America the Great

The history of the United States of America has it share of unsightly stains. I categorize a "stain" on our history as things which run counter to the ideals and principles espoused in The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Bill of Rights.

The most enduring and noteworthy stains have been slavery, racism, and elitism, which both run directly counter to the foundational principle that "all men are created equal." An emerging stain is the intolerant, and anti-democratic movements of 'social justice', critical race theory (CRT), and 'wokeness.'

In spite of very real stains, the United States of America is unequaled in the history of the world for enabling the political liberty and economic prosperity of people all over the world.

Part 1 - Slavery

In fairness to the Founding Fathers, many of them recognized the hypocrisy of their egalitarian principles and the institution of slavery. They made some concessions in their principles to keep the states united as one nation. At the same time, they took steps to minimize the political leverage that might accrue to slave owners by discounting the value of their human chattel with regards to apportioning legislative seats. 

I believe the Founding Fathers also trusted that, over time, the principle of 'forming a more perfect union' would continue to erode slavery until it could be abolished entirely. Which is exactly what happened. 

The Three-Fifths Compromise

The so-called three-fifths compromise, alluded to above, is actually a racist statement, but it may surprise some to realize that it isn't racist towards blacks. It is racist toward Native Americans (Indians):

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons

Note that the words 'slave' and 'black' are not used anywhere is the Constitution. Rather the terms used are "free Persons," persons "bound to service for a term of years" (i.e., indentured servants), and "all other Persons." Only the "Indians" (all Native Americans) who were undeniably free persons, were called out and excluded by race from either category.

As a matter of Constitutional law, slavery was not a racial matter. Slavery was a legal status.

US Civil War Ended Slavery

The US Civil War was the slave owners' last ditch effort to preserve the institution of slavery which was, then, cornerstone to their economic livelihood. They had no way to know that less than thirty years after the Civil War (about 1894), Eli Whitney would invent the cotton gin, which would effectively eliminate a significant reliance on manual labor for the production of cotton.

Regardless of arguments over states' rights versus slavery as the proximate cause of the Civil War, it is incontrovertible that the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution is directly linked to the Civil War. It was passed in January of 1865 and ratified in December of that same year. The amendment ensured that the debate over the legality of slavery would be ended when the Union prevailed over the Confederate States of America. The amendment converted the Emancipation Proclamation, a potentially temporary executive order using the wartime powers of President Abraham Lincoln, into the overarching law for all states in the United States of America.

Separating Racism and Slavery

The 13th Amendment does not address racism, at all. It further perfects the Union by eliminating slavery. It also eliminates the portion of the US Constitution which discounted the voting power of slaves, because it eliminated the legal status of slavery.

AMENDMENT XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Source: National Archives 

Slavery is a legal status, not a racial one. 

There is ample evidence in the historical record to support this assertion. If we accept the terms 'black' and 'white' as racial identifiers, then the fact that blacks in America owned slaves substantially destroys the argument that slavery is a racial issue. Further, the historical evidence supporting the involuntary servitude (i.e., slavery) of Irish prisoners brought to the American colonies by the English destroys the remaining foundation of any argument that slavery in the Americas was purely a racist institution.

Part 2 Racism

Racism Defined

Racism has existed from time-immemorial. It is based on prejudice.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines racism as:

• Belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
• Behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice
• Systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
• A political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles

Prejudice

Webster defines prejudice as: 

• injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights
• preconceived judgment or opinion
• an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
• an instance of such judgment or opinion
• an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

Notice that prejudice is characterized by being based on lack of knowledge and irrationality.

Prejudice and racism are nothing new. Throughout history, nearly every distinct tribe, people, and nation have fostered prejudice against others.  

Among the Native American tribes of the USA most nations referred to themselves as some variant of "the human beings." This implied that other nations were less than human.

The peoples of the USA believed they had a "manifest destiny" to conquer and control all of North America (and at times beyond those limits).

Romans considered themselves superior to the barbarian nations on their borders.

Germans are better than the French. The French are better than the Germans.

Before World War II, the racial prejudice of the Japanese led them declare themselves the "master race" and justify their conquest of Korea, China, and everywhere else as a logical outcome of their racial superiority and natural right to rule.

Nearly everyone is aware of the Aryan master race theory promoted by Adolf Hitler as the rationalization for the subjugation of all "inferior" races and even the extermination of specific races. His delusion led to the death of more than six million Jews as well as contributing to the deaths of 75 to 80 million soldiers and civilians in World War II.

Racial Slavery Justified

Regardless of the legal nicety distinguishing the issues of slavery and racism, it is irrefutable that, in the years leading up to the Civil War, most slaves in the United States of America were of African descent. The ethnic characteristics of the Africans were often very different than the European ethnic characteristics of those in power. This facilitated the mental gymnastics of Bible-toting slave owners to justify their enslavement, even in the face of Christian mores condemning slavery.

They reasoned that the ethnic differences between Africans and Europeans were outward manifestations of fundamental differences in the intellectual and spiritual capacities of Africans and Europeans.

This ethnicity-driven attitude toward slavery contrasts sharply with the historical justification of slavery as the merciful fate of the weak at the hands of the strong. Throughout human history, those who survived the violent conquest of their people were enslaved.

The Root of Raced-Based Slavery

Slave owners in the USA did not have the pretext of conquest to provide any moral justification for slavery, so they had to invent a moral pretext. If Africans were inherently inferior to Europeans, then enslaving Africans was an act of service, lifting them above their brute existence and into the lowest rungs of civilization. 

At best, this was a specious argument. At worst it was simply a lie and blatant rationalization to quell a guilty conscience. The suppression of teaching slaves to read and write was a necessary measure to prevent the refutation of this ethnic rationalization of slavery. Blacks who could read, write, and reason as well as any European would put the lie to the argument that they were inherently inhuman brutes, barely better than savage beasts, or other domesticated livestock.

To support slavery in the USA, the ethnic differences of Africans and Europeans had to be portrayed as more than ethnic variations. Instead the Africans had to be transformed into a species that was similar to humans, but something slightly less. They had to be portrayed as a separate race of humans-like creatures with capabilities and potentials distinctly different, and less than European humans.

Part 3 - Modern Stains

Critical Race Theory (CRT)

CRT is nothing more or less than racism. Its foundational concept is that individual and collective behavior is predestined based on skin color. But, CRT is not color-blind. It is specifically and particularly anti-white.

Under the notions of CRT, white people are evil oppressors and black people are oppressed victims.

A key premise is that any institution (such as the government of the United States of America) which has been created and supported by white people is inherently designed to promote white-supremacy. Further, such institutions are irredeemably corrupted by this racist purpose and cannot be corrected. Instead, they must be dismantled and replaced by institutions built by black people. The assumption inherent in the is either that black people will inherently create untainted institutions, or that building institutions which are anti-white is definitively "good" because white people are defined as "evil."

It doesn't take a revelation from God to see that such vituperative views will inevitably lead to genocidal violence. Violent, genocide is the logical end of advocacy of any philosophy based on irrational hatred of others because of their inherent traits.

Racial violence deriving from CRT will come from any or all of three sources:

1. As a natural extension of CRT as its advocates embrace their own version of Hitler's "Final Solution" and seek to exterminate whites.
2. White supremacists winning adherents and supporters to aggressively "protect" whites from  increasingly threatening and militant CRT supporters.
3. Ordinary people who reject racism, embrace Constitutional principles, and band together to defend themselves against militant CRT black supremacists and militant white supremacists.

When that happens, it will be another stain on the history of the USA.

Wokeness

While the dictionary definition of wokeness sounds like a good thing, its practice is pretty vile. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines wokeness as:

Aa state of being aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality

Being aware of social problems such as racism and inequality is a good thing. If we are unaware of problems, we are nearly incapable of resolving them. Unfortunately, in practice, wokeness is particularly centered in the notion of intersectionality. 

The way in which different types of discrimination (= unfair treatment because of a person's sex, race, etc.) are connected to and affect each other

Intersectionality, in practice, is a game of one-upmanship where each person tries to show how much more (potentially) they are oppressed than others because of their unique behaviors or characteristics. The underlying motive is to secure preferential treatment for some intersections more than for others. The reasoning is that the greater preference is required to offset the greater degree of oppression or discrimination. The reality is that practitioners of intersectionality want to derive financial benefits based wholly on their characteristics (inherent or otherwise) without any effort or value-add to society. The narcissistic foundation of intersectionality is that society should pay for the enrichment is supposedly receives from the presence of such intersections.

The Irony of Wokeness

The consummate irony of intersectionality is that when you carry it to its logical end point, you inevitably arrive at a doctrine which determines that the individual, is the ultimate expression of intersectionality and thus merits the greatest degree of societal protection and support. 

Individual worth and protection, regardless of other characteristics, is the cornerstone of the principles of Constitutional law and liberty. That is why the Constitution begins with the words, "We the People..." 

Social Justice

The Cambridge Dictionary defines social justice as:

"The idea that all people should have the same rights and opportunities and that a country's wealth and resources should benefit everyone in that country"

Like wokeness, this is another movement that sounds right in its definition, but is totally wrong in its execution.

Let's unpack this definition to find out where it goes wrong.

 "all people should have the same rights"

That statement is totally in agreement with the founding principles of the USA. 

 "all people should have the same ... opportunities"

Life Isn't Fair

Here, we begin to skate on thin ice. Opportunities are often closely linked with circumstances and personal characteristics. Suggesting that everyone should be given the same opportunities is based on the false assumption that life is fair and evenhanded in the distribution of our circumstances and characteristics. 

Some of us have greater intellectual capacity than others. The person with an IQ of 60 is unlikely to have the opportunity to attend MIT because that low IQ indicates the inability of that person to succeed at the level of intellectual endeavors needed to matriculate and succeed in studies at MIT.

Although there is not equivalent of and IQ for artistic talent, someone with my mediocre level of artistic skill is not going to benefit from, and hence not receive, an opportunity to attend Julliard. My abilities simply aren't sufficient to qualify me for attendance. 

Legislating such "fairness" of opportunities without regard to abilities will have the end result of destroying excellence, and all the benefits that come from excellence. Excellent inventions such as smart phones, excellent art such as a Warhol (even mediocre art such as a Bob Rossi), and many other marvelous and beautiful enhancements to our lives will cease to occur.

Outcomes

"a country's wealth and resources should benefit everyone in that country"

This component of social justice is focused on individual outcomes. Everyone, means every individual. The premise here is that we should all get the same outcomes. The assumption is that these outcomes are universally good, hence the word "benefit."

The bitter reality is that the only way you can ensure that everyone gets the same benefit is by denying all but the most rudimentary benefits to everyone. Worse, such enforced egalitarian poverty is at odds with basic human nature and thus is doomed to failure. Enforced poverty will inevitably lead to corruption as people seeks ways to manipulate the system to provide themselves with what levels of comfort they want (regardless of what they may, or may not, deserve).

Capitalism

Worst of all, this phrase is totally anti-capitalist. 

The beating heart of capitalism is sustained by two things:

1. the free and uncoerced exchange of goods and services
2. the natural principle of supply and demand

While governments and individuals may strive, or succeed, to exert coercion in exchanges, the natural principles of supply and demand cannot be subverted. They are inexorable.

Scarcity and utility are the natural drivers of value. People are willing to exchange more goods and services for those goods and services which are more scarce or of greater utility. They unwilling to exchange goods and services which are scarce or very useful and will do so only if the exchange is of equal or greater value to them.

Because of this natural principle, those who provide the most scarce or most useful goods and services will inevitably accrue a greater abundance of other goods and services than others.

Socialism

This is true even (or especially) in the halls of socialist governments, where valuable information or access is clandestinely and routinely traded for such goods and services as the holder of information or access desires. Political and economic power are commodities which are scarce and very useful. Thus, such egalitarian utopias almost immediately upon inception descend into corruption as illegal exchanges become the only means whereby anyone can rise above the enforced poverty dictated by the state.

Even if equality of outcomes were possible, it would be undesirable. The behavior of slaves is especially instructive in this point.

Social Justice is Economic Slavery

All slaves enjoy an equality of outcome from their labors. From their masters they get food, clothing, and shelter. The rewards do not increase in proportion to the success of the master's enterprise. As a result, when the master is not overseeing their work, slaves do only the minimal amount of work they are not forced to do.

No one will exert themselves to excellent inventions, art, innovations, or anything else, unless it will directly increase the rewards they receive for their efforts. You may argue that this should not be how people behave. However, you can just as effectively argue that the sun should rise in the West as many days as it rises in the East, and have just as much success at changing things.

Equality of Outcomes Equals Destitution

Equality of outcomes is both unattainable and undesirable. Equality of outcomes destroys initiative, innovation, excellence, and abundance. It leads only to universal poverty and destitution.

Part 4 - The Greatness of America

As I mentioned at the start of this essay, the United States of America is unequaled in the history of the world for enabling the political liberty and economic prosperity of people all over the world.

The USA is the first nation in the history of the world which was founded on the principles of individual liberty. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is the first government expressly designed to protect the rights of the people and preserve them from oppression by the state.

The success of the American Revolution, and its founding principles, led directly to democratic revolutions all over the world, beginning first with France. It is arguable that if the American Revolution had failed, most of what we currently know as "the free world" would still be governed by powerful monarchies. Instead, they are republics, governed by leaders who are elected by the people to serve for a time while representing the best interests of the people. 

The USA has fought and won two world wars to defend the political liberty of people in other countries. Unlike conquering powers throughout history, the USA did not require political or economic subservience or servitude of its defeated foes. Rather, it expended its treasure to rebuild its former foes and encouraged their self-determination.

In the wake of the successful imperial efforts of the USA (a stain in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) instead of colonizing and retaining the servitude of countries such as the Philippines, Cuba, Mexico, and most of the Pacific Islands, in the twentieth century the USA relinquished control of these countries to self-governance.

Through most of the twentieth century and now in the twenty-first century, the USA consistently eschews colonialism and imperialism. Preferring instead to encourage self-governance, the rule of law, and universal recognition and protection of the inalienable rights of humanity.

The Decline of America

Nation Building

Sadly, our national good intentions have been abused as politicians have been seduced into "nation building."  We try to impose our economic and political values and structures of governance on other nations which have not reached a point of maturity where they have a majority of people who desire these. 

Most recently we see this failure in Afghanistan. Instead of using our military might to teach the Taliban that it is not in their best interests to support those who attack the people of the USA, we took over their country for a time. While there, we tried to encourage democratic government. We failed because democracy is never something that can be imposed upon a people. They must win it for themselves. True, they may need outside help, but it is worth noting that no French armies took the field with American revolutionaries against the British. The greatest share of bleeding for freedom was done by Americans.

Previously, we saw this same lesson explained to us in Vietnam. Before that, it was taught to us in the jungles of Central America during the so-called wars of the Banana republics. In all those cases, after we removed our military, the governments of those countries collapsed and re-emerged in forms that the people of that country were willing to support.

Moral Decadence

At the same time as we are seeking to build other nations, our national public persona has come to be widely portrayed by media and popular culture as dissolute, licentious, and pleasure seeking. Our movies, societal trends, and many of our laws seem to disregard the importance of the nuclear family, religion, and the sanctity of life. 

All these destructive societal trends were manifested preceding the destruction of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. They are clearly critical performance indicators for the survival of any nation. Many of our current trends, are repugnant to wholesome people of all nations. It isn't hard to understand how Muslim extremists can gain credibility with more mainstream people by calling the USA "the Great Satan." Our society is becoming increasingly devilish and degenerate.

Conclusions

We have many old, and some new, stains on our history. Slavery, racism, CRT, wokeness, social justice, and even some imperialism are all stains on our history. Many of our old stains have been removed. Some persist and are made worse by new stains. Although the old stains of slavery and imperialism have been vanquished, racism persists and is being exacerbated by things like CRT and wokeness. Before the rise of CRT, racism in the USA was on the wane and nearly extinct.

 

Despite these stains on its robes, the USA is still the best place on earth to live. We enjoy a level of economic abundance, mobility, and liberty which is the envy of the world. Our political freedom (though rapidly eroding) is still substantially greater than anywhere else. The USA is still a shining city on a hill and a beacon of freedom. Those who say otherwise are either ignorant of the facts, or jealous and conniving for our downfall.

We will solve our social ills by ensuring that the law applies equally to everyone, without any regard to their immutable characteristics, or their choice of religion.

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM).

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

(c) Copyright 2023 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God

Man Didn't Make God

Recently I was relaxing and enjoying watching a relatively successful and very well-done science fiction series about people and true artificially intelligent robots.  One of the main characters asserted that man created Heaven and Hell, God and the Devil to keep everyone else in line.  Holding over their heads the notion that their disobedience could result in an eternal punishment.

This atheist's article of faith is what Karl Marx alluded to when he said that religion is the opiate of the masses.

While it is true that throughout history many people have cynically used religion as a tool to bolster their power over others, the fundamental notion that man invented God is a theory without a single shred of evidence to support it it actually flies in the face of countless evidences which contradict this prideful and hopeless premise.

The fact that those who reject God reject the evidences and witnesses of God does not obliterate those witnesses, rather it shows the lack of rationality of those who reject those witnesses.

Those who say that no one has returned from death to tell us what is on the other side are liars or ignorant of the facts.  I am not talking here about ghosts and phantasms.  I am speaking of the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was publicly put to death and three days later ate food and conversed with people who had seen him die and laid his body in the grave.

But that is not the only person to pass the portal of death and return.  The New Testament (Matthew 27:52, 53) notes that after the resurrection of Jesus:

 "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

Note the word "many" which is repeated.  Many arose from the dead and appeared to many people.  So, aside from those who witnessed the resurrection of Jesus many others witnessed the resurrection of many who they knew to have died.

Further, the appearance of Jesus was not limited to just one instance or a few people.  He appeared many times after his crucifixion and at one point (1 Corinthians 15:6) appeared to more than 500 people in one meeting.

In The Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 11) the resurrected Jesus appears, shortly after his death and resurrection, to people gathered in the Americas.  Upwards of 2,000 people were present.

In more recent times we have several people who have testified that they have had dealings with people who were long dead and appeared as resurrected beings.  These include John the Baptist, Peter, James and John the Apostles of Jesus, Moroni, a prophet among God's people in ancient America, Moses, Elias, Elijah, and others.  At the apex of these appearances we have the resurrected Jesus having appeared more than once since 1820.

No rational person could not consider the testimony of so many first-hand witnesses and dismiss them based solely on the power of their own prejudices. 

Further, those who purport, against the evidence, that the concept of God evolved over time, the records show that God revealed himself to Adam, our first father, and again to Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and others.  When they saw God they understood, because He told them, that He is our parent. They could see Him and discern that He and we are of the same species, so we are created in His image.

God put Man on this Earth and did not leave him ignorant of our relationship to Him or His expectations of us.  It is Man who has attempted to reinvent God to be something more of their liking.  Finally coming to the point of a devolution of thought which purports that we created God in our own image and for wholly our own purposes.  Which is to say, there is no god, only Man.

I will concede that good and evil exist independent of God and Satan.  By God's command and design every human being (Man) is an agent unto ourselves and able to choose and act.  Sometimes we choose to do good, sometimes evil. Sometimes we know what we are doing and other times the good or evil that comes from our choices is unintended.

God and Satan each tempt us.  God tempts us to choose to do good.  Satan tempts us to choose to do evil.  When we do either, it is our choice, not the will of God or Satan forcing us to act one way or another.  So, the evil in the world which so many ascribe to the acts of religionists are not the evil acts of God, nor are they the evil acts of Satan.  They are the evil acts of people who followed inclinations of their own.  Inclinations which we are free to indulge in a world where we live with a significant degree of uncertainty regarding the existence of God and Satan, Heaven, and Hell.

It may seem like the safest course is to try to choose the middle ground between these two extremes.  Many who reject God and Satan and religion in general think they are choosing a middle way.  They end up choosing themselves.  They worship themselves and others like them. They put people as their deities and worship at the temples of human government and human institutions.  

Unfortunately, rejecting God is not a middle ground.  Putting yourself, or another human, in the place of God is not a middle ground.  It is opposing God.  It has the net effect of tempting people to reject God.  In this rejection, the temptations of Satan are heeded.  

Satan doesn't need us to worship him to achieve his ends.  He only needs us to reject God.

Notice, I didn't say Satan wins.  Satan doesn't win in any scenario.  He lost when he opposed God before Adam ever walked this Earth.  He and his followers were cast out and lost their opportunities to grow more like God.  They lost the opportunity to fulfill their genetic potential as children of God.

Because of that loss Satan and his hosts are bitter.  They know that they cannot win.  What they want is for you and I to make the same choices they did and cast aside our divine potential.  

God will win.  Those who follow God will win because of His victory and their faith.  

Satan will lose.  Those who reject God will lose, whether or not they embrace Satan.  Inasmuch as they think they are smarter than God they become like Satan and embrace his destiny.

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM).

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as God

Creators and Creations, a complicated relationship

Image (c) SergeyNiven and Depositphotos.com

                                  This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

Tom Sheppard

9/4/2020

Creators and Creations, it's complicated

A few years ago, I wrote and published a science fiction trilogy (The Masterless Sword).  The foundational premise of this trilogy is that scientists created new biological creatures to be used in warfare in place of ordinary human beings.

They started with the raw material of humanity, and then genetically engineered soldiers for special purposes.

When these new species of warriors had been around for a while, they differentiate between ordinary human beings and the scientists who created them—their creators.

Some of these creatures view their creators with reverence, while others blame them for all of the bad things in their lives.

Still others are utterly indifferent to their creators, and to the wishes of those they were originally built to protect and serve.

The creators, for their part, do not seek reverence from their creations.  Rather, they do what they can to enable them to have the opportunity to be as happy and fulfilled as they can be.

After a global cataclysm occurs, the hold that humanity has over these creations is broken, and they are free to act according to their own desires and inclinations.  With the passage of time and the diminution of science, the true origins of the created races and the true nature of their creators becomes lost and shrouded in fantasy and fiction.  This further changes the views of the created relative to the creators.

As I wrote these books, these conflicting and changing views about the creators and their creations arose naturally from the characters and their circumstances.  The reason they arose in my books is because human nature has remained essentially unchanged throughout the millennia of written human history.

People in our “enlightened” world today are driven by the same urges, fears, and aspirations that have driven our ancestors throughout history.

Lust for Power

Some people just want to be left alone to survive by providing for their own needs and those of their loved ones without interference from others.  They are content to be what they are and are not looking to grow into something beyond what they are today.  These people are not interested or concerned about being better or worse than anyone else.

Others are constantly seeking growth.  They are never content for very long with their triumphs.  Instead, they are constantly seeking ways to expand the limits of their abilities and knowledge.  These people are always looking to be better than they were the day before.

Some people are not content unless they can command others to do their bidding.  Some of these people want this power so that they can live off the labors of others, while a few want this power over others simply for its own sake.  It fills them with a feeling of superiority.  These people feel like they are somehow better than others because they have power and authority over others.  In one regard, they can be summed up in the phrase, “If you were smarter/better than me, I would be working for you instead of the other way around.”  These powermongers are directly responsible for most of the ills that have afflicted humanity throughout history.

These powermongers wrap their lust for power in the mantle of altruism.  They want power so that they can compel us to do (and think) what (they believe) will make us happy and healthy.  In other words, because they say they want what is best for us, we should do as they say.

Others of these powermongers know that they want power for its own sake.  They will use or discard altruistic arguments at will according to what the need of the moment is to secure or increase their power base.

The relationship between creator and created is never as simple as most make it out to be.  This is as true in fiction as in reality.  Unless the creator reveals the relationship openly and frankly—as God has—the created cannot ever possess sufficient capacity to perceive the relationship and the purpose of their existence on their own.

Fortunately for us, God has been working hard for millennia to give us clear, frank, and unequivocal information about our relationship to him and our purpose.

Unfortunately, His clear purposes and directions don’t lend themselves to the amassing of power in the hands of ambitious people, so these ambitious people have been easily co-opted by the Grand Conspirator to take measures to obfuscate and hide information which helps us to correctly understand this critical relationship, our purposes, and the behaviors that will inevitably result in our greatest happiness.

Food for thought!

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/ 
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard 

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome. Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as GodClick on the image below to buy your copy today

Godvernment is available in both paperback and ebook format through Amazon.

The Creation of Superman

                                                                                                 Image (c) GazMax and Depositphotos.com
    

                                   This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

Tom Sheppard

9/4/2020

The Mutant Game

In recent years, movies and stories about humans evolving into something more have become very popular.  The X-Men movies, the TV series The Tomorrow People, and even the popular stories of Harry Potter and the Twilight series are all driven by the notion that even ordinary-seeming people may actually have latent or undiscovered supernatural abilities.  In some storylines, the change from ordinary humans to super-humans is driven by science.  In others, the change appears to be a random genetic change.

Regardless of the cause, in each story, all or part of the tension in the storyline is the conflict caused by ushering in what is effectively a new species, Homo Superioris, to replace Homo sapiens.

It seems that a very wide swath of humanity wants to believe that it can individually and collectively become much more than it appears to be today.

“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest, most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare.”

CS Lewis, The Weight of Glory

Interestingly, Lewis, a friend of J.R.R. Tolkien (author of The Lord of the Rings), began his ascent to renown as an ardent atheist, intent on proving the belief in the God of Jesus Christ to be utter nonsense.  The result of his focusing all the powers of his brilliant mind on this issue was that he became utterly convinced of the reality of God and Christ.  His conclusions about the reality of what lurks beneath our skins arose as a result of his studies of God and Christ.

It would seem that CS Lewis also believed that someday, Homo Superioris would arise.  However, his book The Abolition of Man makes clear that the emergence of this superior creature can never come as a result of the genius of humankind, regardless of how many resources and the power of intellects which are turned to this endeavor.

Lewis also revealed the dark side of the quest of science (or politics) to create a superior human being, “the power of Man to make himself what he pleases means—as we have seen—the power of some men to make other men what they please.”

It is this dark place where “some men make other men what they please” this will inevitably result in people turning themselves into amoral monsters as they try to become gods, creators of the new humanity.  Such a quest, surely, they will reason, justifies any act—any betrayal of the norms of society.  Once again, they will be deluded by the notion that they can achieve some noble and good end through base and ignoble means.

Homo sapiens will only convert into Homo Superioris by following the teachings of the Homo Superiori who have preceded them down this path to glory.  I here have referred to them as Homo Superiori, but we know them more commonly as God the Father, and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

Do you reject out of hand my conclusion?  Pause and give it more thought and study.  What do the many books that comprise the Holy Bible tell us about Christ and His Father?

Jesus said that he only did what he had seen the Father do before him.  What did Jesus do?

• He changed the molecular structure of water into wine.
• He walked on water and enabled Peter to do the same.
• He raised the dead (more than one).
• He healed the lame and the sick.
• He foretold the future and revealed the past.
• He came back from the grave as a living creature, consuming food and drink with His bewildered disciples.
• He entered a locked room and appeared in the midst of its occupants, giving them quite a fright in the process.
• He disappeared from before the very eyes of two of his disciples.

Don’t all of those things sound like something you might see in a Harry Potter, X-Men, or other super-human-themed movie?

His message from start to finish was simply this: “Be like me.  I am like our Father in Heaven.”  If He wasn’t inviting us to transform ourselves into Homo Superioris, then someone else was putting words in His mouth.

What is more, He told us what we had to do to become like Him and the Father.  We have to make morally correct choices, regardless of our circumstances.

Again, in contrast to God’s approach, which is to change the inner man and he will change his circumstances, the human worshippers believe you have to change a person’s circumstances to enable the change of the inner person.  Nothing could be more easily disproved.

Consider the story of Colin Powell, who rose from a ghetto to become the most powerful military leader in the free world, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of the U.S.  Then consider his brother, who, raised in the same circumstances, became an addict, a drug dealer, and a welfare recipient.

For very personal insight, look at the life of author and businesswoman Star Parker, a self-described “welfare crack ho.” She was a product of poverty and the government’s “war on poverty,” until she discovered God.  As she drew closer to God, she became a different woman on the inside and began to make very dramatic changes on the outside.

She changed the course of her life from one of self-destruction and social parasitism to become an entrepreneur, providing first for herself and her family, and then creating jobs for others, helping them to help themselves to change their circumstances.

If you enjoyed this post, you might also enjoy my related article Mutants and Superheroes.

Food for thought!

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/ 
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard 

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome. Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as GodClick on the image below to buy your copy today

Godvernment is available in both paperback and ebook format through Amazon.

Socialism is Anti-Christian

Detail from Image (c) Igor Golovniov and Depositphotos.com

                              This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

This article is related directly to another post titled: Socialism is Not the United Order

Tom Sheppard

9/4/2020

Christian Socialist is an Oxymoron

Some of you may not know what the word oxymoron means, so let me start with that.

Dictionary.com gives this definition of an oxymoron:

A figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”

I will also offer my own definition of Christian here:

A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah, the Only Begotten Son of God after the flesh, and who is attempting to follow the teachings of Christ as they are found in the scriptures.

Dictionary.com, when using Christian as a noun (as I am here), says that a Christian is:

A person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. A person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ

When most of us think of the term Christian, we think of someone who cares about the plight of their fellowman.  The story of The Good Samaritan comes quickly to mind. Many people get so immersed in the notion that all Christianity is about doing good to others.  Because of that, they assume that anything that says it is doing good to others is automatically aligned with Christian principles and that anyone who purports to be a "good Christian" will be on board.

Socialism presents a wonderful face of being about helping the downtrodden.  Because of that, many Christians think Socialism is aligned with Christian ideals.  The truth is that Socialism is actually at a polar opposite position of goodness from Christianity.

You don't think so?  Read on, if you dare.  Facts, as they say, are stubborn things.  The facts do not at all support the notion of the goodness of Socialism, in any way. 

We should define socialism.  Again, Dictionary.com is helpful:

1.       a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole

2.       procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3.       (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

George Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian Socialist, said that: 

"Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population."

(George Bernard Shaw as cited in Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vol. 20, p. 895.)

        In short, socialism drives toward the ultimate end of private ownership of anything and everything.  In practice, it is characterized by using the coercive powers of government to take resources from those who are producing them and redistribute those resources to those who merely consume them.  This coercive redistribution is called taxes.  It is coercive because, if you don't pay your taxes, the government can take your money, your business, your home, and even your freedom.

Don't get me wrong—this isn't an anti-taxation rant, nor am I advocating that we shouldn’t pay our taxes.  I am simply making the point unmistakably clear that taxation is not a voluntary program.  It is the use of force, or threat of force to take what one person owns and give it to someone else.  Interestingly, that coincides with the definition of robbery:

"The felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person or in his or her immediate presence, against his or her will, by violence or intimidation."

The only difference between taxation and robbery is that taxation is the legalized "taking of the property of another ... by violence or intimidation."  You don't think so?  What do you feel when you open your mail and find out that the IRS is auditing you?  I am guessing you feel some fear and intimidation.

Now that we understand the meaning of the words in my title, we can fully understand what I mean to say by stating that "Christian Socialist Is an Oxymoron."  I am saying that you cannot genuinely and totally believe in Jesus Christ AND try to follow his teachings AND embrace the political and economic tenets of socialism.

Please note, I am being very exact in my words here.  When I say you "totally believe in Jesus Christ," it means that you don't pick and choose what to believe from among the things he teaches.  You either believe everything he said, or you believe none of it, because either he was the son of God, or he was a liar.

I believe totally in Jesus Christ, AND I do my best to follow his teachings.  I am nowhere near perfect in this effort, as those closest to me can attest, but I am trying.

I know that there are many folks who will disagree with my bold statement that socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable foes, but it is true.

First, let me give you some of the ammunition that those who disagree will use.  Then, I will show you how they are really firing blanks.

The New Testament and Socialism

In the New Testament, the second chapter of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles appears to describe how the adherents of early Christianity were embracing a form of socialism.

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."

Acts 2:44,45

And again in Chapter 4, we read:

"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Acts 4:32-35

And from the Book of Mormon, we get this about the Christians who were living in ancient America.  After the resurrected Jesus appeared to them, let them feel the wounds in his hands and feet, and taught them, it appears that they embraced socialism:

"And they taught, and did minister one to another; and they had all things common among them, every man dealing justly, one with another.

And it came to pass that they did do all things even as Jesus had commanded them."

3 Nephi 26:19,20

And this:

"And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.

And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift."

4 Nephi 1:2,3

      In our own times, sometime in 1838 (note that the Communist Manifesto was written in 1848), Joseph Smith, Jr., the first president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, introduced to the Saints something called "The United Order."

For brevity, I will summarize here what happened in The United Order.  Members of the church who desired to enter this order handed over all their worldly goods to their bishop (their religious leader).  The bishop then put these into a “storehouse” to be used by the Saints.  Then, the bishop gave to each member in the order from the storehouse according to his or her needs and abilities.  To be clear, he deeded these things back to them for their use.  Then, they were expected to pay a tithe (10 percent) on the gains they made from what he deeded to them.

According to LDS teachings, this United Order is what was being referred to in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles.  I accept that, and will address this as fact.  I will, from this point forward, refer to the United Order as what Christians practiced in this context.

From all of this, it appears that all devout Christians should be signing away their worldly goods to their church and then living off of what the church gives back to them.  Proponents of socialism use these evidences to support their stance that Christ was saying we should give up private ownership and give to the poor so that we will have "no poor among [us]."

Before we buy in to this view, let's look a little deeper at the differences between socialism and the United Order.  Let's start by looking at what happened to one specific man and his wife when they sought to join the United Order while keeping back some of their property for their own discretionary use.

Acts Chapter 5 tells us the cautionary story of Ananias and his wife Saphira. 

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?  Whiles it remained, was it not thine own?  And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?  Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart?  Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much?  And she said, Yea, for so much.

Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?  Behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

Acts Chapter 5:1-10

The key point I want to make from this is not about how dangerous it is to lie to God.  Rather, I want to emphasize what Peter said, "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own?  And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?"  The rights of this couple to have private property were not looked down on by Peter; they were affirmed by him, and, their entry into the United Order was voluntary.  No one was being forced to sell their goods and join the Order. 

So, the first essential difference between Christianity and socialism is that Christianity is entirely voluntary.  And, within the broad ground of Christian practice, providing assistance to the poor is considered a Christian duty, but the fulfillment of that duty, as every Christian knows, is between the individual and God, and the accounting comes at the Final Judgment.

In contrast, socialism is a compulsory system from start to finish.  Socialism uses the gun to ensure that everyone within their reach gives up their private property, whether they embrace socialism or not.  Further, their objective is not to eliminate poverty, but to destroy prosperity.

Now, some of my good Christian LDS friends, and even some family, mistakenly believe that socialism and the United Order are the same girl, just wearing a more chaste dress.  For them, and everyone else, I offer this link to a talk that was given in a General Conference of the Church, at the express request of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The talk is titled, "Socialism and the United Order Compared."  The talk was given in April 1966 by Marion G. Romney, who was, at that time, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Allow me to quote a couple of key passages here:

"No, brethren, socialism is not the United Order.  However, notwithstanding my abhorrence of it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the foreseeable future.  It has already taken over or is contending for control in most nations.

We here in the United States, in converting our government into a social welfare state, have ourselves adopted much of socialism. Specifically, we have, to an alarming degree, adopted the use of the power of the state in the control and distribution of the fruits of industry.  We are on notice, according to the words of the president, that we are going much further, for he is quoted as saying:

We're going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the 'haves' and give it to the 'have nots.' (1964 Congressional Record, p. 6142, Remarks of the President to a Group of Leaders of Organizations of Senior Citizens in the Fish Room, March 24, 1964.)

Socialism takes; the United Order gives.

That is the spirit of socialism: We're going to take.  The spirit of the United Order is: We're going to give."

The President of the United States (POTUS) that Romney was quoting was Lyndon Baines Johnson, the man who initiated "the war on poverty," and it was the means for waging this war that he was referring to in this quote.

Please note that President Johnson is saying that un-elected U.S. Government bureaucrats will decide how much money we need by deeming part of our spending unnecessary.  They will then "take" and "give" according to their judgment, and whatever policies their superiors have put in place dictate that judgment.

To put this in perspective, consider the money you need to go visit your ailing parent, child, sibling, or friend.  A government worker can say, "That trip is unnecessary.  Your child/parent/sibling/friend will live or die regardless of your visit.  I am taking the money you saved for that trip away from you.  I will take a portion of the money to pay for my time, and then, I will give the remainder to someone who believes that they deserve this money more than you."

Words Matter

Now, there are some who will say that this is just semantics, or that we are arguing over tomato or tomatoe.  That is a glib lie, and I will illustrate the lie very easily.

Picture this: You see a man taking money out of his wallet and handing it over to a homeless person.

That seems like a lovely picture; doesn't it?  It warms the heart.

Now, let's complete the picture.  There is another man in the picture, who is pointing a gun at the first man.

What's the difference? Tomato or tomatoe?

The first picture is what we call charity.  It is a voluntary act of sacrifice by one party to aid another.  We call it being a good Christian, giving back, and being charitable.  We universally consider it a virtue.

The second picture is what we call robbery.  It is the forcible redistribution of property and it is universally considered a crime, unless we give it the imprimatur of government and call it taxes and welfare.

Some might argue that when Marion G. Romney decried the differences between the United Order and socialism, he was going astray from the intentions of Joseph Smith, who was the source of the original revelation on that program.  Let's see what Brother Joseph had to say about property rights.  In 1835, he stated: 

"We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life."

Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134:1-2

       So, Joseph Smith asserted that the right and control of property ranks right up there with protecting freedom of conscience and protection of life as primary duties of governments to their constituents.

How is as Important as What

Some will read this and still wave their hands in dismissal and say, "The end of the matter is to help the poor as Jesus said we should.  What does it matter if we do it through governmental or private means, as long as the end objective is met?"

This line of reasoning is that the end will justify the means—a premise espoused by Ovid and imitated by Nicolo Machiavelli.

While the world may buy in to this reasoning, Christians should know better.  You cannot simply make the world be filled with righteous people by killing all the folks you think are sinners.  That is what led to the Spanish Inquisition, a notorious chapter in the history of churches.  It has also led to numerous wars that were initiated with the public objective of ridding the world of the unbelievers.  Even Islam—probably the most successful at spreading religion by force—has suffered the ill effects of using bad means while attempting to gain good ends.

When the armies of Islam swept across North Africa and eastward across Persia and into India, the story was always the same in every conquered town.  "People of the Book"—Christians and Jews, or infidels—were separated from everyone else, who were labeled Pagans.

The Pagans were given the choice: accept Allah as god and Muhammad as his prophet, or be killed on the spot.  Those with the courage of their convictions were killed.  Everyone else joined up, whether or not they actually believed.  The result was a Caliphate that was filled with Muslims who believed whatever they wanted and did whatever they wanted, as long as they manifested the outward signs of belief.

Of course the infidels were given a choice, too.  They could accept Allah and Mohammed, or they could be forced to pay for the privilege of remaining alive, every single year.

Forced conversion, whether it be Islam, Christianity, or any other religion, does not produce converts.  It ends up with a church or religion that is torn apart by sects and division as members go their own ways based on their own ideas of what being a good member means.  In Islam, we see this today in the violence between Sunni and Shi'a.  In Christianity it was seen most clearly in Northern Ireland, where Protestants were pitted against Catholics.

The ultimate purpose of religions is to get us to believe and behave in a moral manner because we believe it is in our own long-term (eternal) best interests.  When anyone attempts to enforce moral beliefs on others, the force destroys the morality.  When government, and the coercive power of taxation, are used to achieve moral ends, morality is destroyed—not enshrined—because belief and willing action are both irrelevant and rendered null.

Belief and willing action are the heart and soul of true religion.  They are the heart and soul of what Jesus Christ and his Apostles teach.

Not only is socialism at odds with Christianity; it is at odds with every religion that embraces the notion that each individual must freely choose to accept or reject God on the grounds established by that religion.

Conclusions

If we apply Socialism to the parable of The Good Samaritan, the Good Samaritan would have either robbed other travelers or tried to get a tax collector to give him the money to take care of the poor guy he found beaten beside the road.  That is about as far from what Christ was teaching as you can get.

Christians have a moral obligation to help the poor and needy.  Forcing people to give to the poor and needy is immoral and results in very bad ends instead of the good ends that are being sought.

Government as the means of administering charity is the same thing as trying to force people to do something good.  It is both inefficient and evil.  It will have very bad outcomes for everyone involved.

Because the use of force to get people to believe and behave in a moral manner is in total conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ, no one can legitimately call themselves a Christian and say they support socialism.

Food for thought!

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/ 
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard 

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome. Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as GodClick on the image below to buy your copy today

Godvernment is available in both paperback and ebook format through Amazon.

Bigotry of the Welfare State

Image (c) Depositphotos.com

                               This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

Tom Sheppard

9/4/2020

The False Security of The Welfare State

Consider the welfare reform, passed in 1996.  The debate surrounding that legislation turned on a series of moral propositions: that

·        Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) had created a culture of poverty;

·        that it rewarded indolence,

·        fostered dependence, and

·        encouraged broken families.

The argument in favor of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was, in turn, framed in terms of the moral norms of equality, reciprocity, personal accountability, and the inherent dignity of work.

It is undeniable that the law has brought federal policy more in line with those deeply held American values.  As a result of the new law, many former welfare recipients have morphed into the working poor, and there are early signs that this change has left most Americans less prone to stigmatize them, and more disposed to assisting them through both governmental and nongovernmental outlets.

PRWORA was set to expire in 2002.  While some provisions have been extended as far as 2012, many key provisions have lapsed.  Since then, the welfare state has once again resumed its meteoric growth, most notably with the introduction of the disastrous and ironically named Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, and President Obama’s massive expansion of eligibility for food stamps.

This kind of wholesale government dole hasn’t been seen since Roman politicians handed out free food and tickets to the Coliseum in order to gain votes and distract voters from the real issues of the day.  The end result of that welfare program was the rise of the Roman Emperor and the dissolution of the Roman Republic.  After that time, Romans were no longer ruled by laws they enacted through an elected assembly.  Instead, they were ruled by the whims of a self-proclaimed monarch who brought all the branches of government directly into his own hands, where he could rule without regard to the will of the people, collectively or individually.

Image (c) Lenschanger and Depositphotos.com

Life on the Plantation Today

            Entrepreneur, author, and social critic Star Parker refers to the U.S. welfare program as Uncle Sam’s Plantation, and she maintains that it has effectively re-enslaved a significant portion of the black population in this country by making them dependent on government handouts.

What do you think of when your read that phrase: "Uncle Sam's Plantation?"  I get this image of Uncle Sam sitting on a horse in the midst of a field of cotton, cracking a whip over a bunch of poorly clothed black slaves, bent over working in the hot sun.

For me, that conjured image is offensive in a lot of ways.

First, Uncle Sam is supposed to be an image representing justice, the rule of law, opportunity, and the greatness of the United States of America.  To imagine that image overseeing a slave state is both disturbing and slanderous to the character the image should represent.

Second, slavery—regardless of who is enslaved—is a profound insult to the inherent divinity of humanity.  Children of God were not brought into this world to be owned like property, pushed to work by cruelty, and robbed of both their dignity and the fruits of their labor because of accidents of birth or the abuse of power.

Because of that appallingly offensive mental image that was conjured by the title, I was very reluctant to invest my time and money in reading Star Parker's book, Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It.  Knowing that the author is a black woman, and seeing the title, I was pre-disposed to dismiss it as an anti-American rant aimed at heaping guilt on whites for the misdeeds of generations long gone. 

I couldn't have been more wrong.

Star Parker is no apologist, nor is she approaching her topic from a victim mentality.  In fact, her life stands as a beacon of hope for poor, for single mothers, for ghetto-denizens, for drug abusers, and for welfare recipients.

Just a few paragraphs into the book, she makes it clear that this is not an apology for principles that America has championed.  The following excerpt gives a hint of what is to come: 

One of nine children, my mother learned as a “young’ un” that, more than anything else, poverty is a state of mind.  Her father showed her by example how to live free.  “Buy property and a gun” was his edict.  His faith and convictions told him free men have a right to own property and to protect it.

Ms. Parker hit right away on two fundamental issues that are needed for people to be truly free—property rights and the ability to preserve those property rights, by individual force, if necessary (AKA gun ownership rights). 

This early acknowledgement is a true indicator that Ms. Parker is neither a progressive/socialist/liberal, nor is she going to earn any points with the anti-gun lobby.

A short while later in the book, she reveals that she is not some soft-headed zealot—rather that she is taking a fact-based approach. 

"...in 2001, welfare spending in America exceeded $400 billion.  That is a whopping 14 percent of the federal budget.  That’s more than a billion tax dollars per day being spent on various poverty programs, yet Rector’s data shows that less than twenty cents of each dollar actually gets into the hands of the people society is trying to help."

While her affinity for citing facts is heartening, the facts she cites are hugely disruptive to the crowd that pushes the notion that government should be in the business of charity.  "... less than twenty cents of each dollar actually gets into the hands of the people society is trying to help." 

If your favorite charity publicized that 80 cents of every dollar you give goes into overhead, you would likely drop that charity and try to find one where less than 40 cents of each dollar contributed went to overhead.  However, with government, cost-effectiveness and the overhead expense ratio tend to get swept under the rug and taken out of consideration. Parker continues: 

"Despite growing evidence to the contrary, organizations such as the Center for Urban Policy Research continue to claim that racism, sexism, and capitalism are fundamentally responsible for the problems of the poor, but if true solutions are developed, these organizations could be obsolete.  Actually solve those problems, and half of the liberal campaign platform evaporates.  Self-interest will always be the driving force behind the machinery of politics. We need to admit that and move on."

 Wow!  "Self-interest will always be the driving force behind...politics."  Her unapologetic assault on the hypocrisy inherent in liberal politics is refreshing and clarifying.  The reality that if liberals implemented policies that resolved the causes of poverty they would be out of a job tears off the mask and reveals that liberal politics actually have the aim of preserving their political base—in other words, liberals want to be sure that we have lots of poor people around to vote for them.  If the poor actually rise out of poverty, they tend to walk away from supporting liberals.

So, when you see a wealthy capitalist like George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, or Warren Buffett espousing liberal politics, look closely and critically, and follow the money.  What do these folks have to gain from supporting liberal politicians?  The simple answer is that they create barriers to prevent others from rising to the level of wealth that they have obtained.  They are not interested in helping the poor.  They are interested in preserving the poor, and keeping them in their place.  That way, they have cheap labor and a ready pool of uncritical, unthinking voters.

Parker also isn't afraid to attack the phony altruism that liberals use to wrap up their oppressive and poverty sustaining policies: 

"The economically challenged are also the ones most negatively affected when the government involves itself in the affairs of business owners and their employees with legislation like minimum wage.  Mandates for a “livable wage” make great sound bites on the evening news, but the reality is that most new laws passed to regulate the business community to protect the economically challenged end up narrowing their opportunities to advance."

 "... most new laws...end up narrowing their opportunities to advance."  Again, this kind of attack on using altruistic sound bites to mask the real impact of legislation is enlightening.  It shows how liberals have mastered the use of emotion to overcome reason and true self-interest in their voting base of poor voters.

The frightening reality is that if the poor of this country would rationally examine the facts, they would run headlong toward the support of principles and proponents of Constitutional conservatism.  The Democrats, and to a lesser degree, the Republicans, would find themselves out in the cold as voters flocked to support politicians who implemented massive tax repeals and tax simplification, as well as promoting capitalism and free enterprise, both in the U.S. and abroad.  The result would be what happened when Ronald Reagan did exactly that, historically low unemployment and long-term sustained (and sustainable) increases in the standard of living for everyone, rich and "poor."  In other words, the poor would be much less poor and have much better lives, regardless of what happened to the wealthy.  The whole "soak the rich" class warfare ploys are just moves to destroy the rich—not to help the poor. 

"The only true beneficiary of minimum wage laws is the government, which collects more sales tax on the higher prices.  Higher prices mean higher taxes, and the struggling poor cannot understand why, although government demanded they get a raise, they have no more money left over than before.  It gets worse."

Note the points that her conversion to Christianity led her to the conclusion that she couldn't remain on welfare and be a good Christian.

Emphasize her points that the welfare system today combines euthanasia and slavery into one neat package.

Conclusions

Once you understand the circumstances, behavioral patterns, and choices of today’s poor, you will agree that the battle we face is so complex that it cannot be solved with one-size-fits-all government handouts to individuals or to organizations.

It also becomes evident that government, with its built-in disincentives to curing societal ills and its focus on attempting to manage the circumstances of the poor instead of helping them to help themselves, is the worst possible vehicle for attempting to solve the problems of poverty.

Government should get entirely out of the business of charity.  Helping the poor can be done most effectively by organizations that teach the poor how to help themselves and become self-sufficient, while giving them a helping hand to save themselves physically until they can stand on their own and become contributing members of society.

Food for thought!

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/ 
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard 

Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM). 

The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein. 

(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved. 

Your comments are welcome. Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.

If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
 Godvernment: Government as GodClick on the image below to buy your copy today

Godvernment is available in both paperback and ebook format through Amazon.