What a New Year, yet can we not wonder this simple question. Is this the end?
Could there be more of a premise to the future of this nation than our present condition? Are we as a nation not in the same irony of the end of civilization before? The ‘beginning of the end’ as Wilson Churchill applied so apply after the ‘Battle of Britain.’ His metaphor applies conveying the reality the depths of destruction had been halted currently, and the future of the nation may survive. While currently in this nation—the destructive forces are as some never-ending tsunami of culture destruction destroying our society, while at the same time condemning our civilization.
Is it absolutely incomprehensible that a nation with the foundations by their very design allowed the people of this nation to stand apart, above all other societies that ever were; is now reduced to serfdom lower than any nation of chattel, potentate, or totalitarian nation or society every known in the history of mankind. Condemned not because so much as we have fallen, but because the incomprehensible of what we were when this tragedy began. No nation ever has the comparative of such a beginning as they rush headlong to a despair of what we are becoming. A nation from the pinnacle of design, to the depths of hell, our trajectory more magnified from the simple acknowledgment of how high were this nation’s ideals when it began. We now experience this free fall of absolute madness. The depths of the fall, only magnifies the absoluteness of the tragedy. For no nation, ever had achieved the pinnacle of magnifying the Protestant Christian concepts of Christianity applied in the form of government as this nation. Many scoff at that little reality, little realizing that if there was one iconic identifier of this nation wonder, and its destruction, the same barometer would be the signification. For if Christian of whatever else there is, perhaps papist, in the concept of the simple foundations of man’s right to ‘liberty’ it is not written or magnified in any doctrine other than the reformation of the concept of Christian belief. For it is, now as always, the only doctrine that recognizes the free-will, and the reality, the cognitiveness, that as the physics of the universe proclaim, it is man who comprehends in the very foundations of his soul that right and wrong exists. Good and bad is as much a part of man as his physical construct. For when man acknowledges that there is a right way, and a wrong way, to view all we do, does the reality when right is identified, and right is advanced has civilization advanced. Then man can truly stick out his chest, announce to the world, it may not be perfect but the way we do it is better than any before. Then the society, the civilization of that nation can they flout their hubris success, their acknowledgement that ‘no it wasn’t magical’ they have experienced the effort to achieve the result. Those results came from careful reasoning, studying, and acknowledging that not only in society, but also in the very soul of man is tacitly some magical identifier of evaluation. It is ‘absolutely’ remarkable to imagine that men are soulless, to a man with a soul. Yet in our experience as society as the citizens of our nation, as the actions of our political environment inundates us daily, that there are those without a soul. They also have no respect for man, or even the society in which we live. They refute the foundations of this nation, this civilization, the philosophy of Western Man since the known history of man, and the literacy of our species on a continuum.
Once a young man, a true idealist that in all his errors understood the absolute miracle of this nation, John Kennedy told us; ‘A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on.’
If anything emphasizes the loss in this nation, this little simple statement does. For in the history of mankind—no society, no people, no civilization—ever first acknowledged that as the scripture identifies, there is right and wrong, then reacted on that simple cognitive observation—that absolute common sense reality.
This nation, this absolute miracle, this acknowledgement of the conclusion of the reformation of national design, which began at the infancy of man’s literacy, achieved the highest pinnacle of design known then, or known today. That simple concept, the mirror of the Christian principles of man’s dignity of as living entities have, and deserve that simple reality—we stand as men who were born free, without constraint, without dictate, and that as men with free-will, will make those decisions. We make them for not only our government but our society as well. We as a people acknowledge men are born with liberty, and it is their right, by their approval to acquiesce that intrusion of government, to reduce their freedom by that choice.
Our nation’s founding father, George Washington understood the dichotomy of man as the agent for any legislation. ‘Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government,’ Washington told us. Is not the current situation of what our government is doing proof positive of this reality? Is not the continuum of dismissing the whole concept of an ‘enumerated’ republic, with specified duties and responsibilities of what government is not only dedicated to do, but is restricted in what they can do, disappeared from our genre. On the other hand, even the design of what our government does. Has not the men, those who have gained the power of this nation…as men…completely disregarded our nation’s design…proving beyond any doubt that men are unfit for their own government?
In the journey of man, we have little knowledge of all events. In the last 6,000 years, since for some reason man miraculously decided that literacy, to think, and to record that thinking in the form of written language, was a great idea, we know. Yet in that adventure, we have many conflicting ideas, ideals, philosophies, and even ideologies, along with the theologies that man has experienced. In all of the different evaluations of mankind one thing seems, by objective confirmation, that has always been identified as man’s major deficiency of society; ‘theft.’ Even the concept of laws, organized society, legislation or even forming a society has always been with this simple foundation. This simple reality, this cognitive observation, we see actually written in the commandments of the Christian foundations. That it must be written as a law—or was written as a law—is ample proof that Washington’s observation of mankind, existed long before his evaluation. For it was written the simple doctrine; ‘thou shall not steal.’ In the doctrine of preservation of the theology of Judea-Christian foundations of a monolithic religious order, and the doctrine of such, why the commandment of ‘not stealing’ was included is a question hard to visualize and respect how important is this simple requirement for civilized society. So important it is inclusive in the basic doctrine of the theology of the religious foundations we identify as Christianity.
As many things that are but hypothesis, such as man’s evolution, never proven but accepted as doctrine; we can identify that the societies of mankind have been, in the quest to find and apply this simple construct, to create a society, and a governance applying this same principle. In man’s past, and the history of man, one thing has been clear. Man did not come with our foundations of society. In fact, even under the hypothesis of evolution, man is animal that has somehow transformed to a homo sapient, a thinking man. In that process, one of the results is civilization. Though some would question with the individual elected to lead this nation, perhaps not all in society advanced along this path, content in some retardation of development; or perhaps destructive behavior of drug use, and mental destructiveness.
Things developed, such as society, civilization, and the interactions of mankind’s genesis is difficult to trace. To say that ‘Theft’ is the driver of man’s society, is acceptable, as all of history verifies it. For what is the hierarchy of our societies known as government? Are they not based on the form of theft we identify as taxation? Has not taxation been identified since the beginning of man’s literacy, this record of the past, as theft? Yet the theft of all for the reason of a few is so accepted in this irrational comprehension we are a ‘democracy’ where the dumbest among us can elect their idol, the epitome of the dumbest among us. Who can and has shown in the position of power in a government without restriction—one without rules and enumerations of what it can and cannot do—has shown through action in such a glimpse of time, that any government can debauch and destroy any nation…and sadly even this one as the current scenario is confirming.
Comments