Who Knows the Hearts and Minds of Men?

Is there anyone who understands human and political virtue? You must have thought about this as you have sons; is there anyone?” “There is,” he said. “Who is he?” said I, “and of what country? and what does he charge?” “Evenus the Parian,” he replied; “he is the man, and his charge is five minae.” Happy is Evenus, I said to myself, if he really has this wisdom, and teaches at such a modest charge. Had I the same, I should have been very proud and conceited; but the truth is that I have no knowledge of this.”

Socrates, Apologion

It is the innate wish of all sane humans to exist and to coexist in peace; to go about their lives without interference by outside or unknown sources; to be free of oppression, safe from the liberality of the errant ways of others as well as burdensome taxes to pay for those sins – of selfishness, of laziness, of ignorance and of arrogance. It is the wish of all sane humans to be led by those who are in full representation of their real needs with the true desire to serve those whom they lead. It is the innate and presumably innocent wish of all sane humans to believe they will be looked after while working diligently to supply the personal needs of daily living – looked after without the need for guarded judgment or action or inaction for fear they will be somehow mistreated,  neglected, fined or otherwise abused and misused by their leaders if they do not follow the orders of those few in power.

The history of man and of his argumentative and warlike nature, of his egotism, nationalism and personal, regional, religious, racial and familial prejudices is a history fraught with despots controlling skirmishes, wars, “police actions” and “lessons”; with murders, intrusions, thefts – the list of interpersonal evils has never been numbered, most never caught. The United States of America alone has never passed one generation without at least one war, skirmish, or conflict.   That history appears, without equivocation, antithetical the the innate wish of all sane humans to coexist in peace. War for the sake of peace is not peace in any form. It is war.

The accusers of Socrates used  inflammatory defamation to turn the views of the public against him. It was not the man himself, but his methods of teaching that were in question, although we know today there is little wrong with Socratic thought in its purest form. His accusers declared in second-hand fashion there were those who knew Socrates to walk on air. Likely his followers likened him to one whose abilities to teach were almost limitless. It takes little for the thoughts of men to be twisted by any gossip, detractor or other opponent.  His methods were not designed to hurt; his intent was to do no harm. His methods were not designed to remove service; his intent was to serve. His methods were not designed for greed. He intended to and in fact worked only for contributions by those who thought his teaching worthwhile. He intimates in his speech that his designs were not based on altruism, but that he considered his teachings menial at best in comparison with others. He was, of course, mistaken in his humility. Western Civilization is based on the logic of his thought and that of his followers.

Enter Big Government

In opposition to humility, at odds with the desires of sane men, it is not in the spirit of altruism that Socialism exists today, although it’s Marxist inception designed an imaginary – imaginary, mind you – system of life where all humans considered the use of their talent to be contributions for the betterment of mankind. In order to do this Marx and his followers believed all systems of thought that seemed a distraction from that imaginary system should be eliminated. That is why he made his statement “religion is the opiate of the people”. That statement has been taken out of context by those who choose to believe there is no God to force Democracy – a form of governmental form completely different from Socialism – to become a semblance of something which is a blend of those two ideologues. It took the constant haranguing  of one nasty complaining person to remove prayer from our schools. She was an atheist saying she was protecting her son in favor of her own selfish views of atheism. Her son later became an important and highly effective Baptist Minister.

It is the strong presence of Socialism and approach toward Communism that is most disturbing about American government today. Current high-ranking leaders in this great country verbally liken themselves to Truman, Lincoln or Jefferson – movers and shakers among governmental community – to win support of the voter. Attempting to formulate that analogy could not be more foolish nor could it be further from the truth. There is no leader in highest government today who could truthfully make any such claim and the very act of doing so demonstrates the lowest form of personal character.

Jefferson – and in his own right, Truman – and  Lincoln all believed in the basic tenets of democracy: to go about the business of the small community to influence their representative delegated to the larger community to guide leadership – not the other way around. The very definition of democracy negates any form of olligarchy. That design of the business of this democracy is largely neglected by those who choose the moniker of delegate today. In part some blame for the lack of communicative leadership the smaller community can be placed on those who do not vote but wish, all the same, to complain about the current state of national and international affairs. Some blame can be placed on parents and other leadership in the smaller community who drifted from their responsibility to learn about the design of American Democracy and from teaching those tenets and ideals to their children. Some blame can be laid upon the current state of the sociological makeup, using the example of marriage in this country man has been psychologically designed to be a one-mate animal. Look to nature for examples – geese, apes, others. Instead we are become more like dogs, going about the world without giving consideration to our nature; our thoughts are so misdirected we see nothing wrong with our actions. In fact we teach it to our youngest. Their television programs, school curricula, and extracurriclar activities have been designed by adults; the children themselves are not to blame. The result has been complete social degradation into a maelstom of crime, lack of family, lack of trust, lack of discipline in any form.

Washington himself, an energetic and ambitious, as well as a strong and powerful leader, gave prescient warning in the most portend fashion to the Congress over which he presided (hence the Constitutional term “President”)  against the damages of having political “parties”. The separations caused by parties could only breed infighting and divide the government from its people while moving ever more away from any recognizable form of true representation of the constituency. He warned that if, by any chance, one party gained majority in every one of the three branches of government then democracy itself would cease to exist. there were three branches designed into the constitution for a reason – there would be no impasse among two brnaches if a third existed to interpret the laws of the Constitution. If one party ruled all three, The balance of power in the design of an odd number of branches would be void.

The purpose of the leadership was to bring to a congress (meeting) of leaders the wishes of their constituents for debate and vote based on those wishes, not the promotion of the narrow views of any single representative. Those narrow views were, ideally, put away for the congress on behalf of the constituency.

Our leaders should never liken themselves to the great leaders of the past, instead proving their worthiness in their own right. The Constitution has designed our government, from the President and down, and from the individual and upward, to be a congress of leaders (not “Congress”, which today is a perversion of the design). Indeed, our Constitution was designed over many years and was and still is to be a form in the making, with corrections made to steer Democracy toward just that – democracy; not toward Socialism or Communism.

The “Slippery Slope” theory

Nineteenth Century genius Francis Galton’s postulation of a ’slippery slope’ is not a theory nor is it a postulation. He made a factual statement based on the study of human behavior that once any certain social venue or existing social moré boundary was crossed a shift in behavioral attitude initiated an ensuing cascading syndrome that is not only unstoppable but has a self propagating effect. Although is is not similar to the spiraling “snowballing” concept we hold today, Galton believed the slopes were additive, more like the rings of a tree, self-fortifying with each stage of growth. Violet Janin, a nineteenth century Washington DC matron wrote in her letters and diary after having just read the sensible statements of economist Thomas Malton, who also held to Galton’s thought. Janin voiced her frustration that  the excessively exploitative taxation of those who were not poor by a new socialist wing in the government and employment of  the “redistribution of wealth” encouraged increased numbers of the poor. She was not far from the truth although charity, in it’s own right, has been largely neglected by those who call themselves followers of altruism similar to those who were ancient  followers Jesus of Nazareth. His teachings, by the way, involved a severe form of equal redistribution of the wealth of his followers while He Himself refused any income. The intent, however, was not socialistic in nature. It was for the preservation of a group condemned to death without trial if caught. He himself did not even have a place to sleep or money to buy food for himself. He had no personal need nor desire for monetary income, preferring rather to identify in every way with even the poorest of those whom he taught.

The U.S. Constitution never enforced charity as part of Democratic governance, instead allowing giving expressly by the smaller group. It was not a concept designed to be given by brute governmental force through taxation nor were the citizens of the new country to ever feel bound by “taxation without representation”.

The latest travesty enforced upon true Democracy (nee “Democrats” – itself a travesty in terms)  is in the form of medical welfare in the inception of a new bureaucratic giant which will swallow our nation in a slippery slope of debt. Rome caved from within on a bed of “bread and circuses” (welfare). They were shocked when their debt became insurmountable due to excessive welfare, outsourcing of labor, and degradation of morals. As a result of their new poverty they found they suddenly could not keep the armies they used to defend themselves. The empire was dissolved and divided. So will we be shocked when that happens to us, as well.

The bottom line

Socrates defended himself in his apologia to blocked ears.

Americans protest this new buraucracy to their elected leaders, alike with the blocked ears of partisanism; the tenebrous warnings of George Washington have taken life. Despite the complaints of a disgusted populace and the nays of the oppositional party, the Democratic Party instead decided to do their worst at the hands of Pelosi, Obama, et al.

The pressure was verbally observed by President Obama in a private meeting of liberal Democrats (redundancy noted) when he said that the groanings of those whom Obama called  “tea baggers“, and whom Democrats and some Republicans fear alike, are bothering the ability of an over-numerative placement of Socialists in the Congress to coerce their expensive, gigantic private agenda upon the people – those of what used to be the prime example of Rule by, of, and for populace in the world – to force the wishes of a powerful oligarchy upon a now violated, helpless bystanding nation.

The next vote is in three years. The last time we missed the mark.

Retake The U.S. Capitol Building. Vote in 2012