We live in uncertain and confusing times. Politically and economically there is ferment
in the world. It is said by many that these are historic times. That these times call for bold
government action to bring stability, order, economic development and prosperity, moral
values and public projects to the people for the good of society and show pride in the
nation. But this is not new. This has been the condition of mankind for thousands of years.
It's been said that we are at the end of history. Yet history moves along because history is
really the future. Everyone wants to know what's going to happen. That's why people
plan. Still, some people plan too much. Flexibility has always proven to be the best course
of action, but some people have always wanted rigidity, as if some vague sense of sullen
security was better than the exhilaration of going boldly where no man has gone before.
Right now, the epic fight between rigidity and flexibility is being fought. The rigid people
say that rigidity is inevitable, and they are the ones to make sure it happens. They are
sure. They say know the answer to every question. They say they can create the solution
by word alone, called law. These are the people who misuse history. These are the people
who see the future and are scared, and so they try to implement the past. The so called
progressives would have us return to a past where great rulers ruled great civilizations. A
time when great rulers did such great things for their people. The progressives of the
world always look to great men to help define their vision of the future. To paraphrase
Robert Kennedy: "we see what is not, and say why not?" Only the sole solution they have
is to create a bureaucracy which moves the wealth of some to the hands of others.
These people for rigidity are always fewer in number than those who want flexibility.
For mankind knows we must be flexible to deal with the vagaries of the world. But the rigid
people, so adept at planning, are able to seize the power of government, which should be
a benign tool shed of legal protections of people's rights, and rend it into a sledgehammer
of conformity to the wishes of a protected class known as the elite. Sometimes they are all
in government, and sometimes they masquerade as independent agents in society. The
first is known as absolute monarchy, or communism. A blend is socialism or royalism, even
theology. The masquerade is fascism or Nazism. Supposedly these are different. They are
not. Not any different than Pharaoh, or Cesar, Czar or Henry VIII and Louis XIV. Nor
Chinese emperor or Mongolian Khan, Arab sultan. The name they use is irrelevant. The
names on the organizational chart are irrelevant. The solid lines attempt to disavow the
connections that are apparent in pale dotted lines. The clearest example is when Suharto,
the president of Indonesia puts his brother-in-law in charge of the state corporation board.
These are the people history is filled with. There are even people who want to make sure
the history that is written is the history that they want to create while eliminating the
prospects of all other people's histories -- and the history they write is the history of great
men who did so much to bring stability, order, economic development and prosperity,
moral values and public projects to his people for the good of society and show pride in
the nation. That's why Napoleon said "History is lies agreed on." This is where we seem to
be heading back to, to the idea of a great leader.
People all over the world are totally perplexed at what is being reported in the press.
This is not just an American phenomenon. It is clear in the headlines of every nation, or at
least those allowed by the government because they are fair to society. This confusion
stems from a myriad of sources: from the sheer amount of information, from the
bewildering number of languages and countries and peoples, from the vast geography of
the world itself, and America too. From the size of the government today, to the words of
the laws, rules and regulations that we are supposed to follow. To the policies this or that
leader wants to enact. The great bucket of politics and the economy are talked about in
great platitudes of banal words like reform and progress, assistance and the safety net.
And it comes from the fact that words used by one person, such as democracy,
republic, Republican and Democrat, and conservative, and liberal, liberty, libertarian,
socialists, and Christian Democrats, and labor rights, and human rights, and the rights of
countries, -- and on an on. All the terms used to describe the politics and economics of the
world are used in whatever way the person using them intends. They are left with no
meaning after so much misuse. Anybody can make any argument they want that is
totally opposite what somebody else is saying and yet use the same words. Here look: The
Dear Leader of the Democratic Republic of North Korea says that he brings stability, order,
economic development and prosperity, moral values and public projects to his people for
the good of society and show pride in the nation. The president of the Republic of the
United States says that he brings stability, order, economic development and prosperity,
moral values and public projects to his people for the good of society and show pride in
the nation. Since the words are identical and are uttered by both in one form or another
why is one a repressive dictatorship needing boatloads of outside assistance and the other
the richest nation on earth? Yet, throughout time every ruler said the same thing: that he
brings stability, order, economic development and prosperity, moral values and public
projects to his people for the good of society and show pride in the nation. The words
have no meanings beyond what the speaker says they mean.
Consider this: we are told that the conservative military government in Burma is
working for human rights. And we are told that the Conservative political party in England
is working for human rights. We are told that the conservative Communist Party in Russia
is for human rights and we are told that the conservative Chilean political party is for
human rights. Conservative Christians, Muslims and Jews are all working for human rights.
The conservatives in the all the political parties in America are working for human rights.
Conservatives in France and Germany are working for human rights. Conservatives in
Cuba and North Korea are working for human rights. Conservatives in every country from
Brazil to Zimbabwe are working for human rights. Yet they all say that the other
conservatives are wrong, they are not for human rights.
Indeed. So what's a conservative and what's a human right? How can you tell from
all the different senses that one uses a word? With these ever shifting meanings of the
words it becomes impossible to really figure out what someone is saying. If you are a
person who says you're not conservative but instead a liberal. Well that's easy enough,
look:
Consider this: we are told that the liberal military government in Burma is working for
human rights. And we are told that the Liberal political party in England is working for
human rights. We are told that the liberal Communist Party in Russia is for human rights
and we are told that the liberal Chilean political party is for human rights. Liberal Christians,
Muslims and Jews are all working for human rights. The liberals in the all the political parties
in America are working for human rights. Liberals in France and Germany are working for
human rights. Liberals in Cuba and North Korea are working for human rights. Liberals in
every country from Brazil to Zimbabwe are working for human rights.
So don't worry, all the liberals are working for human rights. Surely their definitions of
human rights all differ. Or are all the liberals all different? Are there conservative liberals and
liberal liberals working too for human rights? Are there likewise liberal conservatives and
conservative conservatives? And of course you can plug in the word moderate:
Consider this: we are told that the moderate military government in Burma is working
for human rights. And we are told that the Moderate political party, aka The Liberal
Democrats! -- in England is working for human rights. We are told that the moderate
Communist Party, aka Socialist -- in Russia is for human rights and we are told that the
moderate Democratic Liberal Chilean political party is for human rights. Moderate
Christians, Muslims and Jews are all working for human rights. The moderates in the all the
political parties in America are working for human rights. Moderates in France and Germany
are working for human rights. Moderates in Cuba and North Korea are working for human
rights. Moderates in every country from Brazil to Zimbabwe are working for human rights.
And yet there seems to be an awful lot of suffering, as each and every moderate, liberal
and conservative says that they have the correct means to human rights, and the very
best definition of what human rights are.
Look again, all these moderates all over the world working for human rights. Do you
know what human rights are yet? So now I suppose we can have moderate liberals and
liberal moderates. And of course we can also have conservative moderate liberals and
liberal moderate conservatives. Now when it comes to the actual names for the political
parties espousing their claim to be working for human rights we get such charming things
as the Farm Labor, Workers, Working Families, Conservative, Liberal, Democratic,
Republican, Libertarian, Peoples Democratic, Christian Democrat, Christian Republican,
Christian Liberal, Hindu Nationalists, Muslim Nationalists, People's Liberation Front, Popular
Front, Democratic Populist, Labor, Republican Democrat, Democratic Republican, Liberal
Republican, Liberal Democrat, All People's Front, All People's Party, Progressive,
Progressive Conservative, Progressive Liberal, Christian Moderate -- and it goes on and on
and on. And then there are hundreds more parties with local names, like Baathists and
Likud, the Irish Nationalists, All Singapore League, and that list goes on and on, too. Some
claim they are conservative, some liberal and some moderate. And to a party they are all
working for human rights. Of which there seem to be precious few given what every one
of these parties says is so lacking in the world, which is "basic human rights."
And we're told there are all sorts of different governments: Communist, Socialist,
Democratic, Social Democracies, Republics, Kingdoms, Parliamentary Democracies,
Theocracies, One Party States, People's Republics and Constitutional Monarchies, and
more, all of course claim they are working for human rights.
Their parties and the leaders of those parties come before the United Nations each
year to claim they are diligently working for human rights. And each and every one of
them uses the same words. Within the United States all these words are quoted and used
and reused by the press and anybody who talks about politics. So if the words mean so
little anymore and anybody can apply any definition they want to them how can we begin
to fathom what is happening, and what might happen? It is impossible. The best example
today of the totally different uses of the same words is Iran, France and America. All of
them are using the same words, yet they disagree once they get beyond the surface
words.
Still, there is great agreement within each nation by the very people over whom the
politicians are arguing who is providing the very best in human rights. What people in
general say is "Leave me the hell alone so I can make a buck, support my family, give
something to my community, read what I want, go where I want when I want, live in
peace, create or enjoy entertainments and culture, let me buy and sell what I want, when
I want, how I want. Leave me the hell alone."
There is not a person on earth who does not say this. And if each of us followed it
then the world would be richer and more peaceful. And the clearest example of this is the
United States. It has been the one nation that put the individual first, however flawed in
application. It has been the one nation that put flexibility in place. It is where "leave me
alone" was the request and the answer by everyone else was "sure thing." That's why it
was the beacon of liberty for people. Not for society, not for the nation, not for the
greatness of the ruler or the ideology that supports the do-gooders. Nor was this live and
let live attitude given by any ruler or government to the people. It was the people who
told the government to go over there and build a road or something but leave us the hell
alone. And now, the do-gooders of the world have seized the means of power. They are
attempting to bring us back to the glorious days of the great nation under a great ruler
with the concomitant bureaucracy and the taxes and privileges needed to support it that
every great ruler on earth tried. These do-gooders are seeking rigidity because they are
sure that their definition of human rights is right. The only difference between our current
rulers and those of the past, or those existing else where today are the words. Ours use
different words. Well, no, they don't. Which is the scary part, for it sounds so new and
improved. For we are told, today, by our leaders and their enablers that our leaders are
working very hard to bring us stability, order, economic development and prosperity,
moral values and public projects to our people for the good of society and show pride in
the nation.
Yep, and the cow jumped over the moon.
in the world. It is said by many that these are historic times. That these times call for bold
government action to bring stability, order, economic development and prosperity, moral
values and public projects to the people for the good of society and show pride in the
nation. But this is not new. This has been the condition of mankind for thousands of years.
It's been said that we are at the end of history. Yet history moves along because history is
really the future. Everyone wants to know what's going to happen. That's why people
plan. Still, some people plan too much. Flexibility has always proven to be the best course
of action, but some people have always wanted rigidity, as if some vague sense of sullen
security was better than the exhilaration of going boldly where no man has gone before.
Right now, the epic fight between rigidity and flexibility is being fought. The rigid people
say that rigidity is inevitable, and they are the ones to make sure it happens. They are
sure. They say know the answer to every question. They say they can create the solution
by word alone, called law. These are the people who misuse history. These are the people
who see the future and are scared, and so they try to implement the past. The so called
progressives would have us return to a past where great rulers ruled great civilizations. A
time when great rulers did such great things for their people. The progressives of the
world always look to great men to help define their vision of the future. To paraphrase
Robert Kennedy: "we see what is not, and say why not?" Only the sole solution they have
is to create a bureaucracy which moves the wealth of some to the hands of others.
These people for rigidity are always fewer in number than those who want flexibility.
For mankind knows we must be flexible to deal with the vagaries of the world. But the rigid
people, so adept at planning, are able to seize the power of government, which should be
a benign tool shed of legal protections of people's rights, and rend it into a sledgehammer
of conformity to the wishes of a protected class known as the elite. Sometimes they are all
in government, and sometimes they masquerade as independent agents in society. The
first is known as absolute monarchy, or communism. A blend is socialism or royalism, even
theology. The masquerade is fascism or Nazism. Supposedly these are different. They are
not. Not any different than Pharaoh, or Cesar, Czar or Henry VIII and Louis XIV. Nor
Chinese emperor or Mongolian Khan, Arab sultan. The name they use is irrelevant. The
names on the organizational chart are irrelevant. The solid lines attempt to disavow the
connections that are apparent in pale dotted lines. The clearest example is when Suharto,
the president of Indonesia puts his brother-in-law in charge of the state corporation board.
These are the people history is filled with. There are even people who want to make sure
the history that is written is the history that they want to create while eliminating the
prospects of all other people's histories -- and the history they write is the history of great
men who did so much to bring stability, order, economic development and prosperity,
moral values and public projects to his people for the good of society and show pride in
the nation. That's why Napoleon said "History is lies agreed on." This is where we seem to
be heading back to, to the idea of a great leader.
People all over the world are totally perplexed at what is being reported in the press.
This is not just an American phenomenon. It is clear in the headlines of every nation, or at
least those allowed by the government because they are fair to society. This confusion
stems from a myriad of sources: from the sheer amount of information, from the
bewildering number of languages and countries and peoples, from the vast geography of
the world itself, and America too. From the size of the government today, to the words of
the laws, rules and regulations that we are supposed to follow. To the policies this or that
leader wants to enact. The great bucket of politics and the economy are talked about in
great platitudes of banal words like reform and progress, assistance and the safety net.
And it comes from the fact that words used by one person, such as democracy,
republic, Republican and Democrat, and conservative, and liberal, liberty, libertarian,
socialists, and Christian Democrats, and labor rights, and human rights, and the rights of
countries, -- and on an on. All the terms used to describe the politics and economics of the
world are used in whatever way the person using them intends. They are left with no
meaning after so much misuse. Anybody can make any argument they want that is
totally opposite what somebody else is saying and yet use the same words. Here look: The
Dear Leader of the Democratic Republic of North Korea says that he brings stability, order,
economic development and prosperity, moral values and public projects to his people for
the good of society and show pride in the nation. The president of the Republic of the
United States says that he brings stability, order, economic development and prosperity,
moral values and public projects to his people for the good of society and show pride in
the nation. Since the words are identical and are uttered by both in one form or another
why is one a repressive dictatorship needing boatloads of outside assistance and the other
the richest nation on earth? Yet, throughout time every ruler said the same thing: that he
brings stability, order, economic development and prosperity, moral values and public
projects to his people for the good of society and show pride in the nation. The words
have no meanings beyond what the speaker says they mean.
Consider this: we are told that the conservative military government in Burma is
working for human rights. And we are told that the Conservative political party in England
is working for human rights. We are told that the conservative Communist Party in Russia
is for human rights and we are told that the conservative Chilean political party is for
human rights. Conservative Christians, Muslims and Jews are all working for human rights.
The conservatives in the all the political parties in America are working for human rights.
Conservatives in France and Germany are working for human rights. Conservatives in
Cuba and North Korea are working for human rights. Conservatives in every country from
Brazil to Zimbabwe are working for human rights. Yet they all say that the other
conservatives are wrong, they are not for human rights.
Indeed. So what's a conservative and what's a human right? How can you tell from
all the different senses that one uses a word? With these ever shifting meanings of the
words it becomes impossible to really figure out what someone is saying. If you are a
person who says you're not conservative but instead a liberal. Well that's easy enough,
look:
Consider this: we are told that the liberal military government in Burma is working for
human rights. And we are told that the Liberal political party in England is working for
human rights. We are told that the liberal Communist Party in Russia is for human rights
and we are told that the liberal Chilean political party is for human rights. Liberal Christians,
Muslims and Jews are all working for human rights. The liberals in the all the political parties
in America are working for human rights. Liberals in France and Germany are working for
human rights. Liberals in Cuba and North Korea are working for human rights. Liberals in
every country from Brazil to Zimbabwe are working for human rights.
So don't worry, all the liberals are working for human rights. Surely their definitions of
human rights all differ. Or are all the liberals all different? Are there conservative liberals and
liberal liberals working too for human rights? Are there likewise liberal conservatives and
conservative conservatives? And of course you can plug in the word moderate:
Consider this: we are told that the moderate military government in Burma is working
for human rights. And we are told that the Moderate political party, aka The Liberal
Democrats! -- in England is working for human rights. We are told that the moderate
Communist Party, aka Socialist -- in Russia is for human rights and we are told that the
moderate Democratic Liberal Chilean political party is for human rights. Moderate
Christians, Muslims and Jews are all working for human rights. The moderates in the all the
political parties in America are working for human rights. Moderates in France and Germany
are working for human rights. Moderates in Cuba and North Korea are working for human
rights. Moderates in every country from Brazil to Zimbabwe are working for human rights.
And yet there seems to be an awful lot of suffering, as each and every moderate, liberal
and conservative says that they have the correct means to human rights, and the very
best definition of what human rights are.
Look again, all these moderates all over the world working for human rights. Do you
know what human rights are yet? So now I suppose we can have moderate liberals and
liberal moderates. And of course we can also have conservative moderate liberals and
liberal moderate conservatives. Now when it comes to the actual names for the political
parties espousing their claim to be working for human rights we get such charming things
as the Farm Labor, Workers, Working Families, Conservative, Liberal, Democratic,
Republican, Libertarian, Peoples Democratic, Christian Democrat, Christian Republican,
Christian Liberal, Hindu Nationalists, Muslim Nationalists, People's Liberation Front, Popular
Front, Democratic Populist, Labor, Republican Democrat, Democratic Republican, Liberal
Republican, Liberal Democrat, All People's Front, All People's Party, Progressive,
Progressive Conservative, Progressive Liberal, Christian Moderate -- and it goes on and on
and on. And then there are hundreds more parties with local names, like Baathists and
Likud, the Irish Nationalists, All Singapore League, and that list goes on and on, too. Some
claim they are conservative, some liberal and some moderate. And to a party they are all
working for human rights. Of which there seem to be precious few given what every one
of these parties says is so lacking in the world, which is "basic human rights."
And we're told there are all sorts of different governments: Communist, Socialist,
Democratic, Social Democracies, Republics, Kingdoms, Parliamentary Democracies,
Theocracies, One Party States, People's Republics and Constitutional Monarchies, and
more, all of course claim they are working for human rights.
Their parties and the leaders of those parties come before the United Nations each
year to claim they are diligently working for human rights. And each and every one of
them uses the same words. Within the United States all these words are quoted and used
and reused by the press and anybody who talks about politics. So if the words mean so
little anymore and anybody can apply any definition they want to them how can we begin
to fathom what is happening, and what might happen? It is impossible. The best example
today of the totally different uses of the same words is Iran, France and America. All of
them are using the same words, yet they disagree once they get beyond the surface
words.
Still, there is great agreement within each nation by the very people over whom the
politicians are arguing who is providing the very best in human rights. What people in
general say is "Leave me the hell alone so I can make a buck, support my family, give
something to my community, read what I want, go where I want when I want, live in
peace, create or enjoy entertainments and culture, let me buy and sell what I want, when
I want, how I want. Leave me the hell alone."
There is not a person on earth who does not say this. And if each of us followed it
then the world would be richer and more peaceful. And the clearest example of this is the
United States. It has been the one nation that put the individual first, however flawed in
application. It has been the one nation that put flexibility in place. It is where "leave me
alone" was the request and the answer by everyone else was "sure thing." That's why it
was the beacon of liberty for people. Not for society, not for the nation, not for the
greatness of the ruler or the ideology that supports the do-gooders. Nor was this live and
let live attitude given by any ruler or government to the people. It was the people who
told the government to go over there and build a road or something but leave us the hell
alone. And now, the do-gooders of the world have seized the means of power. They are
attempting to bring us back to the glorious days of the great nation under a great ruler
with the concomitant bureaucracy and the taxes and privileges needed to support it that
every great ruler on earth tried. These do-gooders are seeking rigidity because they are
sure that their definition of human rights is right. The only difference between our current
rulers and those of the past, or those existing else where today are the words. Ours use
different words. Well, no, they don't. Which is the scary part, for it sounds so new and
improved. For we are told, today, by our leaders and their enablers that our leaders are
working very hard to bring us stability, order, economic development and prosperity,
moral values and public projects to our people for the good of society and show pride in
the nation.
Yep, and the cow jumped over the moon.
| Introduction |
| Jim Hlavac |
| Poltics Re-explained |
