Sunday, October 30, 2022

Don't Call Me A Right-Winger

I have nothing in common with these two jerks

Previously: Politics and Religion Revisited                                                 

In the introduction to a post I wrote back in April, I noted my agreement with the many faithful latter-day saints who were troubled by the First Presidency's official statement urging Church members to submit to the government's mandate regarding Covid "vaccinations."  

Someone over at the Mormon Stories Podcast Group on Facebook commented on my position, saying that he didn't know who I was, but decided he needed to read no further since clearly the author of the piece (me) was just another ignorant right-winger.

I thought that was an odd thing for him to call me, because it had been the right-wingers in government who were trying to get me to comply with their unconstitutional mandates. My refusing to blindly go along with their dangerous demands doesn't make me a right-winger; it makes me the opposite of a right-winger, since historically right-wingers were always powerful members of the ruling class who tried to force others to bend to their will. It was always the right-wingers pretending to care about the little guy who were the ones trying to punish those who disagree with them.

The right-wingers today, of course, are those who claim to be liberals, but whose actions and motives are opposite of what classical liberalism always stood for. Today's right-wing ideologues are people like Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, Fauci, and Gates; all of them controlling, power-mad elites just chomping at the bit to rule over the rest of us while demanding we don't give them any push-back. 

If you are confused by what I just said, it's probably because you've always believed "right-winger" was synonymous with "conservative." If so, you deserve to correct your thinking.

In the political realm, right-wing regimes have always stood in direct opposition to traditional conservative and classical liberal values. It was always right-wingers in positions of power who saw the common folk as their enemy to be crushed against the rocks. As recently as the middle of the 20th century, when you heard the term "right-winger," it was tyrants like Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini who immediately came to mind.  Americans who thought of themselves as conservatives would have never thought of themselves as having anything in common with Nazis and Fascists.  

If your political views align with America's founders and the constitutional protections they bequeathed to us, you should vigorously object to being called a right-winger because right-wing actions and policies are completely antithetical to what you believe in. Right-wingers have historically been dictators who stood for censorship, oppression, and the enslavement of the individual.  Such suit-wearing demons never had anything at all in common with conservatives.

So What Is The Difference Between Left And Right?                                                        First, a digression: in a previous essay in this space, I quoted author Jeffrey Tucker on what it used to mean to be a liberal. That definition was widely understood by everyone in this country for over a hundred and fifty years. Back then, everyone knew what it meant to be liberal, and that meaning was 180 degrees opposite of what that term has come to mean today: 

"To be liberal was to favor free enterprise and property rights, oppose slavery, reject old-world caste systems, loathe war, be generally disposed toward free trade and cosmopolitanism, favor the social advance of women, favor technological progress — and to possess a grave skepticism toward government management of anything." (Jeffrey Tucker, Bourbon for Breakfast: Living Outside the Status Quo.)

Check your concordances to see how often "liberal" was used in scripture to convey a desirable quality. Or pull up Noah Webster's original 1828 dictionary. As you can see, the classical definition of "liberal"(i.e. the longstanding use of the term as it was always understood from the beginning) bears no resemblance at all to those members of the ruling elite who call themselves "liberals" today. Instead, the qualities of classical liberalism are now observable in those who hold conservative values.

Traditionally, most Americans, no matter what political party they aligned themselves with, considered themselves to have a liberal worldview, which is why liberals and conservatives were found in both the Republican and Democratic parties. Believe it or not, a person could hold liberal views in some areas and still be conservative in others, and vice-versa. In fact, we all should be both liberals and conservatives, otherwise we will not be in balance. For instance, you might embrace traditional, "conservative" values in your personal life while at the same time having a liberal outlook in your dealings with others. You might act to determine your own path in life while allowing others the free agency regarding how they will live theirs. In other words, Americans are supposed to believe in the Golden Rule. Unlike how things have unfolded today, political differences back then were usually not so important that they got in the way of your ability to love your neighbor.  

So if freedom-loving people were traditionally defined as liberals (and later, conservatives), what do we call powerful autocrats and authoritarians who would impose their will on others while censoring those who resist their rule?  Those are the right-wingers; often very wealthy, but never satisfied with the amount of power they have. They're always desperate for more power then more again.

These are the sociopaths who say to those beneath them, "do what I say or else!"  To put a Mormon spin on it, Joseph Smith was a classical liberal, while Brigham Young was a right-winger. King Benjamin was a classical liberal, King Noah was a right-winger.  Benjamin refused to tax his people or boss them around; Noah taxed his people heavily and would set you on fire if you dared to criticize him. 

Make no mistake: as politicians go, it is not just modern Democrats who have rejected the qualities of classical liberalism. Many Republican officeholders such as George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of that wicked cabal of Neocons who plunged this country into two senseless wars twenty years ago were clearly right-wingers as well, as we can all see in retrospect.

This proves the danger that comes from regular people aligning themselves with a political party when they should be aligning themselves with correct principles. Because for so long conservatives identified as Republicans, they simply assumed Republican politicians were conservatives just like they were, never suspecting that those in leadership positions were in reality the right-wing devils they turned out to be.

American conservatives, who in 2003 might have resisted the senseless calls for war if those calls had been proposed by a Democratic president, willingly championed the killing of innocents in foreign lands when those calls came from a president who was a Republican, and all because that fellow Republican told them it was right and proper and patriotic to do so.  In retrospect, we can see how much better it would have been had we looked to scripture for our counsel instead of trusting in the arm of flesh. Utah Mormons are finally realizing that their own Republican senator Mitt Romney is a dangerous right-winger. Ten years ago I warned my readers that Romney was a wolf in sheep's clothing whose ideology is antithetical to the gospel of Christ. Boy, did I call it, or what?

A right-winger can be identified by his or her desire to censor dissent in order to hold onto power at all costs. Again, I direct your attention to the recognized right-wing regimes of monsters like Hitler and Mussolini. If you have nothing in common with those dictators, you should stop allowing others to lump you in with them. 

Where Did The Term 'Right-Winger' Originate?
Near the beginning of the French revolution (this was in 1789, before the criminally violent Reign of Terror began), the newly formed French National Assembly met to hammer out a constitution. The purpose was to come to some kind of agreement on how much power the king would be permitted to retain and how much authority would be left in the hands of the people through their representatives.

Almost immediately the delegates on each side staked out their own territories in the assembly hall, with the anti-royalist revolutionaries choosing seats to the left of the presiding officer while members of the aristocratic class seated themselves on the right. Needless to say, the aristocrats had more to gain by seeing to it that the king remained fully in power, so the right-wingers advocated for the monarchy while the lower classes sitting to the left advocated for the king to have less power.

As you can guess, it wasn't easy for these disparate groups to come to an amicable agreement on how France should be governed, and four years later the the whole enterprise had gone straight down the toilet (that's a French word meaning everything went to shit).

It didn't take long before the easily duped commoners were enticed by a devil named Robespierre, who got his followers to round up all members of the nobility and put them to the guillotine.  Unfortunately, this reign of terror didn't stop with just eliminating the snooty powdered wig set; pretty much everyone who suggested the guillotine might be too extreme a punishment for simply disagreeing with the mob ended up with their heads in a basket as well. 

Thus, by the time the French revolution was over, 17,000 French men, women, and children who made the mistake of feeling it might be better if everyone just calmed down a bit and and talked this thing out found themselves canceled by the woke mob. Quite permanently.

So in the end the revolutionaries had become the ones ruling with fear and force and violence, which is to say they themselves became the spitting image of the right-wing ruling class bullies they were trying to rid France of.  The chaos finally ended when somebody else with enough power to crush that revolution came to power, a self-indulgent little twerp named Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon, himself a wealthy and well-connected right-winger, crushed the right-wingers who had crushed the right-wingers that came before them. Which is how this always works.

What About The Lefties?                                                                                                     You may have noticed I haven't said very much about left-wingers so far. That's because it's a useless distinction. Since right-wingers in high places have traditionally operated as a cabal of wealthy and powerful people intent on ruling over those they deem to be lesser beings, it would do well to recognize that throughout history virtually every so-called left-wing "revolution of the masses" has been funded and controlled by a wealthy right-wing cabal in order to finance the very chaos that they then heroically step in to crush. That is what has come to be known as Hegelian Dialectics: you operate behind the scenes to create an uprising so violent that the people demand something be done to end the chaos, then you step in with your handpicked lackeys to rescue the nation from the disaster you yourself created, which always results in a more oppressive police state "for the safety of the citizens."  Every seemingly "spontaneous uprising of the oppressed" -whether it be the French Revolution, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions, or the George Floyd Riots- has been encouraged and co-opted by powerful individuals who used these incidents as a means of consolidating greater power to themselves.

In other words, every left-wing revolution in modern times was actually orchestrated and financed by powerful people on the right, people who bore no relation to traditional conservatives or classical liberals; people who believe it is their inherent right to rule over everybody else. 

One reason the French Revolution remains a perfect case study is that it has proven to be a microcosm for all the violent revolutions that came after.  For instance, it was long claimed by some that the French Revolution was stage-managed behind the scenes by wealthy people who wanted the power of the throne for themselves, and who figured out a way to engineer the coup by getting the downtrodden masses to do their dirty work for them.  The revolutionaries would dethrone the monarch, leaving a power gap which the secret elites would then fill with some charismatic "leader" under their own control.

For some time, Western historians tended to ignore the evidence presented by researchers such as the
Abbot Augustin Barruel (a French priest who they ignored even though he was present during the revolution) and Nesta Helen Webster (an English scholar they simply dismissed as a kook). These two, and others like them, provided documented proof that Robespierre was actually a front man for the semi-secret Jacobin Club, a group of wealthy upper crusties who were the real architects of the conspiracy to take over the government of France. Mrs. Webster even provided evidence that the Bavarian Illuminati had been backing the Jacobins, which indicated a bigger conspiracy behind the conspiracy. These "conspiracy theories" were dismissed by most Western intellectuals, who felt it was all too incredible to pay any mind to.

But then came Dr. James H. Billington, a Rhodes scholar who taught at Harvard and Princeton before serving 28 years as the Librarian of Congress. Billington had all the proper bona fides, and was highly esteemed by his peers. So when he published his massive tome on the French Revolution, the truth -that the revolution was not a spontaneous uprising by the lower classes but had actually been engineered by upper class elites acting in secret- could no longer be ignored by the stuffy intelligentsia. 

Dr. Billington's 677 page thesis, published in 1980 under the title
Fire In The Minds Of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith, didn't stop at the French Revolution. Billington showed how the same pattern later resulted in the communist revolutions of Marx and Engels. Indeed, American Professor Antony Sutton had for years been compiling documents showing how Joseph Stalin could not have come to power in Russia had he not been secretly financed by American bankersthe same bankers who bankrolled Hitler's massive war machine. 

How Conservatives Were Tricked Into Believing They Belong On The Right                                                           The problem with adopting political labels -or worse, imposing such labels on others- is that meanings are fluid and often little understood. For example, while today the word "radical" has a negative connotation, that wasn't always so.  As constitutional

scholar Gordon Wood has shown, America's founders were proudly radical in the true meaning of the word. The word "radical" means "root" (as does the word "radish," a vegetable that is pretty much nothing but a root). In contrast to the monarchies that had ruled all of Europe for centuries, the founders were attempting to return to the roots of proper government, such as had existed with the ancient Israelites.  The law of Moses prized the individual's right to self-determination, which stood in contrast to the monarchies that had ruled all of Europe for centuries since.

One of the things the Founders were aware of was that the Israelites recognized God as their judge, their lawgiver, and their king (Isaiah 33:22). So for more than three centuries the Israelites did very well without an earthly king ruling over them. That was what made them a peculiar people: unlike all the nations around them, the Israelites had no king.

But ask any kid in Junior High if he wants to be seen as peculiar and you'll understand the level of maturity held by the Israelites some three centuries after Moses. The Israelites didn't want to be peculiar, they wanted to fit in like everybody else.  So about 360 years after escaping the tyranny of the pharaoh in Egypt, all the elders of Israel went before the prophet Samuel and told him they wanted to have a king like all the other nations. Samuel was perturbed and took this to the Lord, who told Samuel the people could have their king if that's what they wanted, but from then on things were really gonna suck. It's all there in 1st Samuel 8: 4-20.  The elders said they didn't care, they wanted a king anyway, "that we may be like all the nations."

So that's what they got. All governmental control of the the people -authority that had previously been entrusted to God alone- was now in the hands of one man, Saul, the nation of Israel's first earthly king. So now Saul was the whole megillah: judge, lawgiver, the king all rolled into one.  As all of history has shown us, no man who has ever held such unchecked power has ever exercised it justly. Israel suffered under their kings, as did every European nation since, all the way up until 1776, when the god-fearing American colonists decided to go back to their Godly roots.

Now, the Founders realized that if they were to simulate a godly government where the power was held by the legislature, the judicial, and the executive, they were going to have to split those powers up between three separate groups because, as John Adams observed, men were not angels and could not be trusted to rule justly as God always does. 

The constitution those men hammered out for us is not perfect, and it never was going to be perfect because, as John Adams again reminds us, “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. So in spite of the fact that the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government were created to provide checks and balances between themselves, the government is still not going to police itself. All three branches have to be carefully watched by a moral and religious people to keep them all in check.

How The Right-Wingers Slipped In And Took Us Over                                                     Regardless of whether Americans have voted for Democratic or Republican candidates, we have been gradually losing control of our own government for some time, with the slide accelerating since the end of World War II, just after the United States had triumphed over the right-wing governments of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.  And that is largely because we unwittingly allowed two brothers who both happened to be overt Nazi sympathizers to be in control of America's National Security, one as the United States Secretary of State, the other as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The photo you see at the top left-hand corner of this page is a picture of those two villains. "Ironic" doesn't begin to describe the story you're about to read: almost immediately after America defeated the Nazis in World War II, we put two Nazi sympathizers entirely in charge of America's national security. You read that right: entirely in charge of America's friggin' national security!

As documented by David Talbot, author of The Devil's Chessboard, throughout the 1930s John Foster Dulles "harbored sympathy for the devil himself, Adolph Hitler." A business partner of Foster (both Dulles brothers were heavily invested in German businesses) is quoted as saying John Foster Dulles believed "that Germany's position is morally superior to that of the allies." This is the man who eventually rose to power in the Eisenhower administration.

We could talk all day about the stupidity of American politicians putting John Foster Dulles in charge of United States foreign policy, but I want to focus mainly on his brother, Allen Dulles, who was quick to see the advantages of colluding with Nazis both before and after the war. As Talbot writes,

"Like his brother, Allen Dulles was slow to grasp the malevolence of Hitler's regime. Dulles met face-to-face with Hitler in the Fuhrer's Berlin office in March 1933. He was ostensibly on a fact-finding mission to Europe for President Roosevelt, but Dulles was particularly interested in determining what Hitler's rise meant for his law firm's corporate clients in Germany and the United States. As Dulles subsequently informed his brother Foster, he did not find Hitler particularly alarming. And he was 'rather impressed' with Joseph Goebbels, remarking on the Nazi Propaganda chief's "sincerity and frankness.'" 
By the late 1930s Allen Dulles came to dismiss Nazi leaders as "Those mad people in control in Germany," but he continued to do business with the Nazi financial and industrial network.'" -David Talbot, The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Establishment, Part I, Section 1.

Due largely to his business connections in Germany, after the war Allen Dulles snagged a plum government assignment to help with mop-up operations in that defeated nation. The irony is that the Dulles brothers had more in common with the Germany than to their own country. Foster Dulles in particular was suspected of collaborating with the enemy. Lucky for both of them, Allen Dulles was uniquely placed to destroy any incriminating evidence so that no investigation could get traction against the Dulles brothers.  As Stephen Edward Browne informs us, 

"Shredding of Nazi documents was a favorite tactic of Allen Dulles and his associates who stayed behind to run the occupation of postwar Germany.  Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg said that if Franklin Roosevelt had survived the war the Dulles brothers would have faced prosecution for war crimes.  He also said that both Dulles brothers were guilty of treason, but FDR died and no one else had the will to challenge them. Allen Dulles was a cold man who had little or no empathy for others.  Firms like Farben, Krupp, and Siemens got labor from the concentration camps.  Himmler cut himself and the SS in by charging the companies for the labor.  Dulles knew of the ongoing genocide in the death camps in Germany during WWII but did nothing to alert the U. S. Government. He went along with the official U.S. State Department policy of looking the other way.  After the war, the WWII wartime alliance with Russia was dead and Russia and communism was the new enemy.  Many of the Nuremburg defendants were released early due to quiet intervention by Allen Dulles, who worked with Nazis like spymaster Renhard Gehlen to help in the cold war against the Russians.  Once he became director, Allen Dulles turned the CIA from an intelligence gathering organization into an action machine that overthrew foreign governments." -Stephen Edward Browne, The Deep State Rides Again: How the Washington Establishment Continues to Try to Overturn the Will of the Voters. 
So, not only were the Dulles brothers not persecuted for war crimes, Allen Dulles managed to quietly sneak more than 1,600 former Nazi spies, scientists, engineers, and who-knows-whats into the United States and got them citizenship papers under the top secret Operation Paperclip, so that now these former Nazis could be hired to work for the CIA. Many of these newly minted U.S. citizens had been extremely devoted to Nazism, and some had been high ranking Nazi party leaders. Do you think these guys left their totalitarian ideology at the door when they went to work for the United States government? Of course they didn't. They continued to believe that the role of government is to control the people.  Like Dulles, they saw the CIA as a means of bringing the world under America's control through clandestine means, so those who arrived with a Third Reich mentality didn't have to make many adjustments to their worldview.  Never mind that before the war America was a constitutional republic. The CIA would work toward transforming America into an empire to be feared. As documented in Christopher Simpson's stunningly revelatory book Blowback: The First Full Account of America's Recruitment of Nazis and its disastrous effect on Our Domestic and Foreign Policy, this clandestine operation has proven to be destructive in ways that most Americans are still not aware of.   

Perhaps Allen Dulles' greatest success was the top secret Operation Mockingbird, wherein the CIA began a program to infiltrate all the major newspapers, TV, and radio outlets in America. They took control of the journalism schools with the result that now, several generations of journalism graduates later, the takeover of the mainstream media is complete. This was shocking news when it was first revealed by the Church Committee in 1976, but virtually no one has any doubts about it today. Operation Mockingbird still remains in play. Even as far back as the 1950s, 

"outlays for global propaganda climbed to a full third of the CIA's covert operations budget. Some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts. The cost of disinforming the world cost American taxpayers an estimated $265 million a year by 1978, a budget larger than the combined expenditures of Reuters, UPI and the AP news syndicates. -Alex Constantine, Mockingbird: The Subversion of the Free Press by the CIA. 

Now Get Ready For The Punchline:     

Both Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen Dulles, Director of the CIA were not wacky Left-wing Marxist members of the Democratic party like the CIA is filled with today. They were both registered Republicans. 

Does that mean those guys were conservatives? Hell no! Not by a long shot. They were no more traditional conservatives than were George Bush and Dick Cheney. And there wasn't anything liberal about either of them, either.  They were just straight up right-wing power hungry globalists wanting to reshape the world in their own image. And it's because of those guys that Republicans remain branded right-wingers to this day.

The simple reality is that Dwight D. Eisenhower, Commanding General of America's Armed Forces during World War II happened to be a Republican, and Eisenhower was elected president about the time the Dulles Brothers' political stars were on the rise. Party membership was malleable in those days; one needn't take a hard ideological position one way or the other in order to claim membership as a Republican or a Democrat. It was more a question of how and where you were raised. It's quite likely the Dulles brothers came from a long family line of Republicans, so when they attained voting age they naturally gravitated to the Republican party too. That didn't make them conservatives. It just made them opportunists.

Many East Coast Elites aligned themselves with the Republicans. You know the type: Harvard and Yale hoity-toity high society my-ancestors-came-over-on-the-Mayflower characters (think Thurston Howell the Third). Seven or Eight decades ago these establishment types landed on the Republican side, if only because that was the party a lot of these big money upper-crusties were brought up in. It all had more to do with family tradition than with rock-hard moral principles.

Conversely (and this is also just a general rule), fifty to eighty years ago Democrat voters tended to hail from the working class. This is why it's useless to categorize anyone from back then as Republican/Conservative or Democrat/Liberal. John F. Kennedy was by all accounts an upper-class Eastern blueblood, yet he was a Democrat. And when he ran for the Senate he ran as a conservative Democrat. Something like that is so foreign to modern political discourse that most folks today wouldn't be able to wrap their heads around it.

And as I pointed out in a previous post, the most conservative member of the Senate from 1975 to 1985 was Lawrence P. McDonald, a lifelong Democrat. Just compare his voting record to any Republican senator at the time. You'll see that this Democrat was a hardcore conservative.

Up until 1980, the overwhelming majority of rural southerners voted Democrat for no other reason than that was the way their mama, papa, granny, and grandpappy had always voted as far back as they could remember. Party affiliation was like a religion to a lot of American families. If you were a Baptist you always attended the Baptist church and if you were a democrat you always voted for democrats. Every single time.  For generations of Americans this tradition was sacrosanct.

Then suddenly, following the inflationary disasters brought on by the reckless spending under Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, a massive wave of southerners switched from voting Democrat to voting  Republican, which helped sweep conservative Republican Ronald Reagan into the White House. This was a massive shift from members of a culture that had always blindly voted on straight party lines. But with their very livelihoods threatened, they had finally been shaken from their slumber into realizing that not all politicians had their best interests at heart. 

Meanwhile, it meant nothing at all for a Bond villain like Allen Dulles to identify as a Republican. He was neither a traditional conservative nor a classical liberal. He was a just a hard-edged right-winger, every bit as dedicated to grasping for power as are the democratic politicians trying desperately to hold onto their positions today. The way Dulles got outed as a right-winger is this: liberal Democrats back in the 50s and 60s, (who were already beginning to drift away from the classical liberalism of the founders, but still astute enough to recognize skullduggery when they saw it) exposed the unconstitutional duplicity that Foster and Allen Dulles were engaging in. On the other hand, Republican voters by and large didn't notice because voters often are not in the habit of keeping a sharp eye on those they vote for; it's just human nature to trust your side to always be in the right.

But when the Democrats realized the intelligence agencies had gone rogue, and that they seemed to be emulating the right-wing regimes of the Nazis and Fascists, they sounded the alarm and declared that the Republicans running the national security state were acting a lot like those right-wing Nazis we Americans had just got finished defeating.

In time, calling a Republican a right-winger simply became a handy form of shorthand, an easy way to describe Republicans in general. And since the party of Republicans was the party most conservatives identified with, all conservatives began to be labeled right-wingers by their Democratic opponents. What I find surprising is the number of conservatives who readily embrace that label today.  If you are a conservative and you refer to yourself as being a right-winger, I would encourage you to stop that nonsense right this very instant.  And don't let anybody saddle you with that appellation against your will. Them there is fightin' words, Missy.

And further, don't let party membership be the thing that defines you politically. What should define you politically is whether you favor oppression or whether you favor liberty; whether you wish to have the right to rule yourself or have powerful people in high places ruling over you.  

By any measure, John F. Kennedy would never be elected president today on the Democratic ticket; he would be considered way too conservative. The right-wing, deep state Democratic party of today would destroy him before he ever got to the primaries. And don't forget: it was Kennedy who vowed to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces because he could see they were were hijacking our Republic.

 Here's Stephen Edward Browne once again:

"Long before John F. Kennedy won the 1960 election to become president, the Dulles brothers, for the two terms of the Eisenhower administration, had formulated and implemented the foreign policy of the United States. They decided what needed to be done, they persuaded Eisenhower to approve whatever operation it was, and they then implemented that policy.  Sometimes Eisenhower gave the approval willingly and at other times they had to work on him for a while, but in the end, he almost always went along.  John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State and Allen Dulles was the Director of the CIA. By the time Kennedy arrived in the White House Allen Dulles was used to formulating and implementing the foreign policy of the United States. 
"Here we can see the beginning of what we now refer to as the Deep State.  These men were unelected bureaucrats with too much power who thought they knew better than the duly elected leaders and were arrogant enough to defy the will of those leaders. Here are the denizens of the Deep State attempting to implement their policy in defiance of trivial aspects of life like the constitution and the will of the people or their elected leaders. (The Deep State Rides Again, ibid pg 106-107) 
Right-wingers in office, regardless of what you have been told, have never had anything remotely in common with conservatism.  Rather, they consist of the more powerful and entrenched politicians from both parties.  But more insidiously, right-wingers are most recognizable as members of Washington's permanent bureaucracy, those who have never been voted into office by the people and therefore cannot be voted out. Right-wingers are quite literally the entrenched Deep State.

"Having the government bureaucracy try to take over power from the existing leadership is not a new concept. This has been going on since the beginning of civilization.  The Deep State in the U.S. consists of the crooked politicians, the FBI, the Justice Department, the intelligence community, the mainstream media, and a few others.  With a few relatively minor differences, the current crop of bad actors from these same institutions are still at it. Now the U.S. intelligence community has grown to include over a dozen major intelligence agencies in addition to the CIA. And the Deep State is still trying to overturn the will of the voters.  They still, a few generations later, have no intention of allowing democracy to work. They don't believe in our representative republic or our Constitution." (-Browne, The Deep State, ibid.) 

Before George Washington retired from government service (and it really was considered a "service" back then) his most important warning to posterity was that we should not meddle in the affairs of other nations. That was the wise counsel of our Lord when he told us His people were not to go up against any nation unless He Himself commanded us to. The dangers of meddling with others was also the forgotten message in the Book of Mormon. We are to let others run their own affairs. We are to remain neutral. 

Yet Allen Dulles lived by a completely different motto. He declared that "neutrality has increasingly become is an immoral and shortsighted conception."

The Dulles brothers introduced policies into our government that continue unquestioned to this day.  It's impossible to know how many millions have suffered and died because of the policies the Dulles brothers introduced to the world. They, and everyone who continues to believe as they did, are the immoral ones of this world. 

So Where Do We Go From Here?
Allen Dulles is long gone, as are the Nazis he recruited to help run the national security state. But long before any of them retired, others just like them were recruited to take their places, until today, with very few exceptions, a virtual army of politicians and bureaucrats with Nazi mindsets and Fascist points of view continue to replicate in government. Don't let them fool you; yesterday's fascists have become the socialists and communists of today.  There never was a dime's worth of difference between the Nazis and the communists; they were all totalitarians.  The far right and the far left were vying for control and now it looks like the far right and the far left have settled in and taken off the mask.

Today the right-wingers have all moved over to the Democratic party. The Deep State has become solidly Democratic and they own the politicians who are the face of that party.  But this modern brand of "liberalism" is  just the phony disguise they wear to try to convince us all they are the party of compassion.  These swamp dwellers apparently thought that by cheating their way through the last election they would remain in power indefinitely, so they made the grave mistake of no longer hiding their intention to rule us completely. When they rant and rave of about "democracy" being in danger, what they are really saying is they're afraid their autocracy is in danger of being overturned. 

Today it is the Democrats in office who barely hide their lust for power. Nearly every ostensible "right-wing" bureaucrat now boasts that they are democrats, that they are liberals, that they care only about the downtrodden and forgotten.  Don't you believe them. They have taken total control of the government -at least they think they have. That's why the battle often seems so difficult; so long as the right-wing Nazi Fascists in government have control of the avenues of information and near control of both parties, they will continue to have the upper hand. They will continue to try to get the voters way down here below Mount Olympus, both liberals and conservatives, to fight among ourselves so we don't wake up and realize that evil people in high places have taken control of our government and want to rule over us on their terms.  

But all that may be changing. I'm optimistic that we may be on the verge of something resembling a national repentance. A massive populist uprising seems to be taking hold; where the people are coming to realize that the entire left-right political paradigm has been a scam to keep us fighting each other when we should be fighting the Deep State political machine. This populist awakening is occurring not just in America, but all over the world.  Other nations have already flipped the switch by voting out those who would rule them through force. Can we accomplish something similar? Will we be able to peacefully turn this thing around and gently send these Deep State buzzards back into the bowels of hell where they belong?

There's an election coming up. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. 


UPDATE Tuesday November 1st, 2022:

A bombshell report released yesterday by   The Intercept has provided proof for what we have suspected all along: When it came to censorship, Twitter and Facebook have been taking their marching orders from the Deep State, particularly the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, with the FBI often used as their enforcement arm. The receipts were inadvertently left behind at Twitter when its top executives were fired. Read this important piece of investigative journalism here.


In case you were wondering: If the Americans who fought the revolutionary war were the radicals, who were the conservatives? Well, those were the Tories, the ones who opposed the revolution and wanted America to remain under the rule of King George. These conservatives didn't call themselves Tories, of course, as that was considered a slur. They saw themselves as Loyalists, because they were loyal to the king. And they saw the revolutionary war not as a war for independence, but a civil war between the themselves and the radicals. The loyalists were the original American conservatives.

It's been estimated that 15-25% percent of the people living in America in those days held these conservative views and they hated the radical liberals who fought against their king. But since they were outnumbered by the radicals, most of them learned to keep their opinions to themselves. After the war most of them moved up to Canada around the area now known as Ontario, where they could remain under the benevolent protection of their precious King.

It should be noted that the key characteristic of a conservative in those days was that conservatives were opposed to change -pretty much any change. Conservatives wanted things to stay the way they had always been, and since the colonial conservatives had always been governed by a king, they wanted to continue to be governed by a king. Scottish philosopher David Hume (who died in 1776 so he missed out on all the excitement) was probably the most prominent name in the nascent Conservative movement, but he was not highly thought of by many liberals at the time. (So what else is new? liberals and conservatives seem to have been at odds since the beginning, even though yesterday's liberals are today's conservatives!) John Stuart Mill, also a philosopher but a classical liberal as well, said of Hume, 
“regard for truth formed no part of his character.”

Ain't that the way it's always been? Conservatives always getting unfairly maligned.

Notes & Asides & Additional Links                                                     If you found this essay of interest you'll want to be sure and check out Book of Mormon Perspectives, beginning with the author's first essay, Gadiantons and the State  After that I recommend you keep going, as this author will take you deep, deep down the rabbit hole. The author is extremely prolific, so much so that I can't keep up. The most recent post I've read over there is titled Demons in Alien's Clothing and it is compelling! Everything on that platform will provide you food for thought for more than a week.

I bought my copy of Dr. Billington's Fire in the Minds of Men back in 1982, long before the internet. It was quite fascinating, but it's a massive tome that took me quite a while to get through. Now I see that some guy has hosted a presentation in at least three parts of an hour or so each, so if you're the kind of person who prefers audio to text, you might want to take a look at it. I haven't watch it yet myself, but he seems to be reading large chunks (or maybe all) of the book and giving his analysis as he goes. Here's where you'll find Part One. 

Or, if you're short on time, here's the four minute review.

There's a plethora of recently published books on the Deep State, so if the topic intrigues you (and I hope it does) just do a search of the words "Deep State" and take your pick. I own the one referenced above as well as one by Peter Dale Scott, one of the last of the breed of great journalists.  Both are well documented and heavily footnoted. Oh yeah I also own one volume of the three volume set by Jeremy Stone but I haven't read it yet so I can't tell you what I think. Check it out for yourself by downloading a Kindle sample. 

Some months ago I presented a concise discussion on the Bavarian Illuminati in a post I titled Let's Talk About Conspiracies!

I couldn't link to the comment at Facebook's Mormon Stories Podcast Group from the guy I who called me a right-winger because I have been banned by that platform and I can't get back in to look for it.  Would you like to see the piece that got me banned? Here it is.

I have written several screeds against the recent wars the Deep State has led this country into, but I don't really have a favorite. (I wish everybody would read every one of them.) The first post I ever wrote on this blog was called Toby Keith and the Destruction of the Nephites, but another one I think may be chock full of information the two-parter titled When Mormons Take The Lord's Name in Vain. 

Thanks for stopping by! Please leave a comment if you're so inclined. The number of comments have dried up in recent months and I'm not sure why. I guess everyone's too busy watching Youtube videos to comment on blogs anymore.  At least that's what I've been doing with a lot of my time.

Sunday, August 14, 2022

Politics And Religion Revisited

Previously: This Is Not A 'Gay' Thing

This month I'm presenting a post I originally published on this site three and a half years ago, partly because this blog has picked up thousands more readers in recent months and partly because I think it's important in these times to discuss the political philosophy of Mormonism.  But mostly because I felt it necessary to go over this information again as a prefatory introduction to a topic I had planned to address today. That one will have to wait until next month because I think the things addressed below  will be helpful to review before we get into the heavier stuff next time. 

That being said, here is what I wrote back when I thought of politics as an entertaining amusement, before those in power brought us to where I believe we are today: on the cusp of the last days. That being said, below is the piece I wrote titled "Politics And Religion," originally posted January 20th, 2019:

Politics and Religion
A friend of mine recently left this comment after I posted a sassy meme on Facebook:
"I love you and your theological writings, Rock -but try to stay away from any of your political commentary/sparring for the most part because it 'appears' you are entrenched in Trumpism..." 
That's not the first time someone has advised me to "stick with what you know," but in this case the writer is someone I dearly love and greatly admire. My wife and I were guests in his Utah home for several days a few years back, and he and his wife were incredibly kind to us. So if you think I'm going to light into my friend for that gentle rebuke, you're seriously mistaken. Where he and I are concerned, there is more that unites us than divides.

Still, my friend's comment got me to thinking that since this blog is devoted to my religion, it's high time I addressed the topic of how our religion properly intersects with politics. I sort of addressed something like this in an earlier post, but I didn't touch on the reason why politics must be infused with the proper religious principles in order for our discussions in the public square to have any validity.

But first things first: let's get one thing out of the way, and that's this idea that I am somehow "entrenched in Trumpism." Here is the meme I posted that motivated my friend to call me out publicly:

To that meme I attached a lighthearted jab: "It's okay if you're stupid, too, but that doesn't make you either factually or morally right."

Too bad I hadn't seen this three minute clip by Ben Shapiro, because he really pegs what's ailing this woman:

My friend, who to my surprise actually approves of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's scheme to steal the earnings from people she doesn't know, has made an assumption about me that many people are making about a lot of political observers these days: that if you criticize a member of one political party, your loyalties surely must lie with the other.

Here's a novel idea: why not call out dishonesty and hypocrisy no matter which party it stems from? How about not submerging your identity by giving yourself over to a political party? In our everyday lives our personal traits are both liberal and conservative, so if we hope to avoid becoming insufferable, we deserve to consciously cultivate that balance of yin and yang in the political arena as well.

I think I made it pretty clear in that my post titled Mormons Should Stop Identifying As Republicans why I feel it's a mistake for anyone -most notably Mormons- to align themselves with any particular party. When you do that, you will tend to be defensive about your own team, shutting yourself off to the possibility that your party or your candidate might be capable of wrongdoing. Factional loyalty is a sure way to miss out on what's true and what's false in the political sphere. That's a key reason why the founders warned against voters forming into what they called "factions," meaning a group of people who are united by the same beliefs, interests, and passions. To pursue these common goals they disregard the rights of other citizens. (See the Federalist Papers, Chapter Ten.)

This prejudice in favor of one party over another is the very definition of partisanship, and blind partisanship toward almost anything,whether politics, religion, or even whether you went to the best high school will ever be a stumbling block to your search for truth.  Those who are wise will mark you down as a fool and shun your company.

So let me make this clear: I don't give blind support to any politicians, no matter how well-intentioned, for the same reason I am not a follower of any religious leaders. I already have a king, Yeshua Hamashiach, so I look to no mortal to lead me.

Our scriptures warn us repeatedly that those who trust in the arm of flesh will be cursed. Psalm 146:3 gets even more specific when it warns us to "put not your trust in princes." When the psalmist refers to "Princes," he's talking about "rulers," which is what a good many politicians today fancy themselves to be: our rulers.

Look, I get enough cursings from people who respond to me on Facebook, so I'm not too keen on invoking further cursings from God. I'll continue to follow politics, but I'll do so with a healthy dose of skepticism toward both major political parties.

This is not to suggest I'm not deeply interested in politics. I am, but mostly for the entertainment. And I'll get back to my feelings about Donald Trump in a minute. First, let's talk about this insanely erroneous idea that politics and religion are supposed to be mutually exclusive.

The Political Philosophy Of Mormonism
Yes, there is a political philosophy to Mormonism. Wanna know what it is? It's this:
"See that you are merciful unto your brethren; deal justly, judge righteously, and do good continually, for this is the law and the prophets." -Alma 41:14
If that sounds a lot like The Golden Rule...well, yeah.  Here's how Jesus put it in Matthew 7:12:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
The purpose of the golden rule in the religious sphere is to instruct you on how to conduct yourself so that you will deal justly with others. But that doctrine necessarily operates in the political sphere as well, and the way it does is twofold: first, you're expected to see that those who govern in your name do so in a way so as to not other hurt people or take their stuff; and second, you're expected to keep an eye on those you've entrusted with governing, so you will be qualified to call them out every time they violate that rule.

We can't force politicians to adopt our religious ideals, but we do have an obligation to elect public servants who will follow the golden rule. After all, don't they campaign on those basic principles?   Have you ever seen a candidate for office promise the people that he would not deal justly? Have you ever seen one refuse to take the oath of office? That oath is an oath to protect and defend the constitution, a document wholly infused with the principles embodied in the golden rule.

In those instances where our public servants fail in their obligation to perform strictly in accordance with their oath of office, it is our duty to hold their feet to the fire. They have an obligation to abide by the golden rule even if they don't believe in it.  If you fail in your sacred role of monitoring the rulings enacted by your public servants, you fail in your religious responsibility as well.

The golden rule is so fundamental to good government that every major world religion promotes a version of it. Here are just a few:
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." [Sounds a lot like what Jesus said about this teaching being paramount over all others.]
"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." 
"Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire."
"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?"
"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not...Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." 
"Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you."
"Do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you."
 Jainism: "A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "
These religious tenets completely infused the societies represented by these religions. So did American society at one time, until the false teaching crept in that religion and politics should be kept separate. Make no mistake, however: unbending religious dogmas have no place in politics. That's not what we're talking about here. As Mahatma Gandhi (a hindu who also embraced Jainism) insisted,
"Religion should pervade every one of our actions. Here religion does not mean sectarianism. It means a belief in ordered moral government of the universe. It is not less real because it is unseen. This religion transcends Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc. It does not supersede them. It harmonizes them and gives them reality."
"For me, politics bereft of religion are absolute dirt, ever to be shunned. Politics concern nations and that which concerns the welfare of nations must be one of the concerns of a man who is religiously inclined, in other words, a seeker after God and Truth." (The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, R.K Rabhu and U.R. Rao)
I could go on and on quoting Gandhi regarding the importance of including religion in the public sphere. He was quite vocal about it on countless occasions. But you might wonder why I'm quoting a Hindu instead of quoting, say, Joseph Smith, since he is the founder of our faith?

The answer is simple: there are numerous citations by Joseph Smith affirming the necessity of religious principles infusing every aspect of our lives, but very few statements making the specific arguments Gandhi does. That's because in Joseph's day, there was no need to make those arguments. Just as in the days of America's founders, virtually no one was campaigning to keep religion out of the public square. Back then, it was a given that morality and religion were an essential part of political life. It has been only since the 20th century that some factions of American society have argued that there is no place in politics for principles borne of religion.

To be sure, there were instances when Joseph Smith found religious principles overruled among the political class. President Martin Van Buren, a member of the Dutch Reformed Church with no particular animosity toward the Mormons, still refused to assist them in obtaining justice by way of redress of grievance, for reasons of political expediency. If Van Buren were to help the Mormons, he admitted, he would "go against the whole state of Missouri, and that state would go against me in the next election."
A Peoria Newspaper reported the prophet's stunned reaction:
Mr. Smith said he was thunderstruck at this avowal. He had always believed Mr. Van Buren to be a high-minded statesman, and had uniformly supported him as such; but he now saw that he was only a huckstering politician, who would sacrifice any and every thing to promote his re-election. (Peoria Register and North-Western Gazetteer, April 17th, 1840.)[1]
[1]The Mormons in Illinois, nearly all of whom were democrats back then, helped assure Van Buren's loss to the Whig candidate, William Henry Harrison. So sometimes the universe does bend toward justice.

When Mixing Politics And Religion Goes Horribly Wrong
So why do we so often hear that politics and religion don't mix? Well, that's because politics and religion don't mix.

But religion and politics does.

Allow me to clarify. The political sphere is enhanced by the infusion of just and honest religious principles, such as the Hebraic-Christian principle that all men are created equal. That phrase does not mean that all human beings have equal abilities, talents, skills, appearances, or (heaven forbid), outcomes. It means simply that all men are to be treated equally under the law. That statement is self-evidently true because it is an idea that originated with God and not with men What "equal under the law" means is that no person should ever be given a legal advantage or disadvantage over another. (Leviticus 24:2, Romans 2:11, Mosiah 27:3, Mosiah 29:38, Alma 30:11, etc.)

This was a radical idea in 1775, since throughout most of Europe, as well as the rest of the world, members of royalty could oppress, torture, or kill any of their subjects and never be held to account. By virtue of their bloodlines and the rank they held, these insufferable tyrants were above the law. The common folk were not. But in America, if a politician breaks the law, he is subject to criminal prosecution just like any other law breaker, and indeed there are numerous laws in place specifically tailored to punish official misconduct.

Richard Nixon did not believe this. He saw himself as some kind of elected emperor whose actions were above the law. In the famous interview he did with David Frost, Frost asked Nixon about the legality of Nixon's actions. The president replied, "Well, when the president does it, it's not illegal."

He was wrong, of course. He eventually realized how wrong he was and resigned before he could be impeached and put on trial.[2]
[2] Shortly after his resignation, Nixon's successor pardoned him before he had even been tried, let alone convicted, which was kind of odd, since a pardon is supposed to be granted after a person has been convicted. Pardons are also usually granted when a person has been found to be innocent after he's been convicted. In Nixon's case, Gerald Ford did his buddy an unprecedented political favor by pre-emptively declaring Nixon innocent before Nixon had even been formally charged with anything, which has to be some kind of legal precedent as far as I'm aware.  So I guess maybe members of the elite class are above the law after all. 

The mixing of politics and religion goes awry when your political views become your religion. Do you see the problem with political partisanship, when you begin to see your political opinions as inseparable from your religious faith?  When Americans get to the point where they seem to be now, when they can see only the good in themselves, and only the bad in the other party or the other party's candidate, they're likely to either not notice the bad in their own, or to rationalize it away.

This was no more evident than when the majority of my fellow Mormons supported Mitt Romney in his bid for the presidency. As documented in this blog at the time, Almost every promise Romney campaigned on was antithetical to the core teachings of the religion he espoused. Romney wasn't alone. Since at least the middle of the 20th century, Mormonism rightly reflected conservative American social values. Since the Republican party back then largely reflected those same values, Mormons (who used to be almost entirely Democrats) climbed onto the Republican bandwagon because, after all, to be a Republican meant you were a conservative.

As time went on, the majority of Mormons remained largely conservative, meaning they continued to stand for smaller government and traditional social values that comported with the teachings of their faith. They still thought being Republican meant staying the course, but by the 1980s, the Republican party was heading the other way. Sorry if this bursts your bubble, but even Ronald Reagan was not the conservative hero the legends make him out to be.[3]
[3] Writes Sheldon Richman in The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan
"Ronald Reagan's faithful followers claim he has used his skills as the Great Communicator to reverse the growth of Leviathan and inaugurate a new era of liberty and free markets. Reagan himself said, "It is time to check and reverse the growth of government."

Yet after nearly eight years of Reaganism, the clamor for more government intervention in the economy was so formidable that Reagan abandoned the free-market position and acquiesced in further crippling of the economy and our liberties. In fact, the number of free-market achievements by the administration are so few that they can be counted on one hand—with fingers left over."

Beginning with Reagan, the Republican party grew to stand for big government just the same as the Democrat party did, with Republican administrations soon presiding over deficits larger than anything the Democratic congresses were able to pass.  You wouldn't have noticed if you weren't paying attention, because party leaders still hypocritically yammered on about shrinking government even while passing bills that made it grow ever larger.  By the time George Bush II took office, all pretense was gone, as the NeoCon Statists were the real powers behind the throne. Bush took the country to war under false pretenses, and even many of the strictest constitutionists in the Church gave him a pass on his flaunting of the constitution because, hey, he's one of us.

By this time, false traditions in the Church had supplanted Mormonism's true teachings as revealed by God and promulgated by the prophet Joseph Smith.  In that blog post I wrote about Mitt Romney, I documented how Romney's campaign promises not only were a betrayal of conservative principles, but completely and undeniably antithetical to the religion he claimed to believe in. I heard from a handful of readers who objected to my pointing to Mitt's numerous betrayals, but no one has ever shown me where I misrepresented his positions, or how those positions were not in conflict with the restored gospel. When it came to representing the Mormon faith, Mitt Romney was a wolf in sheep's clothing. He was no more a true Mormon than was the evil and designing John C. Bennett in Joseph Smith's day.  If Joseph Smith were church president today, I believe he would withdraw the hand of fellowship from Brother Mitt Romney.

Nothing I wrote in that blog post was intended to imply I wanted to see Mitt Romney lose to Barack Obama. Indeed, I frequently spoke out against the Obama fraud. But my thesis in this forum was that a Romney presidency would be virtually indistinguishable from an Obama presidency. And I stand by that. If you're curious as to how things would have been for America if Mitt Romney had been elected, you need only examine the eight years we experienced under Obama. Things would have been pretty much the same under Romney, from the continuing escalation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the failure that is the Affordable Care Act, which Romney intended to model after the socialist debacle he had presided over as governor of Massachusetts.

The only difference I can see is that if Romney had won the presidential election that year, there wouldn't have been fools celebrating in the streets because they believed Romney would be making their car and rent payments the way they came to believe King Obama would. Otherwise, Obama proved to have governed the same way Romney had promised to. 

The Trouble With Trump
As I mentioned before, I'm an equal opportunity offender when it comes to politicians. So before I really get into ragging on the insufferable insanity displayed by those on the radical left, let me say a few more things about Donald Trump.

First, I'm starting to like this guy, because I admire a politician who doesn't rein in his thoughts. In fact, because he often blurts things out without filtering himself like most politicians, Trump is very likely the most honest president in modern times. He ain't no tippy-toe diplomat when dealing with his Democratic opponents, and I enjoy watching the left go completely bonkers every time he frustrates them. Donald Trump is the Walter White of politics, and everyone on the left is Gus Fring. Every time they think they've got him cornered and are about to finish him off, they find out he's been three steps ahead of them the entire time. Now that The Donald Trump Show is entering it's third season, I'm really starting to dig it.

Still, there are plenty of reasons for conservatives and libertarians to remain agnostic about this president, and virtually none of them have anything to do with the silly accusations thrown about by atrabilious leftists screeching and wailing at his every utterance. And none of it has anything to do with his being a racist (he isn't), a misogynist (he isn't), or hyperbolic (okay, you got me there.)

Below is a piece by fellow anti-Statist Laurence Vance going down the list of reasons why conservatives and libertarians should be keeping an eye on Donald Trump, and it largely has to do with the fact that in reality the guy is a liberal's dream. If only those on the left would stop taking their cues from CNN and actually examine his record, they might notice he's almost as much a Statist as they are. They'd be kissing his feet except for one thing: he was a liberal who ran as a Republican, and when he won, that put the Democrats out of power. Democrats liked being in power under Obama, and they had every expectation of remaining in power when Hillary took office. Trump put the kibosh on those expectations, and they will never forgive him for it.

Vance wrote the following piece over a year ago, so it doesn't include all of Trumps recent fubars, such as his suggestion that the government should confiscate guns first and then allow due process later. Anyway, Vance opens with this paragraph, which comes close to echoing my own feelings. So if you want to know my current political views, this is pretty close:
"Before continuing I should state for the record that am not part of the “Never Trump” movement, that I despise the news media, that I would like to see America be made great again, and that I loathe Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders with every cell in my body. I did not vote for Trump, but that is because I don’t vote for anyone not named Ron Paul."
He then goes on to dissent from the conservative love fest over Donald Trump.  You can the full article here

As I've pointed out many times before, the only political philosophy consistent with Mormonism is the libertarian philosophy -not to be confused with the Libertarian party, which is a political party, not a philosophy. That's why I recommend you read Vance's entire piece to see whether or not you think Trump's political philosophy is that much more consistent with Mormonism than modern conservatism has become. We already know modern Leftism is completely off the rails, but you might also want to think about whether the so-called "party of conservatism" is still worth aligning with.

And while you're at it, here's some recent articles from principled libertarians questioning whether Trump is actually in control of his own presidency. (Hint, I wouldn't bet on it.)  Every presidency -both Republican and Democrat- at least since FDR has been hijacked by what the Book of Mormon refers to as "secret combinations," men who combine in secret for the purpose of obtaining power and gain at the expense of the people's liberties.

Trump's Neocons

Trump Walks Back The Syria Pullout

Trump, JFK, And The Deep State

And Now For The Fun Part
Sorry I made you wade through all that exposition, but I needed to put you through that to get you to here. The best -maybe the only- reason for following politics at this particular junction in our nation's history is BECAUSE IT'S FINALLY STARTING TO BE FUN! Those who would use the power of the State to impose their will on everyone else are, in the end, reduced to chirping nobodies put here to entertain the rest of us with their arrogant bleating.

Yeah, I know I said all that stuff about paying attention and holding elected official's feet to the fire, and I meant it. But let's face it, For the time being I'm powerless to make parasitic slugs climb back into their holes, and so are you. Until election season rolls around every two years, there's not much we can do other than point and laugh at the wannabe tyrants scrambling to lord it over us.

You can only vote Representatives out every two years, Senators every six, and presidents every four, but in the meantime you can still have some laughs at their expense. God made Adam that Adam might have joy, but he made politicians so we can all have joy.  Indeed, it may be the only reason those fat-headed egotists have been put on the earth: so the rest of us can chuckle knowingly at their childish hunger for power.

Besides, I don't expect there's anything I can do that will prevent the Statist juggernaut from eventually taking over and causing the collapse of the entire nation. But if things go as planned, I'll be dead in 12 or 13 years, and with any luck the collapse won't happen until after that. Of course, I'll be leaving my grandchildren behind to endure the bleak, dystopian future, but I can't do anything about it. Sorry, kids. Sucks to be you.

Besides, according to the many near-death experiences I've read about, once we've shuffled off this mortal coil, this earth life begins to look like an illusion;  essentially a testing ground where we are given the opportunity to develop our character. This is where we demonstrate our intention to conduct ourselves with integrity. What matters in the end, then, is only two things: 1) that we lived our lives according to the golden rule, and 2) that we pointed the finger of derision at anyone attempting to impose their will on others through force. Thomas Jefferson observed that "resistance to tyranny is obedience to God." My method of choice for resisting tyranny is to make fun of would-be tyrants.

As for those who attempt to use coercion against their fellow humans for the supposed "common good"?  I think they're gonna end up flunking that test.

Meanwhile,  Mizz Alexandria Occasional Cortex continues to be the gift that keeps on giving. Every time she opens her mouth, she makes my day.

Look, I'm not normally one to make fun of the mentally deficient. But when one of them comes out of nowhere and declares her ambition is to force all of humanity to bow to her will, I can't help but make fun of her. Mockery is the only tool I have in my arsenal, and by gum, I'm going to use it. As Mark Twain aptly observed, "against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand."

Something else Twain said:
"Suppose you are an idiot." 
"Now suppose you are a member of congress."
 "But I repeat myself."
Three days ago Mizz Ocasio led a group of other freshman schoolgirls (and a camera crew, natch) all around the capitol building looking for Senator Mitch McConnell, whom she was convinced was hiding from her. She didn't think to let him know she was coming, or he might have given her directions to his office. So she and her gal-pals wandered all around the place without a clue as to where his office was located, all the while letting everyone know how indignant she was that he was eluding her.

Yep. Mitch McConnell didn't know anybody was looking for him, and these Wamen also didn't have the first clue where to look, so the logical conclusion is that the Senator was hiding, cowering under a desk somewhere in fear that she might find him.

I tell ya, it's Comedy gold.

Hilarity aside, here's the problem with Young Miss A.O. Cortez: she has absolutely no understanding of basic economics. Zilch. I'm pretty certain she has never read Hayek's The Road To Serfdom or Henry Hazlit's Economics in one lesson, and I'm willing to bet she doesn't think she needs to. By her way of thinking, these men have nothing to teach her. That's how blindly arrogant she is. And that's also why she's fair game for ridicule. People who want to learn are capable of obtaining knowledge. Those who believe they already know it all will remain among
the dumbest creatures on the planet. And they'll always wonder why informed people are laughing at them -provided they are observant enough to notice.

There's a bonus giggle you can sometimes get when mocking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez online. If you're like me, you'll get accused of being obsessed with her.

Well, I am obsessed with her. No question about that. But there is this one guy, who I'll call Steve (not the same guy who chided me at the beginning of this post), who believed he was making a devastating point against me by posting an article from Huffpost titled, (get ready for it):

"Conservative Men Are Obsessed With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Science Tells Us Why."

I should mention that the thing that triggered this silly idea that conservatives were threatened by Young Miss Cortez was a story fabricated out of whole cloth by the New York Times. A fake twitter account was created that was intended to demonstrate that conservatives were disturbed by a video showing Young Missy dancing for joy. In reality, no conservatives at any time expressed any kind of concern about the dancing congresswoman's video.  Ever.  As John Ward breaks it all down in his sardonic sing-song expose', the whole thing was concocted by leftists who didn't know enough about the conservative mind to understand that no one would care that a member of congress had been recorded dancing as a teenager. But that didn't stop every media outlet in the nation from picking up this fake story and running it with the requisite clucking of the tongue.  The story went industry-wide before any of them figured out they'd been had. Most of them still haven't picked up on the scam.

The whole thing is a telling anatomy of how fake news is created to make conservatives appear loopy and paranoid.

But back to that Huffpost article.  I combed through that piece and found no evidence cited that would tie anyone's obsession with Missy Cortez to any scientific findings. But the author, one Laura Bassett, did speculate that conservative men are probably obsessed with Cortez because they're probably threatened by her.

My advice to Steve is that some people would do well to perform a bit of research before smugly insisting something is backed up by "science" when it decidedly is not. Lauren Southern, who did do her research, demonstrates why it's best to be skeptical of such claims.

I'm thinking Laura Bassett, the author of that HuffPo piece, should have simply asked a bunch of men why they like watching videos of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. We could have told her it's because she says dumb things that make us laugh. 

If anyone reading this knows of any conservative men who see A.O. Cortez as a threat, please let me know, because I've never met many real live dolts in person. I'm hearing Cortez aspires to be president some day. Dream on, Sister.  I predict that Little Miss Nobody will be out on her butt within ten years, looking for work and wondering what happened to her dream of governing the next socialist paradise.

Threatened by her? Well, I should smile.

Politics Is For Lovers
Strictly speaking, not everything the lunatic left promotes is politics. Some of it, like that stupid marketing move on the part of Gillette, is propaganda designed to promote social engineering. That sort of thing has its place in the arena of "things worthy of ridicule," but it's not strictly politics. Politics implies the use of strategy or intrigue in the pursuit of power and control.

The current jockeying for power between Donald Trump and Nancy Pelosi is a lesson in pure politics, and therefore worthy of observation. Other antics of the lunatic left, such as moronic Antifa members attempting to prevent free speech on campus, is not "politics," it's just evidence of the rising idiocracy. But it's still fun to watch those young imbeciles at play, even if they don't represent the ruling class.

This is certainly a golden age of political comedy for those keeping an eye on the ruling class, though. I don't care what you think of a border wall, whether you feel it's urgently needed, or whether you agree with Pelosi's claim that a wall on the
border is somehow "Immoral." Watch the games they're playing with one another and you'll see that for Pelosi and Schumer, their adamant objections have nothing to do with the border wall at all. How do we know that? Because just a few years ago Those cardboard cut-outs known as Schumer and Pelosi, along with Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, were all clamoring for the same kind of border security as Trump is now.

So what changed?

Politics. More specifically, the use of intrigue and strategy over who would ultimately end up with power and control.

Why do you think these leftists pretending to be liberals are digging in their heels over that wall when so recently they demanded this very action? Because if the wall gets funded, that will be seen as a win for Trump. It will represent the fulfillment of his biggest campaign promise, and will very likely translate into his re-election in 2020. That, in turn, will almost certainly result in a majority of Republicans taking over both the house and senate. If Trump gets his wall, the government will be in the hands of the Republicans again for a season. To Democrats, that would be horrible, in spite of the fact that if they're smart and stop pushing the unwashed masses into the arms of their opponents, they might easily win both houses and the White House back again within a very short time.

Because that's how it works. Carter, then Reagan. Then Bush, then Clinton. Then another Bush, then Obama. Then Trump, then very likely some dunderheaded Democrat. And then back again.

The pendulum always swings back. Most Americans have little brand loyalty when it comes to who's in office. They are quite easily swayed by political oratory. But politicians have no patience. They can't think that far ahead. If they could, they'd just chill and wait for the next pendulum swing.

Political power is everything to the ruling class. If they gain power, they win. If they lose power, it's counted a catastrophe for their entire party. For these people who have worked so hard to build up a system that will keep them in power, nothing is more important to them; not even the security of the nation.

"I seek not for power, but to pull it down," Captain Moroni declared in Alma chapter 60, "I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country."

Compare those words to the weak argument Nancy Pelosi gives in her attempt to hold onto power. Did you ever think about why she has tried so hard to force the cancellation of Trump's State of the Union Address? Well, think back to the last one, when Trump announced how well the economy had improved since he took office. When he announced that more black people were employed, that black unemployment had reached the lowest levels since 1972, the Congressional Black Caucus sat on their hands, refusing to join in on the applause for what should have been celebratory news.

Do you think Pelosi and any of the congressional Democrats want to see Donald Trump go on TV and trumpet even more victories that will only serve to make him more popular among black voters?

Not on your life. They're already seeing African-American voters waking up to the fact that even after eight years of The First Black President, nothing changed for them. The Democrat's promises to them have been exposed as hollow. If too many more black people abandon the party, the Democrats fear they'll be out of power for a very long time -at least until the illegals start voting.

Nancy's feigned concern over Donald Trump's safety during the State of the Union is an obvious red herring. Come on, now. We all know she's not concerned about Trump's safety. I can name you a dozen people off the top of my head who would be delighted if Trump took a bullet to the head. Pelosi's concern is merely political. The use of strategy and intrigue in the pursuit of power and control.

I gotta say I enjoyed watching Trump checkmate her just prior to Pelosi and a bunch of fellow parasites embarking on a seven day trip to Europe which would have cost the taxpayers who-knows-how-many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Thirty minutes prior to departure, Trump pulled the plug on their use of military transports and personnel that those congressional slugs were counting on to take them on their European vacation. But Trump ruined it by reminding Nancy that the government was shut down and that she should know there wasn't money available for junkets. It's not as if Nancy Pelosi is a diplomat, after all. She's only a member of the House of Representatives, and there's nothing she could accomplish by meeting with foreign dignitaries. That's not her job. The whole thing was a snow job, an excuse to get out of town for yet another taxpayer paid vacation.

Trump also invited Nancy for the umpteenth time to come meet with him and hammer out a plan to end the government shutdown. Instead she was planning her escape from the winter cold of Washington D.C. The best thing about this is that the public wasn't supposed to know about this boondoggle and they got caught because Trump made sure the letter he wrote to Nancy hit all the papers. Pelosi and her cronies understandably didn't want the taxpayers knowing their servants were off on a fully paid vacation at the people's expense.

Busted, y'all.

I swear this woman should have learned by now that you can't corner a guy who has been winning at the game of chicken long before he ever ran for president. This one's not like the others, Lydia. This is Walter White. The one who knocks. He will always be three steps ahead of you.

Here's What I Find Funny
Since my last post, I've been asked by a couple of friends to cite some of my favorite sources for humorous political commentary, so this seems like a good place to share some of them.

There is such a thing as an intelligent liberal
I'll start with one I included last time; not exactly humorous, but chock full of important information in seven short minutes. Let me preface this by saying I have many friends who identify as liberals, and I find them to be intelligent and well reasoned. It may interest some to know that one of my favorite liberals in the public sphere was the late atheist Christopher Hitchens. Naturally we had our differences, but the man knew how to make a cogent argument. When he wasn't opposing religious fatith, he could be spot on in recognizing folly. If all liberals were as reasonable and rational as Christopher Hitchens, liberalism would be on the rise instead of where it is now, sinking into an abyss of incoherent leftist babble.

With that in mind, below is Dennis Prager explaining the difference between leftists and liberals:

I'll admit that one was more informative than funny as promised, but from here on out I'll try to feature videos and podcasters that bring the commentary with a smile.

Greg Gutfeld can hardly keep it together with his description of how Nancy Pelosi's threat to cancel Trump's SOTU address backfired big time. Jesse Watters describes the situation perfectly  "Nancy is petty, but Trump is pettier. Nancy went low, but Trump went even lower." Nine minutes of giggles and giddiness:

You're sure to enjoy this middle-class black woman who has never experienced want, but who is convinced White Privilege is actually a thing. Watch how she tries to "prove" her claim and ends up proving the opposite. 29 minutes of enjoying someone paint herself into a corner she can't get out of.

The Amazing Lucas giddy over watching a leftist squirm after making a fool of herself. 8.5 minutes.

Same story, different podcaster. I couldn't resist; his joy is so infectious. 5 minutes:

There's nothing funny about this final piece, but I consider it essential viewing. This is the way Leftist do-gooders in Ocasio-Cortez's own backyard have succeeded in crushing the working poor.

I could go on, but that's probably way more than anyone has time for.

I mentioned earlier F. A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. There are two final things I wanted to share. First, at least for the time being you can get a kindle copy of The Essential  Hayek absolutely free by clicking here.  It should contain a decent summary of The Road to Serfdom as well as Hayek's other works.  You can't beat that, since the physical copy is still listed at fifty bucks.  Also, there is an update of sorts to The Road To Serfdom by a different author titled "The Right's Road To Serfdom: The Danger of Conservatism Unbound: From Hayek to Trump."  Here's a short excerpt from the description:
The conservatism that drives the American Right today prizes strong, authoritarian leaders who promise get-tough plans to vanquish problems such as immigration, terrorism, and middle-class stagnation. This focus on temperament rather than on individual liberty, pluralism, and free expression runs counter to the political philosophy of freedom that many conservatives believe they espouse.
He may be on to something. Trump might be the right guy for now, but perhaps next time we can get a conservative/libertarian who's more intellectual; more calm and thoughtful. Too bad the country rejected Ron Paul when they had the chance, but part of me says that was America's last chance and they blew it.

Final thoughts: I don't think it pays to be overly worked up about the fate of the world as long as you're keeping an eye on things. Don't get too caught up in the drama, though; leave the outrage to those for whom outrage is their daily bread. They are the ones who are trying to impose their will on the rest of mankind through force. They are the ones who want to hurt your neighbors and take their stuff. So why not make fun of them?  Who is more deserving of ridicule than those who desire to get profit and gain through deception and coercion?

We are certainly living in interesting times. Enjoy the show. Expose the calumny. Have a few laughs along the way.

That's about all.

Peace, out. 

That's six things, actually.
Originally posted January 20th, 2019

So that's it. I actually chopped off quite a bit of this post near the end, partly because some of the links to videos no longer worked, partly because the information in those videos was dated, and partly because the post was getting too dang long (as usual). If you want to see the original in its fullness with all the comments, you can click HERE. Otherwise I recommend two other earlier posts, both concerned with discussing how modern Mormons could do better at keeping their politics more in line with their religion:

Mormons Should Stop Identifying As Republicans

What This Country Needs Is More Liberals  (Trust me, it's not what you think.)

All this is prefatory to my next blog post, which I expect will be a bit more intense.  Stay tuned.