Natural Law

Natural Law

HIGH-LIFE versus LOW-LIFE

High-Life versus Low-Life. Donkey and elephant facing off.

Introduction

You’re a Humanimal!

Face it, you’re a humanimal – part human and part animal.

Your animal nature is to take by force – to violently wrest what you need from the environment. It is known as the “ego,” that part of us which is selfish, concerned with its own narrow personal interests.

But there’s hope for you. Like the rest of us you are growing out of your “lower” animal nature and into your “higher” human nature, which is … to give. The highest of our species live entirely for others.

Your lower nature isn’t “bad.” It’s just a stage in your evolution, your growth, your life. Is the bud stage of a flower (before it blossoms) bad? Of course not.

So, the term low-life is meant to describe a low level of consciousness. It is not meant to be derogatory.

Well, maybe a little. Hey, I have to have some fun with this or I’ll blow a gasket.
If it makes you feel any better, some of my best friends are low-lifes. My wife calls me a low-life every now and then.

Hell, you may be a low-life for all I know. Let’s find out. Are you ready to face the truth about who you really are? Are you a high-life or a political (ugh!) animal?

Chapter One

“Fundamental Reality”

What the hell is going on?

That’s not too much to ask is it?

Who am I, what is life, and what does it all mean?

In other words, what the hell is going on?

Physics has been asking the same question for a very long time. According to Albert Einstein, the purpose of physics is to discover the “fundamental reality.”

Max Planck, winner of the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics, concluded that “There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force … We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter… I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness.”

Whoa!!!

Max drops two bombshells here. The first has to do with matter. Physics is the study of matter (the physical world), and Max says that matter doesn’t exist. Does that strike you as odd?

Actually, he says there is no matter “as such” or “as you know it.” Max means that all of the physical objects in the universe (planets, meteors, human bodies, etc.) which we believe are completely separate from one another aren’t separate at all. They are one substance. They are part of a continuum of existence, and they all have the same fundamental reality.

That brings us to Max Planck’s second bombshell. He says that consciousness is the fundamental reality.

Erwin took it a step further. Erwin Schrodinger, recipient of the 1933 Nobel Prize in Physics, said that our own conscious minds are individual expressions of this universal mind/consciousness. He maintained that “[m]ultiplicity is only apparent. The total number of minds in the universe is one.” The great British physicist James Jeans maintained that “each individual consciousness ought to be compared to a brain-cell in a universal mind.”

[What does all this have to do with politics, Monte? Easy now. We’ll get there. And why all this physics stuff, Monte? Because physicists are among the most rational, hard-headed, clear thinking experts on reality. Would you prefer Chuck Schumer? How about Phil Swift? How about Whoopi?].

Einstein’s unified field theory is a crude description of this universal mind concept. Deep within us is a “unified field” of intelligence, out of which the universe is continuously being born. This where life is most alive, vital and powerful. More importantly, it’s possible to contact this source and thereby increase one’s own level of aliveness.

I do it with meditation. Are you ready for this?

As of October 1, 2018, I have meditated twice a day for 49 years (about 1½ hours per day). That’s 35,770 meditations lasting a total of 26,827 hours. That’s over 1117 days in meditation -- almost exactly three years. That’s a lot of time with your eyes closed, sportsfans!

No matter how rough things get in my life, when I come out of meditation, I’m refreshed, happier, clearer and more energetic. I’m more alive. In fact, that’s what “source” is to me – pure aliveness.

The benefits of meditation are cumulative – like the old-fashioned way of dying cloth. Dip the cloth into the dye and let the sun make some of it fast. Keep repeating until the color of the cloth is the color of the dye.

Use whatever process works for you. The goal is to gradually increase your aliveness/awareness until it is as rich and powerful and loving as the fundamental reality – pure consciousness.

Be patient, though. It’s a process, a journey. It doesn’t happen all at once.

Consciousness Unfolds in Stages

There are stages in the growth of all life forms. A plant develops from a seed to a sprout to a bud, but a bud is not all there is to becoming a rose. One fine day it will blossom into a flower.

Likewise, growth of human consciousness occurs in stages. Earlier stages are dominated by the senses and emotions.

An important break point in our evolution is the emergence of reason. While obviously not totally absent at prior levels of consciousness, the intellect (at some point) begins to develop rapidly enough so that it can be characterized as a discrete stage.

It is not surprising that America (and western civilization generally) values education, computers, the professions, and science and technology. Less evolved societies are less capable of conducting themselves in a rational manner. They simply don’t have enough miles on their evolutionary odometer yet.

However, while reason deserves the praise it gets as an advanced stage in the sequential unfolding of human consciousness, there is a higher stage. Again, a bud is not all there is to being a rose.

Beyond the intellect lies the realm of subjectivity, which is characterized by the opening of the heart, the rapid growth of love and an ability to discern the essence of life intuitively (commonly referred to as “wisdom”).

“Love takes up where knowledge leaves off.”
– St. Augustine

According to Heisenberg, “[i]t will never be possible by pure reason to arrive at some absolute truth.” Einstein maintained that “the intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it intuition or what you will, and the solution comes to you and you don’t know how or why…. The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”

Political Consciousness Also Unfolds in Stages
While it’s delightful to admire the high end of human consciousness, our subject is politics, so we must lower our gaze. Let us now examine how the unfolding of consciousness affects political behavior. Let me begin by telling you a little story.

Joseph Merrick, the “Elephant Man,” once said “I am not an animal! I am a human being! I am a man!” Sorry, Joseph. You’re both. Animal and human. So are the rest of us. Hold up a mirror. Look at those fangs and claws. Look at that hair. Look at that brain!

The core of the human brain (the brain stem) is called the “old brain” or the “R-brain.” R stands for “reptilian,” because we still retain the core of the brain possessed by our reptilian ancestors. Our “lizard brain” takes responsibility for our survival assessments and reactions (fight or flight). According to one psychiatrist,

“[T]he old reptile and animal brain is still anatomically and functionally present, and its atavistic activity continues to exert a pervasive animal instinct that strengthens predatory tendencies and aggression. All the instincts of the animal persist and influence or even dominate much of the behavioral and feeling states. The emotions of the animal are ever present and close to the surface. These tendencies are themselves vulnerable to training and manipulation by social programming and propaganda.”

We mate and reproduce like apes. We have the same blood types as apes, and our genetic code differs by only 2%. We are territorial, competitive and hierarchical. We kill and eat other animals. Last century we “humans” killed over 150 million of our brothers and sisters in foreign wars and domestic genocide. That’s pretty animalistic, isn’t it?

But we’re more than just animals. We’re human beings, too. We’re like the mythical Centaur, half animal (its lower body was that of a horse) and half human (it had the upper torso of a man.) In other words, we’re … humanimals.

Again, we are in the process of growing out of our “lower” animal nature into our “higher” human nature. Your lower nature isn’t “bad.” It’s just a stage in your evolution, your growth, your life. Is the bud stage of a flower (before it blossoms) bad? Of course not.

Our animal nature is the, uh … rear end of the Centaur. It is known as the “ego,” that part of us which is selfish, concerned with its own narrow personal interests. The size and strength of your ego is the degree to which you are dominated by your animal nature. Your ego is your animal residue, becoming weaker and more vestigial with the passage of time.

The Purpose of Law is Animal Control

Historically, a strong ego was very useful as we evolved out of lower life forms. The evolution of Homo sapiens out of Homo Brutus is the story of a struggle to survive, and survival usually depended on extreme selfishness. One lived by one’s guile, speed, ferocity and supreme acts of will.

Our animal tendency is to take by force, to violently wrest what we need from the environment. Animal-dominated people are frequently criminals. Our prisons are full of them. Depending on their luck and personal power, they can become lowly pick-pockets or totalitarian dictators.

Criminality and tyranny are caused by unchecked animality. The real purpose of law is to liberate our humanity by restraining our animal nature (the inclination to take the life, liberty and property of others). Aristotle tells us that

“At his best, man is the noblest of animals.
Separated from law and justice, he is the worst.”

While our animal nature is to take, our human nature (often referred to as our “spiritual” nature) is to give. The highest of our species (like Jesus, Krishna, Mother Teresa and Buddha) live entirely for others. This is what we refer to as being “fully human,” selfless, ego-less. Many saints, Nobel Prize winners and Medal of Honor recipients embody those qualities.

Our human nature is our spiritual (“non-material”) nature. It is what we really are.

How could we be just our bodies when, by all accounts, we survive our physical death? Also, millions have had near-death and out-of-body experiences. They have discovered that their awareness is not dependent on having a body.

In other words, you are a spiritual being having a physical experience. Winston Churchill tells us:

“The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits, not animals. There is something going on in time and space and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

Though it is tempting to define yourself in material terms, you are not your wealth, your reputation, your clothes … or your body.

Every two years you discard your body. It completely reproduces itself, right down to the last atom. Your old body is dead and gone --recycled. All of the cells are brand new, yet it’s the same old you inside.

The essential you is the ghost in the machine (your body), an inner observer who sees and thinks and loves. The observer is an individual expression of the universal mind. It is the observer in me which is writing the words on this page. It is the observer in you which is reading them.

[And here’s the kicker: according to the leading physicists of our time, your observer and my observer are the same observer.]

This observer is not your eyes or brain. It is independent of (and not generated by) biology. The observer (the most irreducible “you”) is nothing but awareness/consciousness/intelligence itself --- that which is aware of the world and of itself (aware that it is aware).

Many of history’s greatest spiritual leaders (and some scientists, as you know) contend that awareness is the fundamental reality of life. According to the great psychiatrist David Hawkins,

“The sought-for commonality to all realms of subjective experience and [objective] investigation turns out to be the omnipresent energy field traditionally denoted as “consciousness,” the very substrate and core of all existence and of intelligence itself.”

Consciousness and Political Sovereignty

Our greatest wisdom and strength come from our spirit, not from our biology. The animal ego is weak and selfish. The human spirit is strong and wise.
Sovereignty is the measure of that strength.

Sovereignty is a matter of degree. Your sovereignty is the extent to which you have grown out of your animal nature and into your human nature. Your true sovereignty is your level of consciousness.

When the personal power and intelligence of enough individuals reaches a certain level, a society is capable of sustaining a real democracy.

The founders didn’t use words like “consciousness,” but they were adamant that the ability to self-govern depends on the “virtue” and “morality” of the People. This is
a clear reference to the level of collective consciousness -- the strength of the life force of a society. If there is insufficient strength, self-governance is impossible.

Ben Franklin tells us that “only a virtuous people are capable of maintaining their freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” George Washington said that “when a people shall have become incapable of governing themselves and fit for a master, it is of little consequence from what quarter he comes.” John Adams tells us:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

The Natural Aristocracy

Thomas Jefferson observed that there is a direct relationship between higher consciousness and exceptional leadership and that those who are further along on their evolutionary journey make our best elected officials.

There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents . . . . There is also, an artificial aristocracy, founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society … May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?”

There is also a natural aristocracy among nations. Here’s how that came about.

For thousands of years, the life force of humanity (collective human consciousness) was so low that despotism and monarchy were necessary to forcibly restrain our lower animal nature in order to prevent anarchy.

Though I have a strong preference for representative government, democracy isn’t always better than an extremely centralized/authoritarian government. Each is appropriate for different stages in the evolution of a society. The consciousness of the people has to become mature and strong enough for them to seize democracy, and this first occurred (on a significant scale) in the late eighteenth century.

Most of the world wasn’t (and isn’t) ready for democracy, and tyrants were (and are) able to seize power by riding the backs of revolutions in the name of the “people.” Indeed, most revolutions are engineered by the tyrant herself.

Making democracy available to a lesser evolved nation is like giving a computer to a two-year-old child. Self-governance can survive only in a society strong and wise enough to handle it.

With the exception of Israel, I simply do not believe that any country in the Middle East or North Africa is able to maintain a democratic form of government. Has there ever been one in that region? I don’t know. I’m just asking.

We wasted $3 trillion and ten years trying to install democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most of these societies detest democracy. They want to be ruled absolutely by an authoritarian system, whether it be secular (Gadhafi, Assad) or theocratic (Iran, ISIS).

You can’t grow a palm tree by placing a coconut on a sidewalk. You can’t expect democracy to grow where people don’t want it or (by history or culture) aren’t ready for it.

Popular sovereignty and democracy can’t be given. They can only be taken, taken by a society that has earned it.

Almost all nations claim to be democratic, but that doesn’t make it so. Consider the “Democratic Republic of North Korea.”

America exported democracy to Japan and Germany after World War II at the point of a bayonet, and it was able to take root because the people’s relatively high level of consciousness provided fertile ground. The culture was able to handle it.

Over the last millennium, the power base of society gradually expanded to include a more numerous ruling class. There’s nothing wrong per se with rule by an “elite.” Governments and economies have often been controlled by a relatively small group of men and women who do a pretty good job. Others don’t.

I can conceive of some situations in which it would be great to be ruled by human beings instead of by laws. We are absolutely ruled by our parents for the first few years of our lives, aren’t we?

I wouldn’t mind being ruled by an oligarchy (the rule of a few) – if you had the right oligarchs! How about a governing body consisting of Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Mother Teresa and the twelve disciples? I really don’t think absolute power would corrupt those guys, even in the complete absence of law, because they are powerfully aligned with higher law.

The important thing is not what kind of system you have, but the quality of human life that makes up the system, especially its leadership. John Adams summed this up when he said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

In the absence of angels, we should strive to be led by a natural aristocracy, citizens of superior ability and wisdom. It is only because we have no reliable method of electing leaders with high consciousness that the rule of law is so important.

Unfortunately, we are now ruled by an artificial aristocracy which is more concerned with power, wealth and prestige. I pray daily for leaders of strength and wisdom instead of a bunch of godless, America-hating hucksters, agitators, “community organizers” and deep-state swamp rats.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn warned America that “[v]ery soon, only too soon, your country will stand in need of not just exceptional men but of great men. Find them in your souls. Find them in your hearts. Find them in the depths of your country.”

Donald Trump is such a man. You may not like him, but you don’t need to like him. He’s getting the job done. Winston Churchill was a complete asshole, but he was a blessing to humanity. It’s breathtaking how much difference one person can make. It’s always been like that.

There is also a natural aristocracy among governments.

There are basically only two kinds of government. One is animal-dominated. This form of government is simply the political reflection of an immature/lower level of consciousness which emphasizes the value of society over the individual. This is known as “collectivism.”

Most collectivist revolutions are (allegedly) based on popular sovereignty, but they usually disintegrate quickly into the sovereignty of a government to which the people are subordinate. George Orwell tells us that

“Power is not a means. It is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”

The other form of government is human-dominated. It can only exist in a society which values individual sovereignty and freedom over the welfare of the collective.
Generally speaking, collectivism and individual freedom are opposed. The more collectivist a society, the less free it becomes.

All Collectivist Societies Are Opposames

There have been many kinds of collectivist systems. Over the past hundred years the best known are fascism (e.g., Nazi Germany) and communism (e.g., the Soviet Union).

In World War II Germany, Japan and Italy were regarded as far right, or “fascist,” because they were autocratic and nationalistic. Many African and Central/South American governments have since met that definition.

Soviet Russia and Red China were “far left” because they advocated international socialism (communism.) Hitler’s invasion of Russia was offered as proof that fascism and communism were very different. “Look, they’re fighting each other! They must be different!”

However, both systems had economies which were completely controlled by the state, and their alleged “representative” governments weren’t all that, uh . . . representative. Both were genocidal military dictatorships which killed 100 million of their own people. For the survivors, the degree of personal freedom was close to zero.

See the difference? Me neither. The takeaway is that Fascism = Socialism. “Equals” means “the same as.” Fascism is the same as Socialism.

All collectivist societies are “opposames.” Opposames are organizations which appear to be different (and which often appear to oppose each other) but which are merely different faces/expressions of the same underlying energy/reality.

They are essentially the same society with different names, i.e., a frequently genocidal socialist state in which all power is concentrated at the peak of a pyramid of control, and in which freedom is as common as hair on my head.

In other words, all collectives are totalitarian systems – they impose total control over those whom they pretend to serve.

Surprisingly, theocratic regimes can be the opposames of secular ones. ISIS is a theocratic oppposame of both godless fascism and godless communism.

The only difference with current theocratic terrorism is that there are no concentration camps. That’s because there is usually no one left alive to incarcerate.

The Animal Left and the Human Right

Henceforth, I will frequently refer to all collectivist political systems as the “Animal Left” or “statists” because of their reliance on governmental force to accomplish their goals. Conversely, I will refer to those political systems which are dedicated to advancing individual freedom as the “Human Right.”

Animal Politics is Low-Life Politics and Human Politics is High-Life Politics.

The democratic and freedom-based systems of the Right are probably very familiar to the reader. Less well-known is the real nature of other systems whose animal dominance is less obvious. Specifically, there are two movements which deserve inclusion into that group known as the Animal Left.

1) Radical Islam is the poster child for abject savagery, but many object to its characterization as political “left” because of its seeming religious origin.

2) Global Progressivism (including its North American regional branch, the Democrat Party) is clearly leftist, but the extent of its animal dominance is not well known.

My thesis is that Radical Islam and Progressivism are opposames of all of the animal-dominated collectivist movements discussed above. Despite apparent differences in ideology and style, all are faces of the very same movement.

I would like to make my case by presenting the ten primary characteristics of collectivist movements (and their leaders) and then showing how Radical Islam and Progressivism possess these characteristics.
Here goes ….

COLLECTIVIST POLITICS

The Ten Characteristics of the Animal Left

1) Belief in Life as Warfare
Just as certain kinds of fish are drawn to different depths of the ocean, certain beliefs and attitudes are characteristic of different levels of consciousness. Each level has its big fish, a core belief which inspires a world view that is characteristic of that level.

A high level of consciousness perceives a world that is friendly and safe. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The universe is framed on a principle of benevolence.” A low level of consciousness (e.g., collectivism) perceives that life is hostile and dangerous. Survival is always at risk.

In other words, the collectivist world view is that life is warfare.

Accordingly, collectivists transform their societies into armies. Collectivism is a military response to a continuous attack by a ubiquitous enemy.

Global Progressivism (and its North American regional branch, the Democrat Party) is a classic example of an animal-dominated political movement. Indeed, it is the opposame of all of the collectivist movements discussed above. They are all the same movement.

Here’s my case.

Progressivism maintains that the welfare of society is more important than the rights and freedoms of its individual members. According to Hillary Clinton, “[we] must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”

I guess Hillary forgot that the only purpose of American law and government is the protection of the rights and freedom of … (wait for it) … the individual. Bruce Lee reminds us that, “[m]an, the living creature, the creating individual, is always more important than any style or system.”

Progressives consist largely of humanimals who have not yet gained sufficient maturity, wisdom and personal power to embrace a political philosophy based on individual freedom.

Indeed, Progressives believe that individual freedom is a problem. Progressivism is a movement dedicated to restraining individual freedom.

Like most animals, Progressives respect force, and their movement is led by the ultimate alpha male -- government. The Progressive solution to all problems is to grant more and more power to a central government in order to force the people to part with their wealth and modify their behavior in order to implement a leftist/statist ideology.

Bottom Line: If you’re using government to implement a political ideology by force, then you are in the war business, and the Progressive strategy is to ever widen the theater of war.

Progressive Warfare

Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) is the founding father of modern Progressivism (and the “new” Democrat Party.) Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals is Progressivism’s founding document.

Barack Obama’s political career is the embodiment of the Alinsky method, which he taught in seminars for a number of years. Until 1996 Obama was both the attorney and top trainer for ACORN, then the largest Alinsky-style organization in the U.S. (guilty of the most extensive election fraud in American history).

Obama never mentioned Alinsky in any of his books. Neither did Hillary Clinton. She met him in high school and invited him to speak at Wellesley College which she entered in 1965. They became good friends. Real good friends. She wrote her undergraduate thesis on Alinsky (entitled “There is Only The Fight, an Analysis of the Alinsky Model.”)

Unfortunately, it became unavailable because, when Hillary Clinton became First Lady, she saw to it that the thesis was removed from her Wellesley records.

Why have Barack and Hillary hidden their relationship with Saul Alinsky from you? Because …

Saul Alinsky Was a Gangster

He was the long-time associate and understudy of Frank Nitti, Al Capone’s “enforcer.” (I kid you not.)

Alinsky’s book, Rules For Radicals, are the rules of a gangster. All of them are focused on taking. Taking is what animals do. Taking is what Alinsky taught.

In Alinsky’s own words,

“The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away. In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people.”

Seizing. This is what tyrants do. It is not civilized behavior.

The first words on the first page of Alinsky’s first chapter are a biblical quote (Job 7:1): “The life of man upon the earth is a warfare.” Does this sound familiar?

Progressives believe that life is war, and their politics are conducted according to its rules. For Progressives the war is total. They seek not only to defeat but to destroy the enemy, or as Lenin recommended, “to wipe him from the face of the earth.”

“There is no real parallelism in the war which radicals have declared. One side is fighting with a no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners battle plan against the system, while the other is trying to enforce its rules of fairness and pluralism. This is the Achilles’ heel of democracies and all radical spears are aimed in its direction.”

Leftist radicals believe that their enemy (the Haves) must be totally eliminated. In their view, society is rigidly organized in a pancake-like stack of social classes (like the old caste system of India), and to improve the condition of the lower class, the oppressive upper class must be completely removed.

You can see how childish and primitive this kind of “thinking” is. I am reminded of Groucho Marx [I’m sorry. I mean Karl Marx] whose Communist Manifesto is a naked declaration of war.

What a moron!! What a drooler this Karl Marx!! According to Horowitz,

“The idea that the world is divided into the Haves and the Have-Nots, the exploiters and the exploited, the oppressors and the oppressed, leads directly to the idea that the open society can be achieved only by the elimination of the former and the dissolution of the conflict. This, according to radicals, will lead to the liberation of mankind. In fact, it led directly to the deaths of 100 million people in the last century, murdered by radicals in power on the way to their dream.”

Like Marx, Progressives believe that capitalism is the culprit. Progressivism is simply recycled Marxism with a splash of Old Spice. These rocket scientists contend that there is a limited amount of wealth in the world, and that capitalists have more than their “fair share.” (I suppose a fair share is determined by dividing all of the wealth in the world by the number of its inhabitants.)

The Animal Left believes that to achieve “economic equality” and “social justice,” the wealth of the Haves in capitalist societies must be redistributed to the Have-Nots in the plundered societies.

For said wealth to be redistributed it must be retaken, and what better way for the Have-Nots to retake it than to conquer the evil nations who robbed them and drove them out of their Garden of Eden.

It is so interesting that Fascism, Communism and Islamism (radical Islam) all openly declare their intention to dominate the world, whether for the master race (Aryan), the master class (the proletariat) or the master faith (Islam). According to Eric Arthur Blair, who used the pen name “George Orwell,”

“The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought.”

The Animal Left always accuses America of being the great imperialist, a/k/a the Great Satan.

If we Americans are such imperialist swine, why do we always pull out of those countries we “conquer” – like Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya? Hell, we usually help our enemies rebuild their countries.

During recent wars in the Middle East we didn’t steal one drop of oil, one square inch of real estate or one scraggly goat. So kiss my ass!

The Hard Left is so obsessed with its own rapacity, greed and lust for conquest that it assumes that everyone else is similarly motivated. This is known in psychiatry as “projection.”

********
The foregoing is a portion of the first chapter of Monte’s new book, High Life v. Low Life, to be published on January 15, 2019.

FOOTNOTES
[1] Yes, loving!  As Thomas Jefferson said, “The universe is framed on a principle of benevolence.”
[2] David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D., Discovery of the Presence of God (Sedona Arizona, Veritas Publishing, 2006), pp. 26-27.
[3]  David R. Hawkins, Truth vs Falsehood (Axial Publishing Company, Toronto, 2005) p. 6.
[4] Cleon Skousen, The Five Thousand Year Leap, as quoted on p 49.
[5] Ibid, p xviii.
[6] Andrew M. Allison, The Real Thomas Jefferson, (National Center For Constitutional Studies, 2008), p. 351.
[7] All credit to David Icke, inventor of the “opposame” concept.
[8] Fascist societies are “socialist” because fascist governments always own or control the society’s means of production.  Indeed, the fascist term “Nazi” is an abbreviation for “National Socialism.”
[9] According to David Alinsky, Saul’s son: “Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democrat campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”
[10] Saul D. Alinsky, Rules For Radicals, (Vintage Books, New York, 1989) p. 3.
[11] David Horowitz, Barack Obama’s Rules For Revolution, The Alinsky Model (David Horowitz Freedom Center, Sherman Oaks, California, 2009) p.33.
[12]However, the classes of society in America are not fixed.  Ours is not a caste system in which someone born into an “untouchable” caste can never rise to become a member of the Brahmin caste. We have social mobility.  We can move from one class (say, middle class) to another (upper or lower).  David Horowitz tells us:

“In the real world of American democracy, social and economic divisions are really between the Cans and the Can-Nots, the Dos and the Do-Nots, the Wills and the Will-Nots.  The vast majority of wealthy Americans, as a matter of empirical fact, are first generation wealthy and have created what they possess.  In the process of creating wealth for themselves, they have created wealth for hundreds and sometimes thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of others.  But to describe the wealthy as wealth earners and wealth creators – that is, to describe them accurately – is to explode the whole religious fantasy that gives meaning to radical lives, inspires the radicals’ war, and has been the source of the most repressive regimes and the greatest social disasters in the history of mankind.”

[13] The Communist Manifesto begins as follows: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.  Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”
[14] Ibid at p. 36.
[15] George Orwell, 1984 (Signet, New York, 1992), p. 159.

Posted by TheNaturalLawyer in Natural Law