The Revolution I



Click here to go HOME  

and click here to go back to the Wednesday Updates main listings, one of four main sections of


Wednesday Update

What we want to continue doing in some of these Wednesday Updates is to look at major events in the news in their larger historical context.... And maybe even how some things will be viewed in 50 years, 100 years or even 500 or 1000 years...


Subject: The good news and bad news for the future from the 2010 elections

(Wed., January 5, 2011)

(approx. 4275 words, 8 pp.)


A year ends, and a new year begins, and a new Congress...


Is the glass 90% empty or 10% full, and does it really matter?

What is...

The good news and bad news for the future from the 2010 elections,

or, that is,...

A strategy for national consensus at last & a possible total traditional values victory

Where things stand forever... It may all hang on this Congress?



Well, a new year, and usually this website does an analysis of where things stand for the nation and the world and what the coming year and even years may bring in terms of the successful re-establishment of the nation on its founding ideas and ideals. And to this ends the 2010 elections are a cause for great celebration, of course, and the significance of those victories may be of historic proportions, and perhaps even the beginning of the process to reverse 50 or 60 years of the Liberal to Radical humanistic decline and fall of America. That is "the good news" at least from a traditional values point of view; however the "bad news" is the 2010 elections, in my personal opinion, are probably more of a blip on the screen in the sad decline and fall of our Republic from a traditional-values and founding-principles perspective.



On the victories of 2010... one must be realistic

One does not want to throw cold water on the victories of 2010, nor become pessimistic or fatalistic, but nonetheless one must be realistic, and it may in fact be "over" for America, and we will not recover, because we as a nation are just too far "gone," tragically. As Lincoln said correctly in the 19th century "America is the worldís last best hope," but we can almost say today one decade into the 21st century that "America was, indeed, the worldís last best hope, and we failed, and there is no longer any hope for America and the world." This is very difficult for perhaps a majority of Americans to deal with, but we must be realistic.

This is not a very cheery thought, obviously, but this may in fact be the case. I am one who believes in "going down swinging," but nonetheless we may be going down, and we may not get back up, and so the 2010 elections may be just a mere blip on the screen in the downward spiral, and the crash-and-burn of our once great nation. But, still, there is some "good news" as well as "bad news" in our current situation from an historical perspective.


We need to thank Obama and the 2008 Congress for being so screwed up...

In reality the 2008 Congress (that is, elected in 2008) and the Obama administration were engaged in mutual back-scratching so outrageously corrupt and incompetent that they awoke the sleeping giant of the American people, at least those folks who were not already totally "gone," so to speak. Further, we really do need to have a Big Re-do on not just the past 2 years but actually, probably, a Complete Re-do on the past 50 to 60 years of the Liberal entitlement Welfare State, no less, and that possibility is greatly increased the worst things get in legislative actuality, and the 2 years following 2008 were about as bad as things could possibility get legislatively and otherwise from a traditional American values point of view, and in truth so think the overwhelming majority of the American people we now know.

Still, in order to have The Big Re-do in 2012 and following (let alone a Complete Re-do on the Liberal entitlement Welfare State of the past 60 years) we first had to have The Big (culminating) Screw-up of 2009 & 2010, so there is a silver lining in all of this. Even so, given the dynamic of presidential politics, I personally see the possibility of a traditional American values victory in 2012 to be slim, and if we do not pull off complete victory in 2012, presumably the opportunity will not come again in our lifetimes? (Yet another cheery thought?) But, regardless, the fate of the nation for generations to come could quite possibly be determined in 2012, just by force of larger culminating historical circumstances that have built up for decades somewhat beyond our control?


What, in fact, is the truly bad news that came out of the 2010 elections?

What is the truly bad news that came out of the 2010 elections? Given The Big Screw-up of the Obama administration and given not simply gross incompetence but what appeared to be a turn-a-blind-eye 2008 Congress and even at times enabling Congress (in corrupting the Constitutional political process), the Democrat losses were relatively minor, in actuality, and a hand full of House seats on the coattails of Obama in a 2012 victory and the Radical and Liberal Left have the whole thing back again. Tough luck for America? At least from a traditional values point of view...


The 3 main groups of political, spiritual and philosophical reality in America

What is the problem here? For better or worse, philosophically, religiously, politically, morally, Constitutionally, etc., there tend to be 3 main groups of people or 3 main viewpoints in America today, namely, the Radical humanist or atheist point of view, the spiritual Liberal point of view (which is actually a form of humanism of course though they generally do not so see themselves) and the traditional values point of view, pretty much represented by the historical Protestant, Catholic and Jewish faiths of the 18th and the 19th centuries, not that long ago in the big scope of things but for practical purposes for us today almost ancient history.

The Radical, as President Obama tends to be, sees the American founding to be merely a bunch of religious, racist, sexist, homophobic, white capitalists, who were truly a bunch of despicable men even by 18th century standards, let alone by todayís standards. The Liberal does not hold to this Radical view of course, but he or she holds that the American founding and its principles and the traditional (Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish) religion of the founders have had their day, and it is time to move on to "positive human rights" where the state can and should do everything for you (meet oneís every want and need), and religion needs to get on board with modern science (supposedly) and create a new Christianity, Catholicism, and Judaism.

The traditional values person by contrast to both the Liberal and Radical holds that the religion of the 18th century (be it Protestant, Catholic or Jewish) was fine for the 18th century, and it is still fine for today generally speaking, and the founding political principles of the 18th century were fine for the 18th century, and they are generally fine for today also. Hence, and this point is crucial, for the traditional values person neither religion nor the Constitution need to "live" to be something new in the 20th century. But, in fact, things are worse than this...


The Liberal and Radical positions do not work well rationally speaking...

The fact is, however, the (spiritual) Liberal and Radical (atheist) positions do not work well rationally speaking for religion or politics. Since both Radical atheism and spiritual Liberalism are forms of humanism, they both tend to fall into the false dichotomy of humanism that the state can and should do everything for everyone, which is the Liberal as well as Marxist view, or the state can and should do nothing, which is the radically selfish Libertarian view of the atheist David Hume.

Both of these radical or extreme ideas of the state are almost self-evidently nutty, to be kind to the Liberal and atheist Radical as well as Libertarian, but to almost all humanists and Liberals these undesirable and unworkable extremes seem brilliant and to be the only 2 possibilities for the state. (Donít take my word for it; check out their own literature of the last 150 years, no less.)


Theories of Government do not stand alone in false humanistic dichotomies...

In personal morality this false humanist dichotomy of government is paralleled by the idea that pleasure is either all good, the hedonist view, or all bad, the ascetic view. All four of these views and extremes on the state and personal pleasure are humanist fallacies, but letís not overly digress. The fact is humanism, Radicalism, and (spiritual and political) Liberalism, and I would even say Libertarianism are all so nutty and unworkable when you really bother to analyze them that in the long run they actually tend to self-destruct given their practical and intellectual inadequacies and, hence, in an odd way (like The Big Screw-up) they work for positive and workable change based on traditional values.

This means the reason why the traditional values people will probably or at least might win out in the long run both in theory and in practice, intellectually and politically speaking, is because the traditional values position is the only position that has a mixed view of the state, namely, that government or the state can and should do some things, but cannot and should not do others, nor generally even try to. (Just as, obviously, in personal morality some pleasures are good but some are bad, a point that completely eludes the atheist and Liberal since antiquity, no less.)

In any case, this blatantly obvious common sense point on the right role of the state (doing some things and not doing others nor trying to) goes right passed both the Liberal and Radical, indeed often as the very point of their own Liberalism and Radicalism, again, if you read their literature or listen to their speeches, etc.


What can and should the government do and not do?

What can and should the government do and not do? Only the traditional rational moral theist even asks this question, let alone has a possible answer. Answering this question is, of course, the desire and goal of the good legislator, namely to make good laws for the desirable function of the state, but this is not the case for the Liberal nor Radical, both of whom (generally by their own statements, no less) pursue an ideological agenda which seems brilliant to them but is in fact on the whole irrational, undesirable, and unworkable, tragically (such as the state can and should do everything).

In truth, the Left, at best, pursues an ill-conceived ideological agenda not based on reason nor the good of the country (instead pursuing power for one special interest over another) and, at worst, at times the Left pursues power for powerís sake, presumably because of some sort of mental, moral, psychological or character problem. However, the good news here is in a real sense this means the only thing that stands between us and a good and truly workable just Republic (if not the actual Kingdom come on earth) is ourselves and developing a will and wisdom to "do the right thing," but as it is we generally have neither the will (desire) nor wisdom to even attempt to do the right thing at this time, unfortunately. Why? The "right thing" is (metaphysically) simply not a part of the Liberal to Radical agenda nor ideology, whether in government, morality, law, education, cultural issues and even religion. There is a "package deal" at work here, philosophically, intellectually, practically etc.


Each of the 3 groups tends to have its own "package deal"

The key point here is with all 3 groups, the Radical (atheist), the (spiritual and political) Liberal and the traditional values group, there tends to be a package deal of what one accepts in each of these 3 groups, for better or worse. Further, regardless of which group one most identifies with as "best," everyone tends to see the big philosophical, religious, and political picture in strikingly similar ways, with the disagreement being about which of the 3 groups is actually correct (and most workable, desirable, rational, etc.).

That is, each of the 3 groups (Radical atheist, spiritual and political Liberal, and traditional values) has a theory of morality, law, God, religion, education, entertainment, politics, government, etc. generally as a package that is part of their Radical, Liberal or traditional values perspective, again for better or worse. (Not to be a wise acre here, but this is Philosophy 101 from earlier generations).


The 3 package deals work beyond simply theories of the state and morality...

For example, in law the outrageous view that the state creates justice and rights (basically by fiat) is held by both the Liberal and Radical. This is called "legal positivism," and it tends to be a central feature of both the Liberal and Radical position. This is utter nonsense and outrageously offensive to the traditional values person and has been so seen by him since Abraham, Socrates and Cicero, but it was considered cutting-edge Progressive in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by both the Liberal and Radical, and is now taken as a given by them both and even as a condition for serving on the Supreme Court. The judge can, in essence, in theory do no "wrong" when he or she pounds down his or her gavel. But why?

For the Liberal and Radical there is no real "wrong" to be done nor real transcendent rights to enforce correctly or rightly. This is a total and complete violation of even the most rudimentary common sense, which completely eludes both the Liberal and Radical, and as the very point of their theories of jurisprudence, no less. And the Left cannot understand why people are alienated! I wonder? The only rights we have are whatever the judge says by virtual whim! Again, this is called legal positivism, and it has been around over 100 years, resurrected from pagan antiquity, no less, but it is an overtly nutty even absurd idea regardless and part of the package deals of both Liberalism and Radicalism.


A possible Liberal exception to overt "legal positivism"? Not really...

The only possible exception here to the no-real-rights of the Liberal and Radical is the Liberal sometimes, even often, attempts to make an actual real absolute out of love, compassion, unity, tolerance, oneness, etc. However, it would make little or no sense to replace, say, the Bill of Rights with the Beatlesí "love is all you need," but this is actually advocated, even strongly advocated, by former President Carter, and it is how he makes the shift from traditional notions of rights to utopian positive rights where the state can and should do everything for you.

However, "love" as license, anything goes, utopianism, endless compassion, non-moral discrimination is an unworkable, undesirable, and irrational (virtual) non-standard actually, just on the surface, as countless people have pointed out, but the Liberal simply cannot see this. This analysis given here is reflected in the work of, say, Martin Luther King, who was truly used and exploited by the Left, in my opinion. We associate King with the Left, Liberals, Democrats, and even Radicals, but he actually had or espoused conservative or traditional views of God, rights, government, morality, etc., as the basis of his movement, no less. "Content of character" not "color of skin" etc., but I digress.

The larger and important and even central point here is the whole point of the traditional values person is that values, rights, etc. are real, and that they are not created by the state or even human beings, no less. This was, of course, Platoís most famous point, and claim to fame. And the very point of both the Radical and Liberal is that rights, morality, values, justice, etc. are not "real" nor generally even "rational." It has been said pretty accurately, I think, that all philosophy is a footnote or series of footnotes to Plato, and this is basically the reason why. Real rights, real good, real truth, etc.? Kind of a basic question and basic disagreement of philosophy over the centuries, you might say?


The 3 positions on not just Law and Rights but God...

In any case, the Radical atheist, the (spiritual and political) Liberal, and the traditional values person each tends to have a "package deal" on what they think of God, education, law, rights, government, morality etc. This is seen not just in theories of the state and of morality but of law in questions of real rights as we just saw, but also God. For the Radical (or atheist), God does not exist, that is the whole point of his atheism! (Hello, good grief.)

On the other hand the spiritual Liberal tends to believe in "God" but a "God" that is not an all-righteous, all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, conscious, Creator Being (Who, for the Christian, sent His Son to die for us etc.), and indeed this denial of a traditional concept of God is the very point of the Liberalís spiritual Liberalism. However, by contrast, if one accepts a traditional notion of God, one is not a Liberal, but a traditional values person whether Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, whether Solomon, Socrates, or Cicero. This is not complicated.

Clearly, each of the 3 groups (Radical, Liberal, traditional values) has a view of God, law, rights, morality, education, art, entertainment, government, and even history...


But to the political point at hand for America...

But to the political point at hand for America, and some of the good news from the 2010 elections. In fact the political aspects, as such, of these 3 philosophical/religious positions can become very obvious pretty easily and without a whole lot of analysis because each of the 3 positions often (but not always) develops their "political views" specifically out of their religious and philosophical positions themselves, no less (as part of their particular package). For example the Christian spiritual Liberal, in particular, does not believe in traditional notions of God and, hence, usually not in the Atonement or Resurrection etc., nor morality, and this as more or less as the very point of his or her religious position.

However, the Liberal does believe in spirituality, compassion, unity, tolerance and oneness, etc., and, hence, his or her view of the state is one of "positive rights" to show compassion to everyone by supplying all of everyoneís wants and needs. This is, on the surface, a very nice idea perhaps of so-called "positive rights," but it is completely irrational, unworkable and ultimately undesirable when you really analyze it, but it is often the Liberalís openly stated political position nonetheless as part of his larger philosophical worldview "package."

The "political" point here for the 2010 elections should be obvious? One goes to a legislature to make good laws, but it is impossible to make good laws for the good of a society based on Liberalism (let alone Radicalism) because Liberalism is clearly irrational, unworkable and ultimately undesirable (in all aspects of its "package"), and this is assuming the Liberal to Radical legislator is in "good faith" beyond mere partisan party politics as usual, which is a very iffy assumption these days. And it is even worse than this...


Often down go truth & rationality as well theories of the state, morality, law, etc.

In our very closed-minded, postmodern times education and rational analysis generally have also fallen on hard times, and everything, including truth, is a matter of mere opinion supposedly, so why bother to do rational analysis! What could be more obvious! It is interesting that the people who are often most hostile to traditional values and the traditional forms of the Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish faiths (of the so-called Religious Right) usually have the least amount of intellectual argument, though they are convinced, of course, they are the height of intellectual analysis. Further, the Radical actually defines "truth" as merely what serves Radicalism, which ultimately means his own personal power. And the Radical openly does this, and in years past anyone who took Philosophy 101 knew this.

But beyond this anti-truth, anti-rationality of the Radical and often of the Liberal, there is often even an open hostility to those who advocate traditional notions of truth and rationality let alone religion, God, government, law etc. This is very similar to the hostility to the Christian faith in the early centuries of the Church, but in any case the so-called "politically correct" or virulent anti-traditional values folks of today have pretty much given up on true rational argument generally (good or bad) and are often reduced to name calling and attack-the-person (ad hominem) attacks, etc.

Of course, not all Radicals and Liberals have come to this sad anti-rational, anti-truth and even at times anti-Christian state of affairs (loosely called being "politically correct) but many have, and millions upon millions upon millions of Americans simply could not take it anymore, as all of this stuff of the "packages" of the Liberal to Radical Left combines to manifest itself in totally dysfunctional, misguided, ideological, special interest driven legislatures. Hello, Tea Party....


This is certainly the biggest mess we have ever seen in America...

The 2008 Congress was certainly the biggest political mess we have ever seen in America, the nation now agrees by ballot, but more generally it is extremely troubling to most people that America is breaking up into endless factions and interest groups, and this greatly bothers vast numbers of people, no matter what their particular political or religious views. We simply must return to a common vision of America, with real, fair, and workable social, political, and economic solutions.

This is the Revolution, that we must have, and this is what this Congress elected in 2010 now faces. Clearly the 2008 Congress was not trying to "do the right thing" for America. In fact, Liberals and Radicals do not even believe "the right thing" exists metaphysically speaking, bless their hearts. Liberals and Radicals tend to only be capable of pursuing some clearly unworkable and undesirable Leftist political ideological agenda of compassion for the Liberal and statism for the Radical, and this is when they are not simply cutting deals for their own interest groups.


So, "What must be done?" in short order to see Revolutionary victory?

As Lenin once asked famously, "What must be done?" What I like about Lenin is he was so brilliant, focused, and driven, and more than that he knew how to win complete Revolutionary victory, as like, say, in a possible Complete Re-do of the last 50 to 60 years. "That is impossible!!!" It is not "impossible." It may not be likely, but it is not impossible, that is, if the 2010 election is in fact more than a mere blip up-tick on the screen of the Leftist decline and fall of America.

We may see a now Republican House stop and reverse this political and general downward spiral, but we may not. Certainly that is what they were elected in vast numbers to do with a clear mandate, that is, stop and reverse the Radical to Liberal agenda of Obama and the 2008 Congress, but what are the actual chances for the Republican and Tea Party House in this stop-and-reverse monumental task? And what must the United States House of Representatives do in very short order if not immediately in order to succeed and save the nation, or have any hope of success for that matter? Good question, very good question and the answer comes next time in Part 2.


Itís now or never, baby? For America, anyway? Quite possibly?

The answer on this "what must be done" by the new 2010 House for the Revolution to succeed... next week, or maybe the week after... Donít miss it... The survival of the nation as we have known it may well hang in the balance, probably does... In my opinion, in answer to countless prayers, God has perhaps given America one last, final chance, and if we screw it up I do not think the opportunity will ever come again in our lifetimes...


A final personal word for the Democrats in the House...

I do have a word, specifically, for the Democrats in the House to think about in being sworn in. You are now in the minority because of your own actions. You have no one to blame but yourself. Think about that and that a strong if not overwhelming percentage of the America people see you to be not only the worst legislators in the history of America but probably of mankind on earth.

In fact, the Republicans have been sent to Washington by a clear majority of the American people specifically for the purpose of straightening out the mess you created in the 2008 Congress, but all this is well-known and a given. Yes, you have been repudiated as total screw-ups by the American people. That is no longer the question.

The question now is how can the Republicans act as good legislators to straighten out this, your mess, in terms of what is best for the nation as a whole as we all play this out in the great story of American history and even the larger story of things of mankindís time on earth. That is the question... That is the question...  And may you Democrats never forget it the coming two years and, and by Godís grace, may the Republicans never forget it either. There is real legislative work to be done for nation, of the first order in the larger story of things, and this is not and cannot be mere partisan politics as usual. And anyone who does not get on board for this Revolution, I will personally "discredit" myself, so help me God... Be seated.