Might makes right

“Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity. And Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been a part of America. The first Muslim ambassador to the United States, from Tunisia, was hosted by President Jefferson, who arranged a sunset dinner for his guest because it was Ramadan; making it the first known Iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.”

I don’t give a fuck about Ramadan. It is a foreign custom, celebrating a culture foreign to these shores. It has nothing to do with me and there are few practical intersections between my life and that of the celebrants of this ceremony.

I care a lot about honor. It is the basis of this country and the laws that bound it. There is the potential of honor in every person in this country or any other. Every interaction I have with any individual is colored by the honor they have or lack, as well as my own.

It seems that we elected a man without honor. I have to include myself for blame with all others adults on this count. I did not vote for him, and I didn’t fail to vote, but at the beginning of the process I didn’t advocate for a good candidate because, frankly, one didn’t spring immediately to my attention. I suppose I assumed that I wouldn’t be required to find a candidate all on my own. This was a mistake. I placed my faith in the primary system to weed out the stumbling dimwits and I was entirely let down in this case.

I know in the logical part of me that a Democratic Republic is participatory democracy. I let myself and this country down, and every time I see a picture of some cunt with his feet on the Resolute Desk, it is like a kick in the taint.

How did we get here? I don’t know. We need to set our jaw and take our lumps because we deserve better than we have gotten in the last 70 years.

Back to the point: The statement above has inconsistencies, and outright lies. I am disgusted because it actually prevents a seeker of knowledge to become aware of the history of this country.

If you search for Iftar and Jefferson you will find references to this ‘statement of fact’ by our President.

I have been reading a lot of history in the last couple of years, I am learning a lot, and it just so happens that some of the references made are fresh in my mind.

Jefferson entertained an envoy from Tunis. [Tunisia became a nation July 25, 1957, until then they were not recognized as a nation and did not have an ambassador.] After the Declaration of Independence was signed, and our ties to the crown were severed we no longer fell under the protection of the British Navy. The North African States ran rough shod over the Mediterranean Sea, a major shipping route of the time. Pirates attacked and ravaged ships flying the flags of nations that had not paid tribute.

Jefferson was a great man and a thinker. He may have been the weak sister of all the founders, but above all, he was a diplomat. In this capacity, when the Dey of Tunis came to demand ransom for the crew of two ships captured for the Barbary Pirates during the month of Ramadan, Jefferson agreed to delay his normally early dinner until ‘exactly at sunset’.

These are simply facts, as I am a simple man. I refuse to believe that the information I gathered in 40 minutes was unknown to the staff of a closely watched American President. It seems bizarre to me that not one of the dozens that proofread these comments said “That is a lie, that part about the Iftar.”

Our President is a great scholar of Constitution, and all things American and historic; he must be, to be worthy of his post. I remember learning about the Barbary Pirates in sixth grade, and last year again when I read ‘A Patriot’s History of the United States.’ This is not an underground, unusual, or hard to find book, contained in it is this exciting story of pirates, and naval might, and diplomacy, and American triumph.

I do not believe the President is ignorant of this history. I do believe that he thinks all of the people who have not yet tuned out his ever-present droning are idiots. There is no other explanation.

He thinks that none of the great unwashed have ever read anything of import, or that we don’t have the capacity to remember beyond last week. He thinks that we are a nation of weak-chinned doormats, and he behaves exactly according to that analysis.

Only a liar would say ‘Hey, we’ve been buddies for the last 200 years’. My dry-eyed critical analysis is more like ‘Hey, we’ve been having trouble with these barbarians for 200 years’.

[p.s: if you don’t know the origins of the word barbarians, I suggest you look it up]

I have been working on a project of some scale for the last several months, which has kept me from disseminating the frippery some of you have come to regard as the only worthwhile product of my labors.

The nature and scale of the project to which I devote myself has allowed, sic, necessitated a great deal of directed thought. I cannot say with any certainty how the minds of other people work, either quantitatively, or qualitatively. I can only say that that directed thought, for me, has a time limit. I start on the road to a certain, though far off, destination, allow my mind to navigate the span between. I can work with ease for a finite time before I notice green shoots of new and unrelated thought sprouting up all around me. They do not dissuade or reinforce, in fact they intrigue by being stationary, singular, and entirely independent of my goal and me.

This is one of those thoughts:

Totalitarian movements of a certain ilk are named after important figures in the movement. Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, and Trotskyism name but a few. It seems to me that this is bet-hedging from the jump, and belies a further weakness at the heart of each of these philosophies. Whatever you say about the merits of any of these specific doctrines, or the idea of socialism generally, it has never worked, and cannot work, because it must suppress the nature of man, which a mere political viewpoint shall never do.

The central tenet of socialism is that man is perfectible, and given the proper structure, he may bloom into his fullest potential. This premise is flawed from the start. Man is not perfectible. Perfect is ideal. Perfect is same. There is no ideal man, there is no standard to attain, if there were everyone would be identical in thought and deed. Not only does this not work with animals that have the capacity for higher thought, it would also be a depressing nightmare world if it did.

Take an ant farm. Regimented, everyone working for the betterment of the colony. Works great for the ants because every bit of skill they need to live, they are born with. They search for, find, and procure food for the benefit of themselves only as a member of the whole. Their status is predestined; they will not, and cannot have any free will. If free will is introduced to that society then it would break down as surely and as quickly as if it were set on fire.

This may seem like an argument FOR the structure and security of socialism, and if you do, then I probably don’t know you, and don’t want to know you. Read the above paragraph twice, one time with the positive view describing the grand possibilities of a new system of government. Now read it as a warning of an awful, inhuman possibility of what could happen if we don’t protect our liberties.

No political theory can thrive without embracing the broad and expansive power of the human mind. Given free reign, there are few practical limits to what can be achieved by humans. If you view the destinies of humans as set in stone before they are born, then the best we can hope for is to perfect our digestion.

But, there you go. Socialists think that everyone is the same, or should be the same. Anything that makes you different also makes you a liability to the good of the colony. You cannot work for the good of the whole if you fear too much for your own kin. You cannot save for your own security because if there is excess after you sell your goods to the public, then it belongs to everyone, not you.

With that as the basis for your political system, it is bound to fail, and when it does you can give it a name like Trotskyism. You can fool yourself into thinking that the idea of a collectivist utopia is still good, because man is perfectable, and outcomes can be standardized, but it was the specific way that Trotsky went about it that brought about the failure. You can sit back and wait for the next incarnation of the utopian ideal, and then throw your back out pushing for it.

If you are a mindless drone. Or Sisyphus