in America and worship God, Allah, and Karl Marx as they see fit. However as the retro-red’s have much influence to the point that the religious are defaced I am far more concerned with those who thump Mao’s little red book, than I am with those who thump Korans and Bibles.
III. Government is akin to a lion. It kills, it eats, and it defecates. The first two it does in the name of the people, the third it does on the people.
No theoretical form of government is inherently good no more than any is inherently evil. Think of forms of government as second hand light bulbs. Some work, some don’t, and some will burn the house down and kill everybody. Government itself is naught more than an ideal that those who live in society adhere to because its more convenient than having to deal with all persons on a case by case basis as says Thomas Hobbes in his version of the social contract theory. Let’s face reality though folks all governments either vicariously or directly kill, all governments are inefficient, wasteful, and lie like a lawyer just given impunity from perjury. The conceptions of self rule through communism/neo-feudalism, socialism, republic, and democracy are ideals that the very nature of which are required because human beings as a whole are imperfect, self serving, egotistical, creatures who when seeing opportunity have a Pavlovian response. Does that mean all human beings are evil or some such thing? No, but sometimes we cannot foresee the results of our actions and therefore we establish a council of the human over-mind that we call government. We do this so as to consolidate the best of our attributes within a body in the hopes that doing as such will allow us to have a more agreeable existence. There will always be crime, there will always be poor, there will always be death and murder, the point is not to eliminate any of these but to discourage them as much as is conceivably possible to the point of elimination. Perhaps the proverbial donkey and carrot, however the entire point of the donkey and carrot is not the donkey or the carrot but about the work done along the way. Which is why neither neo-feudalism or socialism can function over a long period of time as they operate under three flawed assumptions, 1) that humanity can be perfect with the right philosophy 2) That individual human entities will be satisfied with equalization but more to reality pseudo-equalization 3) That what you cannot do with starry eyed philosophy you can do by force. Republic and Democracy recognize that humanity has its flaws and if not there would be no need for either where as neo-feudalism and socialism seek to propagate their existence on the flaws of humanity while at the same time asserting the ascension to selflessness on a massive scale (paradox much). The problem with most theory such as capitalistic democracy/republic and neo-feudalism/socialism is that they live in the extremes. To put it as Publius Terentius Afer did “Moderation in all things”. What I am alluding to is this; no form of government in its theoretical state can function. Democracy and republic can only function without social issues being brought into government which is practically impossible in our day and age. Socialism cannot work on its own because of the above stated flaws.
Capitalistic Republic combined with a little socialism is as close to a perfect form of government as we can achieve currently or at least as perfect as we are. Humanity does not live in extremes so I do not see why our governments should operate in them. To most of humanity actions are not always good or evil, boiling hot or chillingly cold, vicious hate or passionate love. I would assert that the great majority of all human interaction takes place in the gray middle of existence. Therefore when communists and socialists assert that capitalistic republics are evil and have always oppressed the public they are just as incorrect as those who follow the philosophy of a capitalistic republic and assert that there is nothing that can be taken from either socialism or neo-feudalism and that the entire concept is evil and should be done away with. Again I say to you that the ultimate form of government is a capitalistic republic with just enough socialism that there is no one starving and with a great deal of capitalism so that the people can raise themselves up and not be dependent on government. Now I know this idea will not be popular as it makes too much sense and then the only role of politicians would be to oversee that the laws and bureaucracy did not become so socialistic that the country is bankrupt with fifty percent unemployment or so capitalistic that corporations can take whatever course of action they choose if they have enough capital and ambition. Now you may call me a radical to which I would say yes, yes I am or as Gore Vidal said "The word 'radical' derives from the Latin word for root. Therefore, if you want to get to the root of anything you must be radical. It is no accident that the word has now been totally demonized..." My radicalism lies in getting to the root of the problem and (with fear of being redundant) as Ronald Reagan stated in his inaugural address, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” And that friends is simply Common Sense.
