Unraveling the Gordian Knot
I’ve written several hundred articles on global conspiracy, global affairs, global politics and how those events effect the lives of Americans specifically and the global community at large. It amazes me when, after all this time, I encounter someone who likes to put things into simple, little boxes.
I don’t know if it’s a matter of patience, observance, or intelligence. I know the psychological mechanisms behind the thought process and I get the spiritual implications, but still it almost surprises me each time I see it. Ladies and gentlemen, things are very complicated, and they’re complicated for a reason.
When things are very complicated, it’s too much of a bother to sort it all out.
When things are very complicated, it’s very easy to overlook the real, underlying cause.
Ayn Rand challenged the concept of altruism by painting a caricature of altruism, but Ayn Rand was right. You can’t give up the whole of yourself to the service of others and expect others not to take advantage, even exploit, that altruism. No society can expect to have 100% participation in altruism, therefore society cannot rely wholly upon altruism as it’s determinant factor.
Now ask yourself; why? Why would people take advantage, or exploit the willingness of others to serve?
Ron Paul has vehemently stated that the expansionist, global mind-set of nation building is wrong and that we need to bring our troops home, and cut out the attacks and colonization of foreign countries. Ron Paul is right. Nation building is a globalist tactic, designed to spread democracy throughout the world; the democracy of socialism. Yet, the United States must protect it’s allies around the world, and it must invest money in the spread of it’s interests. Abandoning our foreign interests and becoming isolationist isn’t going to free us from the hatred of ideologies that seek our destruction.
Now ask yourself; why? Why would people take advantage, or exploit the appearance of weakness a withdrawal from the world would indicate?
Michael Newdow is an ardent, outspoken atheist determined to remove religion from society. Despite all of the affairs and problems the world has right now, his core focus is in removing those things of society which have to do with God. One of his most famous efforts was in removing the phrase “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. His argument is that the Constitution guarantees people in public places protection from state-sponsored religious declarations. He’s right, to a degree. The Constitution does say “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion” but it also says “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It’s pretty clear that the Constitution, in this area, is saying that the government should stay out of religious affairs, but is it saying that the government should devoid itself of religion?
Now ask yourself; why? Why would someone work so tirelessly to eradicate the foundational, cultural basis upon which Western Civilization, as a whole, was founded?
Now ask yourself; how are all of these things related?
It’s very simple; selfishness. The desire for power is a selfish desire. The desire for control is a selfish desire. The desire for superiority is a selfish desire. Yet, each of these elements has a valid counter-point. Ayn Rand is right in asserting that pure altruism is faulty. Ron Paul is right in saying that globalist expansionism is a self-destructive policy. Michael Newdow is right in asserting that government shouldn’t take up the banner of a particular religion. Where each of these fail is not in what they’re saying, but what they’re not saying.
The questions are all framed wrong. They’re all out of perspective. It’s easy to be confused about these issues when you’re looking at them through a darkened glass.
Let’s clear things up; mankind is evil. Now, you have to ask yourself; what is evil?
Evil selfishness, carried outward in acts of self-gratification to the detriment of others.
What is murder, but a selfish desire? What is rape, but a selfish desire? All of the things we call evil are intrinsically selfish. From where do we get selfishness? Simple; it comes from an over-inflated view of self. When we begin to think we’re smarter, more powerful, more capable, or more anything than anyone else, we become selfish.
Yet, in some instances we are smarter, more powerful, or more capable than someone else… in that particular instance, for that particular task. This is how the lens gets clouded. When we see things in terms of equality, everything turns ugly. When we try to gauge ourselves against someone else using some measure of equality, it inevitably leads to bad things.
On what standard do white supremacists judge their superiority over darker people? On what standard do atheists assert a higher intellect over theists? On what standard do men judge themselves as superior to women? You see, if you want to know how to destroy a people, all you have to do is bring up the question of equality.
Now ask yourself; why are humans are so vulnerable to this flaw?
Why are we, as a people, so very susceptible to this flaw? No sane, reasonable person can say that class warfare doesn’t exist, or that it doesn’t work to influence people everywhere, regardless of race, class, creed or culture. All humans, to one degree or another, are susceptible to this attack. Let’s get beyond the idea of selfishness. Let’s go back past the concept that we’re susceptible because we have selfishness within us. Why do we have selfishness in the first place? Why are we self-aware?
No other animal on the planet acts this way. You can’t create class warfare between lions, because class warfare isn’t a concept available for a lion. Perhaps you could argue that young lions fighting for control of a pride is a form of class warfare, but then you’d have to account for the fact that it’s also a survival mechanism. In that case, why worry about wars and strife? If one group destroying another “inferior” group is simply a mechanism of the advancement of the species, then why all the fuss? Yet, what you actually see in lion behavior is one lion challenging another lion. What you actually don’t see is one lion, organizing a group of other lions in order to form a rebellious coup over the existing power structure.
The young lion is not acting out of selfishness. He’s acting out of a biological desire. If humans are supposed to act on nothing more than biological desires, then why even bother with politics in the first place? No, there’s something else underneath the hood. There’s some basic map of construction that fundamentally makes us different from all the other creatures. There’s a different mechanism within our psyches that creates this desire for equality, or equity.
We like to judge.
Measuring one person against another is a matter of judgement. Deciding to engage in hostilities is a matter of judgement. All of our selfishness and self-gratification comes based upon a judgement of circumstance. The simple question, the real answer to the riddle is and always has been; upon what basis do you make your judgements?
A flawed sub-set of laws, rules or precepts will inevitably lead to a flawed judgement, and subsequently a flawed decision, and thereby a flawed action. Yet, worse still, a flawed interpretation of a correct rule will have the very same outcome. It becomes worse when you’re using a correct rule because when this happens, you have behind you the force of law. You really believe that you are correct, because you have used the correct basis. Despite the fact that your decision was wrong, the basis provides your support and makes you… arrogant.
Now, here’s the really interesting part. All of this article, every single word I’ve written here, has been explained in great detail, time and time again. Not by me, but by the Bible. In fact, the very source of this paradigm is explained in the very first book:
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. – Genesis 3:1-5
See? The promise of equality. After all, who’s God compared to men? What’s the big deal with not eating the fruit in the first place? God, in this case, is the 1% and Eve becomes the 99%. Later on, when Eve conspires to get Adam in on the rebellion, it becomes a matter of class warfare.
Now, here’s the final dilemma; Ask yourself if there is a God. Because, if there isn’t a God, then we’re just animals, and all this talk about fighting global expansionism, worrying about the freedoms of religion, and decrying the faults of both greed and altruism are really just academic arguments with no real meaning in any sense. However, if there is a God, then we have the road map we need to understand all of these paradigms and their proper answers. We are told that we were designed in a certain way, towards a certain goal. But moreover, if there is a God, then we are responsible for not only that knowledge, but our proper response to that knowledge.
Now, if you’re a Bible student, then you’ll recognize the tenor of that last statement. James, the brother of Jesus, said just that very thing. He understood, and so should you. However, if you’re not a student of the Bible, then why are you worried about any of this stuff? After all, once you’re dead, you’re dead. Get what you can, while you can and call it good.
Yet, beneath it all, there remains that small, nagging voice in the back of your mind you just can’t ignore, asking why, because in your heart, you know you like to judge. You can’t help it. You were designed that way.
Loading ...