|
Dear Roberta,
I still
have to refer to a previous message that eliminates the black and white
from all of these considerations. Bush is someone I see, according to the
standard way to look at such things, far to the right along a line that
ends somewhere around the fascist stand taken by the likes of the Falwells,
Dobson, and Pat Robertson. The line runs to the left AWAY past the
Clintons and their cohorts, who did and do their own brand of
comparatively innocuous nastiness.
It worries
me that all sides seem to be climbing onto the religion bandwagon and
trying to out-morality each other. Those are the first steps in the
development of fascism, which we definitely do not want to live under.
However, if you're standing in the middle of a triangle (like it seems
most people are), you will stay blind to the lines running behind you, so
rarely viewed I have no descriptions of them that take less than a book,
or a large paper, to describe. I will, however, let you in on a secret
view I have in just a few more sentences.
You seem to
be aware of an imaginary line the Clintons, Obamas, Edwards, the Bushes,
and other politicos stand on, that represents what people say is their
positions, rightwing or left. That is good. Keeping in mind its
gradations, we can assign values (or 'worths and hazards') to each player
accordingly, instead of scaling them all as leftwing and rightwing. Susan
Block apparently belongs somewhere along that line in an apparently
leftward position, and I do have communications with people so extremely
right-wing (and honest) that they make Bush look like a left-winger!
REMEMBER
THIS PICTURE and take it to heart: The left-wing/right-wing line everybody
looks at as representing political positions is the baseline of a
triangle. There remains two other sides, which reach to make a
point. That point represents FREEDOM, an ideal unattainable by human
beings in our bodies, and in societies with others with whom we must
interact. We do so in our own particular set of circumstances with which
we must reach some kind of compromise so we can live. The key point I
would make from this is that each wing standing upon that baseline has in
mind certain kinds of freedoms they wish to remove from us.
As society swings from one side to the other in
response to the latest events and mishaps, whatever
freedoms each side succeeded in having removed is seldom if ever replaced
when the new gang gets its chance to take over.
The
leftward wing is more inclined to remove the kinds of freedoms that
enhance or promote our self-dependence and initiative, and make us more
dependent upon the will of the government for our survival and
protection WITHIN a relatively classless society. The rightward wing (in
spite of giving voice to an ideal of freedom) would destroy or diminish
our self-determination while promoting our self-dependence within a rigid
fascistic religio-political framework of laws, and thereby create
distinctive classes with a vast gulf between them. G. W. Bush (the Shrub)
made an exemplar of this, with the way he devised 'self' insurance for
social security, and other programs he proffered in a similar fashion
while using our taxes to support what he called "Faith-based Initiatives"
without imposing standards upon them. It ended up appearing like a BIG
BUSINESS versus a BIG GOVERNMENT scenario, so that as time passed it
became harder to tell the right wing side from the left, with unregulated
religious enterprises becoming the newest growth industry. Why is that? In
what way were Americans made fools of?
IMPORTANT
NEW PICTURE: It is important to remember that life and existence are three
dimensional phenomena. When we insist on raising the third dimension to
make a three-dimensional object of our triangle, we discover it to be a
cone. The base from right to left that we insist on placing our political
figures upon to know where they stand on various issues, we discover, was
actually a collapsed circle in the midst of which we must stand. In order
to view it correctly, we must look down on it, not across it as in the
simplified common view.
Assessing
this new image, we find that the far right and the far left are now right
next door to each other. Communism and fascism, the two extremes, differ
only by
technicalities.
They are like the walls on opposite sides of a building, and they could be
drawn as such without affecting their positions on the circle.
Freedom,
that elusive ideal at the tip of our triangle, is now at the apex of the
cone far above our heads. "No wonder it's so hard to get and keep!"
Government, the base of the cone, will either support it or tear it down,
depending on its actions and hidden agendas. In their own ways, each
politico has a hand out to reach inside your pockets. Each has his or her
own hidden agendas, and we have to keep in mind that they achieved their
positions by similar pathways and are in their positions for only one
purpose, which those agendas hide, but of which we must stay wary so we
can learn sooner--rather than later--what they are.
So, please
don't sleep. Americans need to stay awake and aware. The Falwells,
Robinsons, Bushes, Clintons, WorldComs, Enrons--our versions of the
Taliban, al Qaeda, and Hussein--and all will erode our freedoms in every
different way they can, so many of them as to render us apoplectic trying
to stay abreast of them. Millions of us serve their causes, convinced they
are just, and errant in that conviction. They swindle away their own
progenies' futures.
To answer
your questions, if that is still necessary: No, I cannot place much faith
in Doctor Block's assessments of anything. She has a very small agenda,
and is, herself, a victim of Divide and Conquer. Most of the people with
whom I deal suffer her condition. It would not be so bad were it not for
the intolerance Divide and Conquer elicits in each of us, so that we all
end up helping the Dividers keep us Conquered. I believe the circle
explains why we seem to be as bad off with one side as with the other,
since they are seen as not so far apart as they would be on the straight
line most political scenarios place people on.
I described
a form of government in
TIME LOOP, while telling about Impelleti's adventures in the
distant future, that might offer at least a partial solution. Something
more expedient might be to establish opposing sides within our government
as it is now constructed, with each of the three parties represented in
the Executive Branch by electing their own president, the executive branch
limited to enforcement of legislation (and not involved in doing work
assigned to Congress as has been going on), that all three of the
presidents must agree on all appointments made to the judiciary before
submission to Congress, and a three-party system as the actual recognized
form of government, and addition of "NONE OF THE ABOVE" as a choice for
each item put up to a vote. This is almost opposite to what I lightly
proposed in TIME LOOP.
Compared to
places across the world, America is really not such a bad place--YET! That
does not make it a good place, just a place that could (and, it appears,
will) get a lot worse. ALL of our freedoms and liberties depend upon our
personal abilities and dedication to support them. Bar that, freedom will
no longer mean much. Americans at this time are facing that in almost
daily increasing numbers. A lot of that is because we have come to be a
nation of service workers dependent upon someone else's creative ingenuity
to keep us all employed. Few of us, myself included, have much awareness
of how to be truly independent financially. Freedom means less to persons
like that, as my own life exemplifies, for I gave up most of that
tendency to assure that my family would survive, and that I could continue
with my self-education.
The
education goes on, thanks to the efforts of a lot of caring people. I am
not a smart man, but I get a lot of help. I have learned a few rules to
apply to life, and share them freely on my website. It remains for others
to care—I cannot make them do that—and it remains for the few who do care
to beware of the Divide and Conquer element applied in all aspects of our
cultures, and avoid getting snagged up by them. We are who must make the
difference by our awareness and our wariness. Otherwise, like I said, we
are giving our heritage away to those who already have multiple millions
of influence-buying dollars at their disposal, while we swindle our own
heirs' rights away from them in doing so. |
