DIVERSITY

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)

Diversity is the enemy of community. Diversity connotes divisiveness. Community denotes commonality.

The consequences of reöpening the floodgates to immigration has been the racial, ethnic, and religious diversity desired by some.* The stated assumption was that such diversity would benefit America. The unstated assumption was that it would benefit the Democratic Party.

It has benefitted the Democratic Party. Has it benefitted America? Today, is America a better nation, all around, with an added tens of millions of non-Euro-Caucasians, many of whom are non-Christians, than it was fifty years ago?

The four, secular cornerstones of any society are government, law, education, and medicine. Beginning in 1963 with the ascendency to the presidency of Lyndon Baines Johnson (1908-1973), the four cornerstones supporting that which once were traditional American ideals and values have been crumbling while the foundation upon which they rest has been liquefied into a cesspool of debt, defeat, and degradation.

To what extent has diversity added or subtracted from the well-being of the Republic? One benefit is certain . . . more choice in cuisine.

“The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” -Traditional Proverb

If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, thus far, the eating has been more than a bit unappetizing. The Chinese, for example, now characterize the USA as “a nation in terminal decline”. In 1965, did any nation view the USA as such? What transpired during the interim?

A dramatic, profound change . . . a change in context, primarily racial and ethnic. The descendants of the Euro-Caucasians who founded the Republic, operating in a context of satiation immediately following World War II, allowed themselves to become dispossessed. Willingly, they allowed themselves to be blinded by the quasi-Marxists in Big Education and Big Media bleating incessantly that any defense by the dispossessed of their biological, economic, political, and sociological birthrights constituted a rejection of “humanitarianism” and “social justice” . . . terms that rightly have become obscenities. The dispossessed, nevertheless, accepted unquestioningly the quasi-Marxists’ false accusations levelled at them and their forebears, accepted the quasi-Marxists’ phony praise of grossly inferior groups as being equal if not superior, and accepted an unjustified guilt that the quasi-Marxists’ demanded they feel and for which they supposedly should atone.

Under the reign of economic and social terror unleashed by the quasi-Marxists, that which might be termed Radical Maternalism has infected the very soul of America. Collectivism has replaced individualism. Victimhood, personal responsibility. Vulnerability, self-improvement. Ethnic guilt, national pride. Entitlement, charity. Indecency, decency. Perversion, propriety. Universal deceit, documented facts and proven truths.

The list could continue. Far-sighted quasi-Marxists, paradoxically in alliance with short-sighted Big Business, convinced many of those whom they planned to dispossess that America should be the one and only, lopsided Big Teat that provides succor to the rest of the world via Big Government. Consequences? Debt, defeat, and degradation . . . ultimately leading to an indescribable, future despair.

For decades, this quasi-Marxist ilk has been leading America down the path to Perdition. Can this nation under attack and now on fire change course and follow the road to Redemption? Possibly.

The Who

“Put not your trust in princes,
Nor is the son of man, in whom there is no help.” -Psalms 146:3

With recent Republican victories at the polls, the Republicans’ particular brand of professional politicians is presenting a slate of “new faces” ready to campaign for the presidency in 2016. Should Americans trust in any of them?

Hasn’t the goal of the Republicans remained the following: to have assumed and maintained for as long as possible full, political power until relinquishing it to their comrades, the Democrats? Hasn’t such relinquishing become merely a charade of power-sharing? Even before taking office for the next term, the Republicans are continuing their old ways . . . ways that have paved the path to Perdition.

Admittedly, the Democrats have been less deceitful in their own goal . . . to have transformed America into a quasi-Marxist state composed of gangs of diverse minorities battling each other to rob the public treasury while becoming progressively dependent upon Big Government. Seemingly, their goal suffered a temporary setback in the last election. Given that setback, the question arises regarding the extent to which Obama will continue seizing power in order to advance the Democrats’ goal.

Clearly, the remedy for American ills lies not in The Who. Would that we Americans would disavow our love-affair with the notion of one man saving us from all our trials. Wishing doesn’t make it so. Action does.

The What

“Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived.” -Petronius (1st-century A.D.)

The physician and former-Congressman, Ron Paul, recently gave an interview on Russian television. He spoke truths that few Americans want to hear . . . specifically, that we engage in wars around the globe, ostensibly to defend a democracy that is diminishing here in the USA . . . diminishing at the hands of both Democrats and Republicans.

His critics are accusing him of being a traitor. So, why choose a Russian television to further his case? Why not? What American outlet would carry his message? What European?  The time-honored method of the powers-that-be to thwart the purveyor of truth is initially to ignore him, then to attack his message, then to attack him personally.

The policies to which Dr. Paul rightly referred are based upon deceit. It is a deceit that relies upon the documented fact that people tend to choose pleasant lies that they know to be lies rather than unpleasant truths that they know to be truths.**

Accordingly, every election American politicians continue to blast the electorate with a series of hollow promises that few have any intention of keeping. Every election, the American electorate acts as though they believe this deceit despite the repeated revealing of the contempt with which politicians and bureaucrats, especially the so-called Progressives of The Left, view the public.

These political blowhards, many of whom are lawyers trained in deceit by law-schools and many of whom are simply professional politicians given to deceit by nature and experience, speak in generalities about how they will make a difference and how they will repair that which is broken.

Ask a professional politician, especially a lawyer politician, a simple yes-or-no question. How often will he respond with a simple yes-or-no answer?

The How

When lost, what aid might you seek? A map to guide you as to how to arrive at your destination.

Science can furnish such a map for America . . . that is, biobehavioral science in particular . . . with its three guidelines of specificity, objectivity, and accountability. By following that map, we Americans can reverse course from the path to Perdition to the road to Redemption. The map tells us how.

Unlike ideology or mysticism, the Scientific Method affords us the powers of control and prediction. No, we’ll not be always right, but, when wrong, the Scientific Method allows us to know that we’re wrong and to correct our mistakes not add to them. It’s that which is called negative feedback, similar to a thermostat regulating the temperature in our homes.

Can we believe that professional politicians, especially lawyer-politicians, ever will promote using a map based upon the Scientific Method? Are not its three guidelines as sunlight to vampires?

So what’s the message? Mostly, employ The How; less, follow The What; and least, seek The Who. Place principle before expediency. Trust the guidelines of science not opinions of scientists and certainly not the polemic of ideologues nor the bleating of politicians. Doing so is choosing prosperity over poverty, victory over defeat, civilized order over uncivilized anarchy, liberty over tyranny, and survival over extinction . . . survival not merely of America as a great nation but of the human species itself.

“The light of life is insufficiently bright to overcome the darkness of reality.” -Erich Maria Remarque (1898-1970)

Was Remarque right? By choosing The What and especially The Who over The How, shan’t we be proving how right he was? Fortunately, we have a map based upon documented science not mystical ideology nor avaricious power-seeking (www.inescapableconsequences.com). We can use it, or we can perish.

*In 1965, the late-Senator “Teddy” Kennedy (1932-2009) promised that such legislation would not change the complexion of the country, stating, “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.” Prior to 1965, the average number of legal immigrants annually was approximately 300,000. Thirty years later, it was more than one million.

**Hayes, SC, Barnes-Holmes, D, and Roche, B: Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition.  New York: Kluwer Academic (2001)

Tags: , , , ,

Comments are closed.