Inequality, Terrorism, and Revolution
by Robert L. Kocher

On various occasions I see modes of thought and expressions of those modes, which provoke wrath approaching the threshold of uncontrollability. A case in point is an article, really a church sermon, by former presidential candidate George McGovern, and ongoing pronouncements by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan.

This analysis is not strictly about George McGovern or Kofi Annan. It is about a mentality of which George McGovern and Kofi Annan are representative and foremost exponents.

The Healing in Helping the World’s Poor
George McGovern
The New York Times
January 1, 2002

It is impossible to visit New York City without being painfully aware of the haunting vacancy in the skyline where the World Trade Center towers once stood. The thousands of people who died there and at the Pentagon were mostly American, but there were also victims from scores of other countries.

Can any good come from such a tragedy?

Certainly, Americans are united in our patriotism and in support for our government’s efforts to hunt down the terrorist network in Afghanistan. People around the globe — in Europe, China, Russia, Latin America and the Middle East have also joined to condemn terrorism and to express sympathy for its victims. But perhaps a more enduring and constructive change in the past three months is that Americans seem to be asking meaningful questions about the kind of world we live in and looking at the hatreds directed at our commercial and military power.

Half of the world’s inhabitants are in poverty — millions without jobs, without adequate food or clean water, without decent homes, without much if any education, without health or dental care, without a political voice and without hope for the future. None of this can ever justify the mass killing of innocent people. But the stubborn realities of global hunger and poverty that help fuel hatred exist.

I don’t claim to be an expert on anything. But having walked and worked among the world’s poor for 40 years, I have learned something about the sense of powerlessness that millions feel.

Modern communications have spread the word to these masses that the privileged few who rule them are living in luxury that exceeds all measure. Across the seas, the poor observe others with wealth, military might, comfort and pleasure that overwhelm the imagination. Is it possible that the cruel and fanatical upstarts who strike at symbols of wealth and power are heroes in the eyes of some of the downtrodden? Is it possible that desperate young men rebelling against their powerlessness saw in the collapse of American skyscrapers a sign that they are not wholly powerless?

For half a century, since the end of World War II, some of our most thoughtful citizens have been telling us that the world’s poor would one day explode out of their misery. The technological and communications revolutions will aid that explosion.

We can’t create a world free from tension and conflict. But during my service as the American ambassador to the United Nations food and agriculture agencies in Rome, I concluded that in our time we can end the world’s hunger.

Former Senator Bob Dole and I proposed in October that of the $40 billion authorized by the Congress to fight terrorism, $5 billion be earmarked over the next five years to reduce world hunger.

We could allocate half of the $5 billion a year to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization to improve food production and the conditions of life in the world’s rural villages. The other half of the contribution could go for direct food aid to be distributed by the United Nations World Food Program. At the center of this effort would be a universal school lunch program and a nutritional supplement program for pregnant women and preschool children. A good share of the aid could be American farm products, an arrangement that would offer an economic benefit to American farmers and ranchers.

The United States contribution should be matched by a $3 billion annual contribution from other United Nations member countries. That amount of money and food on top of the assistance that is being provided now would eliminate hunger in areas of greatest need around the globe.

The school lunch program is especially important because it could help draw more children into school. Illiteracy consigns millions of young women to early childbearing and lives of poverty (illiterate women have a birth rate more than double that of women who have gone to school).

Afghanistan now presents the most urgent case for food relief, having faced years of conflict and drought, plus a bitterly cold winter.

I cannot promise that these steps will end terrorism. I am confident, however, that helping to feed more people can reduce the power of those who appeal to desperation and hopelessness.

Is this idealism? Perhaps. But if we take care of hungry kids and mothers while improving the conditions of life in the villages where most of the world’s people live, we’ll produce less hate and more love.

Excerpts from the text of Kofi Annan’s Nobel acceptance speech:

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Excellencies, Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today, in Afghanistan, a girl will be born. Her mother will hold her and feed her, comfort her and care for her – just as any mother would anywhere in the world . . . ” and so on into a touchy-feely sensitivity session complaining about the existence of poverty and the, “divide between the world’s rich and poor.”

” . . . No one today can claim ignorance of the cost that this divide imposes on the poor and dispossessed who are no less deserving of human dignity, fundamental freedoms, security, food and education than any of us. The cost, however, is not borne by them alone. Ultimately, it is borne by all of us — North and South, rich and poor, men and women of all races and religions . . . ”

” . . . Today’s real borders are not between nations, but between powerful and powerless, free and fettered, privileged and humiliated. Today, no walls can separate humanitarian or human rights crises in one part of the world from national security crises in another . . . ”

” . . . .The idea that there is one people in possession of the truth, one answer to the world’s ills, or one solution to humanity’s needs, has done untold harm throughout history — especially in the last century. Today, however, even amidst continuing ethnic conflict around the world, there is a growing understanding that human diversity is both the reality that makes dialogue necessary, and the very basis for that dialogue . . . ”

” . . . Each of us has the right to take pride in our particular faith or heritage. But the notion that what is ours is necessarily in conflict with what is theirs is both false and dangerous. It has resulted in endless enmity and conflict, leading men to commit the greatest of crimes in the name of a higher power.

It need not be so. People of different religions and cultures live side by side in almost every part of the world, and most of us have overlapping identities which unite us with very different groups. We can love what we are, without hating what — and who — we are not. We can thrive in our own tradition, even as we learn from others, and come to respect their teachings.

This will not be possible, however, without freedom of religion, of expression, of assembly, and basic equality under the law. Indeed, the lesson of the past century has been that where the dignity of the individual has been trampled or threatened — where citizens have not enjoyed the basic right to choose their government, or the right to change it regularly — conflict has too often followed, with innocent civilians paying the price, in lives cut short and communities destroyed.

The obstacles to democracy have little to do with culture or religion, and much more to do with the desire of those in power to maintain their position at any cost. This is neither a new phenomenon nor one confined to any particular part of the world. People of all cultures value their freedom of choice, and feel the need to have a say in decisions affecting their lives.

And so forth . . .

On various occasions in this life you will be confronted by conceited, stupid, or very delusional people who should be an embarrassment to themselves, but who instead have a self-protective self-referencing absolutely unshakable self confidence. They will, with pride and a sense of self-importance, say things anyone with rational sentience would be ashamed to utter. And in the same pattern they will act in ways nobody of intelligent maturity would act. Playboy Hugh Hefner is one such person. With his twelve-year-old’s mentality he apparently believes he is the most sophisticated and brilliant mind on earth coupled with supreme attractiveness when he places his hand on the behind of a dumb teenage-mentality girl to the approving guffaws of yokels gathered around him which intercede between him and any remaining possibility of self doubt. Nothing could shake his self-confidence in that regard. The Clintons are of similar unshakable conceit and confidence — so much so that they confidently confer upon themselves an imperial right to use and degrade everything around them not only without conscience or introspection, but with anger when questioned. Those who become emotionally infected with the mood and image of that self-confidence become followers of the Clinton corruption. And so is George McGovern.

A period of serious introspection by such people, even assuming they had any innate genetic capacity for such undertaking, would result in nearly unsurvivable embarrassment and depression. That moment of realization would come in which they would of necessity to fulfill the requirement of serious self-examination say, “You mean I am that big an ass?” Personal need to avoid such unhappy realization coupled with the solid social, political, and economic successes their present condition purchases for them creates massive motivation for continuation in their present path. This motivation is further multiplied by: 1) the present intoxicating cheers and support they obtain from similar yokels that many among them seem to live for. 2) the limitation that their only developed or inherent talent is for corruption, and nothing else is of achievable or suitable vocation. I mean, outside of exercising such talent, what else are people such as, say the Clintons, equipped to do? Senator Teddy Kennedy is saved from failure in life and from his unsuitability for serious employment by availability of a role as a stentorian-voiced mindless demagogue. George McGovern is a man without serious talent or vocation hanging about the periphery of serious society.

(Rehabilitation of such individuals, or of society in general to the point of demanding integrity in its representatives or other public figures, would precipitate a sudden crisis of earned stark downward mobility for such people. One of the purposes of liberalism is to prevent this from happening to both those directly in question here, and to an entire expanding class of similar people dedicated to institutionalizing tenured soft secure positions for incompetence and uselessness.)

Motivation dictates direction of intellectual effort and intellectual outcome. Their path in life is corrupt justification for what they are, without propensity for alteration. They invent new lowered qualifications so as to procure positions for their class of people.

And so there are people such as Hugh Hefner, the Clintons, Ted Kennedy, George McGovern, and many others who would be such embarrassment to themselves that they would be ashamed to reveal themselves in public if they had the intelligent conscious awareness and coordinate moral capacity to evaluate themselves, but who instead, with the obliviousness conferred by unshakable confident pride, and feelings of entitlement fueled by unexamined delusionally-bloated sense of personal superiority, undertake ludicrous public actions, utterances, and even crusades. That they are not more widely perceived as ludicrous or even evil, compounds the aggravation they produce, and provokes, among sentient viewers being subjected to their antics and demands, tempting fantasies of becoming serial axe murderers performing vital cleaning service to all humanity.

McGovern Brainwashing

In his article McGovern begins by creating a temporal connection and association between a terrorist act and poverty. Terrorism is terrible, but, but, but . . . almost in the same sentence 50% of the world’s people live in poverty. That’s temporal connection in terms of simultaneous pairing of presentation, not necessarily logical connection. When logic is weak, temporal connection and paired associate conditioning will suffice nicely, thank you. If lyricism can produce an emotional response that psychologically blocks logic, we have a uncontested ticket to leftist fantasy island. (This emotional blocking and displacement of logic, and the repressed anger involved, has become a very important political dynamic which probably should be the subject of future analysis in this series.) So a type of connection between the two, poverty and terrorism, is established. And the contrast between a world of nothing but soft feeling and sympathy versus the harshness of the unforgiving world of adult responsibility makes rationality seem almost a punitive grating intrusion of injustice — particularly among those in whom concrete responsibility would be a distinctly unwelcome novelty in their lives.

In McGovern’s mind, which, in his penchant for excessive personal humility, he has long since declared to be “the conscience of the Democratic party,” he goes on to construct a type of emotional mathematical equation which dictates but one outcome employing the numbers he uses from these frames of reference.

3 + 6 – 4 + 5 = X . . . equals? . . . equals? . . . .equals? . . . Class?

10? . . . 10? . . . You got it.

And . . . poverty + downtroddenness + inequality and hunger – absence of outside sensitivity to, and unconditional relief from such conditions + powerlessness = equals? — . . . equals? . . . equals? . . . What’s the answer? . . . Class? . . . Class?

Well, must it somehow equal the second element in the not too mysteriously combined topics of discussion which constitute the overly-limited finite system the article constructs from which to draw answers? Within that context the desired answer strains against the silence and begs to be said at that point. The momentum of argument compels that conclusion.

But the conclusion is not offered. McGovern is the clever man highly adept at dealing with the mediocre and insulated college sophomore mind — which also composes his own mentality. Someone of that cleverness does not overtly state the equational inference, “poverty or inequality are the cause of (justifiable) terrorism and revolution.” That may be what he is selling, but it is not to be overtly stated. At the very last second the clever professorial advocate backs away from the very obvious final step, leaving even the dullest-minded kids, and perhaps especially the dullest-minded kids, with the flattering illusion of believing they are intellectuals and geniuses for supposedly stating it themselves through acquisition of advanced knowledge instead of through manipulation or brainwashing. In liberal colleges this is called teaching people to think. In leftist politics this is called ideological brilliance. And, very importantly, the message that poverty or inequality cause, and therefore justify, terrorism and revolution thus can not be attributed to, and then confronted in, he who sells it because it is never explicitly stated.

In the good old days of Marxist violent revolution organizing, advocates would wander about with wild eyes shouting exhortations to seize arms, man the barricades, and kill the ruling class.

During recent decades the proponents of violent Marxist organizing and revolution have been, and are, of different order. The cream of the most violent Marxist political organizers are bland people who seldom raise their often nasal voices, and who sadly talk about need for working together for peace through eradicating the elements now (causing? necessitating? justifying? are the roots of?) violence. They often begin with condemnation of violence and violent acts that is loosely connected perfunctory denial of what is to be advocated and which are later quoted to deny the intent and reality of what is being advocated. People may say they are peaceful, but do they mean it? Are some of them even in a mental condition to know what they are or what they mean?

Present Marxist arguments go on to assert that the reasons for violent actions must be understood and are to be made understandable so that such things can be prevented. This is, indeed, a reasonable proposition when applied correctly and thoroughly. But, as so-called explanations progress, violent or revolutionary actions are made to appear so absolutely predetermined by desperate necessity as to become sympathetically understandable and beyond strong criticism. They become so understandable that opposition to violent leftist revolution is subverted by making opposition half-hearted or arguably unjust, or to make revolution so understandably acceptable an enterprise that if not joined, is at least not to be interfered with — and at that point, to the extent the arguments are accepted, the then guilt-ridden guilt-immobilized society is ready to crumble. At some point explanation can become de facto advocacy and permission, especially when the explanations are distorted and contrived.

Cause and Culpability

The concept of cause and culpability become important here. In the American legal system there are several concepts of cause which are pertinent. One of these is the “but for” argument in determining whether a person created a destructive turn of events and whether he should be made to pay for resultant damages. That is, “but for” a person’s committing a certain action, would a second person or group have experienced injury? If the answer is no, then the person initiating that action is held responsible for any damages to the second person.

A second concept of cause is the element of forseeability. That is, if a person knowingly and willingly acts in such a way that the consequences would, in the mind of a reasonable and prudent person, foreseeably or predictably inflict wanton damages upon another person or group, then that person is held morally and legally responsible for those damages.

The differences between these have never been adequately dissected and then formerly encoded and taught as doctrine as to proper specific application or non-application in the legal system. The task here is not to construct such a formulation, but only to define the existence of differences and complexity.

There is a third concept of cause that is used in the sciences and philosophy of science. That is, a cause is an action that will predictably produce a certain effect or consequence under specified conditions.

We will return to this area later. For now, the relevance is that leftist ideology has employed the concept of socioeconomic cause and predictability in such a way as to derive permission for terror and revolution. i. e. If any society produces conditions so horrid that they reasonably and predictably force people into revolt out of desperation, then society is to blame for violence while those engaging in violence and revolution are heroic victims reacting to oppression. The leftist presentation is simply to point to conditions and then point to violence and revolution— which is essentially the make-up of the McGovern equation.

If any society can be persuaded through explanation, accusation, and suggestion to accept guilt over responsibility for not correcting what are asserted to be causative conditions — and that means correcting them EVERYWHERE in the world— then that society becomes suicidally passive and self-destructive due to the immobilizing-effect of guilt while terrorists and revolutionary elements receive escalating license to commit what have become interpreted as acts of justice until necessitating conditions of poverty or whatever are corrected. For some years America has been entering the suicidal stage. America, the nation that has provided more opportunity for more people than any other nation in history, and which millions still strive to enter, has been wallowing in what has become a fashionable self-hatred and masochistic suicidal guilt since the early to mid 60s, with sadistic guidance from people such as McGovern and Kofi Annan whenever possible.

Moreover, America has been accused of responsibility for conditions in areas of the world over which it has no control and in areas in which people individually, through social or political systems, or through leadership, refuse to adopt internal corrective measures to relieve the asserted causes of revolution. America has been accused of failure for not having produced ideal conditions for people not within its borders and who subscribe to the antithesis of that which made America function internally.

If any society or system produces conditions so horrid that it predictably coerces people into revolt in desperation, then society is to blame for violence while those engaging in violence and revolution are victims reacting to oppression. Now . . . There may be, in fact are, numerous instances where this is true. But the mere pointing to unpleasant conditions while also pointing to revolution is far too simplistic, and is often an attempt at deliberate deception for ideological purposes as well as for ideological underwriting of criminal intent and enterprise — including criminal irresponsibility.

Necessary Revolt

The principle of necessary revolt holds true. The problem occurs when the principle of necessary or justified revolution is selectively applied, or misapplied, or when examples establishing it’s validity in one instance are then used to justify its misapplication to other circumstances which are either not parallel in nature, or are only superficially so. The principle is erroneously transferred in application without also transferring necessary honest detailed analysis along with it. In the present context the coexistence of poverty and revolution may not be due to the society that is being accused and attacked. The presence of economic hardship does not automatically license those who experience it to conduct unreasoned attack upon other areas of the world. All variables producing economic conditions must be evaluated.

Somewhere in the statements of McGovern and others in the leftist axis can be discerned a carefully-built system of sociological theorems leading to the conclusion, which, stated in unadorned form, rationalizing, “If we don’t get what we want, we have the right to kill you.” However softly stated, that’s what the thrust of the argument resolves down to. The rationalization is paired with emotional tales of desperation and misery.

Now, let’s make it perfectly clear. McGovern et al aren’t the ones who will do the killing, for they declare themselves to be mere analytical theorists or observers. They are followers of non-violence who are unhappily trapped by truthful necessity into delivering unpleasant messages. Consequently, they can not be accused of being revolutionaries. It’s those other people who will be forced to kill you if the particular corrective prescriptions being declared as essential are not adopted. Those listening to the message who are of temperament less inclined to passive theoretical talk and more inclined to direct physical implementation and action rapidly gather and organize around the justifying later half of the message in the leftist instruction book to produce guerrilla and allied violent movements. In so doing, such movements become the hoped-for and necessary enforcement agents of ideological theorists. They become instruments of blackmail and they leverage forced imposition of the theoretical arguments as social policy. In leftist political theater, occurrence of the previously justified violent result is then deplored with wailing and breast-beating about the existence of violence and poverty in the world by the supporting theorists running verbal interference for revolution. There are declarations of personal non-violence, and sorrow that their desperate attempts to prevent violence by having offered the necessary alternatives, specifically their alternatives, went unheeded. (Martin Luther King played this process like a harp. In the case of King it was delicately packaged and supported to make him one of the most effective salesmen for Marxist blackmail and revolution in the 20th century while claiming non-violence in every fifth sentence.) The McGovern and allied equations or statements are an indirectly constructed instruments of blackmail. This is buttressed by the psychological cognitive blocking obtained by pairing their arguments with emotion-evoking visions of human suffering.

There is also cognitive displacement or cognitive shutdown due to the legitimate anger the method and content of argument produce. People subjected to the dishonest arguments and obvious denial become so angry they can only stammer in response. If the process continues long enough, not only do those subjected to it sputter with incapacitating rage in attempts to reply directly to their tormentors, they eventually get to the point where they even stammer when mumbling to themselves. In the event their condition progresses into depression in their attempts to control, or as a reaction to, continual rage, the immobilizing effects, cognitive and otherwise, are equally satisfactory. The radical left gets its way. This is the present condition of much of American society.

So the original unadorned conclusion must be amended to state, “If WE don’t get what we want, THEY have a right to kill you. WE are nonviolent.”

WE are nonviolent. . . . Sure you are.

It’s the contention here that George McGovern, and those like him, are advocates or organizers for violent leftist revolution and blackmail. I don’t think McGovern is a spectacularly intelligent or skillful person. As an act of charity it may be theorized that McGovern may be so stupid as to be only partially aware of what he is doing. (In the self-interest of procuring attention, money, and position, he may not care what he is doing.) But he does have critical support in the media, in academia, and in theocracy. Somewhere during his life he accepted the premises of the radical left and he has refined representation of that with which he was programed. What he is now doing reflects or fulfills the original unstated violent revolutionary intent of those who created what he was taught to believe. One way or another, in practicality he is a violent Marxist whose anger may be repressed and sublimated into forms where he, himself, may not even understand his violent nature as it is released in indirect and deniable forms which he believes are clever or justified. This applies to others similar to him.

To some extent it is useful to understand aspects of the basis or background of McGovern’s mentality in order to also understand what would make him a Marxist.

McGovern and Methodism

To his credit, McGovern was a bomber pilot in the later portion of World War II where he few in the order of 32 missions against Germany. That was his brief brush with the outside world in this life. (But, participation in war, contrary to melodramatic declaration, does not certify specific commitment or competence, ideological or otherwise, in other areas. There are many people handed rifles during periods of conflict and who are sent out to survive, who have barely heard of the American Constitution and know little of what it means. Concepts of economics may be more elusive for them than quark theoretics of physics.) Beyond that brief excursion, McGovern has led an existence in an environment and subcultures peculiarly distant from ordinary mainstream concrete life. That existence has been the clerical side of Methodism Christianity, and academia.

McGovern was born to parents whose lifetime profession was the Methodist ministry. For a period, McGovern, himself, was a seminary student. From thence, he obtained a Ph.D. from Northwestern becoming an instructor and later professor at colleges.

I’m not positively impressed with the Methodist church, or for that matter many other churches. The Methodist denomination is the same as what the Clintons attended, Bill striding in with the largest possible bible prominently displayed under his arm, and walking back out with the same bible on his way to meet Monica Lewinsky on occasion. When he got his tail caught in the screen door, he made great display of returning to the same church for a bit of publicized pastoral counseling. That there was any sincerity connected with any of this is impossible to believe given his collateral acts and the still-continuing Clinton defiant arrogance coupled with lack of evidence of genuine embarrassment or shame. But the church hierarchy and the church atmosphere were very conducive and supportive to the point of being an accomplice in the Clintons’ actions, which reflects poorly on the integrity of the church and of the minister of that congregation. Had I been a church member I would have left in protest of the entire scene. Having visited that particular church some years before, I can say that the long term atmosphere was such those who had self respect and the integrity to leave in protest had either long since left or avoided the place from moment one.

The Amish practice of shunning maintains an air of seriousness, of serious standards, and sincerity in their religion that should be far more widely adopted should churches expect to have any credibility — or even have utility to God or society. In the Amish world, misuse of the church is quickly caught and forbidden.

Methodists and others don’t shun, they grin. They grin, a rather stupid-looking grin, while believing they are sophisticated. If you want an example of that grin, a look at Bill Clinton when he’s doing his song and dance act will do. This has created an absence of appropriate corrective social discomfort that has subverted healthy society while allowing people such as the Clintons and other piranha fish to thrive without confrontation or inconvenience.

Now, let’s make it clear at this point that George McGovern is not the Clintons. Whether he would willingly associate with them is unknown. But he is a product of, or inhabits, a morally muddled religious world in which people such as the Clintons find little hindrance or inconvenience. It is also a world of sufficiently unincisive blandness in which McGovern is not taken to proper task and can survive.

Modern Methodism seems a vacuous organization making few serious demands for morality, for honesty, or for discipline. That’s why the Clintons were comfortable there. That’s why Methodism was comfortable with the Clintons. The only thing the United Methodist Church is good for is a place for people such as the Clintons to hide in, and maybe McGovern too, if he still goes there. The preaching is liberated, social, and abstract social designs or activism have become substitutionalized for concrete personal integrity, providing considerable relief from feared need to develop the latter. Thus, people such as the Clintons can lead completely reprehensible and degenerate personal or public lives while proudly claiming superior moral rectitude by consequence of espousing a veneer of abstract social interests. (This has become a pattern not only permissible in churches, but in society in general, providing impetus to widespread adoption of socialistic ideology.) The permissive environment reinforces personal behavior that at best should be considered marginal from an initial condition of being at least partially accessible to questioning by remnants of personal conscience, into a condition of liberated blithe incorrigibility.

A bumper sticker says “Christians aren’t perfect, only forgiven.” Presently encountered levels of imperfection licensed by assured forgiveness can be a bit more than other human beings with any personal integrity can reasonably be expected to tolerate, or sometimes even survive.

Ministers ask the question, — other than an atmosphere of unjudgementality, how do we bring in and reach sinners? The obvious answer is, you’ve already reached them in great abundance. Your cup runneth over. They now fill the front four rows of your pews next to Bill and Hillary, and are smirking and celebrating. The celebration is not over having found God so much as over having found laxity and license. In the equal opportunity world, participation in the benefits of laxity and license has come to be exercised by pastors as well as parishioners, accelerating the corruptive process. Should the term mutually corruptive, instead of corruptive, be used here to give full credit to all deserving participant parties in the clearly cooperative effort?

In a statement inviting violation of correct use of the conditional syllogism, members of the clergy are quick to point out that sermons are obligated to make people uncomfortable. Therefore, having made members of their congregation uncomfortable, typically through warped social sermons, they strut about like peacocks proud of having done their job. Personal discomfort may, in fact, be beneficial necessity that frequently accompanies or motivates the growth process. But, while acting like a jackass, mindlessness, distortion, and accusations of false guilt do create discomfort in congregations, it is not the type of discomfort promoting personal growth, and modern religion is making the wrong group of people uncomfortable, while making the other wrong group of people far too comfortable.

Religion and Corruption

The problem with social sermons is that they avoid the problem. The problem, which is avoided, is that the cumulative effect of individual corruption, which is not directly enough addressed in social sermons, has overwhelmed the nation, and even the world, beyond economic or any other capacity to deal with it.

But . . . judge not lest ye be judged . . . and so forth. A theology that preaches nonjudgementality and forgiveness to the point of inculcating debilitating blindness and absence of reaction to acts of evil guts the church and its members of capacity for healthy critical evaluation, thus leaving people immobilized and vulnerable to evil. Such evaluation seems lacking in Methodism and other denominations to the point where there is not only inhibition in recognizing when the barbarians are at the gate, but even when they have marched in and dominate the church, itself.

Religion with unconditional love, and without serious personal intellectual and concrete economic self-discipline is the opiate of religious parasitism — and Marxism.

There dwells within many churches a herd protectiveness of social resistance to incisiveness and responsibility. That is, one should walk about the earth with a heart full of unconditional love. (Which is both personally and socially destructive as well as a clear healthy psychoanalytic impossibility. Whether some of the saints were touched by God rather than by severe psychological repression and turning of anger against the self is a matter subject to interpretive frame of reference leading to strenuous argument. At any rate, there seems to be a tendency within religion to mistake the externally observed blandness and apparent serenity or submissiveness, or even obliviousness, characteristic of involutional schizophrenia for healthy psychological adjustment, and to seek such state as a form of spiritual elevation.)

Soft congregations, and those who have been beaten into submissiveness through doctrines of unconditional love, are desirous of a path of avoidant bland spinelessness and denial. Discomforting terms such as lazy, self-indulgent, fraudulent, parasitic, predatory, stealing, irresponsible, have been stricken from the Christian religion as anesthetically abrasive or vulgar, and brutal, leaving exercise of such characteristics unconfronted and uncorrected. An overly compassionate non-corrective society produces people who destroy themselves, destroy others, and destroy the socioeconomic condition.

Very importantly, communism and Western religion were once bitter enemies. Part of this was due to statements from people such as Karl Marx declaring religion to be the opiate of the people. As such, existence of the descriptive phrase “Godless Communism!” was shocking and sufficient enough to close the books on religious acceptance of communism, temporarily, without further thought. But, with the passage of time the tenets of communism began to be taught independently from the stigma of the label, and began to take on an entirely separate life of their own. Within that separate life, variations of what was once communism evolved in which the shocking antireligious statements were deemphasized or dropped from the rhetoric while continuing the basic ideology of social servitude and sacrifice of self and individual rights to social servitude or social ownership of the individual.

Selective aspects of the Christian religion bear striking similarities to communism. Additionally, aspects of the Christian religion were, and are, quite readily adaptable to validate and express primitive resentments and jealousy. If, as the bible proclaims, it is as difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle as it is for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven, then it becomes arguably nearly a moral imperative, perhaps performed with awaiting sense of malicious satisfaction, to side with God against those who have more than you. And who knows, those who are diligent might even be, with some sense of concealed delight, arguably be disentitled to the results of their labor in noble pursuit of the altruistic interest of ensuring their entrance to later holy ground. Thus, public commitment to the principles of godliness can be combined with private pettiness in attempts to humiliate and produce the downfall of your more diligent and prosperous neighbor.

Reward for Diligence?

The concept of the rich in all this is excessively existential. i. e. It is a condition that is described as existent in immediate time without reference to its being the moral or rational result of instrumental work or self-discipline or any other effort of morality and integrity previous to immediate time. For instance it is not said that it is as difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle as it is for a diligent man to enter the kingdom of heaven. That may be what is encompassed within the breadth of the original argument and I’ve never heard this encompassment spontaneously denied, but that is not how the argument is stated. Thus it can be seen that if previous concrete instrumentality of effort and dedication is brought into the declaration, there are instances when it loses some of its luster. In making such omission, the bible is at times a very immoral, and even insulting, document. It discounts the role of human diligence and self-discipline nearly to a point of social criminality, while it can be construed to license hatred or immoral acts against those who are successful through personal effort. Consequently, personal resentment and Christian teaching can profitably be too easily commingled and co-intertwined to the point where each becomes undiscernible from the other with the cover of religion furnishing denial for, and becoming a vehicle for, underlying motivation of pettiness and resentment, for indirect demands for parasitism, and even for forms of sadism. For those raised in it, the pathological components are initially unquestioned and later undiscernible to the point of being unrecognized premises even in adherents themselves. Religion has become the ideal rationalizing opiate obliviating people from confrontation of their resentment. The old opiate once complained about by Marxists still remains an opiate, but one now useful for altered purposes.

The rationalizations and developed use of avoidant existential language also allow people to avoid looking at other more personal, and perhaps embarrassing, deficiencies. The idea, for instance, that the condition of poverty is not always a blameless condition separated from personal irresponsibility is disruptive to a type of desired complacency that has arisen. If NAACP leader Kwesei Mfume has sired at least five out-of-wedlock children by as many women whom he deserted, while he issues angry abstract assertions that black children aren’t starting out on a level playing field, his part in creating poverty through his actions is not confronted if employment of linguistic existential conversion deletes direct representation of, and responsibility for, his concrete actions.

Mfume, and others, are much like the cosmic black holes astronomers see in far reaches of the universe that suck up and devour entire solar systems, star formations, and even light, through enormous force of gravity. The additional gravity from the added mass of that which is devoured increases the power of the black hole to attract and devour still more. If left to their own devising, Mfume and others will suck up and devour entire economies, enslave populations, even destroy all civilization in servitude to their voracious appetite for irresponsibility. The more they are indulged, and the less they are confronted in the matter, the more profound and self-confident their condition becomes, and the greater and more militant their demands become. They have found distortions of language coupled with demands, from themselves as well as from religious figures, for love to be useful tools in accomplishing this task. This phenomenon is as true internationally as it is domestically.

Use of the term black in black hole is accident of established terminology here. It is not limited to the black race. But blacks have taken leadership in the process because in recent years it has become prohibited to disagree with any black activist about anything. It has become impossible to view anything realistically, or speak with intelligent perceptiveness regarding anything without massive protests and accusations from the black race, employing the intimidating terms racism or Naziism, while protecting a 70% out-of-wedlock domestic birth rate and an array of coordinate life styles and attitudes. Entire educational systems, logic systems, economic systems, and concepts of civilization have been altered or overturned to make self-indulgent black leaders and expanding psychopathic black self-indulgence acceptable — and to allow such to feel good about themselves. It’s become an international as well as a domestic phenomenon. The altered standards of rationality that have been created have become generalized in application and have then corrupted, or been exploited by, other people, and have been imposed in attempts to reorganize the world into subjugation to irresponsibility and into subsidizing the consequences of irresponsibility. We have now stripped ourselves of the intellectual or emotional strength to deal with it anywhere in the world in any race.

Linguistic Hard Drugs

Among the most common and most powerfully used escape or defense mechanisms in the sense of defense or escape from concrete responsibility has become the processes of linguistic abstract conversion and existential conversion that not only expunge representation of concrete irresponsibility, but under skillful linguistic manipulation present the conditions emanating from irresponsibility as one of moral superiority — or present absence of unconditional outside economic relief the only principle immorality involved. Part of this is seen modeled in the bible, and it is operant in religion to beautify people who should not always be beautified, and who would perhaps do better and risk improvement if subjected to more precise systems of language and evaluation.

In recent decades, not only in America, but throughout the world, abstract conversion and existential conversion have come to be linguistic hard drugs. Their use enables activities of doubtful wisdom or moral principle. Continued and increasing use of such avoidant language becomes necessary to protect and justify initial activities as well as new activities occurring as a resultant of linguistically-licensed softness combined with absence of moral or intellectual conscience. What finally exists is life styles, patterns of pathology, cultures, and even entire nations dependent upon linguistic conversion systems to defer extremely painful collapse into reality. The longer the drug is used, the greater the dependence and usage. The longer the drug is used, the more prevalent the behavior becomes that requires escalation of its usage. It’s entrapping mankind.

To paraphase biblical teaching, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for the concrete truth to pass through the allowed linguistic aperature of contemporary verbal constructs.

There is serious danger in a system of language that allows people the illusion of having resolved various adolescent maturational conflicts and contradictions without actually resolving those conflicts. The release of emotion is euphoric and almost addictive. For instance, Mfume’s pathologically abstract statement that blacks don’t start on an even playing field is declared with a confidence and emotional release that is volcanic — even if he were to be concurrently using another five women and then consigning them and their children to the garbage heap when he was through with them. He, and others with him, get high as a kite on his indignant orations which are released with absolute self-confidence while being joyously uncontaminated by any presently known form of concrete rationality. The language itself becomes emotionally addictive, or perhaps more precisely stated, a form of highly enjoyable pathological dependency and euphoric release from accountability. McGovern’s use of language similarly incorporates release from concrete resolution or analysis combined with emotional expression.

This pattern is an immediate diagnostic marker identifying the sociopolitical left. Acute perception and recognized importance of the pattern depends upon the diagnostician’s not having adopted it himself and thus being blind to the process. As is typical in the world of psychological evaluation, the acknowledged existence or qualifications for a diagnostic characteristic is dependent upon the limitations or willingness of the evaluator.

Many people of recent generations have grown up nearly completely in this linguistic structure and know no other. How, then, should they not have attenuated capability to recognize it as seriously aberrant? In recent decades entire pathological operant syndromes have faded from recognition with large scale social adoption of such pathology. (The ascendant use of this language system was a principle factor of the so-called generation gap of the 60s.)

A primary function of the radical left is development and continuing evolution of a linguistic system in which critical evaluative concepts no longer exist, or no longer exist in the in the mainstream of analysis. Essential verbal analytic tools have been, and are further being, deleted from the pool of active employment and effect. They have been deleted from academic training, and deleted from the pool of active consciousness in the pool of social interaction with substitution of the leftist linguistic system by the media. To some extent this linguistic system has been delibrately constructed and employed by theoreticians to create an alternative evaluative system. To complementary extent it has also been created by having been shaped though psychological autoconditioning. That is, the false feeling of confidence, the relief of verbal distance from need to resolve concrete internal and external conflict, the release from concrete responsibility, and the emotional release inherent in the linguistic system serve as strong internal psychological reinforcers to shape and distort the verbially mediated evaluative process. What has evolved is a very widely employed verbally based self-referencing system of analytical avoidant irrelevance.

Personal Responsibility and Poverty

The New Testament dwells upon sorrows without much emphasis upon responsibility for the work ethic. The poor are described in the same existential manner as the prosperous, leaving out any critical personal elements predictably producing poverty, and therefore eliminating personal, or public, or clerical, responsibility for addressing and correcting those elements. In the existential mode of presentation, the poor and the prosperous become equated due to deletion of reference to any contributing personal efforts or characteristics that make them different, or that make their resultant economic conditions different. The difference between them then becomes perceived, and asserted, as one of purely unjust accidental causality without attempt at adequate further corrective examination and criticism. This inadequacy is a serious, perhaps the major, contributing factor to creation of economic poverty. This inadequacy is a serious, perhaps the major, contributing factor to creation of economic poverty, particularly in the United States.

Those who are well-fed living in soft parasitic rarefied worlds away from, and unaware of, the millions of people working to feed and cloth them on the concrete level can easily conceive of productivity they receive, and the necessary effort that goes into it, as separate from preconditions to be met for its existence while differences in economic condition seem be vague in causality, arbitrary, and even punitive. Therefore the parasitic comfortable become easily allied with socialistic theology and/or socialistic secularism, and are susceptible to ideology, and theology, accordingly.

Socialistic religious doctrine also provides an additional source of nearly unresolvable guilt that can be leveraged and exploited by opportunistic preachers. Guilt over personal effort and earned prosperousness can be exploited, either religiously or politically, to the extent it can be instilled. For the intellectually, morally, or otherwise slothful, the easiest and safest path to take in attempting to stir up guilt and turmoil is to direct hatred toward the prosperous because they are easy to resent anyway. The condition of diligent prosperity does not evoke need for sympathy or understanding, and hence is socially and ideologically disadvantaged in attracting defense. Resentment can be harnessed and exploited, as can be the now non-sins of indolence, and personally destructive self-indulgence which should be obvious but are no longer allowed to be perceived. McGovern, the former seminarian who left prospects of the Methodist pulpit for a more effective one with a bigger congregation at more pay and prestige where he could accomplish more, is still a preacher, and an opportunistic one. Kofi Annan sounds like one.

If toleration of the existence of poverty can be criticized as as an unconscionably immorality for its being allowed to continue, one might be led to speculate that an economic system which creates the broadest possible base of prosperity and opportunity could automatically be viewed as moral, and the failure to adopt such a system might be immoral. Such, however, does not seem to be the case.

Marxism seems to avoid making adult evaluations and imposing concrete responsibilities on select people, and so does present neochristianity. Both are peculiarly nonjudgmental, albeit for slightly different reasons. Marxism needs the promise of being blind to, then subsidizing, irresponsibility through equalizing income as motivation to create a social state. Christianity subscribes to nonjudgmentality as a religious principle and, if one can indulge in a bit of realistic cynicism, needs failure to meet the demand to be irrationally nonjudgmental as a method of creating exploitable constantly-groveling guilt in congregations. Thus, there is a convergence of interests and a resulting alliance of nonjudgmentality.

The bible is neither a good psychoanalytic model, nor a healthy text on economics. It certainly is not an instruction book on how to achieve prosperity. It preaches little respect for the successful industry of others. The “Thou shalt not covet . . . ” part of the ten commandments, as is the prohibition against adultery, has been consigned either to a state of perpetual hibernation, or has been declared as missing in action for so long as to be assummed dead. In modern sociological theocracy stealing has become viewed as little more than an understandable form of just social redistribution. Lack of integrity is not to be criticized lest such criticism reduce someone’s feeling of self esteem as well as violate exhortations to adopt nonjudgementality. Religion, and the bible, in present interpretation, preach resentment. They center upon a morbidity and adaptation to morbidity which become irrelevant. The poor are the only ones dwelled upon as lovable and sinless.

Emphasis on the sinlessness and moral superiority of the poor may have been necessary to give dignity and hope to the Hebrews who had been enslaved into poverty by Egypt and others. But casual misapplication of that emphasis can lead to distorted views in the present as well as injustice. More recent, and quite proper, employment of the idea may have been appropriate under times and systems in which ownership and prosperity were primarily the result of hereditary conquest and divine right of the hierarchy of nobility with little other opportunity available. But, once again, casual misapplication based upon that emphasis can lead to distorted views in the present as well as injustice. There are, of course, some poor people who are blameless honest victims of circumstance. I live in a state, West Virginia, that has lost every major industry that once sustained the state leaving a lot of good simple people destitute through no fault of their own.

What is presently seen in religion is far too infrequent preaching of the need for self-discipline and diligence in this life as a principle of morality. The explanation of convenience justifying this infrequency among many clergy is, diligence as an investment in material well-being in this life is not the concern of the church. We are concerned with entry into the next life. But in the next part of the sermon there is focusing upon the injustice of economic impoverishment in this life. If poverty is to be brought up as a religious issue, then people making it an issue should have the integrity or consistency to critique personal elements producing poverty. Religion seems to want poverty as a continuing exploitable issue, and individual prosperity a perpetual safe exploitable form of evil enemy, while the diligent are vilified instead of being used as role models to solve the problems used to promote guilt.

In truth, There are those who sincerely believe in Marxist religion and who are without inhabitation by a substrate of resentment. They are more dangerous that the ones who are hostile and resentful. In their mindless and ignorant condition augmented by compensatory religious euphoria, they will run you over with a bulldozer with glazed eyes lifted unto the heavens in enraptured sanctified obliviousness while building a road of enslavement to universal love.

Evil in the form of evil can be dealt with as being such. But God help us from warped atrocity performed in a warped sense of good.


This might be the place to talk about masochism and allied phenomena.

The sincerest form of dedication to morality or principle is to live that morality when it is painful or self-destructive. That such dedication exists in a person might be interpreted as indication of depth and beauty in life, and may indeed be so. But, if a morality of self-sacrifice and self destruction can be devised and adopted, it can lead to a type of secretly proud masochism wherein a person attains a type of feeling of superiority and the social acceptance of receiving attention and/or sympathy not obtained elsewhere or through other means. The role also confers demands for specialness and special privileges, known as masochistic entitlement. Various parallisms and self-images can be developed, such as suffering like Jesus on the cross. If the system of morality is somehow flawed and contorted, so much the better for its capacity to provoke theatrical attention as well as inflict oblique sadism upon other people. The enjoyable secondary gains in acquiring self-destructive moral or other obligations can be quite high.

If one would care to look at it thus, there is an air of passionate sincerity surrounding acts of pain or self destruction. There is some tendency to achieve illusion of nobility by duplicating the suffering and self-sacrifice while pursuing destructive ill-examined goals.

The sincerest demonstration of adherence to religion is to sacrifice for it.

Aesthetic personal human perfection often begins with denial. That is, the saintly mind should be so devoid of evil as to find it inconceivable in other people. So great was his faith in human goodness that Jesus on the cross cried out, “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do,” as if he believed they did not know, or as if they did not know.

This is in sharp contrast to someone like myself of tenuousness of both faith and denial, along with mercurial dis-ease of temperament, who would call out, “Here they come. Hand me my 44, I’m going to blast at least six of the sonsofbitches and take them with me.” It can be safely assumed that such statements and actions would, by reason of clear deficiency of rarefied obliviousness and rather severe absence of unconditionally benign serenity, not be called upon to go down in subsequent records of human history as models of spiritual pulchritude. I can live with it.

That evil exists in the forms that it does is often denied among Christians. Suffering at the hands of evil is too often welcomed as demonstration of faith. Christian acquaintances are prone to say, “I don’t hate you, I hate what you do.” The careful separation of the person from the act of evil is a mode of thought and analysis that becomes habit. (In some cases it is continuation of a habit acquired early on in attempt to avoid anger, and guilt over that anger, at various people in a person’s life.) In the real world people know what they do, and are what they do, far more often than those pursuing noble masochistic denial would like to believe. In the real world, those committing evil are also far less inclined to experience pangs of conscience by the noble masochistic suffering they produce than many would like to believe.

In some cases this plays into a life game where people seek sympathy and acknowledgement for being subjected to injustice in their lives. They become perpetual victims seeking that goal and that concern.

Self destructive masochism can become a way of life, sought out for its own sake, without serious examination.

There seems to be in many human beings a quest for a perfect love and an altered state of consciousness. Some people attempt this through drugs. Some seek it in unselfish love of, and from, God. Still others seek it in dedication to illusion of people that remains unblemished fantasy.

Abstract group love in socialism is similar to abstract love of Christ. In both instances there is achievement of abstract love of an illusion, or delusion, or rarefied image, unblemished by reality. It is far easier to love a distant vision perfected by imagination, than to love someone in concrete reality. It’s also far less risky. Many decades back an author whose name I don’t remember wrote a book whose title suggested communism was the god that failed. Jesus was a man nobody has seen in 2,000 years and whose only representation is a few years of his life idealized in vision. Communism/socialism describes an envisioned condition of inspiring interaction between members of the human race idealized in theory and interpretation. Communism/socialism are seen through idealized theory believed in almost as a religion. The unpleasant truth beneath the illusion keeps seeping through to contradict the idealized theory. This is countered by redoubling both denial and ennobling masochistic sacrifice as the corrective element to address any failures or realization. The demand for increased sacrifice by those who believe in, and attempt to enforce, the delusion can impose substantial hardship upon other members of the community— at times to the point of being somewhat of a plague.

The feel-good and escapist philosophy of helping the poor in person, or at pious personal sacrifice, seems preferable to expanding a system of economics that helps the poor in mass. What is asked for is a type of personal religious experience within the ennobling personal sacrificial or group sacrificial experience. It is almost hysterically grasped at by some people.

Free Enterprise and the Herd

Free enterprise is an intrusional alternative to such sainthood and it’s an intrusion into a person to person experience that is rather brusque. It leaves people in a condition of emotional abandonment.

Starvation and impoverishment are to be eliminated only through idealized social effort and servitude, not through a culture or economic system emphasizing individual effort. The diffuse abstract catharsis of dedicated abstract love, and a sense of belonging, are more important than the actual relief from impoverishment. Given failure of social effort, or even inherent impossibility of its success due to displacement of, or absence or deficiency of individual effort, the failures of love-based socialistic systems are still looked upon as far more preferable to the successes of free enterprise type systems. Thus, the apparent contradiction of the acceptability of socialistic failure concurrent with obsessional criticism of free enterprise in spite of its massive overall successes, becomes resolved. Economic progress is neither the primary real issue nor goal. A system of belief and belonging is. The intensification of feeling of belief and belonging is one of several reasons why there is so much group political portrayal and participation in socialist/communist societies. Social hysterical herd catharsis, belonging, and feeling of abstract love are the principle, and desired, product. In many eyes a system that produces a feeling of belonging and abstract love is a triumph, even if it also produces poverty. Within the circularity of reasoning, poverty produces spiritual purification, anyway. It’s in the book.

The people involved are so emotionally repulsed by the self-interest and sense of abandonment in free enterprise that if free enterprise were adopted and would produce a family income of $30,000 a year for poor nations tomorrow morning, they would be distraught.

(People once obtained feeling of love and belonging through family and other interpersonal relationships. With the downfall of the family and deterioration of interpersonal relationships, they, at times somewhat desperately, substitute a socialistic love in a social system that offers an abstract spiritual love. The orientation toward, and success within, individual and family relationships are subtractive from the need to find love through abstract group catharsis and are hence looked upon as a retrograde condition by the secular socialist state.)

There is a difference between noble suffering and sacrifice for truth as opposed to suffering and sacrifice for manufactured fantasy. There is a difference between noble suffering and sacrifice for truth as opposed to suffering and sacrifice for manufactured fantasy when that fantasy is so constructed as to deny, and even perpetuate, an underlying condition of basic corruption. There is a difference between noble suffering and sacrifice for truth as opposed to suffering and sacrifice for manufactured fantasy when dedication to that fantasy refuses systems that empirically work because they are aesthically unappealing to fantasy while embracing and imposing systems that don’t work as they esthetically appeal to wishes and fantasy. There is a difference between noble suffering and sacrifice for truth as opposed to suffering and sacrifice for manufactured fantasy that is a child’s game in a protected rarefied atmosphere. There is a difference between noble suffering and sacrifice for truth as opposed to suffering and sacrifice for manufactured fantasy when it is a ploy to manipulate and control other people. There is a difference between noble suffering and sacrifice for truth as opposed to suffering and sacrifice for manufactured fantasy when fantasy is used to procure socially rewarded positions of escapism.

But still, the idea of beautiful minds living and suffering in beautiful denial finds appeal.

If a morality of sensitivity can be built upon simplified exclusionary focus on other people’s existent feelings and poverty, an individual can lay claim to special empathy and concerns about people while simultaneously producing consequences more devastating than an atom bomb. Serious people pointing out the flaws and the consequences can be accused of insensitivity. We are back at the old Phil Donahue TV show.

(This sensitivity has become an intriguing social fashion that has become an encoded statement of emotional vulnerability in social and romantic relationships.)

What can arise is an exquisitely destructive and sadistic process in that the emotional reaction to the particular can be used to force sacrificial imposition upon, and control over, other people. With some deftness, sadistic sacrifice or destruction of the whole can be achieved through declared sensitivity and exclusive focused sympathy and demands relating to the particular. Thus, Kofi Annan, with a sweet voice and eyes filled with tears, can point to a newborn infant born into primitive circumstances and use emotional sensitivity to leverage power for himself and for world-wide socialism while simultaneously constructing servitude of, and within, the United States. Whether achievement of such would result in bettered conditions throughout the world becomes irrelevant under the emotional impact of the moment and the image. Whether there are other crucial elements involved becomes occluded by the immediate emotional experience. After all, who can so insensitive as to THINK at a time like this?

But, if we are allowed to think insensitively for a moment, could it just possibly be that under close examination, Kofi Annan, the sweet sensitive unconditional love advocate, and the mentality he represents, have had a hand in creating, over the long term, and over the whole, the ugly conditions into which that infant was born?

I’d like readers to condider that further. Sadistic sacrifice or destruction of the whole can be achieved through declared sensitivity and exclusive focused sympathy and demands relating to the particular.

A government or social system built on such dynamics can become a chamber of horrors in the name of pursuing good. But what the hell, suffering confers spiritual dignity. It’s in the book.

Love and Group Absorption

Imposition of nearly orgiastically-declared blindly nearly-hallucinatory visions of morally superior all-loving sensitive society take precedence over inevitable empirical concrete catastrophe and facilitated corruption the imposition produces. Beneath the blindness of the visions, the perceptions and the morality are flawed. As the catastrophe worsens, intensification of the blindness is imposed as declared or attempted solution, leading to further group-orgiastic catastrophe. It’s my belief that some of this is nearly sexually sublimatory in nature.

The charitable giving to the impoverished, the construction and imposition of what is conceived of as a more moral and unconditionally loving society concerned about the poor, and presumably everybody else in all things, and the social cleansing of the soul in sacrifice to the group ideal, is more important than curing poverty. For this reason, the existence of poverty has become somewhat of a necessity to leverage attainment of those goals while prosperity is at best irrelevant, or more likely an impediment, to achievement of such goals and to demonstrations of a state of love.

Attacking poverty at the broad social existential level and demanding remedy at that level seems a bit ingenuous since without personal change at lower levels, attempts at higher levels become ineffectual. This is particularly so under the existential abstraction designed to avoid the reality at lower levels.

The issue is needed more than the solution. The desire for what they wrongly believe is a moral (masochistic sacrificial) society in abstract service to mankind and a society that will give them love is stronger than the motivation to eliminate poverty. That it is not mankind that is being serviced as much as corruption is not discerned or admitted and is of no matter. If prosperity produces a loss of the opportunity to feel noble and loved then it becomes the enemy. A society or ideology that provides opportunity for masochism is preferable to a society that produces prosperity.

Thus, we see a system of crossed motivation, or implicit conflict, where desire for a quasi religious emotional experience of belonging and pure abstract love becomes the unstated primary goal that takes place over a system of broad economic advancement falsely stated as being the goal. Economic and social systems become judged, accepted, or rejected on the basis of that emotional experience independent of their empirical economic successes — even as economic impoverishment is still the declared primary evil.

Lurking somewhere at the bottom of this is also a belief in destroying any society that is not a romanticized emotionally moving purity of purpose. There is also angry rejection of a society producing, or symbolizing, feelings of unloved abandonment. There is also belief in a romanticized purified vision of the reasons for poverty, and who constitute the poor and impoverished, which is a warped view that lends itself to a sense of beauty or vision of beauty in those who hold it.

What is envisioned and wanted is a national, and eventual world, economy that is a worldwide economy based upon a communal Christian church or a universal Christian love commune. Everything should be eagerly produced out of love, and given to others or shared as an act of love. It flows from a wished-for near-perfect conception of mankind, and a belief that those who are not near-perfect can be made so with unconditional love. A spirit of Christian sacrifice to those who are highly imperfect will demonstrate dedication to belief and inspiring confidence in an unconditional loving society that will convert them.

Thus, the economic and social milieu should be one of an unconditional loving and providing mother. The perfect mother-society will create perfect and all-loving children who grow up to be perfect all-loving adults.

Free enterprise is viewed as an agent of unruly and esthetically counterproductive cynicism. It is also viewed as interjecting a type of hatred or divisiveness into the world by creating conditions where people compete with each other.

The problem with socialistic communes and social systems acting as unconditionally loving mothers is much as it always has been. Such systems do, in fact, produce children. But the children have the imperfections inherent in children along with the additional imperfection of continuing to be children. The children turn out to be filled with love— primarily love for themselves. The adult children are prone to continue in a path of too-easily available softness of life. The tendency is to engage in trivial childlike pursuits instead of hard-minded adult economic productivity. To insist that the children engage in such productivity is a violation of bland warm unconditionality. It produces birds that are too comfortable in the unconditional group love nest and too soft and frightened to fly.

What evolves is a mass expansion reminiscent of the flower children of the 60s and 70s who spend their time hugging each other and waiting for someone to feed them. The expectation of unconditional love also mediates adoption of broad arrays of self-centered behavior very taxing upon others in which an impossibly unconditional love becomes a necessity for toleration.

I have noticed over the years than most of my acquaintances who were artists, poets, dancers, and so forth were nearly universally socialists. What they had were lives that were basically personal hobbies and forms of amusement described in pretentious language. The world of free enterprise and realistic productive economics was a hated outside intrusion into their soft childlike world. Socialism was conceived of as a system that would be far more supportive and would be far less intrusional or demanding.

To put it another way, without some sort of corrective mechanism there is a tendency for people to progressively gravitate to, and live within, their own childlike self-absorbtions and even neuroses exclusive of whether such life meets the economic productive needs of the community or nation. A free enterprise market economy tends to be an abrasive corrective mechanism to people determined to live as such. This is furiously viewed as the tyranny of a marketplace dominated by the vulgar and unappreciative. (The staffing of the media by products of such an environment is one reason why the content of TV, entertainment, etc. is so hostile to outside society and is far left.)

Some years ago I interviewed for a position with a defense contractor who needed people to work on a government contract. As part of the interview I was co-interviewed by a government Ph. D. in the physical sciences. He asked me if I knew anything about mass spectrographs. My reply was if he could get me access to a machine shop and also an electronics shop/laboratory I would build him whatever he wanted according to his design. If he didn’t have a design, I would design and build one according to his general purpose and specifications. No problem. That’s what I had spent years of study and experience doing. But the government Ph. D. became terrified as if I had said something horribly and viciously obscene. I didn’t get the job. The contracting officer told a mutual acquaintance that he couldn’t have someone on his staff who would frighten his government workers.

I had made the mistake of disturbing the slow measured pace of a soft secure comfortable rut that his government contract administrator and others inhabited. Additionally, I had disturbed his insecurities about his own ability through contrasting incisive aggressiveness and ability. I was viewed as a viciously insane mutant.

That the project would fail for absence of those disturbing qualities was of little importance because nobody had personal investment in it. The project was being run like a child’s world with children’s play projects. Were the situation to change such that success of the project became more important than disturbance of a system of comfortable personal torpor, people would come to drag me off in chains to make the project work.

Subculture of the Bland

This pace and this rut tends to develop in any area where there is a quasi-socialistic organization. It’s very prominent in academia. In academia there is created and maintained an atmosphere of blandness and slow measured pace protective of mediocrity. Academic economic life often becomes a matter of soft adult children pursuing personally enjoyable projects or summer camp arts and crafts fairs by the protected privileged without regard to utility in sustaining society. Non-disturbance of this protectionism becomes the primary order of importance. It becomes perpetuated in choice of, and reward of, students. Simultaneously there is pretense of non-blandness synthesized by vehement rejection of the outside world that would disturb that blandness. They will drive you nuts if you don’t understand it. It’s prominent in many areas of government work. In such organizations there is an unstated law that the nearly lethargic pace is not to be disturbed, and there is an unspoken conspiracy to ensure conformance to that law as well as staff organizations with people who will not disturb the protective atmosphere.

A parallel form of that blandness inhabits far too many Christian churches. What is wanted is an economic system congruent with it. What is wished for is somebody, or a world, to care about them and take care of them unconditionally in a church-service economy. The conditionality of free enterprise leaves such people feeling desperately unloved and abandoned due to corrective measures.

In much of the Christian religion unearned unconditional acceptance in this life is assured acceptance by God. On the other hand, free enterprise is like a stern parent that withholds unconditional love.

Nine main approximate subcultures presently exist within the leftist movement:

1) The first subculture is the parasitic culture that demands unconditional public support. It includes a broad spectrum of everything from welfare cheats to academics.

2) The second subculture is that of those who resent other people’s ability and success. They resent being left out, and not receiving personally suitable levels of importance and stature, in successful society. There is anger at a system in which people don’t drop everything to have time for THEM. This group includes those who feel abandoned.

3) The third group is the true Marxist economic theoreticians who believe in the effectiveness of managed economy and socially beneficial economic redistribution under a leftist political and intellectual elite.

4) The fourth subculture is those looking for an extension of a quasi religious experience in a desired non-confrontive beautiful caring world. In their determination to believe in human goodness, they often live in a state of denial in which both the dominance of the other subcultures, and the presence of certain characteristics in themselves, are denied. They have a romanticized view for which they are prepared to suffer in nobility. They are prepared to have an economy that dies on the cross like Jesus in the name of goodness.

5) The fifth subculture is the sublimated angry rebels. They have a diffuse angry dissatisfaction with life and anger from various sources which they direct at everything.

6) The sixth group is the social tide followers and social acceptance utilitarians. They use political dialogue as basis of social interaction in attempts to find social acceptance.

7) This is a group so crippled and immobilized by internal turmoil and conflict that they need a custodial society to survive. It also includes those with legitimate physical debilitations.

8) This is the educationally and socially brainwashed and programmed.

9) This group is the demagogues willing to exploit whatever can be best utilized for their purposes. In a free enterprise economy they are left without control of the tools useful for exploitation.

These groups overlap in some of their characteristics.

The language and conceptions of the religious group have been adopted by many of the other groups to devise an argumentatively moral medium as fraudulent ideological leverage for their own agenda. If you buy into the religious arguments, what you get is mainly the other subcultures plus the worst of corrupt religion.

Christian Religion an Ally of Marxism

For all the reasons discussed so far, the Christian religion has become a better vehicle for the dynamics of Marxism than has atheism. While religion was once resented by Marxists as being a pacifying impediment to leftist revolution, it has since often become a powerful ally.

In the 60s we began to hear the assertion that communism and/or socialism were the sincerest form of, or implementation of, Christianity. And, indeed, this is so under various versions of Christianity. Various orders of nuns and other religious figures began working side by side with communist revolutionaries in Latin America, domestically, and elsewhere. They were preceded in this by Josef Stalin who was, after all, originally a seminarian.

In the abstract vision Stalin killed tens of millions of people in pursuit of creating a moral and perfect society. Anything that conflicted with the socialistic ideal was conceived of as a bad seed, or a heresy, that once eliminated, would not regenerate if the remaining society was then subjected to restricted and controlled psychological environment. The end result would be a purified socialist society that would function without internal contamination and temptations. In one sense it was the largest systematically planned religious experiment ever attempted, but with the hypothetical spiritual goodness of socialism being substituted for God. The experiment failed because beneath the idealized vision and verbal constructs, there is too much concrete dishonesty. There was not, and never will be, regardless of continual massive propaganda manipulation, enough breadth and depth of honest ideological fervor to counterbalance that dishonesty. Groups 1, 2, 5, and 9 in the subcultures are basically evil and/or sluggards. Groups 3, 6, and 8 can’t be counted on for anything concrete for any period. Group 4 is pursuing personally needed self-serving delusion and quasi-religious euphoria. Any system thusly built has serious problems.

The communist revolution purged socioeconomic classes without purging its own fraudulence and dishonesty. Without the motivation of dishonesty and pathology (plus a good supply of ignorance of other alternatives) Marxist revolution is doomed never to take place. With that pathological substrate, socialism is still doomed after having taken place.

The implicit belief was that self interests and selfishness were purely a matter of social contamination or continuing perpetuating cycle of social inculcation. If the society were purged of people showing such tendencies the perpetuating system would be broken and would disappear leaving a pure socially oriented society. Once the society was purged completely, only comparatively minor upkeep and maintenance purging would be necessary to maintain the purified psychological condition. Restricted access to the outside world would also be useful.

Such purging is subject to the overzealousness inherent in fanaticism or unbounded enthusiasm.

As stated earlier in this series, if the nature of people was such that socialist societies were possible, there would be no need for them as an attempt to escape the spiritual coldness of free enterprise. But, what occurs under socialism is the same objectionable self-interest and tendencies seen under free enterprise combined with the additional detrimental consequences resulting from licensed irresponsibility and indifference to determined personal effort under socialism. It releases the far worst scenarios in people, with no individual recourse as remedy in escape. The corrective remedy must always be brutal authoritarianism. Stalin did what was necessary to maintain the dream.

If greed and self-centeredness is bad under the limitations imposed by free enterprise, it does not miraculously disappear under socialism. Rather, it becomes worse. Give people the political right to confiscate from each other, and to live in self-indulgence and lackadaisical self-absorbtion at the expense of others, then see what happens. What occurs is an explosion of uncontrolled Freudian Id in which Christian or socially conscious sharing easily becomes undifferentiate from stealing — with unwillingness to recognize it as such.

With increasing frequency people are being forced to resort to nearly violent hostility toward religion, not only out of simple repugnance to the degenerate condition of the churches, but also in order to remain free of imposition of Marxism and from absolute ownership of themselves by a social political state cloaking massive corruption. (See the earlier installment in this series on Socialism, the Forbidden Ideology.)

Although it is not presently recognized, antireligionism and/or atheism are of two types going in divergent directions. The first type of atheism is a disguised form of anti-moral social opportunism. In this type, atheism is adopted primarily to procure freedom from classical morality and thus obtain absolute license for a type of irresponsible hedonism with little other real serious interest. A substantial proportion of people of this type could become, and may become, socialists if that socialism allows hedonistic amusements while freeing them from responsibility or requiring public support for participants and consequences. This is particularly true in those without serious economic investment or ambition. This group is often characterized by a type of diffuse rebellious hostility toward life and the world. It makes up an atheistic libertarian subculture within the Democratic party.

The second atheistic class has some pretty tough characters in it. They demand a rationality and accountability now spurned by religion. Most adhere to free enterprise economies. Some are impelled by intellect into adherence to a classical morality more demanding than that required in churches.

The two atheistic types are now somewhat muddled and undifferentiated by virtue of the ties of mutually held polarization from religion that obscures all else in importance, and by lack of thorough comparative ideological examination within the branches. Atheistic theoretics and examination are now at too undeveloped a level to cause schism. Each of the two types sees benefit in blind support of the other type to achieve their own end.

McGovern is a product of, as well as a dangerous exponent of, the worst of Marxist Christianity, and other elements that have been described here. He seems to parallel or represent the product of a type of degenerate Christianity characterized by varying degrees of dependent, masochistic, passive-aggressive and even parasitic modes.

McGovern is a man without serious productive vocation. In that sense he has been a very dependent person. Basically, throughout his existence McGovern has been a soft chronic screw-off leaning toward the easy side of life, lurking around the perimeters of serious life and productivity, looking for a soft spot for himself, and he found a rather good one. He has led that life with very little personal investment in anything. What he has is a hypothetical argued moral investment, which comes cheap, at the expense of a few words. He is one of the more useless people on this earth. He is good at what you see here, and nothing other. It is a trait requiring four prerequisites to survive and prosper.

1) An overly bland cultural environment that will not confront his uselessness.

2) A suggestible populace accessible to inculcation of irrational guilt and hysteria.

3) A condition of ignorance and/or stupidity prevalent enough to augment number two, and also contribute to a sociopolitical base of dupe constituents.

4) A modicum of resentment, desire for retreat into avoidance of reality, and other forms of pathology in the general population.

I find, to my surprise, that George McGovern is still regarded as a tragic god whose brilliance and greatness was misunderstood by the American people. Supportive internet sites depict McGovern as has having led a life dedicated to public service. To my knowledge he has never provided me with a service. The term public service somehow has an aura about it suggestive of personal sacrifice. Looking closely, there is seldom much sacrifice connected with public service. George McGovern does not move about ill-fed and dressed in rags. He’s had a comfortable life together with a modicum of public acclaim. It has been, in fact, a pretty damned good deal cloaked in the vernacular of altruism.

It is suggested that if such people were to go into other endeavors they would make far more money. They are frequently incapable of such endeavors or disinclined toward the effort and responsibility involved in such. The qualifications necessary to run a business or project without losing money are far different from those necessary for social activism. In short, McGovern found himself just about as good a spot as could be imagined. There is no element of altruistic sacrifice involved. It’s an easy and comfortable way to get through life. At some point, after having achieved a certain level of comfort in life, having tens of millions of dollars more does not increase that comfort, and not having those tens off millions of dollars more does not constitute serious sacrifice. More money becomes an artificial status symbol without intrinsic personal value unless it is a tool for further serious effort.

Political and Academic Bums

People of serious nature wouldn’t want McGovern around them. He’d be recognized as a bum looking for a hand-out and a soft spot. His intellectual positions and attitude might be well received in left wing academic circles where a crusade exists to promote such positions and attitude, along with financially supporting them, into a protected permanently institutionalized profession. Elsewhere he would be dismissed from the company of any men of stature.

McGovern is a useless gadfly. Given his background, level of talent, level of development, and inclination, he has had four choices in life: academia, a spot for saprophytic weaklings in the religious ministry, politics, and maybe law if courts and juries are deficient enough to be swayed by his arguments. George McGovern has managed to work three out of four to his advantage.

Debate has procured the soft spot McGovern and others seek.

Much as was the case with Bill Clinton, McGovern found he had ability to manipulate words and combine it with showmanship. George McGovern has been an excellent debater throughout his life. He was on the high school debate team and carried it on into his subsequent academic career.

He is linguistically finely tuned by his past environment into exquisite avoidance of analytical reality. Penetration of his existential and abstract linguistic system requires lengthy explanation to refute. What is heard or written is rehearsed concise distortion in five minute sound bites requiring 30 minute answers not allowed under the rules of debate.

When Bill Clinton stood before crowds to deplore the burnings of numerous Black churches in Arkansas, it was a devastating debate ploy. The fact that those burnings never occurred did not change its effectiveness. Short of carrying the library of congress on one’s back into a debate with the Clintons or others to produce an hour’s worth of documented refutation in a one minute allowed rebuttal, no reply is effective, and even then is not effective because people like and respond to verbal drama and don’t wast to be bogged down in truthful details. Before that refutation can be completed, four more similar distortions can be asserted. Thus, there is an inherent temporal imbalance between distortion and its refutation which is prejudicial to refutation and rationality. If a debater can manipulate an opponent into a position of refutation, the opponent loses the debate regardless of the validity of his position.

Similar to the Clintons, debate with George McGovern requires the type of refutation you are beginning to read here.

The rules governing debate are not the same as the rules governing life. While formal debate does not impose penalty for deception or for superficial cleverness, reality imposes severe penalties. While debate rules impose a prejudice against refutation of distortion, reality imposes serious penalty for putting into practice erroneous positions accepted on the basis of distortion and deception. Much of the time examination of an issue requires many pages of study rather than the showmanship and glib manipulation of debate.

The world of debate in which George McGovern and others inhabit and are master showpieces is one which integrity and reality are irrelevant and seldom visit. It’s one of verbally constructed fantasy. Within this world, McGovern enjoys the position of a superior being. This, combined with the four elements described above, allowed him to worm his way into politics.

The McGovern assertions are not beyond refutation as they are basically silly. But the silliness is protected and hidden beneath a finely tuned linguistic structure. Refutations require confronting a bittersweet artistic lyricism that appeals to the child in people. His positions are diffusely displaced cathartic poetry readings, as are those of Kofi Annan. Opponents of such readings labor under the disadvantage that adult analysis required for refutation means introducing rebuttals that are both long and unpleasant-sounding, even terrifying, to soft reality-avoidant minds.

Perhaps this critique of McGovern seems brutal and uncharitable. It would be easier to be charitable if George performed the service to mankind of ceasing his adolescent attempts to push his nose into my and other people’s lives. His arrogance and insistence combined with both lack of personal capacity and doubtful integrity are an imposition beyond the boundaries that should be expected to be responded to with the ordinary etiquette of tolerance and superficial cordiality. What is being said is meant to apply not only to George McGovern, but also to those of similar constitution. They have been protected by excess of nonconfrontive social pleasantry for far too long.

This sounds like a smear or personal attack on McGovern and will be accused as being so. It should not be dismissed as such. There is substantial content both here and later in this analysis which should be addressed. It is an examination of personal motivation. and an infusion of attitude into political life.

In argument and advocacy it is considered a fallacy to attack a person instead of addressing the positions he is taking. It’s important to understand there are times when the person and the positions he is taking become one and the same when the bizarreness of thought, life patterns, attitudes toward life, religious pathology, and so forth threaten to become public policy and displace realistic analysis. The person and the point he is making become identical. In the case of someone like Kwesei Mfume, HE is the problem. A person’s inclination to lie or distort must be taken into account when evaluating his arguments. There are other times where a person’s personality is either the logical consequences of, or must be adopted in order to adjust to, the social or political positions a person is advocating and need to be brought into thorough evaluation. This brings a personal element into many discussions. What we are now confronted with is a dangerous personal mentality or personality that must be confronted. That, for instance, people are looking for blind abstract love in an economic system at the expense of economic opportunity is a reality which, although personal and motivational, must be understood.

Be all this as it may be, the message from Marxists and paramarxists, including Christian Marxism, has become that poverty or inequality, forseeably and justifiably, produce desperately motivated terrorism and revolution. The subsequent inference in the too-limited boundaries of the equation is one of blackmail. That is, if the initial arguments are accepted, it then follows that the only way to prevent justified retributional terrorism is to impose a corrective socialist world state that ends the justifying causes through forced economic redistribution and social ownership of all individuals. Failure to submit to that imposition is the punishable crime, to be punished through terrorism and revolution, of creating such desperate conditions as to make revolution a justified necessity and experiencing the results.

The extent to which people are actually being forced into servitude to licensed corruption and conscienceless evil as the argued necessary socialistic remedy is lost in the manipulations.

Whether such a state would be even economically capable of ending such asserted causes is not even discussed.

In McGovern’s case he says. ” . . . But during my service as the American ambassador to the United Nations food and agriculture agencies in Rome, I concluded that in our time we can end the world’s hunger.

Former Senator Bob Dole and I proposed in October that of the $40 billion authorized by the Congress to fight terrorism, $5 billion be earmarked over the next five years to reduce world hunger.”

A Dollar Per Year?

I assume that’s $5 billion per year, not $5 billion over five years. Does he not realize distribution of that sum would barely even be a dollar per year divided among the 50% of the world that is supposedly impoverished? One of the characteristics I’ve noticed about leftists is that they typically can’t count or don’t know the significance of numbers. You know what counting is? Like 1, 2, 3, 4 . . . and so on? They talk. They feel. But they don’t count. Even approximate numerical division is a logical hardship beyond endurance and an inconvenience that is to be deleted from consideration if it interferes with talking or feeling. The implications of mathematical series are beyond remote possibility of their understanding. The idea of even unquantified correlation is viewed as an unjust restriction upon freedom of thought and feeling.

There appear to be but three functional numbers in the leftist language. Those numbers are “It’s a start,” “not enough,” and “more.” The first amount was “a start,” but “not enough.” We need “more.” In the progression of the numerical equation monetary redistribution is thrown at supposed social problems. “It’s a start.” When the problems continue or worsen, the resultant equation becomes: It’s a start = not enough + more, with a short time lag incorporated into the = sign. Regardless of how it appears to mathematical novices, this is a highly sophisticated dynamic equation describing the sinking of a society into the quicksand of enforced social servitude to steadily worsening conditions.

So giving somebody a dollar a year will prevent them from becoming terrorists? Then let’s raise it to a dollar a month and see what improvement it produces.

Now . . . Let’s get down to some realities.

The Arabian peninsula has seen the influx of probably untold trillions of dollars in oil money. Yet, beyond pockets of gluts of purchased trinkets, upon which the purchasers remain completely dependent upon the outside world for continued supply, nothing of serious substantial advancement or development has resulted. Would adding the proportionally insignificant amount of even tens of billions of dollars more be expected to produce a strikingly different result? This should be brought into McGovern & Company’s presently too-restricted equation of unaccountability. (Upon recent investigation it has been found increasingly detected amounts of the money have found their way into supporting world-wide Islamic Jihad, but Islamic Jihad has yet to produce anything of substance for anybody. I mean, look kids, if Islamic jihad has done little to advance the home nations in which it has already occurred and been consolidated, does it not make sense to suspect there is little reason to believe expanding and enforcing it elsewhere will result in massive improvement?)

The Problems of Islam

A clear broad evaluation from someone closer to the reality of the scene carries more weight than from someone such as myself. What is pertinent is a translation of a letter to the editor appearing in the London Arab language newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. It’s from a woman, Dr. Sahr Muhammad Hatem of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia She is one of a very small group of dwindling numbers of Islamic intellectuals. Her contention is that problems Islam is experiencing are not due to America, but due to Islamic education and elements within Islam, itself.

Here are some translated excerpts from her discussion.

” . . . The mentality of each one of us was programmed upon entering school as a child to believe Islam is everything. Instilled in our small heads was the belief a Muslim has a right – whatever the (political-social) cause (or crusade) -and that he will triumph – even if he is armed with a stick of wood against a tank — because he represents the truth and the others represent falsehood . . . ”

” . . . They have taught us that anyone who is not a Muslim is our enemy, and that the West means enfeeblement, licentiousness, lack of values, and even Jahiliya (i.e., ignorance – a term used to describe the pre-Islamic era itself.) Anyone who escapes this programming in school encounters it at the mosque, or through the media or from the preachers lurking in every corner. This is the culture that has made each of us believe we have unquestionable authority to determine the fate of the universe . . . ”

“We have become a society completely subjugated to those who speak in the name of religion. With a mentality like this, what could we do to those who say that Islam is the solution, without its actually offering any solution? . . . ”

” . . . Anyone who doesn’t like it holds his tongue, or retires to a corner in fear or embarrassment. If, however, anyone with any sense remaining dares to use it, his fate is determined by one of two groups or forces within Islamic society:”

“1) by the group of Muslim Brotherhood clerics; if he is lucky, they only separate him from his wife, and if he is unlucky, his blood is permitted.”

“2) by another group, the Jihad organization and others like it . . . who kill him immediately, as in the case of Dr. Farag Fouda, who was at the time the only one to stand up while we looked on in fear or embarrassment.”

” . . . We began to turn to those who claim to be clerics, to rule for us on matters of medicine, engineering, space, and all the life sciences. Life moves on, yet we are stuck in a stagnant past . . . ”

“We have begun to live an imaginary life that exists only in our heads, while the reality around us is entirely different. This is the split (contradiction) which engendered people like bin Laden. Since reality differed from the picture in his mind, he set out (in anger) as a Mujaheed; whether he kills or is killed, he wins (according to the tenets of taught Islam) . . . ”

“We all focus on bin Laden and his ilk . . . but we have yet to focus on the more dangerous people, and I mean those who fill our heads with this rhetoric in the schools, the mosques, and the media, who disseminate words without hesitation and without considering the consequences or even understanding that in this era, the entire world hears what is said.”

“What do they care? Every one of them thinks he has a divine mandate. The outcome is that they have distorted our lives – which were distorted even before then – and our tolerant religion, and set us at odds with the world. How long will this damage to the lives of Muslims everywhere in the world continue? . . . ”

There is reference here to the case of Egyptian anthropologist Nasser Abu Zeid, in which a Mohammedan court ruled that his Islamic marriage was null and void after he was convicted of heresy in 1993 and viewed as no longer Islamic. Under Islamic law, his Islamic marriage was thus no longer held valid. Continued cohabitation justifies death. A number of people in the Islamic world have been killed for stating what was written in this letter. How much longer the person who wrote this critique will be allowed to survive is questionable.

Whether in individual psychotherapy or in cases of broad ideology, the eventual total rejection of twisted imagination, of irrationality, and of oppression begins at first with tentative doubt and marginal criticisms. The contradictions within Mohammedism, and the consequences, from the economic, to the social, to the psychological, are too strenuously distorted to be acceptable to the unfettered advanced mind. The comments by this woman go slightly beyond the tentative, but not to the point of complete clarity and liberation. I expect that the person who wrote the letter, if unoppressed, eventually would of necessity, and after a prolonged period of severe personal and social conflict, progress to the point beyond present limitations of externally imposed timidity to rejecting the entirety of Islam. At some level of consciousness, the established Islamic structure knows this to be a problem and threat on a broad level. Advancement of mind, or of anything else, consequently become an aggressive terrifying enemy to be preemptively struck and crushed through jihad, holy war, by all measures that can be employed. (Attitudes parallel to that sentence have occurred in other religions. However, fractured unity of western belief together with diffusion of advancement into the population, have imposed a mellowing of conditions in the Western world. But the Islamic world, with imposed Islamic states, with its comprehensively imposed absolute brainwashing, with the universal reporting of personal deviation from doctrine in an atmosphere and population filled with fanatical informers, coupled with ruthless termination of nonconformity, has proven resistant to such mellowing. It will be so in the foreseeable future.)

Islam exists as a fanatically perpetuated system of obsession which can not survive healthy developed civilization. As such, “matters of medicine, engineering, space, and all the life sciences . . . ” become the enemy and must be distorted or stagnated so as to prevent outside influence and threat. This precludes, by consequence, widespread economic development of various kinds. The result is, predictably, economic impoverishment in which opportunity for economic advancement is irrelevant or threatening within the one billion strong Mohammedan world. The sum effect of the mentally crippling nature of Islam, alone, should be expected to produce economic stagnation.

Within Mohammedism a constraining ignorance must be perpetuated while intellectual and moral, and even economic, advancement must be forcefully displaced by inculcation of theology/ideology for Islam (and numerous other systems) to survive. This becomes the dominant thrust in such societies.

If a simple and limited person such as myself can give such things serious consideration, I find it both puzzling and irritating that Professor Dr. George McGovern seems somehow ignorant of all this.

The empty ideological rhetorical leftist world of George McGovern, and others like him, never comes close to making serious necessary contact with the realities this woman described. McGovern is a ideologically-obsessed space voyager visiting from another fantasy galaxy composed of anti-matter that he and his co-believers have created in their own minds. Within that world there has been created an entire intellectual and counter-factual structure which uses the same words, but is contrary to the reality, logic, and natural laws operant in this solar system. There are few connections between their internal galaxy and the outer world save those that can be seized upon to buttress their belief. Indeed, one of the goals intended by this mental structure is imposed universal total incapacitation for perception of simple reality. In this, they are much like radical Islamic clerics. They are declared to be idealists because they frame their assertions in love and sensitivity. In fact, they approach serious resemblance to Mr. bin Laden in that they are angry militant psychotics distraught over the contradictions between their determined psychosis and reality.

The Right to Enforced Mental Servitude

Further, within the implemented intellectual anti-matter world, international funded programs, under the doctrine of cultural/social pluralism, should not violate the prime directive of unconditional respect and non-interference with present cultures to which recipient people have an unconditional right. After all, as Kofi Annan has so aptly stated, ” . . . Each of us has the right to take pride in our particular faith or heritage.. and so forth.” That a specific belief and heritage produces poverty and/or is of militant determination to kill other people if they either do not share that poverty or do not unconditionally remedy that poverty is not concretely addressed in Kofi Annan’s soaring poetic soliloquy. The right to such heritages and beliefs is especially true if those people and cultures seem crazy enough to be a tool of irritation and deconstruction by the leftist counterculture. In all things, necessity or demands for rationality are to be systematically subverted. Employing the prime directive assures sadistic erection of as many barriers to anything and as many excuses as possible to preclude anything constructive, while letting selected destructive people and systems have their way regardless of need for rational change — while further simultaneously obligating remaining functional nations to pay the bills for it. The prime directive does not apply to those forced to pay the bills. Whether they are respected or whether their culture is interfered with in order to exist in servitude to those who make demands upon them is of little matter. They are exhorted to be civilized enough to understand. So economic success, and advanced states of civilization and learning, should subjected to the punishment of loss of cultural and personal rights concurrent with a condition of servitude.

Under enforced servitude to warped systems conforming to the rules set by those systems, advanced civilized nations slowly become those systems themselves. This is the desired order.

According to the concepts of leftist ideological architecture, cultural pluralism should neither be expected, nor allowed, to result in corresponding economic pluralism. Nor should resultant economic differences be expected to be tolerated. That is, if an ethos, a system of superstition, a life style, a system of corruption, a pattern of economic misplacement, a system of squandering redistribution, a system of irrationality, logically produce corresponding pluralistic economic debilitations as legitimate consequences, the resultant childish temper tantrums and cries of economic inequality must be addressed in unconditionally supportive fashion just as one indulges and mollifies a severely spoiled child. The spoiled children in this case have temper tantrums with guns, explosives, and occasional airplanes flown into buildings. Nobody is to be expected, nor hence expects, to live within their cultural means, or live with realistic consequences. Laws of cause and effect are to be suspended for the sake of leftist ideology on one side, for the sake of reducing juvenile temper tantrums on another side, and for unconditional Christian niceness and love on yet another. Thus, by process of elimination, the only remaining allowable action is forced unconditional redistribution of individual and national productivities in noble sacrifice to maintain rampant immaturity.

— And the above paragraphs, dear hearts, is one place to start looking for the real problem with everything.

Economic progress and correction must begin with something far more fundamental than what McGovern, Kofi Annan, and others assert for purposes of arguing Marxism. Economic development and individual independence within such societies would probably even result in internal threat and turbulence within some of those societies that would result in increase in terrorism and revolution in a serious number of instances. Economic development implies a degree of hated westernization, since the process and the results are Western. In another triumph of strategic destructionism this is gleefully argued to be cultural imperialism so as to, once again, restrict any attempts at economic improvement to imposition of global socialism.

Taking this into account leaves the McGovern/leftist equation, in addition to being unsolvable within allowable declared ideological confines and absurd demands, grossly irrelevant, and leaves leftist redistributional revolutionaries, which is what they are, striking at precisely the wrong target accompanied by cheers from the left wing gallery.

In many of the nations containing the economic conditions McGovern et al describe, violent revolution is, indeed, absolutely justified and necessary to produce betterment in the living condition of the people, although not purely against an economic system, but against something far more complex and profound, of which revolutionaries such as McGovern and Kofi Annan, paradoxically, are a functioning part. What presently exists is ongoing economic and/or other dissatisfaction in wide areas of the globe producing revolution; but with that revolution being turned, redirected, or misdirected by licensed irrationally held cultural pride; by peculiar distortions and immaturities of mind; by a belief in, and commitment to, various theological or other systems that people are unwilling to part with; by subversive leadership; by romantic or inculcated fanatic belief in what is presently destroying those people needing to overthrow the same. Meanwhile the encouragement and misdirection is mediated by McGovern & Company who take satisfaction in being a center of attention while aligning and exploiting the hostility toward an America for whom they have an obsessive pathological hatred.

Horror of horrors, perhaps some of the revolutionary energy should be more appropriately directed against those leftists now justifying and then attempting to misdirect it for their own agenda and amusement.

Revolution is a good idea that occurs much too infrequently. But for some strange reason the people who promote and justify revolution never seem to like the direction and purpose toward which revolution should be more logically directed.

The nation of Somalia was given $180,000,000 to dig wells some years ago. Absence of water is the biggest single physical and economic problem in that area of the world. In some areas the Sahara is advancing southward at a rate of three miles per year due to loss of the vegetation that produces thermal updrafts stimulating the cloud turbulence that secondarily produces rain. Additionally, vegetation acts as a natural well that brings water from beneath the soil after which it raises humidity and reprecipitates as rain. Thus, vegetation become a bucket brigade transferring water in a swath across a continent. As the Sahara advances, pushing a wave of people before it, vegetation is stripped for firewood or other uses, continuing the process. Areas need to be replanted, irrigated, and reclaimed.

Where did the well and irrigation money go? It went into a massive nearly year-long celebration of an anniversary of the communist revolution. There were fireworks displays everywhere. Not one drop of water was produced. Everything was wasted on temporary childlike illusion of propaganda shows and politicized personal amusement. In the existential verbal mode, the resultant condition is now pointed to as the cause of so-called terrorism. Forget about militant childish wastefulness and irresponsibility being the root of anything, it’s “conditions” “impoverishment,” and “inequality” that are the problem.

Now . . . Will sweet sensitive little Kofi Annan be responsible enough or have the integrity to go over to hold up a starving child in Somalia as an example of what ideological or theological degeneracy creates? That may be what desperately needs to be done and nothing will improve until it is done, but do you think he will ever do it? You should live so long. If he did, they’d retract his Nobel prize. Don’t plan on the great humanitarian George McGovern who has given his life to public service performing that necessary service. George McGovern is both a coward and an immoral man interested only in ideological profiteering and jerking people around. He trades in misplaced guilt, encouraging and excusing irresponsibility, then transferring blame for the consequences of irresponsibility. He’ll criticize the United States because the country is so accustomed to being beaten down that it will take the abuse. It won’t be discussed or challenged in the leftist media. America will be blamed.

Earth to George Bush

And George Bush? Earth to George Bush . . . Earth to George Bush . . . . . . ? . . . Still no response. Bush won’t challenge it. That’s why the political left is still controlling the center of dialogue in America and the world. Which Bush are we talking about? It makes no difference. They’re all interchangeable. The Bushs are all too undeveloped and soft of mind to realize the tasks exist or need to be done, let alone have the motivation or ability to do them.

The United States will continue to be blamed for conditions that produce desperate terrorism with no contesting refutation except in an obscure place such as this.

It’s putting the United States and the world into free fall in servitude to Marxist and any other form of madness. The spin-off is attack by psychotic terrorists and revolutionaries. We are sacrificing control of our lives and property to it.

What needs to be done is to change the frame of reference and frame of responsibility. We absolutely must force other people to take responsibility in their lives so that we can have freedom and independence in our own lives. They can do it, and will do it, if the onus and frame of reference is corrected and they are told that’s the the way it’s going to be. Whether they like it has nothing to do with what needs to be done.

What plainly happened in the Somalia instance is that childish political/ideological self-indulgence, once again, intervened to prevent solution of a serious physical-economic problem. Once again, a corrupted hierarchy of priorities was operative in which ideology, the exhilaration of participation in group dynamics, and propaganda became more seriously valued than physical economic reality. In such cases the political/ideological condition not only should be considered the root cause of all resulting from it, but the single cause as nothing of substance can be done until that condition is corrected. In the mature adult world this must be designated and explained as such for the first time in recent history. Failure to perform this necessary corrective effort and to do it with vigor and determination is responsible for the omnipresent ignorance complained about as another root cause of impoverishment. But how should people be expected not to be ignorant when the truth makes them uncomfortable and nobody tells them the truth out of fear of disrespecting their comfortable delusions to which they are conceived as having a pluralistic right?

Whether people like the truth or not meeds to become irrelevant. In the adult world it is not the duty of one group of people to insulate another group of people from the truth so that they may continue to live fantasy and delusion while punishing others for the consequences. In the adult world, need to hear and adapt to the truth takes precedence over demanding others adapt to paranoid and other fantasies. In the real adult world, people, particularly Americans, need to recover their integrity and self respect by liberating themselves from the preposterous and humiliating obligation to support the childish delusions and fantasies of other people. Delusion and fantasy develop further as they are supported.

Correction of any secondary problems should be made conditional to self-correction of the primary problem.

An implicit view is, criticism necessary to correct the primary problem will alienate people from accepting solutions to anything. However, with the somewhat celebrated persistence of the declared primary problem they seem to be dying anyway. Shouldn’t they at least be told the real reasons why they are dying so as possibly become dimly cognizant of need for change in the matter? And could they become any more alienated than they already are? By saying something intelligent we might at least recover some respect out of the situation — in not respect from others, respect for ourselves.

What is existent in many cases is spoiled brainless primitive superstitious brats and hotheads whose corrupt self-indulgent attitude toward life and resentment toward the rest of the world is to be respected and not to be the subject of remote change or interference. They want an unconditional playschool or fantasy island free of consequences, responsibility, or discipline. As long as they are not challenged, they will continue to remain in that condition and continue those demands. Such incisive and necessary observation is beyond the aesthetic latitude of blandness permitted by the type of Christianity to which McGovern and others subscribe. Additionally, it conflicts with ideology. Given that, the possibility of actually challenging the condition is even further beyond consideration. The attempted remedy is to conduct crackpot global group play therapy focusing upon creation of self-esteem in an atmosphere of unconditional acceptance of things which should not be so acceptable. This is to be combined with alternating periods of psychotherapeutic unconditional love-therapy absence of demand for accountability and self discipline. Such absence is absolutely contrary and counterproductive to the growth process. It’s producing primitive-remaining nations of brutal proud arrogant blackmailing voracious tyrants, individually and as leaders, who become increasingly political to procure continuation of their condition, and who have become increasingly politically powerful as the financed and pandered-to condition spreads and evolves coalition leaders such as Secretary General Kofi Annan who derive easy lives, and even Nobel Prizes, from brokering it. (The same process is being employed domestically in America as well as internationally.)

Yes, the number of variables on the left side of the McGovern leftist equation is far too restricted, with many of the important determining analytical elements deliberately being excluded so as to give a false answer.

The problem is this world is not lack of self esteem. Far from it. The problem is far too God damned much self-esteem that is completely unwarranted.

The greatest present threat to mankind, the root cause of wars and other conflicts, the root cause of terrorism, is the demand to live in luxury and self-indulgence, and living in luxury and self-indulgence. — and in many cases, self-indulgent childishness. There are other causes, but luxury and self-indulgence is a self-celebrated hum dinger among those who practice it. Indeed, the kind of luxury and self-indulgence referred to here is a nearly universal constant of mankind responsible for more chaos than all the natural disasters in human history.

What Is Luxury?

But, what is luxury? The average person conceives of luxury and self-indulgence in terms of castles, fancy automobiles, servants, and other opulent material benefits. However, self-indulgence exists in many forms. Luxury exists in many forms. Servants and servitude also exist in many forms. These entities exist in forms entirely independent of material prosperity. Make no mistake about it. Luxury and self-indulgence can, and do, exist in the impoverished human state. They can flourish in people living within an impoverished state. Poverty is often the result of self-indulgence and luxury, not necessarily only in the self-indulgence and luxury of the ruling classes of impoverished and undeveloped nations, but often in the egocentric self-indulgence and luxury of the so-called impoverished, themselves.

More specifically, there are those who tenaciously demand to believe in various ideologies, superstitions, irrationalities, and cultural psychoses, who demand to continue such beliefs, but who yet demand material productivity contradictory to, or beyond, rational economic productivity of those beliefs, and who demand servitude in the form of respect for either those particular superstitions and irrationalities, or for other superstitions and irrationalities, and so forth. This is one of the greatest egocentric luxuries and forms of demanded self-indulgence possible. Material wealth is not necessary to practice it. It has also become very popular. Domestically and internationally, increasing numbers of people feel they have a right to absence of rational consequences for beliefs and actions. The terms “absence of,” “freedom from,” and “freedom” have become intermixed and interchangeable until freedom has become misconceived of as absence of legitimate consequences while experiencing of consequences is looked upon as injustice or infringement of personal, economic, or political liberty.

The demand to live in uncontested delusion is one of the greatest luxuries of all, is one of the most arrogantly held, and is one of the hardest to endure by other people.

Involuntary public servitude from others is demanded to intercede between actions and legitimate consequences. It is the earthbound black hole.

Among the absences or freedoms has become the right to absence of appropriate summary dismissal or rejection by the intelligent civilized world.

What is most lacking in the angry impoverished world is serious humility. The United Nations has become a collection of verbose busybodies seeking increased importance and power, while representing various forms of superstition, various forms of corrupt systems, various forms of corrupt leaders, various forms of abject degeneracy, various forms of cultivated stupidity, various forms of dishonesty, none of which evidence sincere desire for either desire for change or desire to live with the appropriate economic or other consequences resulting from those characteristics. They all want respect. It’s a mass of arrogant pompous demands for irrational self-indulgence (coupled with manipulation to receive hand-outs to subsidize the mess back home).

Many of them are, or represent, mindless savages looking to cannibalize civilization for their own convenience and sustinance. They want to be something they aren’t and don’t deserve to be. Like little kids, they want to participate in civilized action and discourse in self-flattering form without real interest or capability to do such.

Secretary General Kofi Annan’s “The idea that there is one people in possession of the truth, one answer to the world’s ills, or one solution to humanity’s needs, has done untold harm throughout history . . . ” and the ” . . . each of us is fully worthy of the respect and dignity essential to our common humanity . . . ” business is a system of poetic and glittering generality designed to leverage special privilege, servitude, recalcitrance, and self-indulgence — in addition to being an oblique passive-aggressive swipe at certain people — namely us, to take us down a step or two, delivered with a superficial sweetness of demeanor. The statement is, in fact, insolence of manner and passive-aggressive undermining attack. The sanctimonious little weasel is allowed to get away with it.

Kofi Annan speaks poetically. In the adult world aesthetic poetry of presentation should not be confused for rationality of analysis. And let it also be emphasized that humanity’s needs to perpetuate superstition, cultural psychosis, and corruption, are not needs, but, rather, very expensive exercises in childlike egocentric self-indulgence. They are expensive both in ultimate human experiential terms, and in hard material economic terms. There is a choice point between primitive self-indulgence versus long term humanistic or economic needs that far too few among the human race are prepared to make in all things. — -and in the name of unconditional love and sensitivity far few people are being asked to face in all things.

European/American Civilization

I would argue that, contrary to Kofi’s assertion, there is presently one people in possession of the truth, or close to it, and that there is presently one solution to humanity’s needs, or close to it. It may not be perfect and may have blemishes in its past or even present, but whatever is second place is back barely on the distant horizon. European/American culture, regardless of past or present difficulties, seems to be the example consistently chosen to make comparisons in establishing the plight of undeveloped impoverished nations because, and to the degree that, it has solved within itself many of the root problems described as afflicting other nations. — And in so doing exceeded other areas of the world who now find themselves left behind with the logical consequences of their behavior. Those who have been left behind make comparison and resent those consequences. The difference in economic and social level is sneered at and accused of being social and economic inequality.

Were I took look for answers to anything, it would be to European/American civilization, which, for good reason, is the same place the impoverished and undeveloped come for money and other niceties with a hand full of gimme and a mouth full of veiled insult. When it comes time to physically move to achieve betterment, those who can do it move here, not there. The place to look for answers is the place where refugees and immigrants attempt to move to. The place to look for answers is not where refugees and immigrants come from.

If it weren’t for European/American culture, 90% of the world, instead of 50%, would be living in what is presently defined as an impoverished underdeveloped state. If it weren’t for European/American culture there would be left a world homogeneous economic condition in which actual deviational spread of economic level between existent real societies necessary to construct a measurement scale of contrast, and poverty by comparison, would be so small as to make such scaling impossible or meaningless.

Were it not for European/American culture, most of the world would be living in the same state it was 1,000 years ago. It is doubtful the printing press would be yet invented, and there would be little or no need for it because some non-western areas of the world still have no written language or have only recently acquired it under pressure. Economic life everywhere would be the same. No one would call the economic condition impoverishment because there would be nothing to compare that state to. If it were not for European/American culture impoverishment would not exist because people wouldn’t know they were impoverished.

The historical fact is, no great nation or empire has survived the softness made possible by the successes that made it great. In accordance with that, within that softness America is turning away from the discipline and tough realism of mind that was once its strength, and America is deteriorating. That process is a separate problem. But, regardless of that problem, the ascendancy of America has left a sound historical record as to what cultural and economic models must be adopted for economic advancement. Enough residual material benefits and supporting institutions presently remain of American productivity to provide highly visible difference relative to others, and to inspire attempted redistribution of that difference among other groups, cultures, or nations. As Martin Luther King argued, such differences are superfluous wealth that should be redistributed and better used elsewhere. This concept of right to judge other people’s property and lives as superfluous which was to be confiscated and distributed was King’s defining moment. Unfortunately, as part of the degradation process, America is succumbing to those attempts, internationally and domestically.

In rebuttal to the above assertions there is carping finger-pointing to those instances of failures of European/American culture so as to justify perpetuation of existing in far more abject failure in other cultures and, most importantly, to intellectualize safety for the self-indulgence causing that failure. That there have been wars in Western European culture is brought up to contrive specious excuse to resist adoption of necessary change elsewhere.

There might also be attempt to create, then argumentatively exploit, an illusion of similarity of levels of cultural development by citing the recency of technological or economic flowering in Western culture. At least on the superficial level, life in parts of Europe and America 160 years ago, could be argued as not greatly different from life in other undeveloped areas of the world. For instance American medicine in the 1820s was in a primitive state which, in its errors, was nearly comparable to that of undeveloped countries today, and the horse was the method of transportation. Therefore, the difference between European/American culture as opposed to many other cultures might be dismissed as only a matter of, say, 150 or so years, and not so different as is argued.

But the explosion of visible economic and other progress seen in America, and to slightly less extent in Europe, during the 20th century was actually the final assembly of previously accumulated separate accomplishments completed and awaiting to be brought together. There was a complex array backlog of necessary ingredients that would be integrated into the apparently sudden development. These extended through at least half a millennium with names such as Newton, Liebnitz, Franklin, Fulton, Whitney, Snell, Erlich, Gutenberg, Redi, Fermat, Hunter, Boyle, Columbus, Morton and Long, Carnegie, Galileo, Descartes, Maxwell, Cavendish, and thousands of others who are the basis that were brought together to form the advancement seen in the 20th century. Among these background accomplishments must be included the reformation.

Regardless of superficial momentary similarity, any culture that did not have that supporting backlog 100 years ago was 500 years behind any culture that did, and would need to work through that 500 years of unseen developmental substrate before accomplishing anything.

No other culture in world history has produced that diversity and depth of accumulated investigation. Some of the Greeks and others dabbled in speculation for a time. Bits and pieces occurred in ancient Egypt. Throughout the centuries various among the idle elite in other cultures toyed with comparatively isolated forms of intellectual self-amusement, but no cultural system produced the consistent long term thrust and, importantly, implementation, as did European/American culture. That is where the answers should be sought just as that is where the demands for money and other forms of sustenance are now directed.

Pay the Price

Those answers should not be forced upon other peoples in cases where those people are unwilling, disinterested, non-threatening, and willing to pay the price of unwillingness. In the rational responsible adult world the unwilling should expect to experience the unpleasant consequences of that unwillingness, and must be left to experience those consequences as a necessary part of the corrective growth process. And, yes, that unwillingness may result in the impoverishment of a child in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The responsibility for the condition of that child’s condition should not be misdirected away from the unwillingness and self-indulgence creating those conditions. For those people who threaten other people, cultural intervention and even physical suppression become a necessity as an act of self defense. When somebody else’s problem becomes my problem, it needs to be reconverted back into being their problem. If necessary they must have their heads cracked or must be killed in self defense.

For those willing to make the effort to accept the precious gift, the work of centuries is freely available in libraries allowing those who are so inclined to advance their society without needing to slowly recapitulate the effort, and the mistakes, of 500 or more years of European/American culture. Minor financial or material help will jump-start the culture hundreds of years.

McGovern says, “Modern communications have spread the word to these masses that the privileged few who rule them are living in luxury that exceeds all measure. Across the seas, the poor observe others with wealth, military might, comfort and pleasure that overwhelm the imagination. Is it possible that the cruel and fanatical upstarts who strike at symbols of wealth and power are heroes in the eyes of some of the downtrodden? Is it possible that desperate young men rebelling against their powerlessness saw in the collapse of American skyscrapers a sign that they are not wholly powerless?”

“For half a century, since the end of World War II, some of our most thoughtful citizens have been telling us that the world’s poor would one day explode out of their misery. The technological and communications revolutions will aid that explosion.”

. . . our most thoughtful citizens . . . Fellow radical leftists?

There is an aspect in the above three paragraphs that is meticulously absent and unstated. The turbulence described is basically caused by rational and, especially, moral, absence. In what’s become a too mealy-mouth world filled with obscuring euphemism, dare anyone use the terms immoral irrational resentment and petty jealousy any more? In the absence of such judgment, Western civilization has lost much of its basis for moral argument.

Hear ye, hear ye, a basic psychoanalytic truth! If one person or group has something built through success of honest personal enterprise, any emotional reactions to the economic condition of this first person or group by a second person or group are not a characteristic of that which the first person or group built and possess, but are, rather, primarily a characteristic of the second person or group who are having the emotional reaction. Distant physical objects or economic conditions 8,000 miles away neither have emotions, nor do they create them. The emotions are purely the creation of those viewing them, and are the responsibility of those viewing them. Such emotions are not the responsibility of those whose activities are being watched. If a nation has built something other peoples do not have, it is none of those other peoples’ business that they have done so beyond the observation that such a thing is possible and that observation of the process can provide useful instruction on how to do likewise. That people look at what has been done and react to any economic differences is their problem, and not to be falsely attributed to those who have succeeded.

McGovern, and the radical left in general, come very close to validating and transferring the animosity and vengefulness of pettiness and resentment to make that animosity and vengefulness an attribute of the economic success they see rather than a characteristic of those who are petty and vengeful. In so doing, both the productive and that which productive groups produce become implicit theoretically guilty creators of justifiable rage in others. Those who flourish, rather than those who react to it, become accused creators of that rage. The reality of the roles is interchanged to make the immoral and resentful somehow morally superior. This is facilitated, once again, with emotional paired association. “But look at their hunger and desperation.”

Would those who are hungry and desperate be any less hungry and desperate if, say, the United States had never existed? In almost all cases they would have less than they now have and would be even more impoverished. Then where does the problem rest, and who is responsible for change to produce relief? The hunger and desperation being experienced is part of a continuing pattern experienced for centuries or throughout history and has simply remained justifiably unchanged. What justification is there for people to look at their TV, see other people who have broken from that pattern, then suddenly become enraged about it?

Expression of irrational emotion is permissible and even encouraged in certain forms of psychoanalytic treatment as a matter of necessary self-exploration and analysis of how that emotional irrationality produces destructive effects upon a person’s own life and the lives of others. There is a period of admission of primitive resentment and hatred. But this is to be looked at as a transient condition ultimately to be replaced by maturity, rationality, and rational orientation in directing life. (Very unfortunately, what should be but a transient stage in early life, or a belated transient stage during psychotherapeutic treatment, has now become, for some, a lifetime profession, and for those same some, in addition to others, a dangerous major sociopolitical movement encouraged by McGovern, Kofi, and others. That the transient stage may be, in limited specific instances, beneficial during treatment leads some people to the erroneous conclusion that it would be further beneficial if further indulged and prolonged into perpetuity.)

People may have a political right to such feelings just as they have a right to other forms of irrationality. They do not have a right to act upon them. Neither do they have a moral, social, economic, or political right to be immune to the consequences of them.

The ideology of allowable emotional misattribution exempts people from responsibility for social and economic integrity, from emotional integrity, from responsibility for rationality, from self-examination, and from responsibility to change. It’s a process that keeps the mentally twisted twisted and the poor poor, and then exploits them as an ideological tool in service to the agenda of people with similar resentments and ignorance.

Basically, there is a pattern or irrational self-centeredness in this misattribution wherein people attribute entirely too much importance and validity to their personal feelings and misperceptions — so much so that they fail to differentiate between the independent outside world and themselves and their feelings. That is, when it is personally convenient, they demand to misattribute various characteristics to the outside and do so with regularity.

At the Mercy of Other’s Feelings

Conditions of cultural or individual prosperity have become conceptually converted into provocative acts of social criminality. In the licensed immaturity and emotional self-centeredness of the modern world people believe they have the right to exact retribution for these feelings. One can no longer go about his business and build something. He must allow himself to be accountable to primitive irrational emotional reactions of other people. An individual effort or a contract between two or more people must provide a service to still other people on the basis of those other people’s emotional reactions, and it’s the consequent right of those other people to demand an arbitrary proportion in accordance with those reactions. The individual, and his effort become owned by, and subjected to, the ungoverned emotional reactions of others. It’s doctored up with guilt-inducing phrases about sharing, inequality, working together, or whatever else can be associated.

The present dominant intellectual architecture has now licensed people to exact revenge and retribution for subjective primitive emotional misattribution relating to anything productive anyone else does. It’s producing a world full of psychotic terrorists and revolutionaries.

McGovern talks about the intolerability of a condition of powerlessness. But what could be more powerless than this? The individual is a virtual slave to other people’s emotions, delusions, and irresponsibilities — and is subject to constant review, search, and seizure.

So people are impelled by, and have the right, on the basis of a misdirected and warped emotionality, to become terrorists or revolutionaries by result of seeing economic conditions on other portions of the planet. Would they be so impelled if conditions on other portions of the planet were uniformly undeveloped? To what purpose? Somehow the impoverished economic condition must be acceptable if all others conform to it, but only become unacceptable and a cause for revolution when certain people break free of it — and, in an absurd emotional reaction, revolution or retaliation is directed toward those who break free.

The social contract, if there is to be one, must be one of reciprococity. At the present time the social contract consists of seeing something others have built and demanding to have it, or take it, on terms of personal convenience. What is demanded is to be looked upon as somebody’s children to be fed and clothed.

There is a major psychoanalytic theorem of integrity that, as a matter of respect for others, any person or group has a social moral obligation to conduct their economic lives in as serious and productive a way as they would if other people did not exist in the world. Given the existence of other people and the interactions between them, not to live in such a way a way as to create a reasonable level of economic benefit or comparable worth or comparable value is an implicit expectation, in one form or another, to live at the enforced expense of other people. Those who fail to conduct their lives in such fashion, but demand equality with benefits seen elsewhere, issue a self-indulgent demand to achieve that benefit by taking from other people in the world. This is true domestically as well as internationally.

The first social obligation, and the most sincere form of social obligation to a society or to the world at large is to conduct your life, and seriously attempt to use enough foresight and produce enough comparable worth so as to hold up your end of the plank and not be a burden to other people. That is a moral obligation to other people, whether or not it appears formally written in the bible or formally stated from the pulpit, or God forbid, a stated necessity in economics and similar texts. If such obligation is not taken, other people have equal right to return in kind. That is, one should not expect to have other people obligated without serious complementary obligation. This is true on the international level as it is on lower levels of interaction. Without adherence to such morality, individually and internationally, the entire world eventually collapses into a pool of authoritarian self-indulgent parasitism. Preying upon sympathy due to personal suffering does not nullify either that social contract, nor the function of that obligation. There is no moral or functional substitution. Neither should personal or societal suffering be allowed to be a substitute in this regard.

Intention of reciprocity of effort and attitude is one of the first duties to disappear under creeping socialism as receipt of benefits becomes an unconditional right. At the present time the social moral condition is such that there is demand for a social contract in which people expect to receive without complementary reciprocal effort or intent.

People or systems are not to attribute their personal deficiencies as being caused by relative successes of other systems. That the differences in economic success REVEAL deficiencies in a person or system does not mean those differences CAUSED those differences. This is a distinction that is not well understood in today’s licensed obsession with self-centered feelings. People are not to demand support for those deficiencies from the successes of other people or other systems as if observing successes causes failure.

Is there “poverty” in America? There is, but less of it than elsewhere, and more chance of successfully working one’s way out of it. That’s why people immigrate here.

Economic development is not a universal immediate all or none phenomenon, but an expanding process including more people each day, and there are areas of America where such expansion is incomplete up to certain living levels. It is the rate of, and effectiveness of, the process; and the justified confidence in that process, that determines the validity of both that process, and also of the culture that both underwrites and is integral to that process. From that standpoint of evaluation, there has been little real basis for criticism of the former American economic and social system. In recent years that system has been altered with destructive consequences, but that is another matter to be discussed at another time and another place.

The key here is the difference between two entirely different evaluative systems. The first system is one entirely of emotional reaction. The second more precise system is one of QUANTIFICATION. That is, given a consistently applied absolute standard for poverty, in evaluating the difference between cultures and economic systems, what is the quantified difference in proportion of people living in poverty in one system in comparison to another? And, given a consistently applied absolute standard for poverty, in evaluating the difference between cultures and economic systems, what is the quantified difference in proportion of people living in poverty, then able to move out of poverty, in one system in comparison to the proportion moving out in another economic cultural system?

If fixated emotional response and hysteria can be substituted for quantification, then two systems of vastly different historical effectiveness in providing economic opportunity can then become equated. The benefits and validity of long term economic progress become subjectively irrelevant. The destruction of the longer term economically superior system becomes arguable.

Within the emotional sensitivity theater of leftist analysis, the warts of free enterprise and of European and particularly American culture become depicted as massive cancers. Within that theater the massive failures of other systems and cultures are depicted as nonexistent, insignificant, or transient conditions.

Within the emotional mode, there is obsessive criticism of free enterprise applied to look for an excuse for something, or to do something, or to avoid doing something. Minor imperfections can be used to rationalize revise the system. Consistent major catastrophe elsewhere provokes no emotion proportionate to the degree of catastrophe, and no motivation for change.

Pride in Heritage

“Each of us has the right to take pride in our particular faith or heritage.” says Kofi Annan.

Contrary to the assertions of Kofi, the principle that each of us is fully worthy of respect and dignity is starkly beyond the boundaries of healthy intelligent acceptability. I notice, for instance, that as of January 2002 according to British news services a woman who was raped has been sentenced to death by stoning in Nigeria. The idiot who raped her got her pregnant in so doing. According to Mohammedan law, a single woman who is pregnant is guilty of adultery, and must be put to death. Thus, this woman is in violation of Mohammedan law and is now to pay the ultimate price for being raped by an idiot, compounding the insult to her. This piece of work is more intelligent than the rest of what is going on in that society. (During the first week of February 2002 the Nigerian army picked up 100 dead bodies that they even found, resulting from tribal warfare.)

Each of us has the right to take pride in our particular faith or heritage. Pride? In this?

How in the hell should anyone legitimately be expected to regard any such ideology, theology, or society even tolerating within itself such lunatic fanatic obscenity with any degree of respect or dignity? What right has anyone to demand such?

Are we required to make such people feel good about themselves? Does a culture have a right to feel good about itself unconditionally? Is it just possible that they have better reason not to feel good about themselves than to feel good about themselves? Is it possible that degenerate or twisted cultures need the corrective effect of embarrassment? What about my right to feel respect for myself by not needing to violate my personal integrity through being required to be even remotely civil to people tolerating such atrocity?

Why be ashamed or inhibited from admitting it. These people are just plain dangerously viciously nuts. Not only have they no inclination to change, they have absolute determination to impose their condition upon others, expand, and convert through force. That is among their better qualities. To treat such people with any dignity or respect is to be in collusion with them and is an insult to the entire civilized world.

“We understand, as never before, that each of us is fully worthy of the respect and dignity essential to our common humanity. We recognize that we are the products of many cultures, traditions and memories; that mutual respect allows us to study and learn from other cultures; and that we gain strength by combining the foreign with the familiar.”

What is the lesson Kofi Annan would have us learn from each other here, presumably from a position of declared humiliating equality? The great lesson is that the earth still has a substantial population of primitive psychotics and angry low IQ savages, and in the name of world understanding and advancement of civilization we are now to accept instruction from them? Advanced knowledge and intelligent behavior is no longer prerequisite for instruction? Behavior is no longer criterion for receiving respect, mere existence is, regardless of insult to reason within that existence?

The most unfortunate part of the world condition is that anyone should even consider making such infantile demands, let alone tolerate them.

The emphasis here has has tended toward Islam, quite by accident. Islam is widespread and has just enough advanced tools available to inflict damages externally. But terrorism, immaturity, and poverty exist in large quanties elsewhere. For instance much of southern Africa is now in a condition of severe accelerating famine as angry psychotic Marxist subhumans have killed the farmers and confiscated their land.

Kofi Annan claims: “Poverty begins when even one child is denied his or her fundamental right to education.”

Education, like many other things in life, is something that must be produced by a culture or society. Anything that must be created or produced is not a right, and cannot be a right. If people, a culture, or a society do not create something and it consequently does not exist, nobody has a right to it.

Education can further only exist when the culture, the prevailing theology, the prevailing political ideology allow it. If education is not permitted, or is subverted, then the prevailing culture, the prevailing theology, the prevailing ideology must be acted upon by force and overthrown through revolution in order to obtain serious education. In many areas throughout the world, achievement of education will require overthrow of the lunatic faiths, superstitions, and heritages to which Kofi Annan claims people have a right.

The Coming Revolution?

Let us return to the concept of cause of events and responsibility.

Let us begin with the following: Suppose Zola is my next door neighbor and has purchased a new automobile. Suppose, having left our homes at the same time one morning I stop him momentarily to congratulate him on the useful qualities of said machine. Further suppose one half an hour later on his way to work Zola is suddenly run down by a fire engine.

Is it not clear that if I had not stopped Zola for 20 seconds to congratulate him on choice of vehicle that he would have been 200 feet farther down the road and not subject to being run down by the fire engine? Therefore, can it not be argued that I caused Zola to be run down by the fire engine. It can be so argued, and various attorneys would be inclined to do so, adding as much dramatic flair as possible to presentation of the argument. There are judges that would permit such argument. There are juries who would be swayed by it. Such arguments are brought before the legal system all the time in complex forms and it is the task of the legal system to examine them.

In the above case I would argue that the later collision with the fire engine was not a foreseeable event resulting from the conversation, and hence, I could not be held morally or otherwise be held accountable for its occurrence. Whether the judge or jury would accept the argument, or even understand it, becomes the question. Judges and juries have become increasingly erratic.

I have been told such refutation may not be recognized in Middle Eastern Islamic law. There has at one time or another, and in certain localities, been the doctrine that if you save a person’s life you become responsible for him forever. Whether he commits acts that are unforeseeable at the moment of rescue does not matter. You still may be held responsible for those acts, over which you have no control.

From earlier: “There is a third concept of cause that is used in the sciences and philosophy of science. That is, a cause is an action that will predictably produce a certain effect or consequence under specified conditions.”

Some years ago on a final exam I wrote for a law class, I incorporated the scientific definition of cause into an argument that there are instances where the specified conditions producing an effect are of such critically predeterminent nature and influence as to make any additional act which is attributed as being the final cause of an event pale into insignificance.

If, within the world of socioeconomic consideration, specified conditions are such that a subsequent condition teeters on inclination or predisposition to occur, then any further action producing the subsequent condition or event should be considered nearly irrelevant while the specified conditions should be examined for possibility of being the primary causes. This is particularly true when specified conditions create such predisposition to occur that outside remedy or prevention must be employed to produce nonoccurence of events.

In Marxist interpretation, noncompliance with stated hypothetical necessary remedy for nearly intractable, and often arrogantly held, preconditions or collateral predisposing conditions is asserted to be the exclusive cause of economic events such as poverty. The argument has become one that lack of unconditional outside support is responsible for economic impoverishment because if such support occurred in sufficient quantities, poverty would not exist. The serious predetermining causative elements are no longer subject to examination or correction, and must be implicitly licensed and supported with acceptance of the argument. Under license and unconditional support, the fundamental causative elements proliferate with little intention of change, or little effect of corrective action or consequences. Such unconditional support is the purpose of the entire process.

Failure to pick up after people is not the cause of the mess they make.

The idea that absence of vigilant stoppage of an event is the cause of that event leaves outside people not directly connected with, or with no participation in, the event then responsible for consequences people, sometimes with considerable recalcitrance and arrogance, bring upon themselves.

(We might speculate and ask, if something does not exist, can it be viewed as responsible for acting to create an event or condition? The answer is, no. Suppose the United States did not exist. Would the condition of poverty in the world then be any less prevalent? It would be more prevalent. Then it becomes hard to argue the United States has caused and is morally responsible for poverty.)

Thus, using the absence of remedying interference argument, people are to be tricked into servitude to maintaining self-indulgence, superstition, fantasy, resentment, paranoia, delusion, arrogance, irresponsibility, parasitism, and so forth at sacrifice of their own freedom. This trick is not worth people’s sacrificing anything for. Kofi Annan’s holding up an infant whose condition will be the result of that irresponsibility as blackmail to continue that irresponsibility doesn’t change it.

What then exists if the deception is allowed to work is what is what computer programmers call a endlessly Recurrent Loop or Do Loop programming error which refers us back to areas mentioning such things as black holes and self indulgence earlier in this analysis.

What is the way out of this loop? How do we get control of our lives and property back from people 10,000 miles away, from people on the other side of town, and from the demagogues?

The answer is stern serious re-parenting with confrontation with tough love. And frankly, love doesn’t have a lot to do with it. You are not my spoiled children and I don’t love you. You are somebody elses, or your own, spoiled children. The basic principle is to say to people, You are going to be an adult and take the responsibility of an adult whether you like it or not. It’s no longer negotiable.

The first step we must take is to quit being so God damned unconditionally syrupy nice. It’s long past time when we begin saying things the way they are, rather than continuing in a state of linguistic cowardice and obfuscation. We must reclaim an analytical confrontive system of language.

The second step is to expose people such as Kofi Annan and George McGovern for what they are and what they are trying to do, slap the tar out of them, and kick them down the stairs.

The third step is to broadcast the reality, “If you keep doing what you’ve been doing, you’re going to get more of what you got.” It’s not up to other people to change reality. It’s up to you to change in accordance with reality.

Four: Get over the belief that respect is not something to be earned and maintained, and that it is a right even though you do not respect other people.

Five: You are entitled to unconditional love for the first three years of your life when limitation of functional capacity precludes taking of responsibility. You may be entitled to hypothetical unconditional love from God. The real physical world does not offer unconditional love.

Six: We are big boys and girls here at camp. We make our own beds and wipe our own po pos. It’s no longer an obligation for other people to keep picking up after you.

Seven: Blackmail no longer works. You can no longer create some starving child resulting from a system of abject irresponsibility, then hold that child up as blackmail to expand that irresponsibility.

The cure for powerlessness that McGovern wails about is displacement of arrogant self-indulgence by adulthood, by undertaking adult responsibilities, and by effort and concrete skills in the adult world, not by leftist revolution. It may require what is mislabeled a right wing revolution to procure a solidly adult world.

Other articles by Robert L. Kocher may be found in the Writer Index. His email address is