03-06-2021
Boundaries Part 2
Ironically, when our individual boundaries are trespassed upon there is almost inevitably a new boundary created that forbids us freedom. This is merely another way to imagine what is taking place. Fabricating boundaries that do not exist in the natural world I call “false boundaries”. Borders between states do not halt the flow of rivers or force mountain ranges to a premature end. They are imaginary.
We respect these imaginary borders in order to organize ourselves and adjudicate laws. Civilization is based upon man made laws (false boundaries) that may peacefully coexist with natural law. False boundaries, however, should be kept to a minimum and governments should not impose their will upon nature (the nature of man) any more than is needed to maintain the peace. This is common sense that a moral people can easily understand and accept. So much of the social contract is unspoken because humanity possesses a common understanding of survival and happiness. (More irony – the communist block uses the term “peaceful coexistence” in their foreign policy statements.)
In 1776 our forefathers embarked on what was early on described as an “experiment”. Never before on planet earth had so many freedoms been guaranteed to individuals. Never before had a government yielded authority to the people. It worked for two reasons. One, the founding documents were remarkably just. Two, the population was remarkably moral. (not perfect, but moral in the majority)
Why America did not devolve immediately into chaos was a mystery to the entire world. Our history is fraught with fighting and disagreement yet over time has been a beacon of liberty, free markets, and opportunity. As a country we have literally straddled the line between caution and recklessness, chaos and comfort. It has driven us to greatness and plunged us into crisis time and again. A free people cannot be expected to go along quietly at all times, yet we must recognize the boundary between civilized and not.
The Civil War was fought to keep the states intact and abolish that negotiated sin of slavery. It was a war to save a civilization on this continent. 700,000 soldiers died and countless civilians. The bill was paid. It reestablished the boundary between the federal government and states and also reestablished the boundary between people, fulfilling the commitment, “All men / women created equal”.
A government cannot legislate morality. Democracy cannot exist without a moral people. If our leaders cannot or will not enforce the boundaries enshrined in the Bill of Rights, then we will continue our decent into chaos and surrender those rights. It is inevitable. That chaos invites, nay necessitates, some degree of martial law because at some point the authority will see its own demise without order. Already we see our intelligence agencies invading the privacy of citizens arbitrarily. Already the capital is occupied by military personnel. Another boundary ignored. Another boundary created.
Many have seen this coming and shouted a warning only to be – once again – marginalized by the new religion, possibly canceled. Accused of jumping to conclusions or “misinformation”, the latest popular term, these prophets are being silenced having trespassed on no one. There you have it. Squash freedom of speech – OK. Speak up against the mob – punished. Could anything be more immoral?
For certain morality is not always black and white. But reason makes it knowable on the most fundamental questions such as “Are all people permitted to speak? Or only those who can regurgitate Critical Theory?” Sometimes I think I’m living in a sci-fi movie gone bad. Only an abject refusal to recognize boundaries – that clinical narcissism already mentioned in part 1 – could be the cause of such double standards. Power, it would seem, corrupts absolutely.
So how do we conservatives know we are right and the left is wrong? Simplistically, we need only see who is crossing what boundary. Am I denying the Marxist his time on the podium? On the contrary, I wish to debate him or her. Are conservatives advocating cancel (cancer) culture? None that I have seen. Do conservatives accuse racial groups of crimes? No. Conservatives accuse individuals of crimes upon a preponderance of evidence.
By observation we can literally witness the trespassing. That tells us just which party is on the moral high ground and which party is not, however much they may both claim the same thing.
We need only look at the letters sent to the internet and TV carriers recently by several representatives of Congress. They are asking AT&T if they plan to continue to offer Fox News and Newsmax in their entertainment packages,… their “bundles.” They do not ask the same of CNN or MSNBC. They accuse Fox of “misinformation” while assuming CNN is not guilty of it. Both networks deliver news, slanted in opposite political directions. Usually, the news CNN covers is not covered by Fox and visa versa. But given a common topic, their stories line up.
Where the “misinformation” begins is in the opinion pieces. Our Congress people are asking AT&T to de-platform the opinions they’d rather not hear. They are clearly asking AT&T to play favorites by canceling the infidel. The letter reads as a threat, and the request is for censorship; because legally they have not found a way to silence conservative voices but a private sector company may operate as it wishes. We’ve heard this song before and although seemingly legal, it is definitely trespassing upon the rights of a press organization to be heard. But a victory by technicality is still a victory. The ends justify the means.
One wonders how a congressman or congresswoman could get elected when they cannot discern facts from opinions. Critical Theory, the dogma of the new religion, supposedly teaches critical thinking. But like everything else the Marxists claim, the truth is in opposition to their rhetoric. They wish to deconstruct history but what should be deconstructed and re examined is their entire thinking process. Leftists cannot debate a well spoken conservative so they simply go about silencing them.
If morality is “aiming for the good” as Aristotle suggested, then what do you call a belief system founded on hatred, jealousy, revenge, and accumulating power? Where is the virtue? Sanctimony is not virtuous. Yet the Marxist is so desperate to be right, so superficially certain that truth is on their side, they lash out, trampling boundaries along the way, ignoring karma, natural law, and every spiritual truth humanity has uncovered in the past 5,000 years. That is why communism and socialism eventually fail every time.
If we must go down this road that leads to pestilence, the sooner we stop and turn around, the better our chances of recovery. C.S. Lewis said of being lost – paraphrase – you can turn off the wrong path you have chosen and cut your way through the wilderness or you can retrace your steps back to where you went wrong. Making your way through thickets, bogs, and forests, you may very well become even more lost. But by reversing direction back to the known trail, you will certainly succeed in discovering your error.
Yet another allegory from the classics is the cave and the light. Mind you, this is where critical theory went wrong, goes wrong, and leads us away from truth. Western civilization’s classical education made possible the industrial revolution, the tech revolution, and space travel. Marx was a political thinker, wrapped up in single minded social constructs. Critical theory claims to be non political, yet it’s entire reason to exist was to prove Marx true. They deviate from dialectic thinking immediately thus precluding any possibility of seeing reality as it is. Rather, they make it what they wish it to be. A picture drawn by Marx in a London apartment.
Socrates tells us of the prisoners in the cave, tied down and facing a dark wall. The only thing they can see are the shadows cast by their keepers. They are ignorant of the world except for the images shown them, oppressors, races of people, the rich and poor, technology. From a meager selection of images, they build a world view which lacks fundamental awareness; no math, no music, no art, (save pictures of Biden), no philosophy save Marx, no religion whatsoever. How can you claim truth with only a sliver of it in your possession? How can you see the world if you are nose down against a stone wall?
Education takes place on an individual basis. It is the act of a single mind learning and awakening to the truth of things. You cannot educate the masses. You can only brain wash them. Being educated means hearing all of the available information and arriving upon a conclusion freely – of your own accord. Repeating a sound bite is not the same thing. Education does not trample boundaries, rather it unchains the prisoner facing the wall and allows him / her to exit the cave. Brain washing is the shadow on the wall and those chains that bind you – forcing your attention to the shadow – are the most egregious boundaries I can think of.
Freedom of speech is therefore a prerequisite to education. So why and how did cancel culture begin on our most illustrious campuses? Why has it propagated to our society and business sector? It seems to me that (some of) our most educated people are our most ignorant.
Negotiating the boundaries in our lives is the challenge to finding meaning and purpose in life. Happiness is the byproduct. Neither a government nor a social platform can guarantee you success; and the more obstacles placed in your path, the more restrictions, the more senseless rules and demands, the less likely you are to achieve your goals or ends. False guarantees, free stuff, lies, and personal insults taken or given will not yield satisfaction. Earning your way through life and becoming competent in all you do, will. Freedom is the essential ingredient.